2008-09-03 42 1 3 REPS 0 0 2008-09-03 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9.00 am and read prayers. 6949 Bills R3045 6949 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request. 6949 Bills R2944 Cognate bills: 6949 Bills R2931 6949 Bills R2932 6949 Debate resumed from 2 September, on motion by Mr Burke: That this bill be now read a second time. 6949 09:01:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —The humbug we have heard from the other side, from the opposition, on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills, particularly from the National Party, has only served to confuse the debate and concern people. The honourable member for Canning in his contribution last night raised the issue of wild horses and the 300,000 brumbies that he said were an issue because they could not be registered so we could not go ahead with the scheme. We are really getting into X Files stuff here. We also heard that the model is flawed, but there was no solution, no suggested model or action—just talk; they want to leave the industry where it was before. The pleasure part of the industry is part of what the other side profess to want to protect, but that would leave it still exposed. The passing of these bills would bring that part of the industry in so it gets the protection that it needs. I also listened to the member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the National Party. The honourable member was saying, ‘Well, yes; they need to be in, but not now,’ and, ‘They need protection but not yet; it needs to go off somewhere else to be looked at.’ I have to ask the question: how much longer does the National Party want to look at this issue? I know that the honourable member has been talking about this since the late nineties. We are now in 2008, and he is still talking about it and still wanting it reviewed and sent off somewhere else. He offers no solution yet refuses to support these bills. That these bills are opposed by the opposition shows the same neglect that gave us equine influenza. The opposition would leave the horse sector dangerously exposed to another disease outbreak. The bills actually set up a cost-sharing arrangement to deal with emergency responses; that is what they are about. Without this legislation, horse owners will be left on their own yet again. All the peak horse groups support the bills because they want the protection they provide. I will turn to those groups later on in my contribution. People say: shouldn’t the levy be based on capacity to pay? All sectors of the industry benefit from the eradication of an emergency pest or disease through lower ongoing disease management costs. A pony club horse is as susceptible to disease as a thoroughbred. In other words, a disease does not discriminate between a pony club horse and a thoroughbred racing horse—neither does any proposed levy in helping to eradicate a disease. Moreover, this is what the peak horse industry groups propose to government. They do not have a problem with the levy mechanism—they proposed it. The Australian Horse Industry Council includes pony clubs, show societies and other smaller horse groups, and their board supports these bills. Last night I heard the honourable member for Canning say that we have to put some dollars around this. The bills actually set the levy at zero. I think the opposition fail to understand that—there is no levy. The very purpose of the bills is to put in place a framework to share the costs of a future outbreak. There is no levy at present. They say we have to put some dollars around it, but how can you determine a levy when there is no disease to eradicate or manage and we do not know what it would cost to do so? The opposition completely fail to understand this point, the key point of the bills. The bills introduce a mechanism to share the costs of responding to a future outbreak. That is what they are about: protecting the industry. Also, the bills, importantly, require the minister to consult with industry before setting any positive levy. In this debate I wanted to put on the public record my comments and views on the horse industry: how it has been neglected for far too long; how important it is to Australia and also to rural and regional areas as in my seat in Page; how devastating the influenza outbreak was to the industry, not just the racing industry, as seminally relevant it is to local economies; how the government has quarantined the horse industry from paying the costs of the recent outbreak; and, lastly, how certainty has now been brought to the horse industry by the government’s response to the Callinan report recommendations, by the finalisation of the Australian Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and by these bills. The horse industry is viewed by many as a hobby area and/or a pleasure part, as we say—we commonly use that phrase. Indeed it is in a lot of ways, but it is more than that. It has a defining characteristic: the amount that it contributes to the local economy, particularly regional economies. The seat of Page was spared an outbreak of the equine influenza virus, but the three-month lockdown late last year still meant really tough times for the horse industry, as we all know. But the EI did come close to the electorate. It was found in some trotting horses around the Gold Coast hinterland and there was a small isolated outbreak at Wauchope near Port Macquarie. To get an idea of the size and importance of the industry, we must also look at the thoroughbred racing industry and the equestrian sector, both of which are particularly strong in the Northern Rivers. The Chairman of the Northern Rivers Racing Association, Bob Pavitt of Grafton, estimates that the six turf clubs in the region have a combined budget of about $2 million a year. These include the Clarence River Jockey Club, also chaired by Bob, which each July hosts the richest country racing carnival in Australia, attracting group 1 winners and high-profile metropolitan trainers; Lismore, which hosts its cup day later this month; Ballina; Casino; then Murwillumbah to our north; and Coffs Harbour and Bowraville in the south. Later this month, I will have the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, visiting and attending one of the cup days with me. There is a huge multiplier effect to consider in terms of all the people associated with the industry. There are the feed suppliers, the farriers, the vets, the riding schools, the pony clubs and the retail saddleries, not to mention the tourism dollars generated by the bigger carnivals associated with the industry. The Rural Lands Protection Board’s statistics show that the horse population of Tweed-Richmond, excluding those on small holdings of below two hectares, was 4,062 in 2007 and about the same again for the Clarence Valley alone. So that is just under 10,000 in the Northern Rivers region. That makes up a sizeable part of the horse industry. The Clarence Valley probably has one of New South Wales’s most active equestrian communities. Grafton boasts a dedicated council owned equestrian centre, Hawthorn Equestrian Park. Hawthorn Park is managed by a local user group representing the vast array of the equestrian clubs and users including Paint Horse, Western Riding Club, Pony Club, Miniature Horse Club, Dressage Group and Harness Club. I know that Bob Pavitt and Michael Timbrell, the Secretary/Manager of the Lismore Turf Club, really felt for their counterparts in hard-hit EI areas like the Hunter Valley and central western New South Wales, but even so the ban on moving horses, which worked to curb the spread of EI, had a significant financial and emotional impact on the industry, particularly in Page, the Northern Rivers and country New South Wales. Racing during that time was scaled down to race meetings featuring local horses only, but costs of staging those meetings remained the same. The clubs, owners and trainers of horses received compensation from the federal government and Racing NSW. According to Michael, this assistance saved quite a few people from economic hardship, indeed financial ruin, but we know that compensation can never adequately compensate everyone for all the losses. It can go only so far. Turf club managers and pony club officials also found that the EI debate was a very fluid and changing one. Getting accurate and consistent information about the spread of EI was difficult at the time. The disaster, though, did serve to bring home to the wider public the importance of the horse industry to the regional economy. It also showed how resilient an industry it was. That is why it is so important that the government move decisively in this area and that we put that protection around the horse industry. I would like to say a little bit about the racing industry and about the horses—it is not an industry that is unfamiliar to me. My grandfather, who was named Cookie, was a bookie and I spent a lot of my early years, even as a toddler, on the racetrack. I learnt a bit about the trade with my grandfather. My grandfather, as my grandmother used to say, had in his pocket either nothing or a thousand quid. He also liked to have a bit of a bet as well. So I grew up around the horses on the racetrack and I do know how to pencil, so in case I need another job I do know how to pencil and can do it quite well. I like the races, but do I bet? No. I save the betting for Melbourne Cup day, but it is an industry and not just about the racing. The horse industry is one that I particularly have affection for. I now turn to the purpose of the three bills. It is pretty straightforward. It is to give the horse sector the certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding with government to emergency horse disease outbreaks. These bills enable the horse sector to become a party to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, the EADRA, as it is called. The horse industry has, for a number of years now, wanted to be party to this agreement. The bills set up the mechanism that incorporates a levy, the zero levy, now. That will apply in the initial registration of horses and then the legislation provides for the collection and administration of a levy in the same way that other parties to the agreement are included. The agreement operates so that the Commonwealth underwrites the industry’s share of the cost in the event of an emergency disease outbreak such as equine influenza, as happened recently in the horse industry. Then the industry is in a position to work out a cost-sharing arrangement. The establishment of a levy arrangement through these bills triggers the horse industry to become a signatory to EADRA. The bills contain regulation-making power, or at least the legislative framework does, and the regs will prescribe the horse disease response levy rate. The regulations will be developed in close consultation with the industry to ensure that the principles of fairness and equity are paramount. Fairness and equity are the principles around which this legislation revolves and they are the principles that will apply to the sector and to those within the horse industry sector, particularly those who are part of the pony club and the pleasure part of the industry who may be asking, ‘What will happen now?’ Fairness and equity will prevail. As members would know, there is currently a debt owing to the Commonwealth by the horse industry vis-a-vis the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. I digress here to labour the point that the government would not consider and would not expect the horse industry to pay for costs outlaid, which are substantial, by the government for the equine influenza debacle as it would be penalising the horse industry for the systemic failure of the previous government—their failures at all levels: policy and leadership. To get back to the regulations, there is no need to set a positive levy rate due to the reason I have outlined above. There is no debt owing to the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth has said that there will be no debt to pay. These bills therefore establish a zero levy and no positive levy rate can be set unless industry is consulted. On this point, I note that the horse sector, at peak representative industry level, comprises three peak groups: the Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board. These three peak bodies support the passing of these bills. There are of course other organisations but these are the peak three. In a letter to Minister Burke on 13 August, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia said: TBA supports passage of the bills through the parliament in the spring session on the understanding that 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 thoroughbred breeding industry will constructively engage with government and other horse industries to this end. I welcome the support of both the peak bodies and the Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, which I sense speak for those not directly involved when they make the point about the need to have a fair and equitable registration scheme—principles that I subscribe to, as does the Labor Party and the Rudd Labor government. Those principles are reflected in the language used by the minister regarding this matter and the language within the legislative framework. I have spoken to many people in the horse industry in my electorate of Page who also share the view of the Thoroughbred Breeders Australia on the need for fairness and equity. I say to the three peak bodies and to the honourable members that they have expressed their concern and that they will be listened to when consultations are taking place. I undertook with the locals to raise this when I could, and I do so now. I always remind members of organisations to be as active as they can in their respective bodies so that their voices will be heard through to the top. By way of background to the EARDA, which is pivotal to these bills, it was struck in 2002 and essentially sets out—as agreements are wont to do—the roles and responsibilities of the parties. Where the industry cannot initially meet its cost-sharing obligations, the Commonwealth can underwrite the industry’s obligations, subject to satisfactory arrangements for repayments, including a statutory levy. Most of the horse industry bodies and indeed the country racing associations do not have the cash, the capital or the backing, particularly within the pleasure sector, to arrange commercial loans to support them through emergencies such as the equine influenza outbreak. Having this agreement in place means that swift and clear action can be taken if an animal disease emergency occurs—and God forbid that it does. But we have to plan for that happening because they do and will occur despite the best practices, despite the best policies and despite the best precautions, which we are now moving to put in place. When we came to government there was really very little in place for the horse industry and we found that the quarantine system was wanting, as detailed in the Callinan report. The provisions of the EADRA will effectively limit the levy rate and, importantly, all parties, including industry—that is, all heads at the table—must agree on a response and its cost before it can proceed. The horse disease levy bill also mandates that the minister take into account the views of industry bodies in setting the operative levy rate. The minister has also informed the peak industry bodies that he will continue to discuss fully with industry any future action before implementing any levy system or levy rates. (Time expired) 6953 09:21:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I am pleased to follow the member for Page. I will speak briefly outside the leave of the bill and thank her for co-hosting a recent conference at Lismore dealing with the role of agriculture and soil carbon. I am also pleased that the Minister for Resources and Energy is in the chamber. Some constructive issues with regard to the soil carbon debate need to be addressed. The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and two cognate bills are significant, and many country areas and organisations have expressed concerns about them. I will allude to those concerns, some of which the minister may be able to allay in his speech in reply. Most members know that the electorate of New England is renowned for many things, including the fact that Tamworth, the major centre in the area, is the venue for the country music festival. Not only the thoroughbred and harness industries but also the recreational horse industry are an important part of the festival and the history of the area. Much has been done over the years to encourage and foster the development of the industry. Members would know of the controversy raised in this place about the development of an equine centre. That centre is currently nearing completion and will be part of the development of the equine industry in the region. We now know that the equine influenza outbreak began at Eastern Creek Animal Quarantine Station and then spread to the Hunter Valley, Warwick, Narrabri and Moombi, which is a little place north of Tamworth. Horse owners and animals were confined to that area for some time. Members have spoken about the damage that the outbreak caused to the industry broadly and to individuals who were caught up in it because of the maladministration of the quarantine station. Concern has been expressed that these bills were constructed as a response to last year’s equine influenza outbreak. As the member for Page said, the concept of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement and the horse industry being involved in it has been on the radar for some years. I am not convinced, but some people have suggested that the bills were constructed to fund the response to last year’s outbreak. The Callinan inquiry has since tabled some findings. A degree of outrage was expressed early in the year and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, quite responsibly in my view, withdrew the bills. These bills are very similar, if not identical, to those that were withdrawn. It was suggested that the original legislation could retrospectively draw in funds to pay for the response to the equine influenza outbreak that occurred as a result of neglect at Eastern Creek. I thought their withdrawal was a positive move on the minister’s part. Some people still believe that retrospective bills are not necessarily the best mechanism to deal with future outbreaks—that is, to identify how to respond and how to fund that response. All members seem to suggest that the horse industry should be a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, and I agree. It is important for the industry to be a party to that agreement. However, there is confusion about the motivation for the bills and their retrospectivity. As I said, many people were harmed as a result of the equine influenza outbreak. When the Callinan inquiry was established people had views about how the outbreak occurred and who was responsible, and many of those issues may well be resolved in court. A program has been set up to assist people and businesses that were adversely affected by the outbreak. Notwithstanding potential court action, the minister put in place some assistance measures. I have had cause on a number of occasions to make representations about the guidelines that were imposed and who was and was not eligible, and some of those issues are before the minister. I urge the minister, if at all possible, to err on the side of the applicant. Enormous damage has been done essentially because of the negligence of a government authority. As I said, that will be potentially fought out in court. However, where assistance is provided to recognise that harm has been done to individuals or businesses because of this outbreak we should err on the side of the applicant rather than be too dogmatic in the interpretation of the guidelines. Quarantine arrangements will have to be improved for not only equine influenza—we could have another outbreak—but also many other animal diseases. If last year’s outbreak had involved foot-and-mouth disease, some of our livestock industries would have been decimated. The response to the equine influenza outbreak and the lack of preparedness at the state and Commonwealth levels highlighted that much more planning should be done to ensure that if a disease outbreak occurs again mechanisms will kick into gear more effectively. I particularly congratulate the state primary industries departments for the way in which they responded to the outbreak. I had some involvement with the Moombi outbreak. People who were not skilled in responding to disease outbreaks were required to address this outbreak and to deal as diplomatically as they could with people who were outraged about their animals being confined to an area they did not come from and about the costs involved—both financial and emotional. There must be improvements. I mentioned earlier that there are some concerns out there as to who supports these bills and who does not, even within some of the industry groups. The Horse Industry Council has been mentioned, and I am aware that not everybody in that council, for instance, is in agreement with supporting these bills. Some suggest—and others in other parts of the industry suggest—that there are some equity and fairness issues involved here. There are some concerns about the definition of ‘registered body’. There are some very real concerns as to what process evolves from the legislation if a registered body, a horse body, folds. The minister might be able to explain it to me in his concluding remarks. What arrangements would be put in place there? There are some arrangements in the legislation in terms of penalties, but those penalties, as I understand it, will not apply to individual horse owners. It looks as though they only apply to registered horse bodies that are going to be levied in the case of an outbreak. I would like those concerns addressed by the minister, if possible. The definition of registration seems to be a little bit of an issue with some people as well. The minister and some of the government members, including the member for Page, have mentioned in their contributions that those concerns about equity and fairness will be taken care of in the regulations. I would like the minister to clearly spell out what they mean by that. How are they going to address those issues in the regulations, particularly given some of the definitional issues about registered bodies? I know some people in the Horse Industry Council, for instance, are concerned. Everybody seems to be in favour of the horse industry being involved in the EADRA, but some people are concerned that not all of the horse industry will be involved. Answers to the questions of how you capture that greater audience, how that relates to what the government are planning to do in terms of regulation and who they will consult with in the industry before constructing those regulations really do need to be fleshed out, if only to address some of the concerns that are out there in the horse industry. I mentioned earlier the need for our quarantine arrangements to be upgraded. Australia is an island and has a great advantage in that sense. There are certain disadvantages, of distance, but one of the great marketing aspects that we have as a nation is our island continent status. Despite that status, there can be breaches, there can be outbreaks of disease, and how we respond to those outbreaks becomes very significant. I do not believe that we in Australia do enough to deal with the potential carriers of disease in this country. I think we pay the issue a lot of lip-service. I was on the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry during its inquiry into the problem of feral animals and the way in which certain states are having some success and others are not and all the demarcation issues that are there. The minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy, was involved in that committee. We saw some outstanding results in some areas—for instance, the way in which Western Australia virtually eradicated the buffalo and the donkey. The Northern Territory also dealt with the buffalo. A lot of people had said: ‘It’s pointless even trying. They’re out of control. You can never do that.’ The Western Australians have effectively done it, and there are lessons to be learned from the way in which they addressed those issues. They deserve congratulations. I will not get into the techniques involved, but there are techniques that do work. We should not just give up just because it is costly to eradicate some of these feral animals. The shadow minister and others have mentioned feral horses and the way in which they could carry equine influenza or other horse diseases in some future outbreak. They are another example of controls that should be taken. There are more feral pigs than people in Australia now—after all the programs that have been adopted over many years to try and eradicate those animals. If foot-and-mouth disease were to break out in any part of Australia, the feral pig population would be the ideal conduit for the spread of that disease. The capacity for that one disease to destroy a lot of Australia’s agricultural industries is very significant and should not be underestimated. We should not underestimate the spending that is needed and the improvements that are obviously needed in our quarantine arrangements, as illustrated by the Eastern Creek fiasco. Recently I have spent some time in Central Australia, and the numbers of feral camels in that region are exploding. There are estimates now that there may be a million camels in the semiarid and arid zones of Central Australia. Many people do not go there, so they probably do not care. The major part of our environment is dry, semiarid and arid, and these animals that were introduced should be taken care of—not taken care of in a custodial sense but taken out of the environment in the appropriate fashion because they have the capacity to do enormous damage to that environment. I hear very little from the usual spokespeople for green and environmental issues when it comes to the destruction that is taking place before our very eyes as a result of feral camels in Central Australia. If we can believe the climate change data, additional rainfall will occur in some of those areas and there will be an additional explosion in the populations of some of these animals. In conclusion I would ask the minister to respond to some of the issues I have raised, including: the levy arrangements on a registered body if that registered body does in fact fold; how the legislation would impact on recreational horse activities if the horses are registered in another country, and the need, or otherwise, to be registered in this country; and the fairness and equity issues that have been raised by many in terms of the regulations which may come after the passage of the legislation. The minister might like to explain to those bodies what he intends to do and what the preferred agenda is. I also think there needs to be greater clarification on what happens to people who breach the law. I know there is mention of penalties in the legislation, but what does this legislation allow to happen if, for example, someone has 10 horses, registers three and is found to have an additional seven? If the legislation does not have some degree of policing capacity built into it, the obvious exit strategy for some people will be not to register all of their horses. I think the minister needs to explain how this is going to work, particularly in terms of registration. This is a bill that I am still wrestling with in terms of my support for it or otherwise. I have looked at both sides of the argument. My vote will depend to some degree on how the minister answers some of those questions. Hopefully he can placate some of the broader concerns out there in the electorate. 6956 09:40:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I welcome this opportunity to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and the two related bills—the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. Horses have been an important part of Australian life for many years, playing significant roles in transport, farming and the sporting industry. We need only look at the national impact of the Melbourne Cup every year or our interest and involvement in equestrian events at the Olympics or the image evoked by Banjo Paterson’s The Man from Snowy River to know that horses are an integral part of Australian culture. We know well the dangers to Australia of exotic diseases. As the member for New England has just noted in his speech, our island geography has advantages; it has always provided some degree of protection. It is significant that only New Zealand and New Caledonia, with their similar island protection, remain EI free. Our Customs and quarantine services are known for maintaining a stern watch for foreign pests, diseases and weeds. However, we have not always managed to catch every problem—for instance, the cane toad, which was introduced in the 1930s, and the cabomba weed, which arrived from South America in the 1960s. The cabomba weed threatens to choke off waterways wherever it is found, and it needs to be aggressively eradicated. And of course there was the devastating appearance of equine influenza in August 2007. These examples speak to the necessity to be organised and decisive whenever we are dealing with such threats, whether they be animals, plants or diseases. Experience shows us that any time lost at the initial outbreak of a problem will add exponentially to both the difficulty and the end costs of removing the problem—assuming it can be removed at all once it has become widespread. Australia has a deep reservoir of personnel, skills and experience in the management of livestock and protection from exotic diseases. In the words of the peak industry body, the Australian Horse Industry Council, we have been very fortunate to have access to what is undoubtedly the best animal health system in the world. However, despite our formidable capabilities in this area, the Australian horse industry was completely disrupted by the appearance of EI in August 2007. The epidemic had its origins in Japan and found its way into the Australian horse population after a quarantine breach allowed it to escape from the Eastern Creek quarantine station. The epidemic endured for some 130 days, from August last year until the time of the last confirmed cases in December last year, with 6,627 properties infected in New South Wales and 3,569 in Queensland. Members will undoubtedly remember the daily tales of financial hardship, family dislocation and heartbreak that resulted from the disease. Horses perished, properties were quarantined, movement of animals was restricted, many families were stranded far from home, jobs were threatened and lost and the economic security of families and industries was imperilled because horse related industries, sporting events and recreational pursuits were paralysed. For those in the community with no particular knowledge of the horse industry, it must have come as a surprise to see the unfolding of so many dramas associated with the pandemic—how it reached so deeply into the community and impacted on so many workers and families in so many ways. It is a tribute to the outstanding expertise and commitment of those who managed the outbreak, including the many skilled and experienced veterinarians and government officers who implemented the backup systems, that it was controlled in such a relatively short time. The significance of the industries affected by horse flu cannot be underestimated. A conservative estimate of the financial importance of the racing industry would value it in the billions of dollars. It employs almost 80,000 people Australia-wide. In my home state of Western Australia alone, the industry employs an estimated 12,000 people. The extent of the horse flu infection last year was alarming. As I noted earlier, in New South Wales over 6,000 properties were infected and in Queensland over 3,000 properties were infected. In spite of the immensity of the problem, the combined efforts of industry and government were able to reverse the spread of the disease and eventually eradicate it from Australia altogether. Obviously, a task of that magnitude does not come cheap. In his report Justice Callinan cited ABARE monitoring of the estimated daily cost of the initial response to the outbreak at $560,000 a day for disease control and $3.35 million a day in forgone income in the equine industry. Over the duration of the outbreak this combined amount rose to close to $1 billion, although Justice Callinan stated that ‘it is unlikely to ever be possible to calculate accurately the total cost of the outbreak’. With figures like that it is not hard to see why the horse industry looks to government to strengthen preventative measures, learn from mistakes as diagnosed in the Callinan report and move to close those gaps and address those inadequacies. Minister Burke has asked Professor Peter Shergold to oversee the implementation of those recommendations contained in the Callinan report. According to Parliamentary Library information, the total Commonwealth funding so far has been $352.9 million, including $255.7 million announced by the government on 15 February. The sheer magnitude of the cost borne by the Australian taxpayers and industry underlines the pivotal function of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, or EADRA, and brings me to the business of the bills before the House. The EADRA is the mechanism by which we manage the economic cost of controlling disease outbreaks in the Australian livestock, poultry and honey bee industries. Most industry bodies lack the financial ability to respond comprehensively to a disease emergency. Without that capacity the speed of response could be severely compromised. The EADRA is a world-first industry-government cost-sharing agreement that boosts Australia’s ability to respond quickly and efficiently to animal disease outbreaks. It sets out arrangements between the Commonwealth, state and territory governments and Australia’s livestock industries for the control, containment and eradication of specified animal diseases. The Commonwealth became a party to the agreement in March 2002. The EADRA obliges the Commonwealth to underwrite the costs of mounting an emergency response to an exotic disease incursion. Major beneficiaries of intervention share the cost, which is recovered by a levy on a taxable output of the relevant industry. There is a list of 12 guidelines as to what can be a suitable levy for an animal industry, but criteria that are suitable for other livestock industries do not easily fit the national horse industry. No component of the Australian horse industry has to date been a party to the EADRA because, according to the Australian Horse Industry Council, a taxable output of the horse industry has been very difficult to identify. This has hampered the process of it becoming a signatory to the EADRA. However, when responding to the 2007 EI outbreak the parties to the arrangement agreed to treat the horse industry as though it were a party to the agreement. The levy gives the industry the assurance that it will have the government’s backing if ever the circumstances of last year are repeated. These arrangements clarify responsibility for action at the most important time, when an outbreak is discovered. When that happens, we do not need to be wasting time dividing and apportioning financial responsibility. We need to be acting as quickly as possible in order to discover the source and extent of the outbreak and to contain and eradicate it. This levy provides the reassurance which small operators need that they will not be wiped out financially by the cost of dealing with a flu outbreak. At this point I would like to note an issue which has been the topic of a very heated debate—the question of compulsory vaccination against EI. There are differing opinions on this within the horse industry. Those who support compulsory vaccination point to the way EI is managed in England, where vaccinations are compulsory for competitive horses. They say that this has minimised the time and money lost to flu outbreaks since the English program began. They make reference to the complete lack of naturally occurring resistance to horse flu in horses, a factor which can make an initial outbreak spread rapidly. In addition, they point out that competitive horses make up the large majority of horse movements and by vaccinating those horses who are most often being transported you remove one of the most probable methods for this virus to spread through the general horse population. There are a number of other viewpoints related to vaccination, many of which are canvassed in the Australian veterinary emergency plan disease strategy for equine influenza of 2007. I must also thank one of my constituents, Dr Tim Mather, for his passionate and informative briefing on this subject. Dr Mather is a vet who has been closely involved with the horse industry. He noted that EI is endemic in other countries but we do not have it here. Australia is fortunate to be isolated and to have a hot climate, which makes it difficult for EI to get a foothold here. In his view the best way to control exotic diseases on both economic and scientific grounds is to ensure a good-quality quarantine program. Ideally this would include stationing quarantine staff overseas to conduct pre-quarantine inspections. I note that Justice Callinan’s report made detailed recommendations concerning quarantine and pre-quarantine procedures. Furthermore, horse flu vaccines are not cheap and none are developed commercially in Australia, which heightens the cost and makes it particularly impractical for smaller operators. However, perhaps the most compelling reasons for not engaging in a preventative widespread vaccination program go to the science of the vaccination process itself. First of all, no EI vaccine exists that can guarantee knocking the illness on the head. The initial source of last year’s outbreak was an imported horse which had been vaccinated before being brought into Australia, so you could be engaging in a very expensive and very labour intensive action for quite limited benefit. The possibility of vaccine failure is especially concerning because vaccine presence has the potential to make early detection of an outbreak more difficult. At the moment blood serum tests cannot distinguish between increases in flu antibodies due to vaccination and those due to an infection. A generally vaccinated horse population could still be vulnerable to EI. The benefit is that there would be an enhanced resistance; the downside is that it would complicate and slow detection processes. Secondly, there is the aspect of the disease which makes all influenza types so hard to fight, whether it is equine, bird or human flu: its high rate of mutation and variability. There is no single type of EI—or single type of influenza vaccine for that matter. There are different strains across the world varying in subtle ways from country to country and continent to continent. In order for an influenza vaccine to be optimally effective, it needs to be combating the particular strain it was built for. If you pitch a European variant of horse flu against a vaccine designed to protect against an American strain of the flu the vaccine will be offering protection below its optimal level. In addition, the various strains themselves can mutate and become more resistant, even against the vaccines which are designed specifically with them in mind. Last year’s vaccine against an American strain will not necessarily protect your horse against this year’s American strain. A preventative vaccine would need to be relevant to the strain of horse flu that broke out as well as up to date and able to handle whatever the latest mutations of that strain were. It is easy to imagine a general vaccination program developing into a continual arms race between the virus and horse owners—ongoing, expensive and potentially futile. Perhaps the most concerning possible complication from vaccination is the Typhoid Mary scenario. When an outbreak strain encounters a horse which has been vaccinated against a different type of strain, there are some circumstances where the horse can be subclinically infected; in other words, the horse can be infected with the virus but show no obvious symptoms of the virus. In this scenario, the subclinically infected horse is still infectious to other horses, which has the potential to make the spread of an outbreak even worse and almost impossible to track. It may well be best practice to compulsorily vaccinate horses in countries where horse flu is an established ongoing problem which needs to be managed rather than prevented because those countries know which strain of flu they are dealing with: their native strain. In an Australian scenario where there is an outbreak of horse flu, we could not be sure which strain it is, as it could be from any of a large number of countries. Regardless of which side of the debate you come down on, everyone recognises that the most desirable way of dealing with this problem is to ensure that our quarantine services are appropriately prepared to prevent another outbreak before it reaches our horse population. With this in mind, the government has commissioned former top public servant Roger Beale to comprehensively review our quarantine and biosecurity systems. Returning to the levy, as I mentioned before, these bills provide the framework for the horse industry to be included in the EADRA. It is not hard to see why the industry would find this desirable. Costs for responding to a disease outbreak can be crippling. Commonwealth funding alone for last year’s response to the EI outbreak came to just over $350 million. Even the largest organisations in the racing industry would find costs of this magnitude difficult to absorb. For smaller parties, such costs are simply beyond their reach—they would mean a complete financial wipe-out. Without access to the necessary finances, the industry response will be slow and piecemeal and, again, I have to emphasise how important a rapid response is when dealing with an outbreak. Without the levy which these bills will allow for, the horse industry cannot be part of the EADRA. In the event of another outbreak of EI or, indeed, of any other serious disease in the horse population, the industry will be on its own, relying upon the goodwill of government to assist it. Last year, during the outbreak and afterwards, the federal and state governments, in their response, bent over backwards to assist the horse industry. There was the provision of a very large amount of assistance. Considerable amounts of money were spent by both federal and state governments. The response was so effective that EI is regarded as having been eradicated from Australia—and no country previously had ever managed to eradicate horse flu once it had gained a foothold in the horse population. But the thing to remember is that that massive intervention, that massive support package, was based on the goodwill of government. In the end, Minister Burke decided, correctly, that it would be inappropriate to reclaim money from the industry. However, that there was that possibility hanging over the heads of those in the industry like the sword of Damocles speaks volumes for the inadequacies of previous arrangements. People in the industry do not want the goodwill of government. Goodwill today could be indifference under a future government. Proper systems and proper safeguards need to be put in place so that people operating in the industry have an absolute, concrete understanding of what their situation is. After years of consultation, peak bodies in the horse industry have reiterated to the government that they wish to become signatories to the EADRA and support the introduction of a levy system so that the industry can be protected in the event of an emergency horse disease outbreak. These bodies include the Australian Racing Board Ltd, Harness Racing Australia, the Australian Horse Industry Council, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia and the Australian Equestrian Federation. I think it is fair to say that the horse industry is in broad agreement with the content of these bills and supports their passage through the parliament. This government will not continue the practices which led to a failure of quarantine services. We will not sit and wait for the outbreak of disease in the horse population. The government will implement the recommendations of the Callinan report, the government will act to strengthen our quarantine and biosecurity services and the government will give those people working in the horse industry a solid footing so that they know that, if there is another outbreak, they will have governmental protection and not an industry catastrophe. 6961 09:57:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I rise in the House today to speak on issues that emanate from the introduction of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I want to speak to some of the issues that took place during the outbreak that occurred and about what I certainly believe to be an inequity with the way in which this levy is proposed to be collected. The method proposed for the collection of this levy is meant to be fair and equitable. However, far from that, I believe that the overwhelming proportion of horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy really would not profit from it or really are not in the mind’s eye of the reasons for this levy. There is no doubt that the racing industry is extremely important to the Australian economy and to social life within Australia, and the thoroughbred industry is also an extremely important industry; however, they do get a fairly concise and sometimes very rich income from the activities undertaken in the racing sector. Horses in harness racing and those in thoroughbred racing et cetera make up only about 20 per cent of the total number that come within the group from which this levy is to be collected. The other 80 per cent belong to the families—the mums, dads and kids—who are involved in various forms of dressage, pony club, polocrosse and general horse activities, and it is these people who would be charged with making up the balance of this levy. In my opinion, that is certainly not equitable. A potentially higher risk is associated with the thoroughbred sector. That sector involves imported race horses and shuttle stallions, which have a mandatory requirement for live joining, as opposed to horses for domestic use only. In Australia the number of horses is estimated to be around 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations per year, including pony club registrations, is estimated to be between 50,000 and 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season there were over 29,000 thoroughbred mares that produced almost 18,000 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. Even when this bill as proposed is implemented, it will result in perhaps only up to 50 per cent of all foals born being subject to the levy while the others will not be subject to the levy at all. The total horse registration reveals that the majority—approximately 80 per cent—are with breed associations or pleasure performance-riding groups such as pony clubs, cutting, reining and campdrafting, as I have indicated. Why is it that they should be wearing a disproportionate amount to ensure that this disease or exotic diseases are counted when in fact, if their horses get equine influenza, they just put them in the paddock? Generally it is only an old, frail or fragile horse which will lose its life as a result of EI. It does not make any great difference to what they are doing. Horses were confined to many properties right across my electorate. I had people ringing my office daily about problems—they had gone down into Victoria to have a polocrosse meeting and were not able to come back. They were there for weeks and weeks. They were taken away from their businesses and their families, and they did not have enough money to properly feed the horses or enough money to accommodate themselves. They did not want to leave their horses with anybody else under the circumstances, so they had to bear a lot of the cost of EI. In fact, they gain no income from the horses; they are generally a pleasure pursuit industry. The issue for the racing industry was the threat of being shut down. Of course it would be a big impost and would have a big impact on the Australian economy, with the way people’s gambling choices are today. It is quite extraordinary how much money is invested every day in gambling at the TAB or on the tote. It is a huge amount of money. It is a huge amount of money coming back in taxes to governments as well. There is ample opportunity to gamble in any way, shape or form. If you shut down the racing industry, you clearly create an enormous impact on the economy because those horses cannot race at that time. That is the problem they experienced. Why should the pleasure industry have to pick up the majority of this cost when, for them, their horse will get over EI and it just means confining them to a paddock and not moving them? Why should they pick up the majority of the cost? Just how many community events would be impacted upon during the shutdown was not recognised, yet we seem to be interested only in shoring up one particular sector of the industry. That the costs were borne by the community as a whole has to be taken into consideration as a result of the suspension of our recreational horse events. The great drawcard for the show circuit in rural areas is the ability to go to a show and compete in the equine events. All of those shows—which were scheduled, had their entries and events finalised, had their programs printed and had their prize money—were pretty much in dire circumstances and lost an enormous amount of income as a result of their not being able to proceed. Most rural shows are centred on equine events. They were generally not able to access compensation. If they had lost money, they were able to apply for compensation. Did they actually get it? I think not. The communities and livelihoods of many of the businesses in the towns, which are supported by local activities, were certainly impacted upon and their losses were not recognised. The agricultural show societies and the horse transport companies particularly experienced great losses as a result of the cancellation of these horse events. In the Riverina last year when the equine influenza outbreak was impacting on the local horse owners, my office was inundated with people inquiring about various issues. The problem that I had was the jurisdiction between state and Commonwealth. It is the state who issues the permits and allows the travel. I had many conversations in my office when people were complaining, ‘Why is it that trotters and racehorses can move from here to there, yet I can’t take my horse from one paddock, where there is no feed, to another paddock?’ I have here some of my electorate office feedback forms on this exact issue of the inequity that was dealt to many people during the outbreak of equine influenza. There is no doubt that the equine influenza outbreak was a major issue, particularly for New South Wales and Victoria. It was an issue that led to the most extraordinary amount of trauma for many families because, when you are a horse person, it is a way of life—you love your animals and you are absolutely devoted to them. They felt that they had no say. The Australian Horse Industry Council, the Australian Harness Racing Council and the Australian Racing Board are the peak horse industry representative bodies and are the only bodies in the horse industry that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. I have a problem with that because they do not represent everyone in the industry. People who are generally interested in horses and run them for pleasure do not get a voice on these councils. These councils are the big boys from the big end of town. The little guys get no say. They do not get a say as to what vaccine could and should be used and whether it should be a live strain or not or about what they believe is best thing to do for their horses. Some of these people are very concerned that their prize horses will be weakened by the vaccines that are accepted for use under the signed agreements. It is wrong that the Australian Horse Industry Council purports to represent these members. Most of them cannot go to the meetings where these decisions take place, and they are not informed of how these decisions are made or that decisions were made. Many members were quite shocked and surprised when they found out that this levy was going to be applied across the board and that they were going to pick up the majority of the cost. I believe that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the former minister have tried to do their very best across this entire process. But I do not think that they have arrived at the right result. People involved with pleasure and hobby horses are not the ‘industry’. They are not represented by the bodies that are signatories to the EADRA. It is as simple as that. People in my electorate have expressed a lot of knowledge on these issues. I am thankful to the department for sparing some time to talk with me, which I thank the minister for. The minister—who is seated at the table this morning—provided me an opportunity to speak with the department on issues raised by my West Wyalong equine community. That community have quite a bit of knowledge and are quite up to speed with what is happening. They had, I thought, reasonable and genuine questions to put, and the department was able to address many of the concerns that they raised. But I am still concerned that a disproportionate amount of the cost will be shouldered by the pleasure horse industry. I do not believe that it makes up the so-called ‘industry’. That is the unfairness of it. I believe absolutely that there needs to be a levy in the horse industry. There are levies in many areas—for instance, horticulture. Levies are part and parcel of a growing industry. Those who are part of an industry take a share in the advantages and milestones of that industry. It is about taking a market share in an industry that is created. It is about taking a share in the benefits from an export market for that industry. It is also about bringing better pest control and better opposition to residual diseases et cetera in an industry. All of those who are making a living out of that industry share in the levies. I am no stranger to levies. I have always been supportive of the idea that those involved in an industry should be part of making sure that that industry prospers, flourishes and grows, and a levy is quite a sensible measure to achieve that. But how you apportion the levy is the question that I raise here today. It is about the fairness and equity of a levy system. There must be a way of recognising that almost 80 per cent of the people who will be paying this levy are, in general, mums, dads and families. I do not believe for a second that a levy is fair on them when they are not deriving an income from their involvement with horses. Yes, they are deriving pleasure. And there might be others here who would say that they do derive an income, but compare it with the amount of money involved in Sky TAB. It has been on in my house at times. Watch Sky TAB and see the amount of money that is gambled in every pool, whether it be greyhounds, the trots or thoroughbred horseracing. That is where the money is. Day in and day out, you can see in your local paper pages and pages of racing activity taking place and the money being spent in that area. This is not a mums and dads issue. The mums and dads issue is about enabling the costly part of feeding, grooming and agisting a horse and also providing riding lessons for a child so that they can have access to that love of their life. For a child to own and ride a horse is to be part of a horse activity. That is costly enough. This levy imposes an increased cost on families. If their horse gets sick, they will put it in the paddock. If they lose the horse, so be it. The horse will not have cost that family hundreds of thousands of dollars, which is what the Waterhouse and Smith stables spend on a horse. There will not be millions of dollars paid for a two-year-old horse. I cannot believe that anyone would invest that sort of money in a horse when only one horse can win a race. I find that extraordinary. That is where the bulk of the money should be put up for this levy. That is where the real impact is felt in the industry. The industry needs to be more responsible for diseases that could shut it down for a time. Equine influenza is dangerous, and it is very sad that we had a breakdown in quarantine. That enabled this disease to enter Australia. But we have to be fair, so I say to the members of the House that, whilst I do not doubt the intentions of the bill, it is unfair. We need to look at this issue and provide fairness and equity. We need to recognise that the pleasure performance and hobby sector are going to pick up the bulk of the cost of this bill. They may be responsible for moving their horses. They may attend a polocrosse meeting across the road from a horseracing track. I am not saying that they should not contribute. I am saying that the pleasure horse industry should contribute but not to the extent that they will if this bill is passed. The levy should be commensurate with the level of risk. By all means, stop them from moving around—impose bans and say, ‘You are not going to move here or there.’ By all means, make sure that the majority of horses are vaccinated et cetera. But the pleasure horse industry should not bear the cost; the cost should not be the same across the board. I really believe that this bill has not addressed many of the concerns raised by the horse owners, particularly by those in my electorate of Riverina. There needs to be a rethink of this issue. I most certainly disagree with the content of this bill and the way it is inequitably spreading the cost of the risk across the industry in a way that, I believe, has the pleasure horse industry picking up the majority of the cost. 6964 10:16:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —As the member of this parliament representing Blair, a rural and regional seat in South-East Queensland, I am pleased to be able to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 and to support the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry with this legislation. The Australian Horse Industry Council, in a message to its members on its website, said this: The past year probably has been the most intense in the history of the Australian horse industry. The incursion of Equine Influenza (EI) into Australia from Japan in August 2007 caused complete disruption to the national horse industry. The successful emergency response to the incursion has seen eradication of EI from Australia in about 130 days - a truly remarkable achievement. My electorate has been dreadfully affected by EI, and my constituents have come to see me in tears of anger and frustration at what they have experienced. The Australian harness-racing industry and the Australian Racing Board have been partners with government in the emergency response. In fact, I commend them for their participation in 56 meetings of the Consultative Committee on Emergency Animal Disease and 24 meetings of the National Emergency Animal Disease Management Group. They were given leave to appear before former High Court Justice Ian Callinan, now known as the commissioner, during his inquiry subsequent to August 2007 relating to the incursion. In fact, the AHIC presented three written submissions. The AHIC has commended the minister, who is present in the House, and described his decision on behalf of the government to not require the repayment of $100 million spent on the eradication and proof-of-freedom campaign as generous. This money was given in addition to the $350 million provided in Commonwealth and state government assistance to affected horse owners. It truly has been a horrendous year for the Australian horse industry. The entry of EI into Australia from Japan caused catastrophe and confusion. It was a very serious breach of quarantine. To allow EI into Australia via the Eastern Creek quarantine station was egregious negligence. The outbreak had serious economic and social consequences not just to Australia and Queensland but also to my electorate of Blair. To their discredit, the former coalition government failed to make arrangements for emergency disease preparedness in the horse industry. This was notwithstanding the industry’s proposal from more than a year earlier that they be a participant in agreements in relation to preparedness. The legacy of those who sit opposite in this chamber is procrastination and inertia. The University of Western Sydney in August 2008 undertook a study into the human impacts of equine influenza. I commend the study and its outcome to members and to the public. Data was collected between 14 November 2007 and 7 January 2008. Complete data was collected from 2,760 respondents, which is a considerable number in the industry. The study was welcomed and supported by the AHIC. It was recognised that disease control measures were put in place to control, contain and eradicate EI. Those measures involved restriction and the quarantining of properties, which caused significant cost and disruption. But it is psychological wellbeing that I want to focus on in my speech. Of the 2,760 people who responded, the vast majority were from New South Wales and Queensland, which were so affected. Forty-seven point two per cent of the respondents came from New South Wales and 20.1 per cent came from Queensland. The respondents were from all sectors of the horse industry: recreational, harness racing, thoroughbred racing, equestrian, stabling, agistment, veterinary and animal health, breeding, stud, farrier, commercial and others. The conclusion was that horse owners demonstrated high levels of resilience. We saw that every night in Queensland on the news. The stoicism, the incredible capacity to cope in the circumstances and the community approach of so many in the industry is to be applauded despite the feelings of despair, the loss of hope, the helplessness, the isolation, the frustration and the anger which was reported. They felt forgotten. But I am pleased the minister has not forgotten them and I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government did not forget them. The response of the 2,760 people mimicked or reflected the response that my constituents gave to me. They talked about the fact that, as the member for Riverina mentioned, EI had an impact on country shows. I run mobile offices at all the country shows in my electorate, which takes in a large part of the rural and regional areas outside of Brisbane, down to the New South Wales border and the Boonah Shire and out towards Toowoomba and the Lockyer Valley. And the shows there are the lifeblood of community. People get together at the shows for fellowship. They show off their produce. And I am pleased to see in the chamber the Attorney-General, who visited Gatton and gave a plaque to one of our life members. So he knows. The minister for agriculture has also been to my electorate and understands what it is like. In those rural communities, they get together for community dances and for church activities; they get together in P&Cs; they get together for social occasions far more than people in the city. So those community meetings are really important for bonding, for fellowship and for friendship; they are the wellspring of community life. I cannot stress enough how well-attended Rotary and Lions clubs and other groups are in those rural areas. In fact, they put those of us who live in the cities to shame in many ways. Those people have expressed to me the frustration of the isolation and the quarantining and the impact on community life: reduced contact with friends; isolation; the cancellation of horse events in their areas; the cancellation of riding lessons, which a lot of rural people have their children engaged in; the lack of income and strain on finances; and the fact that they could not get a vet to come to their area. And there were people who came to their area, with goodwill, who failed to obey the quarantining requirements for cleaning and disinfecting that were so necessary when people went onto their property. A lot of people—those who were not ‘horsey people’, as it was put to me—did not get it. Separation from family also was mentioned. And people also reported a lack of information. People were unable to carry out their plans for the future. There was emotional distress—anger, disappointment, worry. And they also related to me, particularly those in dressage and equestrian activities. I played a lot of sport when I was younger—basketball, soccer, rugby league, cricket, touch football and table tennis; a lot of different sports—and I also ran. But I did it on my own or with team mates. Those in the horse industry engage their horses in those equestrian competitions. To see their animals suffering in this way is distressing. And it was not just a sniffle—these animals suffered dreadfully. It was a kind of rabies-like experience for them. I had people come to my mobile offices and to my electorate office in tears, in great anxiety at what their beloved pets and animals were suffering. So it really is a way of life for so many people in rural areas. Certainly in Ipswich, which forms the bulk of my seat, the Ipswich Cup is the hub of the social season. Tens of thousands of people attend. Also, there is the Labour Day race meeting on the Monday, on Labour Day. I always go to the Labour Day march in Brisbane and then come back to the race meeting in Ipswich. I spoke to Brett Kitching, who manages the Bundamba Racecourse, and he talked about the cost to the club and the impact on the trainers, the farriers and all those who enjoy the industry, because that is their life. I have to confess I probably spent a bit too much time in my childhood on racetracks because my dad really liked to have a bet or two in Ipswich, though he was more involved in the greyhound industry. Certainly I spent a lot of time there. My old high school, Bundamba State Secondary College, was just across the road, and I hate to say this but a number of people used to go across to the racecourse, missing out on geography and English after lunch. But the racing industry is important to Ipswich. I am pleased that the minister said on 15 February 2008 that the government had approved a $1 billion emergency funding package. That involved $691.3 million for ongoing federal funding to families and farm businesses affected, including exceptional-circumstances-declared regions; $7.8 million for interest rate subsidies; $97.2 million to reimburse the states and territories for funds; and $255.7 million for financial aid to individuals and businesses. It is those businesses which have suffered the most. People in my constituency have lost their incomes—lost their livelihoods. There are people in my electorate whose lives have been totally destroyed—and those are the words they have used to me. But it has been this Rudd Labor government which has supported farmers, small businesses and those in rural communities affected by the drought, and I am pleased to say that is the case. What have they received? They have received the equine workers hardship wage supplement, which is a Newstart-like type of assistance paid on a fortnightly basis to those people who have lost income that was directly derived from the commercial horse industry. There has also been the equine influenza business assistance payment of $5,000 to those businesses which derived the majority of their income from commercial horse industries and experienced a downturn in income. Further, there has been assistance in the form of the commercial horse assistance payment and grants for non-government and not-for-profit equestrian organisations. I am also pleased that the minister has taken up the 38 recommendations of Commissioner Callinan from his inquiry. That was a very extensive inquiry—44 days of hearings, 260 witnesses, 80,000 documents and 41 formal submissions. Commissioner Callinan was always a robust advocate. He was more conservative than I would have liked him to be on the High Court of Australia, but he certainly said his piece and he was prepared to say what he thought, to his credit, on the High Court. In the report of his inquiry he talked about systemic failures: the understaffing of our quarantine services, which were not adequately funded and resourced; inadequacies and breakdowns; the impenetrable maze of bureaucratic confusion; a place of ignorance, misunderstandings, and misconceptions about fundamental matters—and it went on and on. I had a look at it—it is a damning indictment of quarantine in this country. I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government is acting on that, and these bills are part of that response. I commend the minister. I know he has written to Roger Beale to address the issues as part of the review and he has appointed Professor Peter Shergold to oversee the whole process. At the time of a press release issued on 12 June, the federal government had expended $342 million to eradicate the virus and provide financial assistance. It is a huge sum of money. I just do not get why the opposition is opposing these bills. The horse industry want these bills. The Australian Harness Racing Council, the Australian Horse Industry Council and the Australian Racing Board all support these bills. It is very peculiar for those people who sit opposite, who say that they support rural and regional communities, to oppose these bills. Regulations were drafted in 2007 to give effect to the Horse Industry Council’s submission, but it was advised that separate legislation would be required, and that is what these bills provide. The opposition of those opposite to these bills is a demonstration of the same kind of neglect that we saw in relation to the devastating EI outbreak last year. I just cannot understand why they are opposing them. One purpose of these bills is to introduce a levy on the initial registration of horses so the horse industry can repay the Commonwealth for financial assistance if there is a future outbreak of an emergency horse disease. These are the terms set out in the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA. Another purpose of these bills is to provide for the collection of horse disease response levies by persons or bodies that register horses and relates to the liability of the horse registration bodies to pay the levy payments to the Commonwealth. The bills also impose penalties for unpaid levies and provide for remission of any penalties. They also provide for the gathering and collection of information and documents together with a strict liability offence for failure to comply with an information request. The bills also amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Act 1996 to enable the Commonwealth to appropriate horse disease response levies paid to the Australian Animal Health Council and to repay the Commonwealth for underwriting the horse industries’ share of the costs involved in dealing with emergency outbreaks of horse diseases. Further, the bills enable the Australian Animal Health Council to utilise excess horse disease response levies for research and development purposes or the promotion and maintenance of horse health. The bills will help the horse industry fund its obligations under EADRA. What do the horse industry say about these bills? They support them. The member for Page outlined in her speech a number of people who have written to the minister, and I will not repeat those names, but they are very supportive of these bills and also commended the minister for his response. By passing this legislation we would see the horse industry join other major livestock industries in the agreement. The bills establish a one-off statutory levy on registration of horses to meet the industry’s commitment to sharing the funding of responses to emergency disease outbreaks which affect horses. The consequential legislation allows the levies to be appropriated to the council, as I said, and contains other particular reforms. All other major livestock industries are signatories to the EADRA, and the horse industry should be too. It is really a matter of catching up. The ratification was delayed by the neglect of the Howard government. I am pleased that in March 2008 the Rudd government postponed debate on these bills until the cost of the EI outbreak in 2007 was resolved. I have written to the minister on behalf of a number of my constituents who wanted me to tell their stories to the minister, to say how EI had affected them. I am pleased that the minister has taken the time to sit here and listen to so many speakers. These bills will provide certainty in funding for emergency animal disease threats and certainty in terms of a rapid and effective response. As all the industry groups support this bill, so should those opposite. I hope that they use their numbers in the Senate to also support this legislation. The bills before us will have a big impact on the horse industry. No more do we want to see 6,627 properties infected and affected in New South Wales and Queensland. I commend the minister for the legislation. I commend the industry for their participation in these matters. These bills will deliver to the horse industry what they have been asking for for many years: a national system for responding to emergency animal disease. It has taken the Rudd Labor government to do this. I commend the bills to the House. 6968 10:35:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise today to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills. I have been involved in the horse industry all my life, using horses not only for working on a property but also, I can reveal, as my mode of transport to school in my very early days of schooling in western Queensland. And, of course, representing the seat of Maranoa, horses are an integral part of work, pleasure and business. When the impact of EI hit my electorate—in fact, hit Australia—it had devastating costs for many businesses and people. It is a disease that should never have entered Australia. It is quite obvious that the disease entered Australia through the use of shuttle stallions in the bloodstock industry. It was a very serious breakdown in our protocols and the administration of our protocols through the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. In fact, I first heard about it when people were advised at Morgan Park in Warwick in my electorate, where there were some 255 horses and 120 people for an equestrian event through that weekend. They were then locked down for the next five weeks. I shudder to even consider the impact of an exotic disease such as foot-and-mouth, should it ever enter Australia because of a breakdown in our quarantine system and the people who work in AQIS. I said directly to Minister McGauran at the time, ‘This is an absolute disgrace,’ because the impact of an exotic disease such as foot-and-mouth disease, should it ever enter Australia, would devastate our meat exports for possibly years to come. Obviously the minister at the time carried the responsibility—he is no longer in the parliament with us—and I expressed great anger at the fact that our quarantine system had broken down. The fact that we are an island nation is of great benefit to the export of many of our food products. I am pleased that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has responsibility for this, is in the House today. I thank him for ensuring that the cost of the outbreak of equine influenza in Australia was not borne by the industry. Although I think he might have been intending to do that when he first became minister, I do commend him for listening to the concerns of the industry, the opposition and, I am sure, a wide cross-section of the horse industry in Australia. Out of fairness, the cost of eradicating the disease from Australia was rightly borne by the Australian taxpayers at the time. In my electorate of Maranoa, I have some of the finest bloodstock in Australia. I have some wonderful thoroughbred studs in my electorate with a wonderful history of providing many cup winners in Brisbane, Sydney and the racing circuit around Australia, and I am very proud of that. In fact, right on the edge of my electorate the great Bernborough was bred and trained and he went on to win the Melbourne Cup. The Darling Downs in the eastern part of my electorate provides wonderful bloodstock for the thoroughbred industry. They were very much affected by this outbreak of equine influenza because it happened at the worst time of the year for many of them in the bloodstock industry. It was at the start of that period when they were mating mares to top stallions and they had bookings for mares. That is the way the breeding season works in the thoroughbred industry. For many of them there was a huge financial impact because they were unable to get the mares to the stallions. Of course, those mares not getting in foal because of the lockdown due to equine influenza will have a flow-on effect for many years to come. Can I just look at some of the other horse industries in my electorate. There are sporting horse associations and, of course, the renowned Dalby Stock Horse Show is probably the premier stockhorse sale in Australia every year. They sell there once a year. It brings enormous economic benefit to the town of Dalby and, when the town is still suffering from the worst drought in a hundred years, that economic activity is very hard to measure. But that show was cancelled. People would come with their horses, they would talk about horses, they would trade horses and they would look at how they could improve their own stockhorses. There would be farriers, saddlers and tack sellers. There would be hospitality. The economic activity lost to the town of Dalby was a consequence of the lockdown due to equine influenza. The state polocrosse championships in Chinchilla, west of Dalby, were also cancelled. There was a similar effect on the hospitality industry—on the motels. That economic activity has a multiplier effect—if you spend a dollar, it multiplies by four or five in that community. The town of Chinchilla is suffering the effects of the worst drought in a hundred years. That economic activity was lost and many small businesses suffered dramatically because of the lockdown. Pony clubbers were unable to go to their pony clubs. It is a great activity for families. In fact, I started a pony club in my own district, aware of the importance of young children growing up with the lessons that they can learn through the pony club movement. They too were locked down, unable to take their ponies to competition events or even to that Sunday afternoon instruction at their local pony club. It is a major social event for many families and being able to participate in a pony club has a low cost to the family. I am very proud of the fact that I am a pony club instructor, was a regional chair and president of the district and established the Muckadilla Pony Club. It is not in action today, but it provided many years of great enjoyment and I think many great lessons were learnt by the children who participated in the pony club. Pony clubs were also affected by this. Often not spoken about are the campdraft industries. I myself am quite amazed at the extent of the growth in campdrafting. They can get 500 or 600 nominations at a campdraft in a remote part of my electorate out in Canungra or Birdsville or up at Longreach. People will travel up to 600, 700 or 800 kilometres for the weekend for a campdraft, for a sporting event. They were unable to participate. In fact, I have just been out in that part of my electorate in the west, right out through as far as Birdsville. I arrived there and quite a few of the stockmen and people there were travelling right up to Camooweal—a day and a half’s drive—with horses for the National Bronco Branding Championships. Once again, it is a horse sport and it is a very old skill, but it has been kept alive by people with a great interest in horses and sporting activities—not registered horses, just horses off the parcel properties and people who breed them out of the sheer pleasure of being able to compete in a bronco-branding competition. It is an old skill. I have not found out who won it, but I am sure it will be someone from Maranoa, knowing the great stockmen in the west of my electorate and the passion that they have. We have held the title for a number of years. It is held every couple of years, and I am sure when I do find out it will have been someone from the west of my electorate out at Maranoa. Contract musterers were affected. They are people who make a living with their horses by going to a property. That is the way they contract out their work in so many of the smaller pastoral properties today. But they could not operate. They were locked down and unable to derive an income for that period of the lockdown. The racing industry, which is the commercial end of the horse industry in Australia, was also locked down. Racing in my electorate is a great social event, as are so many horse events. That is the time when once a year the ladies will dress up and go to the local races and it really is a great social occasion. Many races, including the famous Birdsville races, had to be cancelled. What amazed me about the lockdown was that the Birdsville races, some 1,800 kilometres from the outbreak at Morgan Park in Warwick in the east of my electorate, were locked down. If they were over the border in the Northern Territory, which is another couple of hundred kilometres west, the Birdsville races probably could have been held. I have to say, Minister—and you were not responsible at the time—that I was frustrated by some of those regulations. I could not see why, being so far removed from where the disease had been identified in the east of my electorate down into the Brisbane Valley, those races could not continue; but they could not. People coming from Mount Isa got about 250 kilometres from Birdsville, spelled their horses overnight, and that was the night the lockdown occurred. People who work on stations and trainers from Mount Isa were locked down for five weeks in Bedourie with their horses, having to import horse feed. There was a similar situation for those coming out of Longreach and going down to Birdsville. They overnighted at Windorah, spelled their horses on the Cooper Creek—which I spoke about earlier in the Main Committee—and ended up being locked down for five weeks. There did not seem to be much commonsense about that. I wondered why they could not just go back to their stables up at Longreach, but instead they too were locked down, this time in the small community of Windorah. The lockdown might have had a bit of a commercial impact on the town, but there was a commercial loss to those people and their daily lives—they could not move, they had to look after their horses for five weeks. It was an enforced break from work; they had to do it. All that is not to mention the money that is raised at these sporting events, whether it is a campdraft, bronco branding or the outback racing season—which starts this weekend, by the way. For those listening, you should, if you can, make it to Birdsville this weekend and Bedourie next weekend or the two on the weekend after. They are great outback racing weekends, and I know that they are already arriving in Birdsville. So often a third of the money raised at these events goes to the Royal Flying Doctor Service. These are communities that help themselves. I know that the federal government, in part, provides quite a substantial sum of money to the Royal Flying Doctor Service, but last year the money raised from racing was lost. The money was not raised so the Royal Flying Doctor Service was impacted upon because of the impact of equine influenza. Can I say something about the lockdown at Morgan Park in Warwick. I mentioned earlier that there were some 255 horses there for that weekend’s equestrian events, which included, if my memory serves me correctly, some of the trials leading up to the equestrian team selection for the Beijing Olympics. They too were affected. Morgan Park had to be locked down for five weeks and that also had an effect on our Olympic team and the trials that led up to the selection of the equestrian team for the Olympics. Events like this often bring out the best in people, and the people of Warwick were absolutely fantastic. Simon Goddard and his team organised that weekend’s activities at Morgan Park and they then had the responsibility of ensuring that the lockdown was secure, that the horses that were there were able to be cared for and that the 120-odd people who were locked down with their horses were able to be fed. There were issues of sanitation and the removal of horse waste. It was a huge logistical exercise. Imagine all of a sudden having 250 horses and 120 people locked down in a sporting complex for five weeks. They cannot go home and they have to look after their horses. I remember at the time that all that they wanted do was make sure that all of their horses got EI tests and got them quickly, because until they were able to test that the horses were either immunised or free of equine influenza those horses were going to be locked down. I want to commend the people of Warwick and all of the support team behind Simon Goddard. They made a magnificent effort. It really did bring the best out in people. They are wonderful people. They did not seek any recognition; they just did a job. They knew it was there to do—a disaster had occurred and they did not seek recognition. People in town were cooking stews and casseroles and providing food. All the food had to be checked on the way in for fear of contamination beyond the borders of the quarantine area. So, to Simon and all the team there in Warwick, I commend you for your efforts. I mentioned earlier that Minister Burke is not asking the industry to pay for the cost of the EI outbreak and the containment and eradication of that disease from Australia. I commend him for that. To do otherwise would have been grossly unfair, and I do recognise that that is the position of this government. I now come to the point of the levy itself. The proposal to impose a levy on registered horses is grossly inequitable. We have about 1.2 million horses in Australia and possibly 50,000 to 60,000 of them would be registered. The legislation will force people not to register their horses and many will not be captured by it. It will also unfairly impact on the sporting side rather than the commercial side of the horse industry. I recall at the time of the outbreak that all the news focused on whether the Melbourne Cup would be run in 2007. There was never a great focus on the campdraft lockdown or the small pony clubs in North Queensland and the costs incurred by the families involved. It was all about whether the Melbourne Cup—the king of sports—would be run. The commercial side of the industry was getting all the financial compensation. We all want the Melbourne Cup to be run, but that demonstrated that there is a side of the horse industry in Australia which is very commercial and which involves millions and millions of dollars. On the other side there are the pony clubbers, the campdrafters, the bronco branding teams, the contract musterers and the station horses. They are part of everyday life. Like someone who plays golf and has a special set of clubs, these people have a horse. It is their hobby and their sport. It is wrong to levy these people in the sport and recreation sector in the same manner as we levy the commercial side of the industry. An analogy has been drawn by members on the other side of the House with the meat industries and the honey bee industry, which are all subject to a levy that can be called on in the event of an exotic disease outbreak in their industry. Those industries involve commercial business operators. There is a clear distinction between people involved in the meat and livestock industries and the honey bee industry and sporting and recreational horse owners. Like the thoroughbred and harness racing industries, those businesses are selling a commercial product; they have a commercial side to their operation. We cannot make that comparison and say that the sporting side of the horse industry in Australia should be treated in the same way that the commercial side of the industry is treated. We all recall that this disease entered Australia with the shuttle stallions coming from Japan to service mares in the bloodstock industry. It had nothing to do with the pony clubbers, the campdrafters or the bronco branders. There are two different, quite separate, clearly identifiable sectors in the horse industry in Australia. I ask the minister to take that into account in any further considerations about these bills. I do not support the bills in their current form because they are unfair. The sporting and recreational side rather than the commercial side of the industry will bear 80 per cent of the cost. The commercial side has the capacity to pay and was ultimately the source of the accidental introduction of equine influenza through the importation of shuttle stallions. 6973 10:56:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak against the three proposed bills, namely the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the Horse Disease Response Levy Collection Bill 2008 and the Horse Disease Response Levy (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The purpose of these bills is to introduce a levy on the initial registration of horses so that the Australian horse industry, under the terms of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, can repay the Commonwealth for financial assistance in the event of an outbreak of an emergency horse disease. They provide for the collection of horse disease response levies by persons or bodies that register horses and the liability of horse registration bodies to pay the levy payments to the Commonwealth. They impose penalties for unpaid levies and provide for remission of any penalties. They provide for the gathering and collection of information and documents together with a strict liability offence for failure to comply with an information request. They also aim to amend the Australian Animal Health Council (Live-stock Industries) Funding Act 1996 to enable the Commonwealth to appropriate the horse disease response levies paid to the Australian Animal Health Council to repay the Commonwealth for underwriting the horse industries’ share of the costs involved in dealing with future emergency outbreaks of horse diseases. These bills will enable the Australian Animal Health Council to utilise any excess horse disease response levies for research and development purposes or the promotion and maintenance of horse health. These bills also provide a mechanism for Australia’s horse industry to become a signatory to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. The horse industry is presently not a signatory to the agreement as a levy collection mechanism could not be identified. An emergency response to the recent equine influenza outbreak was activated under the provisions of the EADRA without the horse industry being a signatory. Following significant industry and wider political pressure, the government’s decision to pay the costs associated with last year’s equine influenza outbreak was welcome news for the thousands of horse owners and breeders. We are all aware of the financial losses that were experienced by many in the equine industry resulting from the equine influenza outbreak. As we have heard from the previous speaker, the impact on the horse industry and ancillary operations was massive. The lucrative Australian horse racing industries in the eastern states were closed down, gambling revenue on horse racing was curtailed and betting on alternative racing such as greyhounds also fell, whilst the impact stretched into the recreational and community sphere with campdrafting, polocrosse, gymkhanas and local horse shows postponed or cancelled. Many small professional training businesses faced extreme economic pressure during the quarantine period. The equine industry in Australia is a major employer. That is frequently overlooked. As a result, the impacts were very widespread and compounded. In addition, the cost of maintaining a strict quarantine regime meant that horses could not be transported and that, in many cases, feed and care had to be maintained at sites away from any home base. This also caused considerable disruption to horse events and to our Olympic team preparation—but they did get a silver medal. The thoroughbred and harness racing industries were deeply affected by the loss of revenue caused by the cancellation of racing events and the impact of quarantine restrictions on breeding programs. Peak horse industry bodies had called for government assistance during the equine influenza outbreak and received both federal and state government assistance at different stages throughout the quarantine program. However, some of this financial assistance did not cover owners of horses from Western Australia who had mares being served in New South Wales or other states. Mr Rob Witten from Capel in my electorate was one such owner. Mr Witten faced significant costs in extended agistment and veterinary fees whilst his mare was in New South Wales being served because the mare was quarantined at the stud for the duration of the equine influenza. The mare was quarantined in New South Wales for 12 months and it cost an additional $1,000 a month in agistment alone. However, there was no form of financial assistance available to Mr Witten and the many other interstate mare owners in the same position, whilst there was assistance available to other horse owners in New South Wales, administered through the federal government in three rounds. Some people missed out on business assistance. The government instigated an inquiry into the outbreak, the Callinan inquiry, the report of which was released in June 2008. The investigation found the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service was culpable in that it failed to ensure diseases did not escape from its Sydney Animal Quarantine Station at Eastern Creek. The Hon. Ian Callinan stated: The social and economic effects of an outbreak of equine influenza virus in the Australian horse population were predictable and foreseen … the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry assured the Minister … that it would not happen here. But clearly it did happen here, and it had a major financial and social impact on Australia due to the disruptions of employment and the bans on horse movements within the racing industry and the recreational horse industry. It was certainly a wake-up call for the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service. It was also an expensive lesson for all those associated with such a diverse horse industry that we all have to take responsibility for following and upholding decontamination rules. The actual cost to the Australian horse industry, estimated to be hundreds of millions of dollars, is still to be determined. More than $342 million in federal funds have been spent eradicating horse flu and helping individuals and organisations. But not all were assisted. Kerry and Darryl Bagley, of Baldivis, south of Perth in Western Australia, are recreational horse owners involved in eventing who were disadvantaged last year when the South Australian government cancelled a three-day event in November. They had already paid for their non-refundable air tickets and accommodation and these were not covered by travel insurance. They thought themselves lucky because they had competed for and won free transportation for their horse to the event, a once-only opportunity that cannot be taken up again. They are concerned that this proposed legislation will expect recreational horse owners to pay levies and yet still be disadvantaged because most of the funds, as we have seen just recently, although spent eradicating equine influenza, have been directed into the racing industry and recreational horse enthusiasts have been left out of any assistance. Cathy Wood’s operation in the south-west, in my electorate of Forrest, was also affected by the EI outbreak. Cathy is a hobby breeder of standardbreds and thoroughbreds for the racing industry. She was unable to use compatible stallions in the eastern states for her mares. This may affect her yearling sale outcomes in the future yet she comments that she would be unlikely to be granted financial assistance. As a hobby breeder she is unlikely to benefit from future government assistance offered by a levy, the subject of these bills, yet she will be required to contribute to it as she breeds between six and eight foals per year that are registered. Cathy considers the levy to be a knee-jerk policy and proffers that prevention is better than a cure and it starts with quarantine regulations. The EI outbreak also highlighted the inequalities inherent in the government’s proposed collection methodology. As a result of the EI emergency, Australian horse industry peak bodies have agreed to support federal government legislation to introduce a levy to raise funds for future emergency assistance measures. In the event of a future emergency disease outbreak affecting the horse industry, the Commonwealth government will initially finance assistance measures to the horse industry but that will be repaid from funds collected by the levy over time. Regulations to be made under the Horse Disease Response Levy Act 2008, when passed, will determine the amount of the levy. The coalition opposes these bills as they propose a levy collection method that is not accepted as fair and equitable by the overwhelming proportion of horse owners who would become liable to pay any future levy. The passing of these bills would result in performance and recreational horse owners contributing the largest proportion of the financial levy towards the cost of containing and eradicating diseases such as equine influenza, even though they receive little or no financial income from their horse activity. Mr Anthony Wood of Boyanup contacted me to say he believes the levy should be applied on all horses crossing borders or seas. He has only one brood mare, which is served on the farm, and does not believe that his operation poses a risk because his horses do not move from his property. More importantly, the bills as proposed will still only result in 50 per cent of all foals born being subject to such a levy. The number of horses in Australia is estimated to be 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations a year, including pony club registrations, is estimated at 50,000 to 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season, 29,070 thoroughbred mares produced 17,854 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. That represents only approximately 20 per cent of total horses registered nationally coming from the largest commercial group in the Australian horse industry. An analysis of total horse registrations reveals that the majority of horse registrations, approximately 80 per cent, are with breed associations or pleasure and performance riding groups such as pony clubs and cutting, reining and campdrafting groups, with approximately 621,000 registered and 500,000 unregistered horses. Therefore, only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection. Further, the majority of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon pleasure and performance horse owners, who derive little or no income from their horses and consequently would also receive little or no compensation through the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement as a result of a disease event. The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement was put in place in 2002 and included the Commonwealth, states and territories and peak livestock industry councils as parties to the agreement. The EADRA replaced the Commonwealth/States Cost Sharing Agreement. The EADRA was negotiated with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate the making of rapid responses to, and the control and eradication or containment of, certain animal diseases, with the costs of the response shared between governments and industry according to the classification of the disease. The Australian Horse Industry Council, Harness Racing Australia and the Australian Racing Board are the peak industry representative bodies and the only horse industry bodies that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. The government claims that all three of these peak national horse representative bodies support the passage of these bills. This is not totally correct. The president of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia said in a letter to Minister Burke on 13 August 2008: Thoroughbred Breeders Australia supports passage of the bills 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. This is conditional support and relies upon the government to review the collection method for fairness and equity. The Australian Horse Industry Council has written in support of the bills even though many of their member organisations strongly oppose the bills. An AHIC survey of their member organisations, reported in July 2008, found that, while a majority of respondents support the industry becoming a signatory to the EADRA, the proposed collection method based upon horse registrations was not supported. Opposition to these bills also extends to the fact that they give no consideration to the potential risk of disease outbreak applicable to each sector of the Australian horse industry. Individual AHIC member groups have also expressed staunch opposition to these bills. Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the whole industry. However, they are a sector that supports the wider industry—farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators, trainers, breeders and tack and equipment suppliers—who would be liable for the greatest financial burden under the levy proposal. Under the proposed bills, the costs to industry of the EI outbreak would have been passed on, in the majority, to the pleasure, performance and hobby sector. Despite the learnings made possible through the EI outbreak, the government has failed to address any of the concerns raised by all horse owners. The government has also failed to propose an equitable base from which to charge such a levy and how often the levy charge will be reviewed. I would also ask whether international shuttle stallions will be subject to a levy. There are major inequities in the government’s proposed collection methodology. Therefore, I join with my coalition colleagues in opposing these bills. 6976 11:09:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise to explain to the House the importance of the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills to my electorate of Swan. I congratulate the members for Maranoa and Forrest and all the other speakers for their contributions. I also note the presence in the House of the member for Canning, who made a significant contribution to the racing industry in Australia during his time as a trainer. It is good to see you here. The high number of members who have spoken about the subject shows the importance of the racing industry and the horse industry and associated businesses in Australia. Today I will outline the importance of the horse industry to Swan and remind the House of the significant impact of equine influenza in Western Australia. I will review the coalition government’s response to last year’s crisis. In this context, I will consider the bill that is currently before the House and put forward three aspects of the legislation that must be urgently reconsidered by the Rudd government. Ascot and Belmont Park, the two major racecourses in Western Australia, are in my electorate of Swan. Ascot is the headquarters for racing in Western Australia. Situated eight kilometres east of the Perth city centre, and with the head office of the Western Australian Turf Club positioned directly opposite, Ascot is located within the boundaries of the City of Belmont. This also happens to be the seat of the Deputy Premier of WA, who is also the WA Treasurer. We believe he has been seen at the racecourse recently—in the last month—and he has also been spotted in the electorate. It must be an election year! That’s right, the WA state election is on this weekend. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —But he is in Cottesloe. HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr IRONS —Thank you; I know that. Ascot is the grand old lady of Australian racecourses. Her committee buildings and grandstand look as majestic now as they did at the turn of the 20th century, when they were built. Racegoers during the summer months will enjoy picturesque gardens and magnificent facilities, including: the interstate and local bookmakers ring; an open-sided pavilion running the length of the main tote; nine superb alfresco dining and bar facilities specialising in fresh cuisine; and two tiered restaurants—‘The Terrace’ on the public floor and ‘Flying Colours’ for members—both of which offer racegoers fine cuisine and spectacular views of the track. I do not know if the member for Maribyrnong will find any Penfolds Grange, which he spoke about yesterday, in those restaurants, but I am sure they can cater to his taste for ten-dollar bottles of wine if he orders early! It amazes me that the member for Maribyrnong can stand up in this House and use one of the products of another great Australian industry, the wine industry, to play the politics of envy with. Why would he attack a great Australian product and then pretend that none of the members of the government has ever tasted or sampled this fine product? Would he have the Australian people believe that neither he nor any of the members of the current government has ever tasted or even smelt that famous Australian product? The company that produces this product is a great Australian company that produces some fine Australian wines and earns export dollars for Australia. The member for Maribyrnong included that bit about wine during his talk on the equine bills, so I just wanted to acknowledge that in my speech as well. Ascot’s 2,000-metre track is attractive, modern and well drained. It has a 300-metre inclining straight, which is regarded by experts as the toughest test of stayers in Australia. Belmont Park Racecourse is Perth’s winter racecourse. It has a circumference of 1,699 metres and a 333-metre straight. The track is situated in a prime riverfront position, with the facilities nestled between the city and the water. The racecourse falls within the boundaries of the town of Victoria Park. Belmont’s facilities are fully enclosed, ensuring that racegoers are warm and comfortable while they enjoy the spectacular views of first-class thoroughbred racing against the river backdrop. Thanks to its excellent drainage, which has ensured that race meetings are consistently held come rain, hail or shine, Belmont is renowned as arguably one of the best wet weather tracks in Australia, if not the world. The Ascot and Belmont racecourses are historic racing venues and are of significant heritage and cultural value to the people of Western Australia. People go to the races not just to bet or gamble but for the pleasure of watching the wonderful racing equine, the thoroughbred racehorse, compete at the highest level. In fact, the historic Perth Cup—that gruelling 3,200-metre event—has been run since 1887. The first Perth Cup was won by First Prince—and I have been told he was stabled in my electorate. I encourage all honourable members to come to Perth and witness this fantastic spectacle of endurance, which is held each year on New Year’s Day. The 2008 event was won by Cats Fun, which was probably a good year for it to win the race as it looks as though it will be straddled by back-to-back premierships by the Geelong Cats in the AFL! The race was marred by a six-horse fall which resulted in two horses being destroyed and three jockeys being taken to hospital with minor injuries. The eventual winner had to hurdle one of the fallen horses. In the electorate of Swan there are 1,200 horse stalls registered, and a disproportionate 35 per cent of all thoroughbred racehorses in Western Australia are located in the electorate of Swan. Therefore, it is fair to say that horses are of some importance to the people of Swan, and I am sure we have a huge birthday party in Swan on 1 August every year in my electorate. The horse industry is a large industry group employing many people. In fact, the racing industry is considered one of the largest employers in Australia—veterinarians, jockeys, trainers, reinspersons, farriers, track attendants, catering staff, livestock transporters, farmers, grain growers and steelmakers are just a few of the professions associated with this industry. Each of these professions represents jobs at stake for Australians and, more importantly, in the electorate of Swan. A Sydney Morning Herald article of 26 September 2007 stated that Centrelink had paid almost $1.4 million to people affected by the EI outbreak. This begins to paint a picture of the number of jobs dependent on this industry. This brings me to the threat posed to the horse population of Swan and Western Australia by the outbreaks of disease and in particular the outbreak of equine influenza last year. We must keep Western Australia equine disease free. I will now give you some statistics on the Western Australian racing industry, including in the Swan electorate. In Western Australia last year 2,748 persons were registered with the racing and trotting industry. These people are the backbone of racing in Western Australia. The TAB turnover for the racing code alone was $295 million. In fact, in the 2007 racing year the Western Australian government pocketed $61.3 million in turnover tax. Surely the state government have a stake in this. They should look at releasing some of these taxes to pay for the levy, as they are probably the biggest winner out of the industry and have the most to lose from it. Recently it was announced that state moneys for Perth racing would be raised to a level almost equal to those for the Melbourne Cup carnival for certain races. This is why I have been approached by many people from the industry and from my electorate who stress that Western Australia must remain free of disease—there is simply too much at stake. Australia was declared officially free from equine influenza on 30 June 2008. Western Australia was fortunate, due largely to the tyranny of distance and the strict quarantine protocols that are in place, that equine influenza did not spread across the Nullarbor. It is important to remember that, although Western Australia remained officially free of equine influenza, it did not escape its effects. The Western Australian racing, pacing and equestrian industries were still impacted on significantly. When Australian Racing Board Chief Executive Andrew Harding said that the racing and breeding industries were losing $4.3 million a day, I can assure honourable members that he was not excluding Western Australia. The cost of vaccinating thoroughbreds and pacers in Western Australia was approximately $2 million. As I am sure you will agree, Mr Deputy Speaker, this is by no means a trivial sum of money. This could be a drop in the bucket of the state tax take, but where do we see the WA Carpenter state government on this issue, with their $2 million surplus? They are nowhere to be seen and, once the election is over this weekend, we can only hope they will not be seen for a long time. The racing industry people in WA are very wise and they will see the shallowness of the Carpenter government and their inability to assist the industry. A significant number of top-quality WA brood mares were unable to be mated with stallions standing at stud last year. These stallions were stranded and could not be brought back to WA for the breeding season. Stallions shuttling to Western Australia from overseas or from the east coast were not allowed in. Some of these high-priced, well-bred stallions were unable to earn from their service fees, and the investment that owners had in these horses was stopped. Additionally, there will be some impact on the number of foals born in WA this year. Down the track this could affect the number of racing stock and therefore racing turnover with the WA TAB. Western Australia also has a burgeoning breeding industry selling racehorses and yearlings to South-East Asia, Singapore and South Africa. The potential loss of breeding stock would see us lose that market that has been so hard fought for. This must never happen; we must keep Australia and WA EI free. I was personally astonished yesterday when I heard the member for Forde claim that the wonderful thing about equine influenza is that it is a disease that can be easily controlled. I do not think there is anything wonderful about the disease at all. If this is the attitude of the Labor Party then Western Australia has much to fear. Although there was obviously nothing like the devastation that happened in the New South Wales and Queensland racing industries, there was an impact that hit at a time when betting in Western Australia was booming. While racing in Western Australia did not have to stop during the outbreak, as happened in New South Wales and Queensland, the loss of those meetings on the east coast had a dramatic impact on betting turnover, which in turn affected TAB turnover. This then affected the revenue that the WA state government takes out of racing as a tax—another example of why the state government should cough up the levy and show their support for this industry. To give back some of the tax take and to protect this source of revenue is nothing else but common sense. Western Australia and the electorate of Swan have suffered along with the rest of Australia during this crisis and should have a strong say in this bill. Before considering separate components of the bill before the House today I would like to reflect on the Howard government’s response to this crisis back in 2007. Where there are natural disasters that put livelihoods of Australians at risk, it is right that the government intervene. On 30 August 2007 the then member for Gippsland announced a $4 million fund to provide emergency grants of up to $1,500 for individuals suffering financial difficulties due to equine influenza. Following this, on 9 September 2007, the Howard government announced a $110 million funding package for people and businesses facing additional costs and significant financial hardship as a direct result of EI. This package consisted of, firstly, a $20 million estimated cost for an equine workers hardship wage supplement payment, which was aimed at workers who lost their job or most of their income and at sole traders in similar situations; and, secondly, a $45 million estimated cost for business assistance grants, which involved $5,000 grants to businesses that derive the majority of their income from the commercial horse industry and whose income suffered a significant downturn. The coalition government also provided a $44 million cash injection for primary horse carers at non-government not-for-profit equestrian organisations. On 21 October 2007 Minister McGauran announced a $117 million extension to the EI assistance package. This was simply additional funding that would allow the 9 September package to cover a further 12 weeks through to 8 February 2008. I was pleased to note that after the change in government the incoming Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry saw fit to continue this important policy. However, it increasingly became clear that a long-term strategy was required to make sure that the industry was better prepared for future outbreaks. Immunity treatment provided by the government, for example, only lasts for 12 months and, to combat future outbreaks, horses must be vaccinated annually. A comprehensive strategy is required. This is why the debate in parliament today and yesterday is so important. It is a step towards a long-term plan for the industry, a long-term plan that is vital not just for the participants in the racing industry but also for stud farms, racehorse owners, trainers and jockeys and TAB shop owners—and not forgetting the parents who take their children out to pony clubs throughout the state. The Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 is the government’s attempt to respond to this. I have grave doubts about the ability of this bill to provide any long-term solution. When I looked at this bill and the answers relating to why this legislation is necessary, I saw that part 2 of the second paragraph in the Q and A sheet states: … most industry bodies do not have the reserves or the required capital backing to arrange for commercial loans to draw on in the event of such an emergency— like an outbreak of EAD. That is obvious, but the government should then look at who benefits financially from this industry and who can afford to pay a levy. The total tax take from this industry by state governments through totaliser betting is enormous. Where is the investment by these state governments to protect their income? First, I would question the minister on his approach to this important bill, which was not within the spirit of cooperation and listening. On 11 June 2008, the minister wrote to horse owners to discuss this important issue. Instead of taking a consultative tone, he used an aggressive and threatening tone, claiming that further assistance would be refused in the event of a disease outbreak such as equine influenza if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. This is what the member for Wakefield referred to yesterday evening as ‘extensive consultation’. Is this the consultative tone that was flaunted by Prime Minister Rudd at his extravagant and hollow 2020 Summit? I do not think so. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the Rudd government does not practise what it preaches when it comes to participatory democracy. Perhaps there is not enough media interest in the bill to make Mr Rudd’s ears prick up. Perhaps the Prime Minister’s spin doctor told him that there was nothing in it for him. Whatever the case may be, the Rudd government has let equine people down. In a democracy, people deserve to be listened to. Threatening letters are arrogant and inexcusable. Prime Minister Rudd and his government should not be allowed to get away with bullying the people of Australia. This is an appalling base from which a bill should progress. The EADRA was not designed back in 2002 to be a mechanism for the Labor Party, despite public opinion, to force through its own bills. The member for Maribyrnong yesterday also mentioned in his speech on this legislation how he had practically saved all the members of the Australian Jockeys Association from complete decimation and is now their patron. Unfortunately, not to underestimate his contribution to the Australian Jockeys Association, I have not heard any jockeys in WA singing his praises and telling me that they have his picture hanging in their homes as a reflection of his magnificent self-praising deeds. Maybe he was just jockeying himself up for the minister’s job. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —He is a bit up himself, isn’t he? 1000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—I would ask the member for Canning to withdraw that comment. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —What comment is that? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You know the comment you made. I am asking you to withdraw the comment. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —I withdraw. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Thank you. HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr IRONS —The second point I would make in relation to this bill is the foolhardy provision to make all horses subject to an equal levy. This is despite the potential risk of exotic disease introduction and spreading being much higher with the number of movements, both internationally and domestically, that are associated with the racing industries. How is this fair? The Rudd government continues to favour flat taxes, with little or no regard for small business—in this case, the horse industry. Labor have implemented boring, uniform policies. They tend to ignore the great diversity that our nation has to offer and usually come up with the wrong answer. My final point is that the coverage of this legislation will be far from comprehensive. It is estimated that only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection and, furthermore, that approximately 80 per cent of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon pleasure and performance horse owners, who derive no income from their horses and, therefore, would receive little or no compensation through the EADRA as a result of a disease event. This is not good for the racing industry or for the pleasure and performance horse owners, who rely upon each other in a symbiotic relationship in ensuring the overall health of the horse industry. In conclusion, the horse industry is very important to the people of my electorate of Swan. The equine influenza outbreak had a significant impact on the people of Western Australia, and the coalition government’s response was considered and admirable. The Labor Party’s proposed response is non-consultative, unresponsive to diversity and unfair and it threatens the health of the horse industry as a whole. Finally, we must not forget that our star Western Australian Olympic equestrians—Clayton and Lucinda Fredericks; and Sonja Johnson, from Albany—would not have been able to compete if equine influenza had been in Western Australia. Therefore, on behalf of my constituents of Swan, I urge the government to rethink its legislation and to act in a sensible and consultative manner when dealing with this important issue. I urge it to get the people who can afford to pay this levy, the state governments, to pay it and let them protect their revenue sources. 6981 11:27:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I have praised the minister on a number of occasions for being in the House when legislation is going through—he always is—but it disappoints me greatly to have no-one here from the departments. Without their presence here, you are just speaking into a hollow, resounding symbol. In the state house whence I came, the head of the department—if there was legislation that concerned any matters within his portfolio of responsibility—was always in the house to face the music. Vince Gauci, the very wonderful leader of Mount Isa Mines for many years—he turned Mount Isa Mines around and made it into the very profitable company it is today—insisted that management at all levels face the music. If you made a decision, you would front up to the men; you would meet with those people and talk to them. It behoved you to do that as a boss. Here, in this place called Canberra, senior public servants hardly ever front up and sit over there in that box. I have hardly ever seen a senior public servant sitting over there. Instead, a couple of junior-junior-junior people are sent along. It is beneath the dignity of senior public servants to come down here, where the people’s voices are to be heard, and face the music. But very serious issues are being canvassed here. In my opinion, the equine flu case will be won by the racehorse and related industries. That means that the people of Australia will have to find $1 billion, because they are going to be successfully sued because of the irresponsibility abroad at the quarantine station from which this disease got away. Let me be very specific—I do not have permission from the senior vet to say this, but he is one of the more prominent people in this field in Australia. I am sure he would be only too happy for me to use his name, but without his permission I cannot. He said he went to inspect a horse at this quarantine station. Because of the nature of the illness of the horse, he had to feel all around the horse. He said, ‘Not only did nobody require that I wash my hands, but there was no washbasin or anything in which I could even wash my hands.’ He said, ‘You are familiar with dairy factories?’ I said, ‘Yes.’ For example, in a dairy factory you have to remove your shoes, put their shoes on, put on overalls which cover your entire body and put on a hat. Before you leave, all those things are taken off, put on the ground, completely fumigated and cleaned. Also, when you walked in, you walked through a bath of disinfectant or antiseptic of some type for your shoes. That is a dairy factory. This was a quarantine station—there should be 20 times those precautions. People could just walk in. He could have taken material off the horse—cut a little piece from the flesh or the skin of the horse—and taken it out. And some procedures would have required that he do that. I have spoken on this again and again in this place because I represent electorates on the receiving end of the incompetence of AQIS. I have spoken in here about the black sigatoka outbreak, which cost us $120 million. I have spoken in here about the papaya fruit fly. There is a case going through the Queensland courts. The Queensland government should be utterly ashamed of themselves. That case alone has probably cost $12 or $15 million—so far. The government will lose that case and, as a result, they will be paying out a hell of a lot more. There was also the white spot disease in prawns. There is hardly any inspection taking place of the prawns coming in to this country from countries where white spot is endemic. The previous minister, the current Leader of the National Party, has borne the brunt of my anger. You have to be angry with him—he was the minister who made the decision on the citrus canker. Material was allowed to be brought in from overseas after they had already had an outbreak. They had an outbreak at Emerald, and they allowed and licensed them to bring material in from a country that is rife with citrus canker. He made the decision to bring the grapes in. I think he did that—I do not think he makes any decisions on anything except for being told what to do by the public servants. There was a party committee of the Liberal Party and National Party, and I think there were about 20 people at the meeting that day, and there was not a single person there who did not criticise him in a most unrestrained manner for having allowed the grapes in from California in exactly the same month that it was announced that one-tenth of all of the Californian grape industry had been wiped out by Pierce’s disease, carried by the glassy-winged sharpshooter—a little animal. They allowed meat in from Brazil—a foot-and-mouth disease country. If America allowed meat to come in from a foot-and-mouth disease country, the beef industry of Australia would be bankrupt tomorrow. If that proposition, which is so abhorrent to every other country on earth, was accepted by Australia then we would be bankrupt tomorrow. What if Japan had accepted the principle that Australia accepted? We are out there showing a ‘good example’. What if that example was followed by other countries? Other countries believe in looking after their farmers instead of being acolytes at the high altar of economic rationalism or free trade—that is their religion, not their philosophy or policy. The meat from Brazil ended up on the dump at Wagga. I think, as we talk, there are probably wild pigs nudging around at the dump at Wagga. If foot-and-mouth disease had got into the wild pig population we would never have eradicated it in Australia, and we would have become a foot-and-mouth disease country from which we could not export any cattle. To put that in perspective, Australia has about 25 million or 26 million head of cattle and Brazil has 176 million head of cattle. If the foot-and-mouth disease problems they have were ignored by America and Japan, we would have had our industry wiped out in three seconds. We have set a bad example and, by some miracle, we have not paid the price for it. I pay very great tribute to Senator Heffernan and his very unrestrained criticisms of AQIS. During my time in this place—I do not know what it is but it is probably 14 or 15 years—and my 20 years in the state house, I doubt whether I have ever heard a positive comment about the performance of AQIS in even the most simple, elementary thing that is required of them. And I do not criticise their staff. In fact, I get stories from a lot of the people that they employ. The boys on the ground are fine; they do the best they can. I have said continually in this place that it is very simple. For example, there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that the papaya fruit fly outbreak or the black sigatoka outbreak, which cost the Australian economy $100 million, came in from the Torres Strait. All of these diseases are endemic in the Indonesian archipelago—Oceania. They come in through the Torres Strait, where at any time you can go to any of those islands. Melanesians and people from New Guinea, on the Torres Strait islands, come and go as they please and have done so for thousands of years. They bring those diseases with them. We can stop that: 99.9 per cent of every single thing that comes into Australia from the Torres Strait goes through the Horn Island airport, which is the airport for the Torres Strait, or crosses the ferry at the Jardine River, south of Bamaga. So you have to have an inspector at the airport on Horn Island and you have to pay the ferryman. If you had just trained up the ferryman and paid him, you would not have had the black sigatoka and the papaya fruit fly outbreaks. Those two outbreaks might have cost the Australian economy $200 million or $300 million. It was recommended that the cadmium levels in peanuts be raised to enable Chinese peanuts to come into Australia. I thought the name of the game was to try and keep stuff out so that we could look after our own people in Australia. We decided that we should have more renal cancer as a result of that. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —How about the horses? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —This is at the very essence of the horse debate. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —No, this is at the very essence of the horse debate, my friend. You are obviously very ignorant of the principles involved. The honourable representative of the opposition is laughing. He thinks that is funny. But I will explain it to him, because obviously a lot of things go over his head. I will explain it in simple language so that even a three-year-old might be able to understand. If AQIS is not performing then you have to secure a horrific amount of money from Australian taxpayers. That is what this bill, the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, is about today. It is because of the continuous failure of AQIS that the taxpayers of Australia are up for literally thousands of million of dollars. Mechanisms need to be put in place to prevent this from happening. For your information, my friend, here is where the rubber meets the road: the people who are going to pay will be a tiny little narrow group of people, whereas the whole of the Australian people are now bearing the burden of the incompetence of AQIS. I think to some degree that the National Party has paid the price for the incompetence of their now leader. They rewarded him by putting him at the front of the queue and making him their leader—which is a message for every Australian. It will probably yield benefits for them in Rob Oakeshott’s electorate this weekend. Where the rubber meets the road is: who pays for this continuous incompetence? Firstly, the government should pay because it is at fault in the administration of this portfolio. There has been a continuous failure of government over the last 20 years to pull these incompetent people into line—and I always use as my example Horn Island and the Jardine ferry. What is that going to cost the Australian people? What has not paying the ferryman, not having an inspector there, cost us? The equine flu— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —The flu! HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Oh, it went over your head. Even though I explained it in terms that a kindergarten student could have understood, it went over your head. I am not surprised that it went over your head. That says something about you, my friend, not about what I am saying. If you lead with your chin, you will get a broken jaw. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—I invite the member for Kennedy to ignore interjections. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Where the rubber meets the road is that 50,000 new horses are registered each year in Australia. If there is an outbreak of some description then the owners of those 50,000 horses will have to pay. The cost of repairing the damage of this last disease outbreak—isolating the disease and eradicating it—is expected to be $110 million. But I suspect that these people will not be up for $110 million. I suspect that they will be up for the $1,000 million that Mr John O’Shea and other leading racehorse trainers will be taking the government to task for. I do not blame the current government. The last government was responsible for this. I suspect that those 50,000 horse owners will have to pay not only the $110 million but also the $1,000 million. I would like the minister to clarify this and include a guarantee in the bill that we will not have to pay for the incompetence of the people at AQIS. They should have been sued over the papaya fruit fly, white spot, most certainly citrus canker, Brazilian meat, Chinese peanuts and fire blight in apples. AQIS should have been sued. I also think the individual officers that made those decisions should have been sued. That is going a long way, but there must be some punishment for the level of incompetence of the people who managed the quarantine station and allowed the equine flu to come into this country. If you expose this nation to the loss of $1,000 million then there must be some punishment that accrues to those who commit the grossest possible irresponsibility. I thank Noel Chiconi, from many generations of horse lovers and cattlemen in Australia. I am happy to say that I have been associated with four generations of the Chiconi family and their great contribution to the cattle and horse industries in Australia. We cannot really run cattle without horses. There will be those who claim that you can, but I would simply say that you cannot. As for the government listening to the Australian Horse Industry Council, in all rural industries we have a saying: the peak body disease. That is extraordinarily true. When any primary industry representative organisation goes above a certain level it becomes part of the government. It comes back and tells you why you have to accept a program—and that has again happened here. I could go through a hundred such cases, but time will not allow me. It was always said that the NFF stood for ‘no family farms’, because its policy was about corporate farming. Anyone inside rural industries of Australia knows that a former president of the NFF—I think it was Macfarlane but I may be doing him an injustice—went on to the Reserve Bank. People asked, ‘Was he representative of rural industries?’ I said, ‘He is representative of the enemies of rural industries.’ Here we have another organisation saying that they are representative. The pony clubs may be a bit bigger than the Australians Campdraft Association, of which Noel Chiconi is the president; in actual fact, the campdrafters are probably as big as any group on the Australian Horse Industry Council. He said that that they most certainly do not speak for the campdrafters. I dare say, if we went to the rank and file of every one of these organisations, we would find that they disagree violently with the Australian Horse Industry Council. We have asked the minister again and again. I remember when the former member for Gwydir Mr Anderson was appointed as the primary industries minister. Mr Causley, the now retired member for Page, said, ‘My first words of advice to you as the minister are: do not listen to the peak bodies.’ He was one of the most successful ministers in recent Australian history. He said: ‘Do not listen to the peak bodies. You will get yourself in all sorts of trouble, John. You will not be the minister in three years time if you listen to the peak bodies.’ The former Leader of the National Party and primary industries minister, the member for Gwydir, listened to the peak bodies. Three years later, he was not the minister. I knew what was going on behind the scenes: it was just put quite bluntly that he was no longer to be the minister. He carried out the will of the peak bodies. That will is not the will of the people in these industries. They have had a free-market policy. You would not find a farmer in all of Australia’s farming industries—except for a couple of short-chinned galoots who had a silver spoon handed down to them from their grandaddy or something—who would think that the NFF spoke for them. Look no further than the biodiversity act and the Mabo act in this place. The member for Calare is smiling. I suppose he can, because he said, ‘Unless you change your position on Mabo, we’ll take the New South Wales farmers out.’ I must pay him tribute and praise him for that. But it was just a classic example of how the NFF never spoke for the farmers. We would plead with the minister not to listen to them. We would say that, in this case of equine flu, the owners of horses that were registered in the last year in Australia would be up for $1,250 per horse. They would take the entire cost burden instead of all of the horse owners in Australia. But what we need is a fund that covers all of agriculture so that, when we have an outbreak of anything, the farmer will be game to open up. At the present moment, he is terrified to find out what the disease is because he will be wiped out financially. We need an all-encompassing fund. 6986 11:47:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —Along with quite a lot of other people—particularly those from the more rural electorates, but also people representing those not necessarily in rural areas but who have an interest in horses or who have a professional interest, such as in the racing industry—I rise to speak on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills. I suppose that I am more concerned with those people who either have horses as part of a professional industry, such as from the stock point of view, or are involved with pony clubs and showjumping—people who are very much affected by this bill but who are less involved with the threat to Australia from outside diseases. While I am a big supporter of the thoroughbred industry—it provides an awful lot of employment and activity right around Australia—it is the international thoroughbred industry that this is probably centred on because they are the ones who put the pressure on quarantine. The international thoroughbred industry are the ones who are moving horses around, by and large, and it would seem almost certain that it is the international thoroughbred industry who have brought on the recent catastrophic situation for the horse industry. However, that said, while we do need all the protection we can have, I do not think that this is really the right way to go about it. To ask pony clubs and people who simply use station horses to be involved in a levy system which treats those who place the most pressure on quarantine—that is, the totally professional thoroughbred industry and in particular the international industry—exactly the same as those who simply go to a lot of expense to allow their children to participate in a very healthy and commendable activity, such as pony clubs and the like, does not seem to me to be just. Look at what happened almost a year ago exactly—in fact, a year ago last week. I remember it well; the Condobolin Show was to be held on the Saturday. On the Friday night before, when it all blew up, horses reached Parkes from Sydney and, as events transpired, brought the equine influenza disease out there. Without going into how all of that occurred, it had a profound effect on central-west and western New South Wales. The Condobolin Show—where, thankfully, the disease never showed up—was quarantined for a few weeks after that event. Parkes was quarantined for months, and it had a profound effect on the horse industry right around the region. I do not need to go on about that; everybody is aware of it. The thoroughbred-racing industry in the bush was paralysed for a long time. People lost a lot of money and basically had a 12-month hiatus in their livelihood and their industry. But it was not just the thoroughbred industry; it affected everyone involved in the horse industry, including those involved in pony clubs. I will never forget the year we spent going to shows without horses—it was very different! You certainly realised that horses play a bigger role in the smaller shows than they do in the big shows. Now all these shows are coming on again—as I said, it was only about a week ago last year that all this transpired—and you can go to those same shows today and see the kids there with their horses, especially in the central west, where the shows are now in full swing. Last week we had the Lake Cargelligo and the Narromine shows; Trundle Show was the other day and we have the Cowra Show next week. All those shows in the central west—Cudal et cetera—are on, and they are going to be totally different this year, through having horses there and the kids there enjoying themselves. To look after an animal is a great learning experience for a child. Those who deal with young people who have a disability or a problem in their life which has caused them to become socially estranged say that horses are a great way of bringing them back. The people who do that—who give a lot of their time to do so—notice that. So the horse industry is not just about the Melbourne Cup. It is about kids. But it is also about disadvantaged people, and it provides a lot for them. It is quite fantastic to see how much people give of their time to help others less fortunate and what it does for them. To return to the show situation: the Parkes Show, which I mentioned before, was on again last week. It is a three-day show, one of the biggest shows in western New South Wales. And of all the shows in New South Wales it was the only show that had to be cancelled last year because of equine influenza. As I said, it was quarantined pretty much on the Saturday or the Sunday, and the show was due to start on the Monday. The point I am getting at is that the show society at Parkes had absolutely no opportunity to make provision, simply because quarantined horses were situated within the Parkes Showground and were there for months afterwards. In fact, one of my employees at the time had three horses there—her children’s horses—and the expense and the trouble she had to go to were extreme. Also, I would have to make the point to the House, as I have to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, that this show—because it was the only show that I am aware of that had to cancel, through no fault of its own—certainly should have come within the provisions of the assistance that we made available to charitable or non-profit organisations. I was talking to the Chairman of the Parkes Show Society, Andrew Hall, just recently, and I think that the amount they found they had lost was something like $80,000—and that was unrecoverable money. So I am very disappointed that the current government has not seen fit to include them in the reparations that were made. I believe that we were going to encompass them; however, that did not happen before the election. But that is not the point. The point is that, if the current provisions did not make it possible for Parkes to get that money, then the minister should make sure he makes other provisions to ensure that they do. That show was last week. The Parkes Show Society have had enormous trouble over the last 12 months. To fill an $80,000 hole in funds—for a voluntary, non-profit community organisation that runs a three-day show, one of the very few west of the Blue Mountains—is an enormous undertaking. It has done everything it was asked to do and provided every figure it was asked to provide. It was the only show in New South Wales that had to be cancelled; it was through no fault of its own, and yet it did it. As regards this bill, I think it does create divisions within the horse industry. As I said, at one end you have the international thoroughbred industry, with stallions moving around the world, and they put a lot of pressure on quarantine. I am not going to go into whose fault it was, whether that of AQIS or whoever; the situations under which EI got in are pretty obvious. I accept that the minister and the department have to deal with that. And I do not think anybody has a serious problem with the horse industry having to contribute, as the other animal industries have to do. But, in terms of asking the industry to pay for all this in the future, the way that has been done is not equitable, and I think that in the future it needs to be made equitable. I do believe they need to take another look at the way the levy is being applied, when 80 per cent of the levy would be collected from pleasure and recreational horse owners who do not have a commercial opportunity to raise that money. And it has got to be healthier for kids to have an interest in horses, whether their own or their friends’, than to be running around looking for drugs or whatever. So the horse industry is not just about professional commercial enterprises; it is very much about lifestyle. It is very much about having a healthy aspect to life, not just in rural communities but on the edge of Sydney and on the edges of cities everywhere. I would recommend it to anybody. I was lucky enough to have an upbringing where horses were a way of life, and I think you will find that everybody who has come into close contact with and had to look after a large animal is the better for it. And, as I said earlier, a lot of the horse industry is about helping people who have problems in their lives—either young people or people with disabilities—and they are wonderfully advantaged by the opportunities that people go to great lengths to provide for them. I think that we have to look at the aspect that so much of this levy is going to be collected from people who—I cannot put it any other way—have no commercial ability to offset that levy. 6988 11:59:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 0 Mr SCHULTZ —I rise to place on the record my opposition to the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills. At the outset, I compliment the honourable member for Calare, Mr Cobb, for justifiably and understandably raising the issues related to volunteers, horses and the disabled. I also compliment him on raising the issue of the horse industry associated with the show system that operates in New South Wales and across the country. The points that he made are very relevant. In the electorate of Hume there are many mums and dads who have a pony in the backyard for their children, and I believe it is unfair to burden them with the cost of protecting the thoroughbred and racing industries. Getting back to the point raised by the honourable member for Calare, it is particularly galling to realise that groups such as Riding for the Disabled are also entrapped by this despicable revenue-raising arrogance. Not only will these bills load them up with responsibility for carrying the cost of disease responses; they will do so without providing representation or, indeed, the means to find the levy funds demanded. Basically, disabled children and adults who are being assisted by volunteers will have to find the money or give up this activity, which provides an outlet for physical expression and builds self-esteem. The volunteer-driven, community-minded organisations that are assisting disadvantaged people in society will be heavily hit by this levy and will have to either give up these activities, which add so much to each local community, or spend even more of their time fundraising to pay this outrageous tax so they can be allowed to provide their vital services. In the Australian democracy we believe in representation at all levels, but the system of consultation proposed by this Labor government does not include many of those mums and dads. Peak livestock bodies do not represent these people; therefore they have no voice in the decisions being made about the imposts on them. Let us look at the history. The Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement, EADRA, was created in 2002 and included the Commonwealth, states, territories and peak livestock industry councils. EADRA replaced the Commonwealth/States Cost Sharing Agreement. It was created with the goal of establishing a mechanism to facilitate the making of rapid responses to and the control and eradication or containment of certain animal diseases, with the costs of the response shared between governments and industry according to the classification of the disease. The peak horse industry representative bodies—the Australian Horse Industry Council, AHIC; Harness Racing Australia, HRA; and the Australian Racing Board, ARB—are the only bodies of the horse industry that are eligible to become signatories to the EADRA. I draw your attention to this point, because even if all the backyard horse owners were to get together and form a body they would not be allowed to join EADRA. Secondly, note how all the peak bodies represent business, not the people who have a horse for pleasure. In fact, upon commencement of the EADRA in 2002 the Australian Horse Industry Council was unable to secure a suitable mechanism to raise funds to cover potential liabilities and thus is not currently a party to the agreement. The coalition opposes these bills, as do I, as they propose a levy collection method that is not accepted as fair and equitable by the overwhelming proportion of horse owners, who would become liable to pay any future levy. The bills give no consideration to the potential risk of disease outbreak applicable to each sector of the Australian horse industry. For instance, what is the difference in risk between one horse in a backyard and a racehorse that is being shuttled between countries? There is potentially a much higher risk associated with the thoroughbred sector, 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 spread being higher in the racing industries, with the associated number of movements both internationally and domestically, the bill proposes that all registered horses be subject to an equal levy. The number of horses in Australia is estimated to be 1.2 million. The total number of horse registrations a year, including pony club registrations, is estimated at 50,000 to 60,000. In the 2005-06 breeding season, 29,070 thoroughbred mares produced 17,854 foals, of which 13,618 were registered. That represents only approximately 20 per cent of total horses registered nationally coming from the largest commercial group in the Australian horse industry. An analysis of total horse registrations reveals that the majority of horse registrations, approximately 80 per cent, are with breed associations or pleasure and performance riding groups such as pony clubs and cutting, reining and campdrafting groups. The unfairness of these bills is further exposed through these figures, which show that only a small proportion of the total number of horses would be subject to levy collection. Further, approximately 80 per cent of any liability to be recovered through the levy would fall upon owners of pleasure and performance horses, who derive no income from their horses and therefore would receive little or no compensation through EADRA as a result of a disease event. The government also claims that all three of the peak national horse representative bodies support the passage of these bills. This is not totally correct. The president of Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, in a letter to Minister Burke of 13 August 2008, said: TBA supports passage of the Bills 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. This is conditional support and relies upon the government to review the collection method for fairness and equity. The AHIC has written in support of the bills, even though many of its member organisations strongly oppose the bills. An AHIC survey of its member organisations, reported in July 2008, found that, while a majority of respondents supported the industry becoming a signatory to EADRA, the proposed collection method based upon horse registrations was not supported. Individual AHIC member groups have also expressed staunch opposition to these bills. The Queensland Horse Council general meeting of 15 July 2008 passed the following motion: That 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 also opposes the signing of the EADRA due to the financial impost that would be placed upon their members. Pleasure horses and hobby horses are not the industry. They are a sector that supports the industry, such as farriers, feed suppliers, vets, event operators, trainers, breeders, tack and equipment suppliers and so on, yet they would be liable for the greatest financial burden under the levy proposal. The recent EI outbreak highlighted that EI caused significant social disruptions as well as economic impacts. The EI outbreak also highlighted the inequalities 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. That is in line with a standing committee inquiry that I was associated with which took evidence on the bee industry. This would indicate that we have a massive problem in the AQIS inspection and quarantine area that needs to be addressed. I respectfully put to you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that a message should be conveyed to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke, that this bill will put an impost on innocent people who are trying to have some recreational activity with horses and particularly on those volunteers who are associated with supplying a very humane and decent service to people suffering with a disability. The minister, as a decent human being, needs to consider that the levy process that he is proposing in this bill is not the way to go. This levy process will put pressure on people who are out doing some good in the community in an environment where a government agency is the prime reason for this levy being brought forward. The Callinan report, as I said, determined that the most likely cause was a failing within the quarantine process. Under the proposed bills, 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 being passed to the racing sector. Why should the pleasure, performance and hobby sector pay for the problems of the thoroughbred and racing sectors? More importantly, why should they pay for a government agency’s incompetence in imposing an unforeseen cost on them? In fact, why should the industry pay for the response to a government created disease outbreak? How shall these peak bodies raise money to take the government to court to prove fault and then claim compensation? They do not have the means to do so, and that is another issue that quite obviously the minister’s minders either did not consider or totally ignored when they gave advice to the minister. Again, in these instances, people with horses for pleasure would bear 80 per cent of the cost and, because they would not be suffering business losses, would be unable to claim compensation. Despite what was learnt from the EI outbreak, this Labor government has failed to address any of the concerns raised by horse owners—most of whom are working families. It has failed to address them because the minister, in a typical Yes, Minister manner, is listening to the bureaucrats, who have absolutely no interest in or, indeed, indication of how these stupid recommendations end up in legislation and impact on ordinary working Australians who have a love and a pleasure associated with horses. This government’s sole action was for the minister to write to horse owners on 11 June 2008 directly threatening them by refusing further assistance in the event of disease outbreaks such as EI if the industry failed to sign up to the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. How is that for looking after the interests of working families! This Labor government has failed to assist the horse industry to help themselves prepare and respond to any future disease outbreaks and should stand condemned for its inaction and, more importantly, for the despicable way it has treated ordinary working families who have an association with an animal that is loved by each and every one of us in this place—the horse. I condemn the government for even contemplating putting this sort of legislation into this place. I will certainly be supporting the coalition in opposing the bill. 6991 12:12:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I rise to speak in opposition to the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and cognate bills and to draw the attention of the House to the impact that these proposed measures would have on horse owners in my electorate. This legislation would impose an unfair and inequitable burden on those horse owners that derive little or no income from their horses. The legislation would force these owners to pay a levy to cover the costs of a disease outbreak and to essentially subsidise the racing industry. As part of the agreement, each industry contributes funding which can be used to cover the cost of a disease outbreak within a particular industry. The government is also bound to provide financial assistance depending on the type and size of outbreak and the industry. The legislation before the House would force anyone who registers a horse to pay a levy to raise the necessary funds to allow the equine industry to become a signatory to the agreement. I only have to drive 10 minutes from my home in Coffs Harbour to be among the many small farms in the Orara Valley. Many of these properties are home to horses which are used exclusively for non-business or recreational purposes. Many of the horse owners in my electorate make no income from their horses; they ride for pleasure. The statistics show that these circumstances are not unique to my electorate. Only 20 per cent of horse registrations in Australia are from the thoroughbred industry. This means that about 80 per cent of the horses registered in Australia belong to people who derive little or no income from their horses. These are people who own a horse to round up cattle, to ride at the pony club or to give their children the enjoyment of the ownership of a horse. These are people who compete in equestrian, campdrafting and showjumping events, often at great personal expense. Some of these 80 per cent of horses outside the thoroughbred industry belong to people who run small breeding operations. These horse owners were hit very hard by the equine influenza outbreak. Because they receive little or no income from owning a horse, they were not eligible for government assistance but still had to bear the costs of extra vet visits and vaccinations. Under this proposed scheme, these small-time horse owners would receive little assistance in the event of a future disease outbreak but would be forced to pay the same levy as a professional racehorse owner, who may receive substantial financial support. I have received numerous letters from people in my electorate who are furious at the prospect of paying a levy on every horse registration. One such letter I received was from a small breeder, Karangi Foxbridge Farm Arabians, who said of the proposed levy: This is the final insult to the many small breeders that have been almost crippled by EI so far. I for one have had no assistance, vaccinations, or help from the Government. I refuse to pay for a situation which I had no involvement in creating. It is hard enough as it is to try to market horses, any added cost would mean the end of breeding horses for us. Another of my constituents from the Clarence Valley wrote to me with a story typical of many caught up in the EI outbreak. He said at the time: We have lost the opportunity to compete in the annual futurity event at Tamworth ... One of our two horses has been trapped interstate at some cost ... We have borne this rather stoically in my opinion, but to now hear that we may be expected to pay again for the inconvenience we have not caused makes us sad as well as angry. We should not have to pay a levy at all. In the event of a disease outbreak, recreational horse owners would not receive significant financial assistance under the EAD Response Agreement, but they would still be required to contribute to the scheme. This plainly goes against the principles that are firmly established in our society. In essence, the bill requires that recreational horse owners and small breeders, comprising some 80 per cent of horse owners, provide assistance to 20 per cent of horse owners who are commercial operators operating on a large scale as part of the thoroughbred racing industry. It is just not fair. To force recreational horse owners to pay a levy the same as large professional breeders and owners is indeed not fair. They generate significant cash flow. The racing industry is a major, substantial industry in our nation and it certainly has the capacity to pay; many recreational horse owners do not. In the event of a disease emergency, the racing industry will receive the majority of the financial assistance provided by the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement scheme and, as such, the racing industry should pay for the majority of the funding. The government has certainly made the claim that the industry and horse owners support the proposal being put forward by the government. But, interestingly, I received a document from the Queensland Horse Council. They describe themselves as the peak body for the Queensland horse industry. They provided a copy of a letter which was sent to Minister Burke. The letter is quite enlightening. It says: Dear Minister, I am writing on behalf of the members of the Queensland Horse Council Inc. (QHC) in regards to the debate occurring in Federal Parliament this afternoon. We are deeply concerned that the pleasure and performance horse owners in Queensland and Australia in general are being misrepresented with respect to the signing of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement (EADRA) and any resultant horse levies. As the endorsed Peak Body for the Queensland Horse Industry and representing 37 500 members made up from a wide range of equine activities, the QHC secretary, Ms Lorraine Decker corresponded to Minister Tony Burke conveying the members opposition to EADRA. In this letter sent on the 23rd July 2008 it stated that after three surveys of our members an overwhelming decision was reached not to become signatories to EADRA in its current form. The members were also opposed to compulsory horse registration and microchipping and were against any levies. Whilst it has been confirmed that The Honourable Tony Burke received this letter a response has not yet been received. At an Australian Horse Industry Council (AHIC), Industry Advisory Sub Committee (IAC) meeting in Sydney on 13th May 2008 the topic of EADRA was also discussed. Present at this meeting were members of QHC, AHIC, Australian Campdraft Association, Pony Club Australia, Thoroughbred Breeders Australia, Equestrian Federation of Australia and Australian Quarter Horse Association just to name a few, all on behalf of the constituents. The results at this meeting were quite interesting. Did we see an overwhelming show of support for the system of levies as currently proposed by the government, as has been claimed? No, we did not. The results of the vote, as indicated in the aforementioned document, show that 13 of the associations were opposed to any horse levy, two associations supported a horse levy and one association supported a future levy. So there was basically a vote of 13 to three against the imposition of such levies. Given that, the government is claiming to have some agreement from industry on this. This is quite alarming. The letter went on to say: It has been made known to the QHC that in Federal Parliament today it will be put forward that the Horse Industry is in agreement to EADRA and resultant levies ... This is in stark contrast to what the Australian Horse Industry is actually saying. There we have it—evidence from a meeting at which there was a vote of 13 to three against the imposition of such levies. That is certainly not widespread industry support. In conclusion, there is no question that the equine industry needs to raise enough funds to join other livestock industries in the disease response agreement. The problem is the way in which those funds will be collected. The vast majority of members of the Australian Horse Industry Council are against this proposal, and I call on the government to work with the different sectors of the equine industry to develop a levy scheme that takes into account the relative financial strengths of the different players within the industry. The recreational horse owners in my electorate will be unfairly targeted if this legislation is allowed to pass through the parliament in its current form. That is why I am joining with my opposition colleagues to oppose the passage of these bills through the House. It was interesting to note that the member for Page, who was in this House earlier, was very supportive of the legislation, supportive of a levy on her local pony clubs and supportive of a levy on her local small breeders, who do not have the capacity to pay or to make substantial financial gain from their ownership of horses—in fact, to them, ownership of horses can be a very expensive exercise. So I would call on the member for Page to front her local pony clubs and explain to them why she is supporting a tax on their sport and a tax on their recreational pursuits. 6993 12:23:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —At the commencement of my remarks on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and associated bills, I should declare my interest in this matter. I am a racehorse owner and a racehorse breeder. I held a trainers licence for about 20 years. I am proudly a life member of the Carnarvon Race Club. I could spend the whole of this speech telling you about country racing. I was, for nine years, on the committee of the Western Australian Turf Club, including two years as its chairman. My son now holds the family trainers licence, and I am very proud to say that my daughter is the Chief Veterinary Officer of Racing and Wagering Western Australia. I think at the time when she was first headhunted and appointed as the chief vet of the Western Australia Turf Club, as it once was, she was the first woman in Australia to achieve that standing. By the way, I produced a maiden in an open race about a month ago. It ran third and paid 17 bucks! 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —What were the odds to win? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr TUCKEY —The evidence that I was not on it is the price! Nevertheless, I want you to understand that I attended as chairman of the Western Australian Turf Club at the old Principal Club meetings and I have been through all this debate over a long time. I also want to say that I have been appreciative and supportive of the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry’s efforts to date. In terms of this speech, whilst I will point out what I believe are the pitfalls, I do have a suggestion as to how the government might reconsider this matter in gaining a contribution from the overall racing industry. The points that I want to make go to the difficulties in collecting a levy of this nature from the industry in which I have taken a long and great interest. I have just received some advice referring to levies on livestock. I notice that there is one called the Beef Production Levy, though I am not sure how that is associated. There is a cattle and livestock delivered for export levy, a livestock slaughter levy, a cattle and livestock exporters charge and a cattle and livestock transaction levy. These are all levies that are collected, for a variety of reasons, and are often government subsidised. They represent promotional levies and other sorts of levies. Importantly, they are all levied at a very convenient point in the ownership of animals—when they are sold, exported or slaughtered. That is a simple process, and it delivers the funds that are needed for whatever purpose. When we get to racehorses or other forms of horses, I am not sure the public would be too interested in a slaughter levy. But the point I want to make is that it is extremely difficult to arrive at a system as simple as that. The first question is: how would you do it? The arguments made by the member for Cowper—with which I somewhat disagree as a racing man—included, ‘It is just not fair; what about the poor, old pony club?’ and ‘Racing has the capacity to pay’. Fortunately, I am not a heavy gambler, so I probably would have been in severe debt. I know how little financial return there is for the average participant. It is often said that it is the only form of entertainment where the actor pays to perform. About 95 per cent of those participating do so at a financial loss. Again, if I had some spare time, I would be spending it on talking about the way the taxation commissioner has gambled with the racing establishment over time. He typically seems to think that, if you are making profits, you should pay tax but, if you are making losses, you should not claim them. I note that one of the courts the other day disagreed with his view on the rights of someone conducting a business of racing to lose money and claim tax deductions. Mention was made about how many yearlings are bred for the racing and pacing industries of Australia. It is a huge number, but the fact of life is that about 10 per cent of yearlings sold at auction actually get to the racecourse—let alone deliver a stake—and it is a very expensive process, including the purchase or breeding of the animal, which I do, which leads to finding out if they are any good. Then of course you find, as we did just recently, that a horse shows some promise but then he gets a throat infection and he has had to be turned out at additional cost. But I will front up again, because I love the industry. I would say that there is no greater level of excitement than having a horse win a race. I need to draw to the attention of the House where the money is and, as the equine influenza proved, what a significant contribution the racing industry makes to the national economy. When I was involved at the administrative level, we used to claim to be the third biggest single employer in Australia. It is a big employer and it creates all sorts of opportunities for people with perhaps little skill or knowledge to gain employment. That is another issue confronting us which I think I should draw to the minister’s attention before explaining how I would address the problem. I have a son who is five foot 10 who has an 18-year-old son, my grandson, who is six foot four. The trend amongst Australians is that we do not starve kids into weighing 40 kilos or 45 kilos as mature people; yet, by the time you put a saddle on a horse, if you weigh over 50 kilos then you would probably exceed the 53-kilo minimum weight. Furthermore, when we send horses out to do their exercise, it is not a good idea to put 100-kilo people on their backs for that exercise—notwithstanding the fact that I used to. The industry is desperately short of people to work in it, across the board. I personally visited South America and went to the Buenos Aires racetrack to talk with jockeys and others there who would be most excited and delighted to come to Australia. Whilst their remuneration in Buenos Aires in their currency is about the same as ours, our currency was at the time worth three times theirs. So they could come here, earn good money and repatriate some of it back to their family or relatives if they chose. I choose South America as an example because it has a horseracing culture. Little kids ride horses there. In some areas you can go to a restaurant and they will ride their horses in, with their Mexican type hats on and everything else. They are the people we want. Trying to bring people down from Asia does not mean there is a horse culture. I encourage the minister to talk to his colleague minister about a simple fact: you cannot apply 457 visa principles to the racing industry. Everybody gets paid on a contract basis. A track worker today gets paid anything between $10 and $20 for five minutes work to ride a horse around the track. Jockeys typically get $100 for a losing ride and a percentage of the stake money, which, when it comes to the Melbourne Cup, would set you up for a couple of years. It is a lot better than what we earn. But the fact of life is that those principles apply, so when people come here they should not come on a guarantee of $50,000 a year, notwithstanding that they have much potential to earn more. The award for some of these people is probably $20,000 to $25,000. It should be recognised that there is a special problem which relates to the size of the individual. It is a skilled category, I guess. Those people should be allowed to come here with a sponsor, probably the race clubs themselves, on a reasonable guarantee of the award wages for a stablehand but with the recognition that they will be paid the moneys they earn if they become track riders or take on jobs in any other of those categories. It is only the people who muck out the boxes who are on a wage. The reward system, otherwise known as a sling, also goes well throughout the industry. So someone needs to look at it as a special case. There is a need throughout the industry to bring these people in, if only to meet those special criteria. I will return to the matter I really want to raise today. Gambling on racehorses is a great earner for state governments. The figures that I obtained from the statistics put out by the Australian Racing Board tell me—I presume it was last year, but it would not matter that much—that the New South Wales state levy delivered $228.68 million to state coffers. The figures for the other states were as follows: Victoria, $187.85 million; Queensland, $69.78 million; South Australia, $18.77 million; WA, $63.78 million; Tasmania, $6.23 million; the ACT, $5.2 million; and the Northern Territory, $9.16 million. It, by the way, gives nothing back to its local racing industry, and that is probably because most of the betting is not on its local industry; it is a device to give people the opportunity to bet worldwide. At the same time, from the profits of those TABs, similar amounts do go to racing. In fact, the totals are comparable. The total of the state levies is $589.45 million. The payment to racing, which of course then materialises in stake money in most areas, is what keeps the industry alive and people paying large sums of money for animals to compete in these races. But many do it for the prestige. The late Jack Ingham complained in my presence once that he had to register 150 yearlings, poor fellow, in his own name. To get the prospect of a start for all of them in the Golden Slipper he had to pay upfront $100 or something. I am sure Jack could afford it, but the fact of life is that all of those contributions are frequently not taken into account. Because of the complexity of collecting the proposed levy, I would encourage the government—wall-to-wall Labor, as we know, but maybe not after Saturday—to talk to the states. The fact of life is that there are sufficient funds accumulated by state governments for them to pick up this responsibility. The Commonwealth does not get them. By the way, I think in the interests of racing it is time that the Commonwealth looked at Betfair and other internet type gambling companies to find out whether they are making a contribution relevant to where they take their bets. But otherwise I think some fees through the licensing system should be levied to make their contribution. One of the tragedies of the English system, now slightly repaired, was that all the private bookmakers paid nothing for racing. Unless you were an Arab oil sheikh or an otherwise very wealthy racing person you could not get into it. The worst thing in the world is to have a situation where owners have to gamble to cover the costs of racing, because that is when they start to cheat—and historically they did start to cheat. They cheated magnificently, because they were taking on the public. Big stake money puts a lot of integrity into racing. I would ask the minister to have a look at the state agricultural departments, which have all the basic responsibilities for stock inspection. The pony clubs do not contribute to the revenue of state governments. I accept that. It would be virtually impossible, because you would spend more money trying to get money out of them than it is worth. Any taxes ought to be applied to the registered racing industries and maybe showjumpers—think of the cost of getting them to the Olympic Games! But I think we would be better avoiding a levy, because it is not practical. The state governments, under their constitutional responsibility, should be responsible for this. There should be some form of agreement. Maybe the Australian government could be a participant in forming a fund for that purpose—taken from the levies they place on the gambling interests generated by horse racing and all the other animal racing industries. I will close on that point. As I have said, I have found that the minister has been available to take my point of view on other matters, and I thank him for that. He knows that I represent a very large proportion of Australia’s agricultural industry. It is not my job to look for fault when I can look for benefits for my people, but I believe the government’s interests and the horse owners’ interests would be best served if this money were accessed from the current revenue arrangements. 6997 12:39:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —in reply—I want to thank all honourable members for their participation in this debate on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008 and related bills. I have managed to be in the House for a good part of it, although some pre-existing commitments meant I was not here for some of the speeches last night and for part of this morning’s debate as well. I understand from comments made by the member for Kennedy that at least one time when I was not here my officials were not here either. As minister I take responsibility for that and I apologise to the House. I take my responsibilities as a legislator very seriously. This is not easy policy by any stretch of the imagination. What we are dealing with here is something which has been worked through in all the other livestock sectors. Be it cattle, sheep, pigs or the chook market, all have levy systems in place. In each of those cases that was a much easier thing to set up because the common point is that these animals are being raised for slaughter. So it makes sense to impose a levy and it is very easy to find the point where you would impose a levy. At the same time, while there are differences in value from beast to beast, you do not get the extent of variation that you find in the horse industry. That means that, in trying to come up with a way to implement a levy system in the horse industry, getting everybody in agreement is a good deal more difficult than it is in any other sector of the livestock industry. I want to address a number of presumptions which have characterised parts of the debate. A number of members opposite—not all—have run the argument that, because of the disproportionate value of horses, only the racing sector, or primarily the racing sector, should be levied. There are two points I want to make on that. The first is that, depending on the disease, the cost of managing a disease outbreak is basically a cost per animal, so the expenditure of the money, whether a horse has a higher value or not, does not make that much difference to the cost of the emergency response. The second presumption in a couple of the speeches, particularly by the honourable member for Cowper, is that somehow everyone in the racing sector is made of money. There is no doubt that when you go to the track there are some pretty wealthy people there, but there are also a whole lot of people whom you would never describe as wealthy. When we look at the wealthiest people in the racing sector and the people in the pony club, I think it is dangerous for us to presume that we have made a fair comparison across industries. The worst option of all would be for the horse industry not to become part of the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement. If they were not part of it, there would be only two paths. Some members opposite have criticised me for writing to the peak bodies and saying that, while the government was prepared to wear the cost of the EI outbreak and not impose a levy—because we decided it would be wrong to do that retrospectively—there was an expectation that if the industry wanted to be part of the assistance that comes from the EADRA then they would have to sign up to it as well. That was taken as a horrible thing for me to say and a terrible threat to make to the industry. Can I just suggest that if we were to do what some members opposite have suggested—that is, not say to the industry that it has to sign up if it wants these sorts of protections to be in place in the future—the whole EADRA process would unravel. What justification would there be for the cattle industry, the sheep industry or the pig industry to continue with their levy systems if there was a view that if you are not part of it the government will always foot the bill anyway? The whole system would unravel. It does not matter which levy system you end up with, the horse industry is so vast and diverse that there will be a way of saying, ‘You’re not actually catching everybody,’ or ‘Maybe you could do it a better way.’ What we have here is a point where the three peak bodies have found a levy system that they believe they can all wear. Other suggestions have been put forward, such as having a differential levy. These concepts were in part alluded to by the Leader of the National Party when he led for the opposition. If those opposite think for a minute that we would get the harness racing and ARB groups to sign up to that—because without them signing up we would not get there—when they put the argument quite forcefully that the cost of managing a disease outbreak is a cost per animal, not a cost related to the value of the animal, I do not think the opposition have thought through where it would land. It is not enough for just the parliament to agree; we need the peak bodies to reach agreement as well. I suspect what is proposed in the parliament today is not the ideal outcome, if any part of the horse industry could say, ‘We’re going to get an answer that’s just for us,’ because of course there will always be requests that the burden be placed on someone else. But I do not think there is a better option that will be able to get support from the three peak industry bodies. The members of those three peak bodies are not unanimously in support. Of course that is the case; you never get wild enthusiasm when a levy is involved. But we have to make sure that the sector is protected into the future. We also need to understand EI is not the only threat here. Because so many people—whether they are involved in pony clubs, harness racing or general racing at the track—have been through a terrible time with EI, that has, understandably, characterised much of the debate, but we have to remember that this legislation is about protecting the industry if there is another outbreak of something. Hopefully there will not be another outbreak of something. If there is, would it be EI or something else? Who knows? I think we have all had it at the front of our minds—with the tragedies in recent weeks related to the impact not just on the horses but on the people and vets working with horses with respect to Hendra—that there are many diseases which can wreak havoc on those working in the horse industry or working with horses. The worst option would be for there to be no levy put in place. Something which was, I think, well explained by the Leader of the Nationals in his opening remarks was the concept that, if this legislation passes, these levies will start at zero—there will be no immediate impost and levies will only come into place after discussions between the minister and those peak bodies. I agree with the comment of the Leader of the Nationals that it is a good idea for many livestock industries to build up a very nominal contingency fund over time, whether that be with a $10 levy or however that be done. I suspect that in the horse industry that is something that there would be no appetite to do in the immediate term, and that is understandable—they have been through a dreadfully hard time. In the absence of a contingency fund, the levy will remain at zero, but it will mean that we will not be in the situation we were in 12 months ago, when an outbreak occurred and there was no formal mechanism in place to protect the industry. In March this year I announced that debate on these bills would be postponed until after I had received the Callinan inquiry report. After considering Commissioner Callinan’s findings, on 11 June I announced the government would not levy the horse industry to repay its share of the cost of eradicating the EI outbreak of 2007. I note that a year earlier, in 2006, the horse industry had proposed to the previous government a levy arrangement to protect the horse sector against the impacts of emergency animal disease outbreaks. So, for those members opposite who have argued that it is outrageous to impose a levy on the industry at all—and there have been a couple, neither of whom are in the chamber at the moment—that certainly was not the position of the previous government. I suspect it is not even the position of the executive of the opposition. While the intention at the time was for the horse industry and the government to share the costs of the emergency response following the outbreak last year, the new government decided that it would not be fair to ask the industry to make those payments. Looking to the future, this package of bills will give the horse sector the certainty that other livestock sectors have when responding with government to emergency animal disease incursions. These bills will enable the horse sector to become a party to the EADRA, the Emergency Animal Disease Response Agreement—something that they have wanted for years and have been right to want. In short, this package of bills provides certainty for resourcing emergency responses to future horse disease outbreaks. These bills provide a mechanism to impose, collect and appropriate a new levy for the initial registration of horses. The levy will be payable only once and appropriated through Animal Health Australia. It will be paid once on the occasions when it is set at something other than zero. I am very pleased to note that this legislation is supported by those peak groups that make up the horse sector but I acknowledge that among their membership it is not a unanimous view and suspect there would never be a unanimous view on any proposal. There have been quotes from the Chairman of the Racing Board saying, ‘I’m happy to extend my organisation’s wholehearted agreement’; from Harness Racing Australia’s chair saying, ‘Harness Racing Australia supports the bills currently before parliament, which will establish a zero rate levy’; and from the Horse Industry Council’s President saying, ‘The board of the AHIC advises that it supports the passage of these three bills.’ In recent days, this support has been reconfirmed by all organisations.’ They are the peak bodies that we need to be signatories to EADRA. Before I get to my concluding remarks, I want to talk to some points that were raised by the member for New England. I have covered the issues he referred to of the division among groups and some of the equity concerns. He also raised questions concerning registration and noted that it is not compulsory for the owner of a horse to register that horse. That is true, and it does mean that, when you focus on registration, not every horse in existence is going to end up being subject to a levy. There were some bizarre comments, which I presume were included only for humour value, in speeches earlier saying: ‘What are we going to do about the feral horses?’ I think the answer to that is: the same thing that we do with respect to the levy on feral cattle—we acknowledge that there are some areas where numbers cannot be counted. Certainly, feral animals are viewed as pests rather than something the government would seek to profit from. The issues were raised a number of times so I respond to them, but I presume a big part of that has been in jest. The registration bodies can refuse to register horses unless the owner has provided the necessary funds to pay the levy. I know the concern of the thoroughbred industry about this is that, because they have a higher percentage of registration, the registration process would put a higher burden on them. The pony club argument is often put that, because thoroughbreds have the option of registering overseas, the higher proportion of the levy would be put on the pony clubs. There is never going to be a perfect solution. I hope that, over time, the industry looks to a very nominal contingency fee because if it is a small amount of money a lot of these arguments become a good deal less significant. But the worst of all worlds will be if in a few weeks time the horse industry has not signed up to EADRA, not because of the lack of willingness of the peak bodies but because of the lack of willingness of the opposition when it comes to vote in the Senate. The implementation of any levy, if it were to change from zero, would happen only with the consultation of those peak bodies. I am mindful that the Australian horse sector is still suffering from the devastating impact of EI and I want to give the industry breathing space as it fully recovers before even raising a new levy arrangement, notwithstanding that I think a very nominal contingency fee would be a way forward to build up some money in the event of future outbreaks. But, as I say, they are discussions to have into the future and I have no doubt that there is no appetite in the industry right at this point to start building up the contingency fund so soon after the pain of EI. Any money so collected would be administered at arm’s length from government and could not be used without industry’s approval. So, for those who have described it as a tax, it is not. It is not a tax when the government is not allowed to spend it. The money can be spent only with the approval of industry and would provide the horse sector certainty in the event of a disease outbreak under the EADRA. There have been a lot of comments from members on each side and particularly from my side of the House about what might have been done to avoid the devastation of EI. There is no doubt in my mind, when I hear the figure of $1 billion quoted in terms of total damage to the national economy over EI, that we will actually never know the full extent of the damage of EI, because it was not just the people who were technically employed by the industry. It went to all the add-on parts of it, from the person selling meat pies at the side of the track to the people involved in transport and logistics through to the Spring Racing Carnival being cancelled and a whole lot of milliners not being able to sell any hats. There were businesses torn apart at every level during that time. The industry had not been prepared, and to some extent I appreciate that the then government had the challenge that there is no easy way of implementing a levy for this sector. I think that is why, when in their arguments those opposite have tried to find as many holes as they could in this process, with the exception of the member for O’Connor, members opposite generally have been very reluctant to put up what the alternative ought to be. I think there is a simple call on working out what the alternative ought to be and that is: you work it out based on what industry is willing to agree on. That means every industry group goes a little bit away from their ideal model and they end up with something—which we now have—which they say they can all work with, which they say gives them a way forward. It would be devastating neglect if, when this bill goes through to the Senate—if I can work on the basis that we will get through here—the decision of the Australian parliament ends up being to leave the horse industry in the same position it was in at the beginning of EI. Taking responsibility and making a decision on these issues, where there are so many different interest groups, is always complex and always tough. For every objection that has been offered to these bills before the House, I offer one suggestion and that is to say that the alternative of being outside EADRA is so much worse. We have something here that the industry can agree on. I look forward to the Senate inquiry process, which I understand is being advanced. No doubt that will be able to look to the technicality of the bills. I appreciate that that is an appropriate process to follow, but I would remind all members of this House and of the Senate that we do not need something that we can agree on just on a political level; the reason for this levy being put forward is that, while there is a divergence of views among their membership, for the three peak bodies with which we are expected to negotiate, this is a system which they believe they can all work with. I commend the bills to the House. 7001 12:58:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Please proceed. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —In debate on the Horse Disease Response Levy Bill 2008, the members for Longman, Wakefield and Kennedy made a series of personal attacks on me which were both false and offensive. The member for Longman said that the Australian Racing Board wrote to me warning of ‘the dangers of replacing AQIS vets with cargo staff’. The AQIS proposal was to use specialist equine vets, not cargo staff, to take blood samples from arriving horses in Melbourne. Referring to the equine influenza outbreak, he then said that I ‘made changes that made this outbreak more likely’. This statement is simply false. The outbreak occurred in New South Wales, not Melbourne, where the AQIS veterinary issues were being discussed. In New South Wales, AQIS vets continue to take the blood samples. In fact, I was the minister who doubled the size of the quarantine service. The member for Wakefield went even further, again quoting out of context from the letter from the Australian Racing Board and my reply, and said that I ‘dismissed legitimate industry concerns’. That is not true; I responded. In fact, the state racing ministers wrote to me in May 2005 congratulating me on my actions in relation to the quarantine issues in Melbourne. The member for Wakefield went on to say something that I found particularly offensive: that I had ‘culpability in the equine influenza outbreak’. I had not been minister for over two years when that outbreak occurred. The Callinan inquiry did not make any adverse findings against me, and I think those remarks were uncalled for. Finally, the member for Kennedy made a whole lot of statements. I will not bother to respond to them. I just refer the House to my speech on 20 February where I responded to similar allegations made by the member for Kennedy on 8 February. 7001 13:00:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Yes. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —The previous speaker said that he had answered each of my allegations or criticisms of him. My criticisms of him were never answered, clearly because they could not be answered. I appreciate his humour, but reality and fact are reality and fact and it is on the record. Question put: That this bill be now read a second time. 13:05:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Dr MJ Washer) 74 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. 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. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. 55 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. 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. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. 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. Vale, D.S. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 7002 Mr BURKE (Watson —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 13:11:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 7002 Bills R2931 7002 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Mr Burke: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 7003 Mr BURKE (Watson —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 13:12:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 7003 Bills R2932 7003 Debate resumed from 21 February, on motion by Mr Burke: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 7003 Mr BURKE (Watson —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 13:13:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 7003 Bills R3038 7003 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 7003 Bills R3054 7003 Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 7003 13:15:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 goes further than a bill introduced and passed by the parliament in the term of the Howard government. The Howard government legislation permitted welfare payments to be quarantined in the event of bad behaviour by welfare recipients such as not sending their kids to school or so neglecting their kids that they are brought to the attention of the child protection authority. This bill goes further and not only provides for the quarantining of welfare payments for the necessities of life; it provides for the actual suspension and even potentially the cancellation of welfare payments to those parents who do not properly do their job. Let me say at the outset of my contribution to this debate that all of us should want kids to go to school and all of us should think that bad behaviour ought to have consequences. But this bill is not just about that; this bill is about putting a mechanism in place to achieve these desirable outcomes—a mechanism which I think will be quite ineffective, as I propose to show. A Prime Minister who talks about truancy without putting in place an effective mechanism to deal with it is not a conservative but a fraud. A Prime Minister who talks about truancy without doing something meaningful about it is not a conservative but a fraud. The problem with this legislation is that it strikes a pose but it will not actually make a difference. It will not actually reduce truancy—first, because the states are most unlikely to agree to provide the data which is required if this new legislated mechanism is to be effective and, second, because, even if the states do agree to provide this data to Centrelink, Centrelink staff are most unlikely to enforce the new rules. It is interesting that, as with so many Rudd government initiatives, the hard work to make the aspirations behind this legislation come into being has to be done by someone else. This government is very good at announcing changes that it cannot actually make itself. Let us be very clear about this: truancy is a state government responsibility. It is a state government responsibility that has been handled extremely badly over the last few years. In Western Australia, in South Australia, in the ACT and in the Northern Territory, there have actually been no truancy prosecutions since 2004—none whatsoever. In New South Wales, there were only six truancy prosecutions in the seven years leading up to last year. This is how seriously the state Labor governments take their responsibilities in this area. I certainly accept that truancy is a problem. According to the Deputy Prime Minister when she announced this legislation, there are some 20,000 school-age children who are not enrolled at school and for whom no alternative arrangements have been made. That is a serious problem—no doubt about it. If you look at the data which is collected and published from time to time in New South Wales and Victoria, it seems likely that, on any one day, 10 per cent of schoolkids are not there. That means across the country, on any one day, some 200,000 kids—a vast army of children—are not where they are normally supposed to be: at school. Yes, most of those would probably have a legitimate excuse, but many would not, and there is a serious problem in our country if, on any one day, 200,000 kids are not at school. But why would you trust a federal Labor government to fix a problem that the state Labor governments have so woefully ignored for so long? Why would schoolteachers and school principals start reporting data to Centrelink which they do not think they ought to report to their own head offices or to their own state education department truancy authorities? Especially why would they report this data when the consequences of that reporting could mean that the family about which they are reporting is totally without income? If they will not report the data when the consequences are a mere fine, why would they report the data when the consequences are a loss of income for that family? I can well understand why reportedly 18 members of the caucus raised serious objections to this legislation when it was presented to the Labor caucus last week. I would encourage decent members opposite who do have the best interests of families and children at heart to tell us in the course of this debate precisely why they are concerned. This government has form when it comes to failing to put tougher welfare rules into practice. The Howard government, to its credit, tried to insist that people on unemployment benefits did the right thing by the wider Australian community. The Howard government put in place a system whereby if three times you did not do the right thing—three times you did not turn up for job interviews or for Work for the Dole programs—after the third time your welfare payments could be suspended. What did the incoming government do? The incoming government said that this ‘three strikes and you are off’ rule was too harsh. The new Minister for Employment Participation said that the Howard government’s suspension of benefit rules were too harsh because they penalised families for the delinquency of one member of those families. So, having adopted this bleeding heart approach to welfare in this respect, members opposite now want the public to believe that they are going to be as hard as nails, as tough as teak, in this further respect—they will not actually penalise adults for failing to do their duty but they will penalise families, they will penalise children, in which the adults fail to do their duty. This is an implausible suggestion that the government are making to the people of Australia, and that is why I say that, even if the states can be persuaded to provide personal, individual attendance data from the schools to Centrelink, it is highly unlikely that Centrelink will actually take the measures that the new government want us to believe will be taken against parents who do not do the right thing. That is why I say that this legislation is window-dressing. It is window-dressing from the world champion window-dresser, namely the Prime Minister, Mr Rudd. It is important in the course of debating this legislation that those members opposite who do support it, particularly the Minister for Education and the minister responsible for the payment of benefits, Minister Macklin, start to answer some detailed questions on the mechanics of how this legislation might work. For instance, when will this suspension measure actually start to operate? For instance, when they announced it on budget night, it was supposed to start operating in the second half of this year. When they re-announced it on the front page of the Daily Telegraph last Monday week, it was not going to start until the first half of 2009. As well as when it might actually start, they need to tell us exactly who is going to be covered by this legislation. It was presented on the front page of the Daily Telegraph as a major national initiative that would apply to everyone, yet in fact, as announced on budget night, it was only a trial applying to some eight locations and involving some 3,300 schoolkids. They also need to explain to us exactly what difference they hope this legislation is going to make. For instance, if the government really do believe that the welfare payments of delinquent parents will be suspended or even cancelled, as responsible economic managers they must have factored in a cost and a saving. Tell us what that cost is; tell us what that saving is. Are they intending to reduce non-attendance rates to zero? Do they think schools should attain 100 per cent attendance or 98 per cent attendance rather than the 90 per cent attendance that they currently seem to have? They need to make that clear. Do they believe that instead of the 20,000 children that the Deputy Prime Minister has told us are not enrolled at all there should be zero unenrolled children or, say, under 1,000 unenrolled children? If they are serious about this, if it is not just a half-baked scheme to address a concern revealed by focus group polling, they need to tell us exactly what impact it is going to have and exactly when that impact is expected to be made. They say they believe in testing teacher performance and school performance—what about testing their own performance by giving us some concrete benchmarks against which they can be judged? If this government expects to be taken seriously, these ministers need to come into the parliament in the course of this debate and give us that information. I have some specific questions that I think Ministers Gillard and Macklin need to answer. Have they got agreement from the states for this information to be transferred to Centrelink and to the Commonwealth government? And it is not good enough to have just agreement in principle. I remind the House that in 2006 COAG agreed that the states would provide to the Commonwealth the identified data on school attendance rates and it was not done, and the education ministers’ council in 2007 agreed with the Commonwealth that the states would provide the identified data. In other words, they agreed to act upon the previous agreement, and to the best of my knowledge that still has not been done. So not only have the states reneged on their agreement to provide the identified data, the new government would have us believe that the states will provide specific personal information. It is utterly implausible that the states would not provide information which would have no specific consequences for people but that they would provide information that might lead to families losing their welfare payments. Last year the Tasmanian government even indicated that the provision of personal information by schools to Centrelink would be illegal under the Privacy Act. So it is not enough for ministers opposite to say, ‘Oh, yes, we are talking to the states about this,’ or ‘Oh, yes, we’ve got an agreement in principle about this.’ Unless they can tell us that they have specific agreement to a detailed set of protocols governing the transfer of this information and what might be done with it, we cannot take them seriously and all of this is frankly a pose. I have some more specific questions. Will Centrelink have to provide all schools with details about the families on welfare living in the area? Unless the schools have the information about which parents in the school community are on welfare, how can they then know which are the children on whose attendance they are supposed to report for the purpose of possible suspension of welfare payments? Do not think that this is a light matter. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you know enough about the way government works and about the difficulties of getting sensitive information to large numbers of other governments and other government departments to know just how difficult it will be in practice for Centrelink to tell the schools which are the welfare families in their school community, let alone for the schools to tell Centrelink just who has been turning up to school and under what circumstances. A third question is: will all people currently on welfare with children have to prove to Centrelink that those children are enrolled at school? Again, the logistical difficulties of this are quite daunting. At the very least you would think that Centrelink would have to write to every single household—millions of them—and presumably those households would have to come up with a statement from the school saying, ‘Yes, these kids are enrolled.’ Let us not underestimate for a second the toing and froing, the collating and the collecting, not to mention the embarrassment to teachers and families involved in this whole process. I certainly support strong action to get kids to school. I certainly support tough penalties for people who do not do what they should. But we have and always have had in this country the potential for schools to notify the truancy authorities if the kids are not turning up and for the truancy authorities to frogmarch those kids to school—and, if there is a problem, to take strong action by fining the parents. That is the way it was done until politically correct Labor governments started to ignore the law—and that is the way it should be done again. That is a much better way of doing things than the one that has been proposed by the Rudd government. As I said, without vastly more detail, without a huge measure of greater clarity, this legislation will turn out to be a half-baked way to solve a problem that should never have arisen. It will be yet another measure from this government that is more about striking a pose than making a difference. It will be yet another measure from this government which is more about grabbing a headline than building a better country. Not for nothing is this government increasingly being known as the dud Rudd government. This legislation is more evidence, if any is needed, that this is a government that is not doing its job. 7007 13:34:00 McKew, Maxine, MP BP4 Bennelong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare 1 0 Ms McKEW —We have just heard the member for Warringah casting around a lot of cheap slurs and spending about 10 minutes posing a lot of questions—the answers to which he could have easily found out, I would have thought, by looking at the detailed notes—but saying almost nothing about the consequences of 20,000 children not being enrolled in schools across the country. I find it perplexing, because I know that the member for Warringah has spent time recently—and I praise him for this commitment—with Indigenous educators and children in Australia helping with reading. So I know that commitment is there, which is why I think his response on this bill is puzzling. But I wish to speak in support of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. As the minister outlined in her second reading speech, the bill gives effect to measures outlined in the budget and is aimed at improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform. It will place conditions on the receipt of income support payments whereby parents are obliged to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are enrolled and attending school regularly. Another point that the member for Warringah missed is that this is a measure that is going to be trialled in six sites in the Northern Territory, in an area in Cannington in Western Australia and in one other metropolitan site. Of course, trials are all about looking at what works and indeed examining some of those questions that the member for Warringah put. Importantly, what I feel that he failed to understand is that, while he talked about the issues of Centrelink and of principals at schools, in fact all parents under this bill receiving income support who live in the trial locations will be required to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s enrolment. Parents who fail to do this and fail to provide a reasonable explanation will be required to further engage with Centrelink, and there will be a very particular kind of complex case management around that. The impact of this measure will be minimal for those parents who do the right thing and ensure that their children are in school. Those who do not take reasonable steps to improve their child’s attendance may have their income support payments suspended until such time as they can show that they have addressed the issue. This measure is a last resort. It will be applied in those cases where a parent has not provided a reasonable excuse that can account for an inability to comply. This is a very strong measure—there is no gainsaying that—but let us consider what has provoked this and why the government is acting. ABS data suggests that the total number of children of compulsory school age who are not enrolled is around 20,000. The data further suggests that school attendance rates across states and territories are between 91 per cent and 93 per cent, with the rate for Indigenous children around 10 per cent less. That is 20,000 children not in the system. So what are the consequences—the consequences that the member for Warringah did not even attempt to address? These 20,000 children will never make it to a high-school graduation, will be unlikely to ever get a foothold in the job market and, more than likely, will be disengaged citizens for their entire lives. Without even the most basic tools by which they can navigate a complex world, those without adequate schooling are likely to be lost, unhappy and, I think it is fair to say, resentful souls. If they themselves parent, those same attitudes will be passed on to their children—lack of engagement and distrust of the value of learning. Up to this point in time, we have tolerated this; the previous government tolerated this. I think it is extraordinary, when you look at that level of nonparticipation. Frankly, it is intolerable. Every day community organisations across the country deal with women and men with poor literacy skills whose capacity to cope in a very competitive environment is exceptionally limited. The cycle is repeated over and over again when children of such families also grow up with a very negative view of schooling and a mindset that is hard wired for failure. Social policy planners, of course, have been wrestling with this issue of intergenerational disadvantage for a long time and, as we know, with mixed results. I think one of the great paradoxes of the times is that, while Australia has been enjoying record prosperity and very strong jobs growth up to now, the welfare bill, far from being reduced, is higher than ever. Through the boom years, we have simply failed when it comes to social inclusion. At a time when many of our industries are crying out for particular skill sets, we are being forced to rely on our immigration program to import the competencies we need. I think recognition of this problem has been building for some time but now, across the spectrum, the notion of passive welfare is seen more and more as the problem and not the solution. We have to make a place for those who are now excluded from schooling, from employment and from civic society. With this bill, the government is sending a very clear signal to parents to do the right thing by their children and ensure that they attend school regularly. The matter is urgent. I was having a conversation with my colleague the member for Rankin this week. He talked about a survey that had been conducted two years ago in Logan, on the south side of Brisbane, which is in his area. That survey showed that 300 Logan year 7 students were absent—this is just one group of students in that area—for one-third of the year. That is a terrible figure. This bill is a start, a mechanism for sending a signal that this situation is not tolerable. It is part of our wider agenda also to do something about our really quite dreadful high-school retention rates. Let us look at those. At around 74 per cent, the school completion rate has barely budged in 15 years. This is at a time when other OECD countries have managed to progressively and incrementally improve school completion rates. That is the legacy of the Howard years—a seeming indifference to this dreadful high-school completion rate. It is why over half a million young people between the ages of 15 and 24 are not in either full-time learning or full-time work. That is half a million young people who are not in a job and not involved in some kind of study or training. There are multiple costs to tolerating these statistics. There is a national cost, with fewer skilled workers available to fill the demands of a modern economy; there is the community cost, as services, or even the justice system in some cases, struggle with people who are likely to vent their frustration in unacceptable ways; and there is the personal cost that I think is counted in a really diminished life. Life is hard for many, many people. A child born into a troubled family can be subject to such a level of toxic stress that it really inhibits appropriate brain development, and this is the case for many children in Indigenous communities but not exclusively so. These children will struggle through their school years. They will underperform at every level and feel that, at the end of it, the school system just spits them out. It is these children that we have to save. It is why, in my particular area of responsibility for early childhood, all our policies are focused on children’s development and on helping parents. We are putting that at the centre of policymaking because we know that the earlier the intervention, the greater the likelihood that children will be able to make a happy, healthy transition to school. This is by way of saying that the circumstances that have produced what is unarguably a harsh measure, this bill, are complex. If the only thing we were to do as a government was to wield the blunt instrument of income suspension, then I would not be supporting this bill—but it is not. The concept of social inclusion is central to our policy approach, as are policies aimed at the development of healthy, well-supported children. The government has committed $3.2 billion in expenditure this year to support a whole range of ambitious initiatives that will support very young children and their families, and I am just going to mention a couple of them. In its first budget, the Rudd Labor government committed $32 million over five years to a program to help disadvantaged children aged three to five to prepare for school under what is called the Home Interaction Program. This will be delivered, in partnership with the Brotherhood of St Laurence, in 50 disadvantaged communities across the country. The Home Interaction Program will give disadvantaged children a better start in life by supporting parents to improve their children’s school readiness. So it is help for children and, importantly, help for parents. Early intervention programs like HIP can increase school retention rates and attendance rates and, in the long term, employment opportunities, because they develop work readiness and leadership skills in participating parents. Another current initiative is the ongoing work between the Australian and state and territory governments to establish integrated approaches to meeting the needs of children, families and communities. Specifically, this involves developing proposals for children and family centres in states and territories. We expect that centres will provide a mix of services that are responsive to community needs and will also provide early learning and parent and family support services. As part of this initiative, governments are working to improve outcomes for Indigenous children and families. Most importantly, at the National Press Club last week the Prime Minister outlined our big national ambitions for an education revolution, which revolve around three central pillars of reform. They include: improving the quality of teaching; making school reporting properly transparent; and, most importantly, lifting achievement in disadvantaged school communities. We will be doing this through new funding arrangements with the states to put more resources into the schools that need them most. The Prime Minister was absolute in his comments that we will not tolerate underperformance. Of course, part of that is not tolerating nonattendance. In conclusion, the government is moving on multiple fronts when it comes to engaging with parents, with schools and with the states and territories. We unashamedly want to lift the bar for everyone. That means ensuring that young people enrol in and attend school. This bill has a role to play as part of a suite of government measures aimed at ensuring that all children get an equal start in life. 7010 13:46:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 provides some interesting insights into how this government operates. This should be a very important bill because it addresses very important matters. I would concur with the member for Bennelong about the importance of these matters. But where I suspect we differ is about how one goes about addressing these matters. What we see in this bill is the way that the government pretends to deal with a lot of matters. Earlier today the member for Warringah made a very good point: this bill is a show bill; it is a window-dressing bill. It is a window-dressing bill from a shopfront government. I am a new member in this place, but what I have seen from those opposite as a government is basically all front and no shop when it comes to these issues. It is all out there on the hoarding, and you can see all the pretty lights, all the colour and all the movement, but once you get past the front, there is no shop. This is a further measure in this government’s bid to cover the incompetence of state governments, which are Labor at every level, with their blame game. I want to talk a bit about these things. Let us first look at the minister’s stated intent for this bill. Truancy is a serious issue. It affects proportionally those in more marginalised sections of our community—the socioeconomically disadvantaged, ethnic communities and, in particular, our Indigenous communities. We are typically dealing with families and kids at risk. The problems are deep and the consequences are indeed great. Right around the country truancy rates are up. They are lower than in the United Kingdom but higher than in the US, Canada and New Zealand. We believe there are 20,000 children who should be in school who are not in school. What puzzles me about these statistics, and particularly what the member for Bennelong was saying, is that somehow this was the fault of a federal government. It was a federal government who apparently did not act on issues relating to truancy. If I read my Constitution correctly, it is actually state governments that were responsible for truancy rates. So the question is posed of the previous federal government, but no question is posed by those opposite about the actions of states. The Deputy Prime Minister, in her introductory speech on this bill, said that we need to improve literacy and numeracy standards. She has set those as standards, I believe, in terms of the success of this measure, and she talked about increasing year 12 retention rates. So it is worth reminding ourselves of some of the things that the Howard government actually did do to address some of these matters that fell within their responsibility as a national government—not a state government that actually runs schools, and not a state government that is responsible for employing teachers and funding the development of schools, and funding the classrooms and doing all of these things, but as a federal government where they could act in their own areas of responsibility. It was the Howard government that introduced national literacy and numeracy testing for children in years 3, 5, 7 and 9. Prior to that, there were no standards. There was no national testing. We just did not know. I think, above all else, that is a measure which demonstrates the coalition’s commitment to standards in education rather than shopfront measures. There was $457.4 million for a $700 literacy and numeracy vouchers program for students who were not meeting those benchmarks. There was bonus funding for schools that had excelled in raising literacy and numeracy standards, not just those that excelled in the standards themselves but those schools that had taken measures within their schools, with their parents, with their communities and had worked together to lift standards. These schools were rewarded under the coalition government. The national agreement for reporting on schools attendance was achieved at a COAG meeting in July 2006 and subsequently followed up with various education ministers. As the member for Warringah pointed out, this is a deal that the states have never honoured. This is a deal where they had agreed to provide truancy information for the purposes of national understanding and reporting, and they would not do it on an aggregate basis. This bill is suggesting that they will do it on an individual basis where there is the risk that if that information is provided to Centrelink then that family will be affected—not just the child, not just the parents, but any other child or any other member of that family who is dependent on that source of income. This government expects the schools and the states to hand that information over. What we have here is a war on truancy. It goes with the war on binge drinking; it goes with the war on obesity. Maybe we will have a war on wars as well. There is a war on all of these things. This comes straight out of the state government play book. It comes particularly out of the Blair government play book. With all of these wars, be it on binge drinking, obesity—or the fat tax—or whatever else, you will soon not be able to leave your house in this country without first ringing the Prime Minister’s office and checking to see whether that would be okay today. All of these wars have something very familiar about them, which is that they are phoney wars. They are not real wars; they are phoney wars designed to send very subtle signals to the electorate rather than address the problems on the ground. It is all about the message; it is not about the problem. With this measure, the government is seeking to ride on the coat-tails of the Howard government’s doctrine of mutual obligation. That doctrine was set out by the Howard government and put into practice on the ground with Work for the Dole and a number of other measures. These honoured the idea of a social contract whereby responsibilities went with rights. Those opposite try to portray this measure in that context. They try and do it but they are not serious. Their hearts are simply not in it. Since this matter was first addressed in the budget and later announced on the eve of these sittings, there has not been one question in this place to the Deputy Prime Minister or the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. We have had a host of questions in this place to the government for it to parade its moral obligations, responsibilities and doctrines, but it has not talked about them. It has not done that on one occasion since this parliament resumed. Beyond that, we have not heard once—we have not heard a peep—from the minister for families on this matter. I would be very interested to know what she really thinks about the measure. There has been not one question and not one speech from the minister for families on the measure. The government’s proposal betrays a try-hard approach in its attempt to live up to the legacy of the Howard government, which put in place a genuine and real mutual obligation doctrine. One of the concerns about the way in which the government have tried to do this in their try-hard sort of way is that they have tried to talk very tough and have gone well beyond—and I think unreasonably so—anything the coalition government suggested. When we looked at this measure and tried to introduce it without the cooperation of the states, because the states would simply not participate in the program, we found that we were left in a situation where they would seek to get a headline in these matters but the details of likely action would be remote. We know that the government has 18 members on its side of the House who do not support this bill. We know members on that side of the House do not support this bill. I am wondering what brought them to the position of supporting it. I suspect that it is this: while they want to talk tough about suspending payments—I would say that suspending payments would considerably disadvantage families—what they are really saying is: ‘You won’t have to worry because it’ll never actually happen. We’re just looking to try and talk tough on this bill but we’ll not put in place any meaningful mechanisms that would see any of these things actually eventuate.’ The reason is that the states will simply not hand over this information. The member for Warringah made a very good point. He said: ‘If there is a deal, an agreement or an arrangement with the states to provide this information, even in these trials, then table that document in this place. Tell us that this bill and this mechanism will work by demonstrating in this place that you have the cooperation of the states. Show us that this information will be available to Centrelink when it is required in order to put this mechanism into place.’ That information has not been there for reporting of national truancy statistics. It was not there when the coalition sought to provide information to support its own measure, which was limited to income management. It was not there then, but apparently it is going to be there now. So where is the government’s agreement with the states to ensure the provision of the data that will enable this scheme to work? The other matter concerning this bill is the ‘blame game’ game. This was a perplexing challenge for those on the other side of the House while they were in opposition and coming up to the last election. They had a very big problem. People were fed up with the performance of state schools and state hospitals around this country. People were completely fed up. Who and what could be responsible for the failure of state schools and state hospitals around this country when there were wall-to-wall Labor governments? Where on earth could they run to and hide when it came to schools and hospitals prior to the election? So they decided to blame blame itself. It was blame that was the problem. Blame was the reason that we had problems in our schools and hospitals. It was not the fact that state governments were conscientiously incompetent. It was not the problem of the states that they were unable to run these important institutions for the public. The problem was blame. It is the perfect Orwellian irony: blame blame itself. How convenient it is to blame blame when Labor is in power at every single level of government around the country. That is very convenient indeed. When you are running every single shop in the place, how convenient it is that there is nowhere the finger of blame can be pointed, particularly when every finger is coming back to the Labor Party. Blaming blame has become the government’s way of getting around the position of responsibility. It was not the problem of state governments and their inability to run schools; it was actually the problem of Alfred Deakin and Edmund Barton. The government would have us believe that state governments cannot run schools and hospitals because somehow Edmund Barton and Alfred Deakin put schools and hospitals in the wrong box in the Constitution. It was not because states could not do it; it was because the Constitution was messed up. So it was not their conscientious and appalling incompetence; it all had to do with matters regarding the Constitution. It is an absolute farce that we would think that Canberra would be better than the states at running our schools. It is a farce to think that the solutions to these issues could be better run at a federal level than closer to home and on the ground. In these situations, Canberra is more likely to fail than succeed. So it is time to understand one thing: where does the responsibility for our schools lie? The ‘blame game’ game cannot allow the states to avoid their responsibilities under any circumstances. Now, I am sure that there are people, particularly in my home state of New South Wales, who would love it if there were no state government—especially no Iemma state government; but, unfortunately, there is one. While there are state governments in this country, they must be held accountable for what services they are to provide. It is not simply a matter of saying that we need to end the ‘blame game’ game and stand together at press conferences and all smile at each other. For anyone to think that that will somehow change the situation is absolute nonsense. The ‘blame game’ game is an absolute hoax designed to avoid the accountability of state governments that have been elected to do certain jobs. But they are not doing those jobs. So what we find in this measure is an opportunity to try and shift responsibility for state schools from the states to the federal government. This is interesting because the Parliamentary Library says very clearly that the states have always had responsibility for school attendance. So the states should live up to that. 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 for Cook will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 7013 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 7013 14:00:00 7013 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is the government increasing taxes and charges by almost $20 billion when economic growth has halved to 0.3 per cent? 7013 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition’s question is based on a wrong premise—that is, that the tax to GDP ratio in this budget decreases tax as a proportion of GDP relative to the last budget brought down by the previous government. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition studies carefully his own budget papers from the past and applies the only rational measure to this, which is tax as a proportion of GDP. He will reach one conclusion, and that is that the government which he was part of was this country’s highest taxing government. By contrast, what we have brought down is a budget which reduces the overall tax burden on the economy. 7013 7013 14:01:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister inform the House of developments overnight in Afghanistan involving Australian troops? 7013 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Brisbane for his question. Last night, soldiers of the Australian Special Operations Task Group in southern Afghanistan became engaged in a battle with Taliban extremists. I regret to inform the House that nine Australian troops have been wounded in this action. One soldier has suffered life-threatening wounds, five soldiers have suffered serious wounds and three soldiers have suffered light wounds. The wounded soldiers were provided with immediate first aid by their comrades at the scene before being evacuated by helicopter to coalition medical facilities. Several Taliban extremists were killed in the action. I am advised that this action is ongoing and that members of the Special Operations Task Group remain in the field undertaking their essential but dangerous work. On behalf of all Australians, let me say that our thoughts and our prayers are with the wounded soldiers, their comrades in the field of battle and their families and loved ones. This action, and the toll it has taken on these members of the Australian Defence Force, underscores the importance and the dangers of the vital mission they are undertaking in Afghanistan on behalf of us all. Let us make no mistake: they are engaged in a vital mission. The Taliban can never again be allowed to use Afghanistan as a training ground, a hiding place or a launching pad for terrorist operations around the world—terrorists that advocate harm to Australians as well; terrorists that trained there to take the lives of our countrymen in Bali in 2002; and terrorists that, if permitted a safe haven, would seek to attack us and others again. It is the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, like those who put themselves in harm’s way last night, that are taking the fight to this enemy of us all. They are disrupting, destroying and displacing those that would seek to return Afghanistan and its people to the bastion of terror that we had during the period of the Taliban administration. At the same time, it is the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who are building, teaching and mentoring the people of this province so that they may take charge of the land, take charge of their lives and, in time, take charge of their own security. It is the men and women of the Australian Defence Force that risk their lives every day in pursuit of this aspiration on behalf of us all. The fight in Afghanistan goes on. It involves our special forces aggressively taking the fight to the Taliban. It involves our reconstruction and mentoring troops rebuilding the infrastructure and capabilities of the civil community and the security services. And it involves us working closely with our friends and partners in Afghanistan. We are not the only ones to see our troops face danger. On 19 August, 10 soldiers from France lost their lives and 21 were wounded on one dreadful day in Kabul province, east of the capital. France, under the leadership of President Sarkozy, has been a strong supporter of the fight in Afghanistan, and France has paid a high price. I want to recognise the commitment of the French government to supporting the vital mission in Afghanistan and the commitment of our other allies in the field. The Australian government remains committed to assisting the people of Afghanistan and their democratically elected government to achieve a measure of the stability and prosperity that we take for granted in our country here. And today while we may pause to reflect on the bravery and sacrifice of our fighting men and women our adversaries should take heed of the resolve of Australia’s soldiers, the resolve of the Australian government and the resolve of the Australian people in bringing to an end this unsustainable instability and conflict in Afghanistan. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7014 14:05:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to strongly associate the opposition with the remarks made by the Prime Minister in relation to the nine Australian soldiers who have been wounded in Afghanistan. This brings to 53 the number of Australians who have been wounded in our name, in our uniform and under our flag in this struggle against resurgent totalitarianism and Islamic extremism in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and our prayers are with not only them but also their families, those who love them and the other members of the Australian Defence Force. I join with the Prime Minister in ensuring that the political will and resolve of this parliament will remain as firm as it has ever been to see this through and see that we are able to liberate the people of Afghanistan and, in doing so, ensure the freedoms that we have come to enjoy in our generation for those who come after us. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7015 Distinguished Visitors 7015 14:06:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Rt Hon. Baroness Ashton of Upholland, Lord President and Leader of the House of Lords of the United Kingdom. On behalf of the House, I extend to her a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7015 Questions Without Notice 7015 7015 14:06:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that state final demand in Australia’s largest state contracted in the June quarter. I also refer to the fact that, nationally, household spending contracted. I ask the Treasurer: why is the government increasing the prices that households will pay for cars, private health insurance and alcohol? 7015 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question. The member has great difficulty in welcoming any good news when it comes to the economy. But today’s growth figure is a solid 0.3 for the quarter and 2.7 for the year. Given the international circumstances that we face and given the impact particularly of 10 straight interest rate rises under the Liberals, the economy is certainly slowing. That is there for all to see in the national accounts today—the impact of 10 consecutive interest rate rises under the member for Higgins and the global difficulties that we experience. The member for Wentworth is living in cloud-cuckoo-land if he thinks slugging families with a $400-a-month interest rate bill does not make much difference, because that is what 10 interest rate rises in a row under those opposite have done to Australian families—the Costello interest rate bill: $400. And that has an impact on consumption. I know the member for Wentworth does not think that an interest rate rise has an impact on consumption because, when interest rates went up for the seventh time, he said their impact was overdramatised! That is what he said. He does not think $500 a year means a lot to families. But it certainly does. And $400 a month—which hit families, particularly in New South Wales, and hit them hard—has a very, very big impact on consumption. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —So why are you putting up taxes? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —So it is true: consumption in New South Wales did take a hit. And the reason is simply this: there are more people in New South Wales under housing stress because they borrow a lot more to get into the housing market, and it has, unfortunately, impacted there. So the member opposite really ought to be much more truthful about what is going on in the economy, who is responsible for what has occurred and what needs to be done to address this problem. Last night, the member for Wentworth was on The 7.30 Report, and this is what he said: I am not exaggerating. Look, all I’m saying is this: had we been governed by leaders who were responsible, and who had the economic interests of this country at heart, we would have had lower interest rates … Isn’t that an awful thing to say about Mr Howard and the member for Higgins—particularly on the night that Mr Howard is in the House! That is a terrible thing to say about them because it is so true. And New South Wales is now living with the consequences of the neglect by the Liberals of capacity constraints, particularly in infrastructure, and the consequences of their reckless spending. But we on this side of the House accept our responsibility to put in place a disciplined fiscal policy that deals with inflation and to make the investments for the future that deal with the capacity constraints so that we can generate growth with lower inflation and lower interest rates. 7016 7016 14:10:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the national accounts released today? Opposition members interjecting— 7016 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —You could not welcome the rate cut yesterday, and you cannot welcome these figures today. These are solid figures. The government acknowledge that we are not out of the woods yet. But these figures are very solid: 0.3 per cent in the June quarter and 2.7 per cent over the year. The non-farm economy grew by 0.5 per cent. These are very solid numbers, particularly when you compare them to the other major developed economies in the world. In the June quarter, Japan recorded minus 0.6, Germany recorded minus 0.5, France and Italy recorded minus 0.3, and the UK did not grow at all. In fact, over the past year our economy has grown stronger than those of the US, the UK, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and Canada. But we are not immune from these difficulties, and that is why we have to do everything we can to address the fundamentals in our economy, do everything we possibly can to put downward pressure on inflation and downward pressure on interest rates and do something about that bill that hangs around the neck of everyone with a mortgage—the $400 Costello bill from the 10 interest rate rises in a row delivered by those opposite. The good news, particularly, in the figures today comes from business investment. Business investment rose by a strong four per cent in the June quarter and 9.9 per cent over the year, and Australia is well positioned for stronger increases in business investment in future years. Last year’s capex figures show that businesses are planning to invest $100 billion in our economy this financial year. And of course we are also benefiting strongly from record commodity prices. All of these things mean that we do have grounds for optimism. But what we have to do is to go back to the foundations of our economy and deal with all of those issues that were left to us by those opposite. We have to put in place a disciplined fiscal policy. We have to build our surplus, which is why it should not be eroded by those opposite in the Senate. We have to put in place our investment for the future through our investment funds, through our $76 billion infrastructure program, to do something about the capacity constraints left to the people of Australia by those opposite. This government will not make the mistake that those opposite made. The mistake they made was to pat themselves on the back for prosperity and do nothing to sustain it. 7016 7016 14:14:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. The Ai Group’s services sector index has plummeted for the fifth consecutive month, revealing heavy job losses in retail, transport, communications and hospitality. How many jobs does the government forecast will be lost in the services sector in the next 12 months? 7016 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —On the question of confidence both in business and at the consumer level—I will come back to the question of the Ai Group in a minute—the impact of the global financial crisis has been felt across the world. If you look at business confidence indicators and consumer confidence indicators across the world, they have all taken a pummelling. On the question of employment, as we indicated before, the government projects that the unemployment rate, according to our budget forecasts, will increase to 4.75 per cent by the middle of next year. We also note that employment growth is currently at 2.4 per cent, as of July 2008. The budget forecast is for employment growth to ease to three-quarters of a per cent over the year to June 2009. Also I would say to the honourable member that 33,000 jobs were created in the last two months; 136,000 jobs have been created since November 2007. This is a— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My question was specifically about job losses in the services sector, given the heavy losses reported today. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —On the matter of relevance, the Prime Minister will continue. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I know these numbers will, again, upset the political narrative of those opposite, which is summed up in one set of words: talking the Australian economy down. That is all they seek to do. In fact, on our calculation this represents the 18th question from the opposition this week talking the economy down. I would think that a responsible opposition would actually engage in the reverse and instead engage in a debate about future policy options for the Australian economy. Our economic strategy is clear-cut for the future. I have just run through the government’s employment forecast for the period ahead and the government’s unemployment forecast for the period ahead. I would suggest that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has not got the call. 7017 Distinguished Visitors 7017 14:16:00 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 the Social Insurance Committee from the Parliament of Sweden. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7017 Questions Without Notice 7017 7017 14:17:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 Mr HAYES —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline the importance of yesterday’s interest rates cut and today’s national accounts data? 7017 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. Yesterday brought the first interest rate cut that Australian mortgage holders have had in nearly seven years. It has been a long time that they have had to wait for that. It was the first interest rate cut ever experienced by some 740,000 first home buyers. That, again, is an important fact to note. It has been a modest contribution to the cost-of-living pressures faced by working families, but for those 3.1 million Australian households with mortgages it represents a welcome development. For the average mortgage holder that means a saving of nearly $600 a year. Today, through the national accounts data, we have an indication and evidence of solid growth for the Australian economy for the June quarter. This is particularly solid growth when you consider the international context in which we are operating. The Treasurer has just referred here to the international comparators for the first six months of the year, whereby the economies of Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the United Kingdom have either experienced negative growth in those quarters or experienced zero growth. For developing countries also in the June quarter, I draw the House’s attention to the fact that Hong Kong experienced negative growth of 1.4 per cent and Singapore of 1.5 per cent. I would draw to honourable members’ attention—I notice the Deputy Leader of the Opposition finds negative growth around the world amusing—that the recent outlook document produced by the OECD for the global economy again contains some disturbing findings about the period which lies ahead. The OECD has noted that global growth is weak and said: Financial market turmoil, housing market downturns and high commodity prices continue to bear down on global growth … And, furthermore: Continued financial turmoil appears to reflect increasingly signs of weakness in the real economy, itself partly a product of lower credit supply and asset prices. That is the interim assessment of the economic outlook for OECD countries dated 2 September, yesterday. Therefore, against these global circumstances, as reinforced by that OECD bulletin, this quarterly growth figure for Australia represents solid growth. When you look at the fact that that translates into annual growth of 2.7 per cent, we believe that this represents a reasonable performance against the difficult challenges which now present themselves to the Australian economy internationally. The other thing I would say is that it also represents a solid performance for the economy domestically, given the cumulative impact of 10 interest rate rises in a row on the part of those opposite, all of which serves to have an impact on the cumulative economic wellbeing of the country. I said yesterday, and I say again today, however, that the state of the overall economy and the fact that we have had one interest rate cut, representing modest help for working families under financial pressure, mean that we still have much, much more to do when it comes to assisting those Australians. But, to put it into context, yesterday’s official rate cut put nearly $600 a year back into the wallets of families on average mortgages right across Australia. I would ask those opposite to contemplate one thing they are about to do in the Senate—that is, their Senate treatment of the Medicare levy surcharge. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would suggest to those opposite they listen very carefully to this. If they proceed with their tactic to block this in the Senate, what would be the impact for working families who have just, for the first time in seven years, had an interest rate cut which benefits them to the tune of $600 a year? Yesterday we had an interest rate cut which benefits working families on an average mortgage with $600 a year. For a family with two average income earners and a combined income of $120,000, the increase in the Medicare levy surcharge will save them $1,200 in tax. Yesterday, through the actions of the Reserve Bank in a 25 basis point reduction, we realised something like a $600 a year saving for working families with an average mortgage. The action which those opposite are now contemplating in the Senate today has exactly the reverse effect. It is in fact a raid on the household budget of working families. For a family with two average incomes earning a combined income of $120,000, the increase in the Medicare levy surcharge will save them $1,200 in tax. So on Tuesday the RBA provides relief of nearly $600 for families on an average mortgage, and on Thursday the Liberal Party of Australia will take that back in spades. I challenge those opposite, who stand here and talk about the cost pressures facing working families. We had action yesterday by the Reserve Bank, modest in terms of its overall impact, but what the opposition are about to do in the Senate on the Medicare levy surcharge represents a slug on working families and I would suggest to those opposite that they do the right thing in the Senate and stand up for working families instead of providing an average slug of $1,200, which hits their family budget. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I request that the Prime Minister table those documents so we can all read that GDP is down 0.25 per cent. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the Prime Minister quoting from documents? Were the documents confidential? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Yes, they were. 7019 7019 14:23:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to descriptions by the Economist magazine of the economy his government inherited as ‘a wonder down under’ and as ‘the envy of western countries’. I ask the Prime Minister: what would the rate of inflation and interest rates be today if the coalition government had spent rather than saved the surpluses accumulated since 1996? 7019 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —One of the more curious questions asked yesterday, which I think is embedded somewhere in the question asked just now by the Leader of the Opposition, was whether you use surpluses on consumption or whether you use them on investment. That is a very critical distinction because those opposite, in the avalanche of cash which came in the back door off the back of the resources boom, chose to do primarily one thing with it, and that was to expend it on consumption. Look at the avalanche of informed criticism of that strategy by those opposite. I take for example Saul Eslake’s criticism over the last several years that, of the hundreds of billions of dollars in extra revenue received over multiple years by those opposite—and I paraphrase Saul Eslake here—he could not identify a single thing on which this previous government could hang its hat by way of long-term productive investment. The alternative is in fact to use the proceeds of the mining boom to invest in the future. I will quote here from the International Monetary Fund’s report of July 2008: Saving some of the revenue from the commodity price boom in three new funds will take pressure off monetary policy in the near term... The reduction in public spending growth in the latest budget illustrates the government’s commitment to help reduce inflation. We have a strategy for the future. It is saying: here you have a lot of revenue coming in off the back of the resources boom and you can either invest it or spend it on consumption, which is what those opposite did year in, year out while there was no new investment in our hospitals, no new investment in our TAFEs and our universities, no new investment for major new national and global challenges like climate change, and not a single dollar spent on reclaiming water entitlements from the Murray-Darling Basin—none of these investments in the future. I would suggest to those opposite that what they need is an economic strategy for Australia’s future rather than simply continuing their past practices, which were reflected budget after budget and which were to take the revenue product of the resources boom and to expend it on consumption. This government has a strategy for the long-term future. We are proud of our investment funds for the future. We are a party and a government of nation-building and we are so without apology. 7020 7020 14:26:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 Ms BIRD —My question is to the Treasurer. How has yesterday’s rate cut been received by the Australian community? 7020 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for her question because yesterday’s official rate cut will put almost $600 a year back into the wallet of a family with an average mortgage. For a family on an average new mortgage in New South Wales, the cut will be about $560 a year. In Queensland, it will be more than $520 a year; in Victoria, more than $500; in Western Australia, $510; in South Australia, $400; and in Tasmania, $340. Families have waited a long time for this relief; in fact, they have waited seven years. They have certainly been doing it tough and that is one of the reasons why consumption has taken a hit in the national accounts today, which I was talking about before. But this is modest relief for those families who are labouring under sky-high petrol prices and of course the legacy of 10 interest rate rises in a row courtesy of those opposite, which is why it is so stunning that, in this environment, when families are under so much financial pressure, those opposite could contemplate moving in the Senate to knock off the tax cut that we are effectively giving to workers on average wages when we lift the Medicare surcharge up. As the Prime Minister was saying before, for two income earners, each on average incomes, earning a combined income of $120,000 a year, the increase in the Medicare levy surcharge will save them $1,200 in tax. That is what it will save and that is what the opposition want to take away in the Senate. That is what those opposite are going to take away from those families on average incomes via their vandalism in the Senate. They will take away twice the rate relief delivered to that family with this one act of vandalism in the Senate. They have no credibility when it comes to the financial pressures on working families and no economic program for the future. 7020 7020 14:29:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the fact that under the previous coalition government, Labor’s $96 billion of government debt was paid off and the current government was left an additional $45 billion in net assets—a $141 billion improvement in the government’s accounts between 1996 and this year. Will the Treasurer confirm that, if the Labor Party’s $96 billion of debt had not been paid off, taxpayers would now be funding $8.6 billion in interest payments every year from the budget? 7020 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I absolutely welcome that question. This is coming from a political party that wants to vandalise the surplus in the Senate. Labor is the party that is saving and that has a disciplined fiscal policy. Those opposite are out there trying to vandalise the surplus up in the Senate. Their actions in the Senate put at risk so much. They put at risk vital investment in the future—which they would not make—via our investment funds. Investment in the future will do something about capacity constraints and put downward pressure on inflation and therefore put downward pressure on interest rates. Everything that we have seen from those opposite, most particularly the member for Wentworth, is a recipe for higher interest rates for much longer. That is what their program, if you could describe it as that, represents. We will take the responsible decisions. We will put in place the responsible fiscal settings, and that means fighting for our $22 billion surplus in that Senate and making sure that the economic vandalism of those opposite, if it succeeds, will be punished by the Australian people at the next election. 7021 7021 14:31:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Minister, why are the budget plans for infrastructure investment vital to keeping downward pressure on interest rates? What legacy issues are addressed by these budget initiatives and are there any threats to their implementation? 7021 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Bonner for her question. Yesterday’s decision by the Reserve Bank to reduce interest rates, the first in seven years, is a welcome relief for homebuyers throughout the nation and for Australian businesses. Yet again, the Reserve Bank’s decision contains a very important message, and I would like to read that message out again. That message is: Inflation in Australia has been high over the past year in an environment of limited spare capacity and earlier strong growth in demand. In these circumstances, the Board has been seeking to restrain demand in order to reduce inflation over time. Yet again, the Reserve Bank has drawn attention to the problems of capacity constraints in the Australia economy. When they were in government, the opposition missed those messages 20 times; they did not register on the opposition’s radar. One would hope that they register now; one would hope that they understand the message now. The government would hope that the opposition understand that the central factor in economic capacity is infrastructure. Infrastructure investment lifts the speed at which an economy can grow sustainably, it improves productivity and it generates economic opportunity. That is why the budget makes provision over the long term for $76 billion worth of infrastructure investment. Whether it is through the AusLink program, rail, the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund or the Health and Hospitals Fund, all of these things are about long-term investment in Australia’s future prosperity. Improving the infrastructure in Australia’s economy, improving the capacity in the economy, will enable us to reduce the risk of interest rate increases into the longer term. That is the clear message from the Reserve Bank statement that was released yesterday. We do not want to return to circumstances where inadequate economic capacity is pushing up inflation and therefore putting upward pressure on interest rates. Yesterday’s decision has provided welcome relief for many working families throughout Australia. For people with a typical mortgage, that relief is close to $600 per year. It is the first rate cut for seven years, so there are almost three quarters of a million first home buyers who have, until now, not experienced a cut in interest rates because of the long, steady interest rate increases under the former government. Yet, bizarrely, the Liberal Party in the Senate seem intent upon ripping this benefit away from many working people by blocking the government’s changes to the thresholds for the Medicare levy surcharge. In fact, there will be, if the Liberal Party is successful in the Senate, many people in this country who otherwise would have been better off to the tune of about $1,800 or more as a result of the two initiatives—that is, the Reserve Bank cutting interest rates, thereby dropping their mortgage costs, and the government lifting the threshold on the Medicare surcharge. Many of those people would have been better off to the tune of about $1,800 a year. But if the opposition blocks the changes to the Medicare surcharge, they will not benefit in anything like the same way because they will continue to be hit by a slug that was originally intended to hit high income earners. Apparently the opposition now believes that people earning $50,000 a year are high-income earners and should be hit by this tax surcharge. So much for the party of low taxation; so much for the party that is seeking to relieve the tax burden on ordinary working people. We do face very challenging economic circumstances in this country as a result of a variety of international pressures. It is critical that we investment for the future; it is critical that we investment for tomorrow, not just spend today. We are now dealing with the legacy of a government that saw the future as election day, that saw spending as the way to win on election day and that saw investing as something that other people do. We are seeking to turn around that legacy and ensure that we get an appropriate balance in this country between spending and investment and that we have long-term infrastructure investment that will enable us as a society to grow sustainably. That will create economic opportunity and ensure that the Reserve Bank is helped in its long-term job of keeping interest rates as low as possible. 7022 Distinguished Visitors 7022 14:37:00 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 the Committee on Civil Affairs from the Parliament of Sweden. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7022 Questions Without Notice 7022 7022 14:38:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain if there are any limits on his government’s magic pudding surplus—a strategy which spends and saves the same money? 7022 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for his question. The government’s strategy for investing in nation building is clear cut and stands in complete contrast to that of our predecessors. Our predecessors took surpluses and spent them on consumption. We save surpluses for the purposes of investment in long-term productive capacity. That is the difference. It is the strategy which was called on by the Reserve Bank in its 20 sets of warnings, when it asked, ‘What are you going to do about capacity constraints in the economy?’ The BCA and other peak industry bodies across Australia year in and year out asked, ‘Will you invest in long-term productive potential?’ I referred earlier to a quote from Saul Estlake. There was an avalanche of commentary in the 12 long years that those opposite occupied the treasury bench asking, ‘Will you take the proceeds from this revenue bonanza which comes off the back of the commodity price boom and invest it in long-term productive potential?’ It is pretty interesting to reflect on what the member for Dickson had to say this morning. This is what he had to say about surpluses: Well, I think you have got to, as the Reserve Bank has said, and in actual fact as the Treasurer said in his May budget, you have to preserve an amount of capital post the budget. At the moment in the next year that is projected at just over $20 billion. That’s over 1.5 per cent of GDP It is pretty interesting that the member for Dickson is now saying that we need a surplus of $20 billion, a surplus of 1.5 per cent-plus of GDP. Why are you raiding the surplus to the tune of $6 billion? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded? The Prime Minister has concluded his answer. 7022 Distinguished Visitors 7022 14:39:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery today the former member for Page and Deputy Speaker of this House, Ian Causley; the former member for Leichhardt and parliamentary secretary, Warren Entsch; and the former member for Maribyrnong, Bob Sercombe. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. I was about to say that, because of my failing eyesight, I am sure to have overlooked a former member and I apologise. The member for Barker, quite illegally under the standing orders, is trying to prompt me. To whoever is there, they are warmly welcomed as well. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7023 Questions Without Notice 7023 7023 14:40:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 Ms BURKE —My question is to the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the impacts of yesterday’s decision by the Reserve Bank on small business and independent contractors? 7023 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 Dr EMERSON —I thank the member for Chisholm for her question and the good work she does for small business in her area, including the Box Hill Business Enterprise Centre. The Commonwealth, under the Rudd government, has provided funding for the centre for the first time in history. Yesterday’s decision by the Reserve Bank to cut the cash rate by a quarter of a percentage point follows 12 successive interest rate rises, 10 of them under the previous coalition government. It will offer modest but welcome relief for small businesses and independent contractors. It is the first time that interest rates have fallen in seven years. In a small way it will therefore reduce the cost of credit for small businesses and contractors. In a small way it might also increase the availability of credit for small businesses and independent contractors, which is pretty important in the global credit crunch. At the time of the change of government late last year, underlying inflation was at a 16-year high and we had the second highest interest rates in the developed world. But the good news is that the Rudd government has a plan to steer Australia through these tough global economic times with responsible economic management. We have built a strong surplus and we are cutting government spending growth from five per cent to one per cent. That is giving small businesses a little bit of extra room to grow as government reduces its call on spending. We are making tough decisions in implementing a comprehensive economic reform program. We are doing that through an education revolution to revive productivity growth, we are doing it though nation building out of the national infrastructure fund and we are doing it through a COAG process of cutting red tape in 27 areas of business regulation. Despite the good news about the interest rate cut yesterday, which will put $600 a year in the pocket of the average mortgage holder in Australia, the Senate is threatening, courtesy of the coalition, to block a tax cut. The first question from the Leader of the Opposition today was about taxes and he is indicating that he likes the idea of reducing taxes. That is what we thought the Liberal Party stood for. He has an opportunity to change the position of the coalition in the Senate because the coalition is threatening tomorrow to block Labor’s reduction in tax by increasing the threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge. If the coalition does stand for lower taxes—there is no evidence of that in the past—then it should pass the legislation and not block it. As some of my colleagues have pointed out, a family with two income earners both earning about $60,000 a year—about average earnings—on a combined income of $120,000 will save $1,200 a year as a result of the increased threshold for the Medicare levy surcharge. What good news that would be. That is $600 from the mortgage interest rate reduction and a $1,200 saving if the coalition would just change its mind and support our initiative to increase the threshold. The Rudd government is building a modern economy capable of meeting the challenges of the 21st century. I call on the opposition to get on board with the government’s program of responsible economic management or get out of the way in the Senate. Get out of the way and allow the government to secure a strong surplus and to provide another tax cut to the Australian people tomorrow. Help us get interest rates down and lock in those interest rate reductions for the benefit of the small businesses of Australia and the independent contractors of our country. 7024 7024 14:45:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is addressed to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer confirm Treasury estimates that nearly half a million Australian adults will leave private health insurance as a result of the government’s proposed changes to the Medicare levy surcharge? Will the Treasurer also confirm that there is no compensation to the states in the budget for the massive additional pressure this will place on the public hospital system? 7024 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —No, I cannot confirm any of the numbers used by the member who asked the question, but I can certainly confirm that, by the actions of the opposition in the Senate, you are going to hit two income earners in a household on average earnings something like $1,200 in total by denying them this tax relief, Mr Speaker, and you are going to do that precisely at the time that they have finally got a bit of relief in terms of the Reserve Bank decision to cut interest rates. They are getting the money in one pocket and you are taking it out of the other, Mr Speaker— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I’ve got to protect you. He’s accusing you of all sorts of things. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —When it comes to discussions with the states and these matters are discussed— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Treasurer, I was going to say to the member for O’Connor that I understood what his point of order was. The Treasurer should address his remarks through the chair. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —These matters are discussed with the states via the COAG process, but we do not for a minute accept some of the estimates that are floating around about the impact on the public hospital system that are suggested by the member who asked the question. But I have got a suggestion for those opposite: the former Prime Minister Mr Howard will be in the House tonight and I know they will be lining up to suck up to the former Prime Minister— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —You’re a grubby little man, Swan! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fadden is warned! The Treasurer will be heard in silence. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If under the circumstances of the parliament it is unparliamentary to talk about the ‘dud Rudd government’, surely it is unparliamentary to talk about sucking up to people in this chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The Treasurer has the call. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know most members on this side have thick skins, but I do not and I find it offensive and I would like it withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer, on behalf of the member for Warringah, will withdraw on behalf of the member for Warringah. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I withdraw. Perhaps tonight when they are attending this function— A government member—Kowtowing! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —bowing— A government member—Scraping! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —scraping— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will get to responding to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Perhaps they would like to ask the former Prime Minister why he left the Medicare surcharge levy at such a low level for so long, because it was never designed to apply to income earners on average incomes. For 12 long years the former Prime Minister and the former Treasurer punished all those average income earners with the surcharge. Now that relief is in sight, what are they going to do? They are going to take it away. They have not got a clue what life is like for people who are living out there under price pressures—not a clue, because if they did they would not be taking this action in the Senate. We stand for providing relief to those on average incomes. We have delivered the tax cuts. There is now some interest rate relief and there was further relief on the way, and they are going to block it. They will pay a very high price for that. 7025 7025 14:50:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 Ms COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister explain the benefits of the government’s decision to raise the Medicare levy surcharge threshold? 7025 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —It is important to be able to answer this question when those opposite are trying to pretend that after 11 years they suddenly care about public hospitals, after pulling a billion dollars out of public hospitals. We have started reinvesting. We have started reinvesting in hospitals, but still the opposition will not support tax relief for hundreds of thousands of Australians. When the Medicare surcharge levy was first introduced, about 165,000 people paid this tax. The member for Higgins has not bothered to be here for the debate today in question time. It may be that he is embarrassed about some of these figures. At the time, the then Treasurer said that he thought that this was a levy that the government hoped no-one was going to have to pay. In fact, when we came to office 465,000 people were paying this tax that the previous government pretended no-one was going to have to pay. We do not make any apologies for providing relief for nearly half a million Australians. When those opposite pretend that there is some science in the figures that were set by the previous government, I thought it might be worth informing the House how these figures were brought about. The Liberals have been saying that there was some science in these figures. They want to pretend that the impact is going to be disastrous in all sorts of areas, so you would have thought from this argument that there was some logic to the $50,000 and $100,000 thresholds. I can inform the House, thanks to some fine investigative journalism by Andrew Tillett and Andrew Probyn, of the logic behind the introduction of the Medicare surcharge levy. In an interview for the West Australian recently, the former health minister Dr Michael Wooldridge explained exactly how these thresholds, which we are hoping to change and are being blocked by the Liberals opposite, were determined. Dr Wooldridge said: I think the numbers in the end were negotiated with Senator Harradine - it was over a bottle of Jameson’s whiskey late at night ... That is what I call evidence based policy—obviously no reason to change. But there was more. Dr Wooldridge went on to reveal that the Liberals had not given a moment’s thought about the consequences of this levy and those thresholds in 10 years time. Dr Wooldridge said: We were happy to successfully get through 12 months, let alone worry about a problem in 10 years time or more. Fancy that—a Liberal thinking about short-term politics! We are planning and investing for the future, and those opposite are looking at short-term politics. We do not make any apologies for wanting to provide tax relief for half a million Australians, and it is about time that the Liberals got out of the way and let us do it. 7026 7026 14:53:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is again to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to evidence presented to a Senate inquiry by the Western Australian state Labor government that the Medicare levy surcharge would add so much pressure to public hospitals that an extra $53 million a year would be needed to address the demand there. Where in the Treasurer’s budget papers is an extra $500 million a year allocated to the states to compensate them for the changes to the Medicare levy surcharge? 7026 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question. As I said before, these matters are all negotiated and discussed at COAG. The government does not for one minute accept the propositions that are put forward by the member opposite. But for the record we have already put an additional $1 billion into state public hospitals, not a bad record compared to your withdrawal of funds—the withdrawal of funds by those opposite over a long period of time. Health is a priority and public hospitals are a priority for those of us on this side of the House. Of course they have never been a priority for those on that side of the House because they are simply stuck in the past and stuck with all of the old approaches, including their commitment to this unfair and unjust Medicare levy threshold surcharge. It is unfair and unjust, and it just shows how out of touch those opposite are if they are going to block this measure in the Senate which would deliver relief to people on average incomes who are doing it tough and need it. Five hundred dollars or $1,000 might not be much to the member for Wentworth, might not be much for the member for North Sydney, but we understand the importance of it, and if there is one thing that the national accounts demonstrate today it is that the people of Australia understand the importance of it. The fact that those opposite did not understand the importance of it is shown by the 10 interest rate rises in a row that hit those working families that you are punishing twice by trying to keep the surcharge. 7026 7026 14:56:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 Mr PRICE —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion. Will the minister outline activities related to National Literacy and Numeracy Week? Will the minister detail the importance of reading for all Australians? 7026 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 Chifley for his question and I know he is deeply interested in literacy and numeracy in his local schools. As I had the opportunity to advise the House last week, this week is National Literacy and Numeracy Week. It was with great pleasure last week that the Prime Minister and I announced an additional more than $40 million investment in literacy and numeracy pilot programs around the country so we can make sure that we understand what the best of evidence is for the teaching to children of literacy and numeracy. This $40 million worth of pilots in 29 schools is a down payment on a $577 million program for all schools to assist with literacy and numeracy development. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I hear the opposition calling out about past government programs, but this is an investment of more than half a billion dollars in literacy and numeracy. Of course, Literacy and Numeracy Week is not just for children in schools. It is for all Australians, and Australian adults can win prizes by answering the question: what are you reading today? I am very happy to answer the question: what am I reading today? Because today I had the great pleasure of going to Chapman Primary School here in the ACT to read to the grade 4 students a children’s book called Little Beauty, which is the tale of a gorilla and cat that, despite their differences, learn to live together and to strike up a friendship that endures during troubled times. It is a lesson in life, and I am more than happy to make copies of it available to members of the Liberal Party if they think that they would learn something from it. But of course it is a little bit disappointing that we have not had answers from those opposite about what they are reading today. I am particularly distressed that the member for Higgins, who has such interest in literacy and numeracy, is not here to answer the question: what is he reading today? 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The government seems to make a habit of these disparaging comments about people who have leave. The member for Higgins has leave quite appropriately, and I think it is quite inappropriate for the government to keep taking cheap shots. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. That was not a point of order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure the loyalty of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to the member for Higgins will be noted. But it would be nice if the member for Higgins were here to answer the question: is he reading today ‘The complete idiot’s guide to getting the job you want’? That is one possibility. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a very simple point of order: the Deputy Prime Minister has concluded her answer from the member for Chifley on literacy and numeracy and the inquiries that he made. I suggest that you ask her to wind up her answer and we can move on with question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister has the call and I would ask her to conclude her answer. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I was asked about the reading undertaken by Australian adults and I am answering that question. I would like an answer as to whether— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The point of order is on relevance. National Literacy and Numeracy Week is an extremely important issue that should not be demeaned in this place by the responsible minister trying to make jokes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. She will bring her answer to a quick conclusion. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —If I were to guess what the member for O’Connor was reading, it would just stop with the words ‘The complete idiot’s guide.’ SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, on a further point of order. I ask that that comment be withdrawn. I can tell you that I would not take the risk of visiting her house. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the Deputy Prime Minister said something that was offensive to the member for O’Connor it should be withdrawn and the Deputy Prime Minister should then go to the conclusion of her answer. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. The member for O’Connor is always welcome to come round to my house. I know he is a man who needs friendship and support; I am happy to offer it. The one thing that we know is not being read by the member for Higgins is the program for tonight’s tribute dinner, but I am sure it will inevitably include a compulsory reading from Work Choices, the opposition’s favourite book. 7028 7028 15:02:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. What does the Prime Minister have to say to the several hundred thousand older Australians on desperately low incomes, struggling to keep their private health insurance, who will face turbo-charged private health insurance premium increases as a result of almost one million Australians leaving private health insurance with the Medicare surcharge changes? 7028 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The first responsibility of government is to make sure we have a decent public hospital system. And can I say to those opposite: if ever I saw a demolition derby being conducted on the public hospital system of Australia, it is the 12-year history of the Howard government—12 years of denuding a public hospital system of appropriate funding to manage for its growth. There was at least $1 billion sucked out of the contribution by the Commonwealth to the states for the management of the nation’s public hospital system. What this government has done in the nine months since being elected is reinvest $1 billion, $500 million of which has already been delivered, into extra funding for our hospitals, and we are proud of that fact. The second thing that we have done is commit $600 million to a fund to help slash elective surgery waiting lists, to which we have already provided an upfront allocation of $150 million. That is designed to bring about 14,000 extra procedures, which have already been delivered. In terms of senior Australians, we have a plan to introduce the Commonwealth Dental Health system—a scheme which it took the Howard government less than 12 months to abolish when they were in government. So let us get real about this. In the 12-year history of the Howard government, they pulled $1 billion out of public hospitals and, in the nine-month history of this government, we put $1 billion back in. When first elected, it took the Howard government less than 12 months to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Health scheme and, in nine months, we have reintroduced the Commonwealth Dental Health scheme. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked what he had to say to older Australians who will face premium increases in private health. Prime Minister, could you please answer the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would say to the honourable gentleman who has just intervened that seniors and pensioners use the public hospital system and therefore what they want is a public hospital system which they can get proper access to. When we were recently in the electorate of the honourable member for Kingston, when we had our community cabinet down there, some senior Australians who are finding it very difficult to get elective surgery came to visit me. Our response to that, rather than to perpetuate 12 years of blame game, is to come up to the mark and ask: what can we do to partner with state governments on that? We have provided, for persons such as those in Kingston, a $600 million fund to help slash elective surgery waiting lists—$150 million already to deliver 14,000 extra procedures. That is practical action, concrete action to help Australians, including senior Australians, to deal with their healthcare charges. As to the other part of the question which the honourable member raised, can I go to the future of the Medicare levy surcharge. In 1997 the $50,000 threshold captured the top eight per cent of single-income earners—and there they left it. By 2010 this $50,000 threshold will capture the top 45 per cent of single-income earners. This is basically a huge grab for money on their part. That is what it is about and therefore what we are saying is that we need to look after those middle-income earners of Australia. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —That is money for health care! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would suggest that, if the Leader of the Opposition is trying to pump up his leadership stakes with this sort of performance on this sort of issue in question time, perhaps he should reserve that for this evening when all those opposite will gather at a function to honour Mr Howard. I know the member for Wentworth will be there with bells on. The member for Wentworth will be doing the tables all evening, I imagine. Someone with a tally sheet will be walking behind him. The only regrettable thing is that the member for Higgins will not be there. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: if the Prime Minister cannot answer a question that goes to the heart of whether poorer people can afford— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. He knows that an invitation for a point of order is not an invitation to debate. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member for North Sydney obviously does not like an answer which goes to what we are doing for public hospitals and the public healthcare system in Australia. That is of direct relevance to seniors, as is the ability of seniors to access appropriate dental care. That is why we have re-established the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. On the question of this Medicare levy surcharge, as I said, if we left it at the $50,000 threshold, rather than capturing the top eight per cent of income earners, as it did in 1997, by 2010 it would capture the top 45 per cent of income earners. Those opposite are arguing presumably that these represent top income earners in Australia. That is how radically out of touch they have become. Our new threshold of $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for couples will return the figure to around eight per cent by 2010. That was the threshold that you used back in 1997. You left it in place for 12 years. It delivers a financial penalty to many, many Australians and, as a consequence, we are acting. So I would say again to— RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —You’re a bloody bureaucrat! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I beg your pardon? An opposition member—He said he was a bureaucrat. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition regrettably used another adjective the first time. I would ask him to withdraw. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I think there was an adjective used there on the way through—I may have misheard it. I think there was a really interesting adjective used there—but that’s life. RW5 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP Dr Nelson —Mr Speaker, I withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will continue his answer. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I want to hear something about the strike area. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will contain himself. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Up you come, Joe. Come on, Joe. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will not provoke the member for North Sydney, and the member for North Sydney will not be provoked. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The critical issue here is that, if you are dealing with the health needs of senior Australians, your first responsibility is to make sure you get a properly funded public hospital system. Your second responsibility is to ensure that you re-establish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program—something which those opposite abolished a decade ago. We have done that. We have done it in nine months. We are proud of our record on this and we are proud of the fact that we intend to deliver this advantage to middle-income earners through the action we propose in the Senate. Again I challenge those opposite. On the day after we have had one modest interest rate cut, which affects so many working families across Australia, they are contemplating opposing a measure in the Senate which will, for income earners of the type I described before, lead to a further $1,200 a year hike. I would say to those opposite that, if they are concerned about families under financial pressure, they should act in the Senate and act appropriately in defence of the interests of those working families under financial pressure. 7030 7030 15:10:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr GEORGANAS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water. What scientific advice is informing the government’s action on water management in the face of climate change, and what other non-specific advice is currently being offered to the Australian people? 7030 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. I know he has a strong interest in these issues. The government is relying on the best local and international expertise to inform its action on water management in the face of climate change. We have considered reports from the International Panel on Climate Change, CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology—the experts from Australian and overseas institutions who consider and report on these matters. We have seen the lowest inflows in history into the Murray River in the two years leading up to November 2007, when the Liberal Party were in government, which was 43 per cent lower than previous historic lows. The more recent CSIRO sustainable yield project has found that actual inflows over the last 10 years, in five out of the eight southern Murray-Darling Basin catchment areas, are close to or worse than the worst case projections for climate change for 2030. The message has been consistent for many years. In 2002 the Australian Greenhouse Office noted: The regions already affected by reductions in rainfall and streamflow, mainly due to natural climate variability, would be placed under even more stress by further decline in rainfall as a consequence of global warming. So there is a very, very sound body of evidence that has accumulated over many years, and it indicates that climate change is having, and will continue to have, an impact on rainfall in the Murray-Darling Basin and in southern Australia. Despite these clear advices, on this question we now have the Leader of the Opposition claiming that recent above average national rainfall is proof positive that climate change impacts in the Murray-Darling Basin are not real. The Leader of the Opposition confirmed this view on ABC radio Adelaide today when he referred to the annual Australian climate statement of 2007: Climate change and the changes in temperature in recent years and the people who argue about it arguably have made and do make a contribution to it ... but it is not the cause of what we have got at the moment. That is what he said. He went on to say: In fact I notice the Australian climate statement from the meteorologists points out that average annual mean rainfall has been slightly more than average recently—25 millimetres. The very same statement that the Leader of the Opposition quoted from also notes that south-east Australia has now missed out on the equivalent of an average year’s rainfall over the past 11 years. In other words, there has been less rainfall in the south. But it seems that the opposition’s position now is: it is raining in the tropical north; therefore, climate change has had no effect on the Murray-Darling Basin in the south. This is a policy detour that takes us through the efforts of Sir Joh. With slightly more rain in the north, and record low rain in the south, we have got the Leader of the Opposition channelling Sir Joh and gerrymandering rainfall down to the southern basin. Mr Speaker, I ask you: when will the Leader of the Opposition stop appropriating unrelated rainfall figures to assert that the Murray-Darling is unaffected by climate change? On Lateline on Monday night the Leader of the Opposition had two positions in two minutes. Today he was given the opportunity to clarify his remarks, and the only answer he had to this very serious problem was to gerrymander Australia’s rainfall. I ask the opposition leader where he is getting his advice from on climate change. He will not take the advice of the CSIRO. He will not take the advice of the Bureau of Meteorology. He does not believe the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I suspect he is taking his advice from climate change sceptics in his own party. It is time that the opposition leader stop denying dangerous climate change. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I would ask if the minister could table the song sheet from which he was reading. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member is asking for the tabling of documents: was the minister quoting from documents? HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Were the documents confidential? HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Yes. 7031 7031 15:16:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP 0 Dr NELSON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to comments made this morning by the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Minister Penny Wong, who said in relation to the Murray-Darling Basin, the lower lakes and Coorong: We are going to have to take a decision and at the moment we are in a holding pattern. Prime Minister, isn’t this a metaphor for the entire government? When will the government get out of its holding pattern? 7031 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —In answer to the honourable member’s question I would say two things. Which government committed funding and has actually used that funding to buy back water entitlements for the Murray-Darling? The Australian Labor government. Which government in its 12 years in office refused to spend a single dollar to buy back a single gigalitre of water entitlement? The Australian Liberal government. There is a classic contrast here between action in nine months and inaction over 12 years. But I go back to my second point. You cannot deal effectively with the challenge of the Murray-Darling if underpinning your entire approach is the deeply ingrained climate change scepticism of the Leader of the Opposition. When I read the transcript—because I did not watch it—of the Leader of the Opposition’s performance on Lateline the night before last, where in response to questioning he disputed absolutely and uncategorically any relationship between the problems of water in the Murray-Darling system and climate change, the conclusion that we had to reach is that those opposite, even having been through the experience of the last election, just do not get it on climate change. I said to the Leader of the Opposition yesterday that there are at least three sets of scientific reports—from the Bureau of Meteorology, from the IPCC and from the CSIRO—that go through the linkage between climate change and water inflow into the Murray-Darling system. Presumably, the Leader of the Opposition personally knows better than any of those individual institutions. Well, we on this side of the House have a different view: you accept the science and you work within the science. That is the first thing. The second thing is: when it comes to an overallocated system, which is the Murray-Darling system, rather than just dreaming about it, what you do is you act and actually spend money to buy back entitlements, which is what we have done more of in nine months than those opposite did in 12 years. Thirdly, what you do is also bring about practical assistance measures to assist those in the lower lakes area. In nine months, practical action from this government; in 12 years, a litany of inaction by those opposite. The contrast is clear. 7032 7032 15:19:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs. Will the minister please inform the House about the importance of recognising the Battle for Australia Day? 7032 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr GRIFFIN —I thank the member for Solomon for his question. Today is a special day in our history: it is the first official proclamation day with respect to the Battle for Australia. It is a time when the parliament and the people can unite to consider the question of what our country went through so many years ago in the dark days of 1942 and 1943. I know that the Prime Minister went to the Australian War Memorial today, and I believe the opposition leader did so as well, to commemorate this occasion, and the shadow minister went to the service in Sydney. The reason that I am late for question time—although I am sure that no-one really cares—is the fact that I was at the Shrine of Remembrance in Melbourne at what was a very special ceremony that was attended by several thousand children and representatives right across the board. It was an occasion befitting the importance of this occasion in terms of our history. The circumstances of what we faced as a nation at that time were in fact very dire. The then Prime Minister, John Curtin, said after the fall of Singapore: ‘The fall of Singapore opens the battle for Australia,’ and, within days, Darwin was bombed for the first time—which I know is an event that is very important to the member for Solomon and the people of Darwin. Northern Australia was subsequently bombed some 70 times. The people of Australia—seven million people at that stage—were overwhelmingly united in a war effort that encompassed both the military and the civilian aspects of our society. If you were not in uniform, you were working to support those who were in uniform. Nearly one million Australians were actually in uniform at that time all over the world and, in particular, defending our nation on its northern extremes. There has been quite a bit of debate about the nature of the Battle for Australia. Does it really constitute a battle? Does it really meet the definition? It has been an issue that some historians have tried to wax lyrical about in recent times. I would like to address a couple of issues on this occasion. One argument is that it was not a battle because it was a series of battles. History tells us that that is not the way that we define these things in historical terms. The Battle of the Atlantic was in fact a range of engagements. The Battle of Britain went over a considerable period of time. Battles and their historical locations in history and their significance are not normally determined just by geography or time. Beyond that, an argument that has been put and argued strongly by some is that there were no invasion plans and therefore there was no invasion or any invasion that was likely. History tells us that the success that occurs on the military field determines what opportunities are presented and developed. The fact is that, because Australian and Allied forces fought hard and defended this country and its environs well at places like the Coral Sea, the Kokoda Track, Milne Bay and elsewhere in the islands, the plans of the Japanese were not achieved. The circumstances to which they might have turned their minds to achieve did not happen. We can be very proud of what our forebears did so many years ago. We should recognise their courage and sacrifice at a time when the nation really needed it. We could also say—and this is my view—that this is something that encapsulates what occurred in World War II. It does not detract from the many Australians who fought the Germans in Bomber Command or in North Africa, Greece or Crete. It is, if you like, representative of the major commitment that we had as a nation at a time when we needed to have it. I urge everyone to get behind Battle for Australia Day in the future. I say to all of you that the commemorations that I was at today, and what I have seen of other commemorations that occurred today, are a credit to all those involved. 7033 15:23:00 Nelson, Dr Brendan, MP RW5 Bradfield LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Dr NELSON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I strongly support the remarks of the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs and commend the government for its recognition of Battle for Australia Day. 1942 was arguably the most important year in this country’s history since the arrival of the First Fleet. As the minister reminds us, bombs fell on Australia, there was a gripping struggle at Kokoda, the Japanese were repelled at Milne Bay, there were the battles of the Coral Sea and Guadalcanal and, along with brave Australians, the Americans, the Dutch and the British fought to secure the freedoms that we celebrate here in the parliament—freedoms that, I think, too often my generation has taken for granted. I commend the government for what it has done in this regard and assure it that it enjoys the full support of the opposition in recognising this heroic battle for our country through this very day. 7033 7033 15:24:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer explain how his bank switching package, which does not include exit fees, will help struggling homeowners when the cost of exiting a home loan can be as high as $7,580? 7033 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I am delighted to receive this question, because the bank-switching package that we are putting in place is the first time there has ever been a bank-switching package. Those opposite could not find it within their hearts to put in place a bank-switching package for 12 long years. We are working with the banks and the Reserve Bank to put in place a bank-switching package which will be fully operational by November. For the first time, banks will be compelled to participate. This is a huge advance because, in the past, people have been trapped. They have not been able to easily move their transaction accounts, and the capacity to move their transaction accounts is a very important power to have if we want to have a competitive banking sector. When you want to move, the capacity to access your credits and your debits from your bank is very important because so much of the household budget is tied up— 00AMN Ley, Sussan, MP Ms Ley —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer knows the question I am asking: what about the exit fees? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer is answering the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —This is a very important measure and yet another example of how those opposite do not understand how important competition is and how much saving a few dollars can really matter to families. But, in the case of mortgages, it can be a lot more than a few dollars. Customers have to have the capacity to shift their account. They have not had the capacity to easily do it up until now. Banks will be compelled for the first time to provide all of those details and facilitate the opportunity for a customer to move their account. The member asked about exit fees. Did those opposite ever do anything about exit fees? No. Did they ever once mention the phrase ‘exit fees’? No. What we have done is we have had the whole question looked at by ASIC. We have for the first time got a handle on what is actually happening with exit fees. As a consequence, we are now getting a new product on the market which does not have exit fees. That is something that never happened under those opposite. Banks will now be compelled to provide for their customers all of the details so that people can easily move their transaction accounts. Furthermore, if banks do not participate according to the code that they have signed up to, they will be liable for compensation—the first time that has ever happened—through the Financial Ombudsman Service. We will bring the full power of competition to bear so that customers can more easily move their accounts—something that never happened when those opposite were on the treasury benches. 7034 7034 15:29:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 Mr ADAMS —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. What is the latest information on investment in aged care in Australia? 7034 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Lyons for his question and note his very strong interest in aged care. Given that Australians now have the world’s second longest life expectancy after the Japanese, I am sure that most members of this chamber would agree that our longevity is to be celebrated. Indeed, it is one of the major challenges facing Australia in the 21st century. That is why the Australian government is investing more than $40 billion in aged and community care over the next four years. A record $28.6 billion of that is going directly to our nation’s nursing homes. In short, no Australian government has invested more in aged and community care than the Rudd Labor government. This government is committed to working in partnership with older Australians, aged-care providers, unions and consumer groups to improve quality in residential aged care. Members will be aware that the new aged-care funding system came into effect on 20 March, and indeed it had bipartisan support. At that time we said we would examine the new system after we had an appropriate sample size. Access Economics have now analysed 33,000 claims. Their initial analysis found that on average the subsidy rates were higher than they would have been under the previous model. In fact, the returns, on average, were almost three per cent higher. We will honour our commitment to monitor and review the funding model after 18 months. Those on the other side of the chamber are always talking down the aged-care sector—always. But the fact is that we have a healthy and confident aged-care sector with a very strong future. Figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics on building approvals in aged care present a very optimistic picture. Building approvals in the aged-care sector are reaching record levels, with substantial investment. For the June 2008 quarter there was investment of $302 million in projects compared with $250 million for the same period last year. That is a 20.8 per cent increase in aged-care building approvals. This construction activity is underpinned by the strong growth in the aged-care sector last year. The just released independent Bentleys MRI/James Underwood & Associates National Residential Aged Care Survey found that earnings had increased in all three areas of residential services—high care, low care and merged services. It found that returns were positive, regardless of their resident mix or type of service. The overwhelming majority of aged-care providers in Australia are providing top-quality care for our nation’s elderly. In every state and territory I have seen world-class facilities and they are backed by hardworking, dedicated staff. The government are committed to tackling the challenges of the 21st century, including our ageing population. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 7035 Miscellaneous 7035 15:32:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, the Paralympics will take place in Beijing from 6 to 17 September. Prior to my departure to attend and represent the government at these games, I think it is significant that the House should send on our best wishes. Before a single event has even taken place at the games there is so much that we all have to be proud of within our Paralympic team. The courage, the determination and the discipline that is displayed by each and every one of these individuals should be celebrated, not just by those within the sporting community or the disability community but indeed by all of us. Australia is sending our largest ever team this year, with 170 elite athletes, including 11 guide runners and pilots for the sight impaired. They will be supported by 121 officials, including the President of the Australian Paralympic Committee, Greg Hartung. Our government are proud and very strong supporters of this team. On Monday we saw the Prime Minister’s wife, Therese Rein, and our Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, Bill Shorten, farewell the team at Sydney airport. I am delighted that I, and later on our parliamentary secretary Bill Shorten, will be able to support our athletes in their endeavours. Of course our support is also financial. The government are very proud sponsors. Earlier this year our government confirmed an extra $22.8 million over five years for the Australian Paralympic Committee to continue their success. Whilst the games are certainly not all about winning medals, the House may like to note that Australia is just 92 medals away from achieving a very impressive milestone of 1,000 Paralympic medals won in just 48 years of competition. This achievement is definitely within reach, with Australia winning 100 medals at the previous games in Athens. It is something that I am sure many Australians will be eagerly anticipating. I am sure that the House will join me in recognising this remarkable event and sending on the best wishes of all of us to the Australian Paralympic team. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7036 15:35:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP 0 0 Mr FARMER —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, I would like to echo the comments of the Minister for Sport in relation to the Paralympians and wish them the very best in their journey and their endeavours overseas. They are true representatives of the Australian spirit. Every single day of their lives is a gold-medal performance as far as we are concerned. I think it is important to note that never before were the Paralympians highlighted as well for their efforts and for their continued support of the Australian flag and all that it stands for in this country than in the 2000 Olympics, the Sydney 2000 Games. They showed their tenacity, their strength of spirit, their ability to get on with the job and all that the Olympic theme stands for during those games. I saw on many occasions Paralympians from Australia hugging and supporting athletes from overseas, clapping and cheering them on. I think it is a kindly reminder to all of us, especially those here in this House, of how when we unite towards a common goal of humanity we can achieve great things. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 7036 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:36:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 7036 Matters of Public Importance 7036 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s failure to maintain the strong and growing economy it inherited from the Howard Government. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 7036 15:37:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Having observed this Prime Minister for the last nine months, the Australian public now have an idea of the kind of leader we have in this country. At first we had the slogans—the education revolution and working families—and then we had the stunts: the war on obesity, the war on binge drinking and the war on homelessness. That would have led Australians to believe that the Prime Minister was Tony Blair—in fact, a carbon copy. Some Australians were starting to think that the Rudd government was just an illusion, that there was no such thing, and that they had in fact elected the Blair government. Some are still wondering whether this was the ultimate con on the old colony by the mother country and Tony Blair has ended up running this country. But, having listened to the Prime Minister over the last seven question times, I can assure the Australian people that he is no Tony Blair. His repetitious and tedious answers are filled with jargon, cliches and blather and they are without any semblance of sensible, common, plain English. This shows that this Prime Minister is as he was—a middle ranking bureaucrat. He looks like one, he acts like one, he sounds like one. As this Prime Minister goes about trying to rewrite the history of this country and the economic circumstances that his government inherited from the Howard government, we on this side of the House are reminded of another bureaucrat—Winston Smith, in Orwell’s 1984. Winston Smith was employed by the ‘Ministry of Truth’ to rewrite history in accordance with the party’s propaganda. As Winston Smith sat there rewriting the historical records to fit with the party’s pronouncements of the day so that everything the party said was ‘true’, he would shove the original records down a ‘memory hole’—in other words, to oblivion. This Prime Minister is guilty of attempting to rewrite history. He is guilty of attempting to mislead the Australian people about the true state of the economic conditions that his government inherited in November 2007. So before the Prime Minister of Australia, aka Winston Smith, seeks to shove the national accounts from 1996 to 2007 down his memory hole, let us recall the true facts and the true legacy of the Howard government. In 1996 the Howard government inherited from the Keating government an economy that was struggling through the recession that Keating said we had to have. Over the following 11 years, the Howard government restored the economy and restored our confidence in the leadership of this country to properly manage the economy. Let us restate for the record the legacy of the Howard government from 1996 to 2007—the legacy that this government inherited. Gross domestic product per head rose from $37,000 to nearly $49,000—that is, the nation’s wealth per head increased from $37,000 to nearly $49,000. The number of Australians with jobs rose from 8.3 million to 10.6 million. The unemployment rate was halved from 8.2 per cent to 4.2 per cent. As employment indicators are lag indicators, unemployment actually went down to 3.9 per cent. We had a ‘3’ in front of the unemployment figure—something that those opposite said was impossible. Long-term unemployment in September 2007 was a third of its level in September 1996. Just think of what that means in human terms. In September 1996, 215,000 Australian workers had been unemployed for more than 12 months. By September 2007 it was down to 72,000. Real wages—and this is a concept the Prime Minister does not even understand, let alone care about—under the Howard government had risen by 22 per cent—that is, average wages rose faster than inflation. This was achieved by the increasing productivity of workers—and that translated into higher living standards—and by controlling inflation. During the Hawke-Keating years, inflation rose by 5½ per cent per annum. During the Howard years it fell by 2.5 per cent, comfortably within the Reserve Bank’s target range of two to three per cent. The Rudd government has been talking up inflation as a threat and has claimed it is a legacy of the previous government. It has ignored the obvious strength of the Australian economy: sustained growth; increased employment; decreased unemployment, including the long-term unemployed; and rising living standards. Labor, in its mad rush to trash the legacy of the Howard government, went way too far with the Treasurer’s irresponsible comment that ‘the inflation genie was out of the bottle’—in other words, that inflation was out of control—and the Prime Minister’s comments about ‘an inflation monster wreaking havoc across the economy’. The Reserve Bank was placed in an untenable position and it acted to lift interest rates. But the Prime Minister and his flock of sheep bleated even louder about the inflation challenge—such was the manic desire of those opposite to blacken the reputation of the Howard government. Many Australians are now looking back on those years as the golden years of the Australian economy. The fact is that, on 27 October 2007, the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of the Treasury and the Secretary of the Commonwealth Department of Finance signed the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook, which is required under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998. That was a Howard government initiative, members would recall, in response to the previous Labor government’s refusal to admit that there was a $10 billion budget deficit. That document represented the most up-to-date economic forecast by Treasury and Finance, taking into account all government policy decisions at the time. The outlook forecast for the CPI was 2.75 per cent for 2007-08 and 2008-09, which was well within the Reserve Bank’s CPI target of two to three per cent. Finally, as a vital legacy to the nation’s prosperity, the Howard government paid off massive debts that it inherited from the previous Labor government and established a sound financial position for the country. Members remember that when the coalition took office in 1996 it inherited a budget deficit of over $10 billion and $96 billion of government debt. While the budget was quickly put into surplus, it took 10 years to repay that $96 billion of Labor debt. By April 2006, the Howard government had repaid it in full—April 2006: national debt-free day. The Rudd government inherited zero government debt. Plus, Labor inherited net assets of $45 billion and surpluses of $94.4 billion over five years. All this was achieved as taxes and other revenues were reduced by a net $214 billion. And the Treasurer of this country has the audacity to claim that he has single-handedly created a budget surplus of $22 billion. I remind members that all this occurred as our country was facing challenging global economic times: the Asian financial crisis, the tech wreck and the recessions post September 11. Our economy was deemed ‘the wonder down under’. The Treasurer did not create the $22 billion surplus. He inherited it, on the day after the election. Where would his claim to a surplus be if the Howard government had not put the budget into surplus year after year, repaid Labor’s $96 billion debt and invested in the Future Fund and the Higher Education Endowment Fund? Have a look at the state of play now, nine months later: major economic forecasts in Labor’s first budget for 2008-09 for slower growth, a halving of employment growth and higher unemployment. The minister for employment cannot bring herself to inform the Australian public of the number of Australians that this government forecast will lose their jobs within the next 12 months—134,000. You are not going to hear that from the minister for employment. She does not have the courage to inform the Australian people that the government’s own budget forecasts reveal 134,000 Australians will lose their jobs in the next 12 months, confirmed in Senate estimates. Growth in real GDP is forecast to slow from 3½ per cent in 2007-08 to 2¾ per cent. Employment growth is forecast to halve. The unemployment rate is forecast to reach 4¾ per cent in the June quarter 2009, and the Reserve Bank says it will probably be five per cent. Since the budget, even these pessimistic forecasts appear optimistic. Today’s national accounts show GDP grew by only 0.3 per cent. In its recent statement on monetary policy, the Reserve Bank forecast annual employment growth of only 0.75 per cent. Unemployment in July stood at 4.3 per cent, having risen from 3.9 per cent in February 2008. And the Reserve Bank has now revised up its inflation forecast from 4½ per cent to five per cent. In line with these poor results for the major macroeconomic variables, poor results are being reported in major sectors of the economy. These include: falls in retail trade turnover, falls in owner occupied housing finance commitments, slowing residential building approvals and slowing demand for credit. Yesterday’s building approvals report from the ABS shows house-building approvals fell by 3½ per cent in July. Concerns about job losses are heightened by a number of large and well-publicised lay-offs in manufacturing and the services sectors. Today in question time the Prime Minister could not even answer a question about the heavy job losses in the services sector. If this was not enough, bitter and unproductive industrial disputation is resurfacing under the Rudd government. In 1997, the number of working days lost through industrial disputation was over 500,000. That is what we inherited in 1997—500,000 working days lost. By 2007, we had brought that down to under 50,000. According to the ABS, that was the lowest number of working days lost in almost 50 years. But now, with tomorrow’s June quarter figures, we are going to see a further increase in industrial disputation, with the union movement emboldened by the weak leadership of the bureaucrat that is now in charge of this country. Worst of all, worse than all of these figures, is the astonishing loss of confidence of the Australian people in where the government is taking them. Since the Rudd Labor government came to office, business and consumer confidence has plummeted to lows not seen since the previous Labor government took us into recession in the 1990s. There has been such a succession of worsening indicators since this government came to office that it is impossible for me to summarise it in the time available. Let’s just take one of them: the Sensis Business index for small and medium enterprises. Business confidence has fallen even further to reach its lowest level since the survey began, and perceptions of the current state of the Australian economy have fallen to their lowest level since 1993. Attitudes to federal government policies have fallen, and the reasons for the growing lack of confidence in the government were cited. I think members will be interested to hear what small business say about the Rudd government’s management of the economy. The reasons they cite for such a lack of confidence are: poor economic management, government policies working against small business, too much bureaucracy, the federal government not understanding small business and government policies affecting consumer confidence. The Labor Party must accept responsibility for the collapse of confidence and the slowly deteriorating state of the economy. The Labor government stands condemned for its attempts to trash the economic legacy of the Howard government, for its attempts to rewrite history by deliberately distorting the economic conditions it inherited and for its inability to make a major decision, with its obsession with blaming the Howard government for its own incompetence. The Prime Minister, unlike his alter ego, Winston Smith, should admit that he is trying to erase the legacy of the Howard government. (Time expired) 7039 15:52:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I am very pleased to respond to the extraordinary contribution of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —It was extraordinarily good. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —who is now seeking some comfort from the Leader of the National Party about how good her speech was. We on this side of the House believe that that was a contribution that we wanted to hear. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has reminded the Australian people how out of touch those on that side of the House are. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —What, making sure people had jobs? 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition was heard in silence. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, you were. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to their 12 long years of government as ‘the golden years’! You would think that Monty Python’s team had been hired as the speechwriters opposite. They just do not get it. Maybe they think that it was their turn to sit on the other side of the benches. No. Not only was the government that they were a part of rejected by the Australian people on 24 November, but the former Prime Minister, the member for Bennelong, was rejected so harshly he lost his own seat in the parliament, only the second time since Federation that has happened. Yet those opposite would have us believe that everything was totally on track during what they call ‘the golden years’ of the Howard government. We are pretty pleased that they are coming back to remind the Australian people how out of touch they are at this evening’s gala dinner at Parliament House with the former member for Bennelong as the special guest. They will all be genuflecting to the Howard legacy on the way through, tugging their forelocks—as they tend to do. Then there is the former Treasurer, one-half of the team who, during the election campaign, sat there on the lounge for Today Tonight and spoke about what good mates they were. We know that the former Treasurer was never invited to dinner at the Lodge, he was never invited to dinner at Kirribilli and he is not invited tonight. As much as they go on about their legacy, the member for Higgins is not welcome at this evening’s function. He sat there for 12 years and whinged about taking the top job and why the Prime Minister should just give it to him on a platter, but he never had the courage to put his hand up to contest the top job. The member for Higgins makes the Tin Man look like William Wallace. He never had the courage to contest, never had the courage to put himself forward, and now he is sitting back having not asked a question or given a speech, the ultimate indulgence on the Australian public— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: we are quite happy to hear the contribution of the member opposite, but this has nothing to do with the matter of public importance before the parliament at the moment. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. The minister has the call. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —This has everything to do with it because the speech of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition had nothing about the current government or the future. It was all about the past. They are stuck in the past. Let us have a look at the legacy that they will be trumpeting at tonight’s function. On the economy: there were 10 rate increases in a row, which have cost Australian families on an average mortgage some $400 every month. That is Costello’s $400 charge on average Australians every month. They had the highest inflation levels in 16 years, but they just dismiss it. They say we talked up inflation, as if it were not real. It was the highest in 16 years. Productivity growth over the last five years of the Howard-Costello government had fallen to its lowest in more than 16 years. They ignored the Reserve Bank of Australia and its 20 warnings about capacity constraints in infrastructure and skills adding to inflation. Maybe they will be celebrating reckless spending. In the Liberal Party’s last budget there was some $40 billion in new spending but zero in savings. It was $40 billion out the door but nothing in the door. That was their strategy. Most importantly tonight, they will be celebrating Work Choices. The party of Work Choices remains the party of extreme industrial relations and Work Choices—the Work Choices that allowed a slashing of penalty rates, the Work Choices that allowed a slashing of overtime payments, the Work Choices that allowed the slashing of holiday leave and the Work Choice that allowed people to be ripped off. It was un-Australian and took away the Australian ethos that bargaining occur in a fair way and that people have a right to join a trade union. Our workplace reforms are about workplace fairness but, on the other side of the House, they just cannot walk away from Work Choices, no matter how it was rejected by the Australian public. Maybe they are celebrating how on broadband and modern communications they left Australia a backwater. They left us behind in the digital revolution and gave our competitors an enormous advantage. On health, maybe they are celebrating the billion dollars that they ripped out of the public health system in 2003. Maybe they will be celebrating water tonight. Maybe they will be saying, ‘Wasn’t it terrific that, during the 12 years of the Howard government, we didn’t put a single litre—not a drop of water—back into the Murray-Darling system in spite of the fact that it was in crisis?’ Or maybe they will be celebrating their legacy on education. The Liberals’ idea of an education revolution was giving every child access to a flagpole. That was their legacy. We believe that children should have access to a computer in school. We believe that every Australian, no matter how humble their origins, should have an opportunity to get a good education, but the only standards that those opposite ever raised were on flagpoles. Of course, the legacy that will go down the generations in terms of missed opportunities is that of climate change, where for 12 years the Liberals denied its very existence. They failed to act. Not only were there dire consequences for the environment as a result of that but there were drastic consequences in terms of our economic competitiveness with our neighbours. We missed out on opportunities. We were the only country in the world that in the 21st century exported jobs in the solar energy industry overseas. Pacific Solar is based in Munich as a result of their policies. Solar manufacturing in Tasmania shut down as a result of their legacy. On all of these issues, whether you look at the specific policies or whether you look at education policy where federal government spending on education fell as a share of GDP from five per cent in 1995 to 4.3 per cent in 2004, they have a dreadful legacy. What are they doing now in opposition? They back big oil when it comes to a choice between consumers and big oil companies, they back the alcopop industry instead of taking action on binge drinking among young people and they back the private health insurance industry rather than backing working families. Tonight they should be serving humble pie instead of lobster and caviar. They should be wearing hairshirts instead of tuxedos. They should be apologising to the Australian people instead of raising a toast to the former member for Bennelong, rejected so comprehensively by the Australian people that the Prime Minister lost his seat. They should also be getting out of the way when it comes to the economic reform agenda of the Rudd government, because, in spite of the global credit crunch and slowing global growth, our economy is still growing solidly. Real GDP rose by 0.3 per cent in the June quarter and by 2.7 per cent over the year. Let us compare that with our competitors. Five of the world’s largest seven developed economies recorded zero or negative growth in the June quarter—that is, Japan, Germany, France, Italy and the UK. But the good news is that business investment continues to grow strongly, at four per cent in the June quarter and 9.9 per cent over the year. The difficult conditions faced by the economy reinforce the importance of our budget, which produced a surplus not as an end in itself but a surplus with a purpose. In the short term, that surplus is putting downward pressure on inflation and interest rates. And what happened yesterday? Interest rates decreased. We are securing those long-term investment funds to deal with the infrastructure challenges of the nation. These are critical. But every time that they say no to one of these budget bills, they are saying no to proposals to unclog our ports. Every time they say no to a budget bill, they are saying no to proposals to ease urban congestion. Every time they say no to a budget bill, they are saying no to proposals for better public transport. You cannot blow a $6.2 billion hole in the budget and then say that you are acting responsibly. Of course, it is not just the budget of the government that they are blowing a hole in—they are blowing a hole in the budget of working families with their irresponsible opposition to the changes to the Medicare surcharge. These changes, a day after working Australians got an average of $600 a year shaved off their mortgage, will add $1,200 in the lost opportunity of tax reduction that the government’s proposals would bring. Two income earners on $120,000 would be $1,200 worse off as a result of the political opportunism of those opposite—because it is all about them. That is why the deputy leader’s speech talked about the 12 golden years of the Howard government. That is why they are in denial. That is why they are so angry during question time. That is why they move points of order. That is why they cannot come to terms with the Australian public’s decision last year—because they are all obsessed with fighting over the spoils of opposition. You can imagine the tactics discussions this morning: ‘The shadow treasurer got to give an MPI speech yesterday, so we better have the shadow minister for workplace relations, the deputy leader, have a turn today. We will have another candidate for the leadership up tomorrow.’ It is all about their internal politics. They have no coherent strategy whatsoever when it comes to the future of the economy, and that is why they have been rejected comprehensively not just by the Australian people but by organisations which historically have been a part of their base. As I go around the business community talking about this government’s infrastructure agenda, I get nothing but support because they know how critical this is to the nation’s future. The other side’s position is pretty simple. We heard it from the Deputy Leader of the Opposition herself. They have nothing to say about the present or the future; they are simply obsessed with the past. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —At least we are not rewriting it. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They are not rewriting it! What is the member for Higgins doing? He is not in the chamber; he is off writing a book! Mr Courageous over there! (Time expired) HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —What a diatribe. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Fadden is warned! 7042 16:07:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I strongly support this matter of public importance. The government is full of rhetoric about the coalition’s economic management record. But this government, of all governments, should not be giving the coalition lessons on how to be economically responsible. The coalition has an economic record of which it can be rightly proud. This economy thrived under the leadership of John Howard and Peter Costello. A strong economy is not something that happens by chance; a strong Australian economy is not something that just happens to occur if the international conditions are right. It must be managed carefully. The economy was strong during the Howard-Costello government because it was under the stewardship of the best possible management. Business and consumers were confident in the economy and they were confident in the government of the day, and they had every reason to be. We eliminated the Labor Party’s $96 billion debt and we placed more than $60 billion in the Future Fund, which is being invested for the benefit of future generations. We inherited a $10 billion deficit, which we turned around to deliver regular surpluses, the last of which was in the order of $16.8 billion. For the first time we published a balance sheet for the general government sector and the whole of the public sector. This created a transparent picture of the government’s assets and liabilities and improved financial governance. We implemented accrual accounting to provide the full details of the full cost of service delivery. We introduced an outcomes/outputs framework to place the focus on what government was actually delivering for the money it spent, thereby improving the efficiency of government spending. We also instituted the Uhrig review of governance in the public sector. Many of these achievements might have flown under the radar. Many Australians would be unaware of the Financial Management and Accountability Act or the introduction of accrual accounting in the budget process, but these were just some of the tough policy measures taken by the coalition government that ensured the ongoing success of the economy. I confess to the House today that after all that hard work it is difficult to watch this incapable government unable to manage the $1.1 trillion Australian economy. Australians are starting to realise that the high-taxing, high-spending Labor of old is now back in control. The economic wrecking ball of the Labor Party has well and truly returned. Let us consider the dud economic news out today. The data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics today shows that the gross domestic product rose by 0.3 per cent in the June quarter in real terms, to give an annual growth rate of 2.7 per cent. That is down from 3.6 per cent in the year to March, prior to revisions. The Australian Industry Group also released some interesting data today in its Performance of services index—PSI—for August. The Performance of services index has fallen to 39.3, which is well below the index of 50 points that separates expansion from contraction. Although it has been running for only three or four years, the index is at its lowest point on record, and has recorded falls for five consecutive months. It was 55.7 at the last election, and has therefore fallen 16.4 points since then. The Australian index is well below the comparable indexes for other developed countries. This is a very important point. For example, the Eurozone services index is at 48.3, the United Kingdom services index is at 47.4 and the United States index is at 49.5. Economic growth in all those economies is generally slower than that of Australia, yet their survey results are much better than Australia’s. That reflects the lack of confidence of the services sector, in particular, in the Rudd government’s ability to manage the economy. It does not end there. Today’s Australian Industry Group survey highlights the fall in confidence in the services sector, but business as a whole has lost confidence in this government. It has lost confidence to make the tough decisions that must be made in business. Instead, we are seeing redundancies and workers put off, and casuals, particularly in the retail sector, are having their hours wound back. There are numerous examples of retailers feeling the pinch. In today’s Australian, Adelaide retailer Nadia Evans reflected on how sales were down in her menswear business, and how the cafes and restaurants surrounding her business were noticeably quieter. Ms Evans’s experience is reflected in the various business confidence surveys over the past few months. In the recent NAB monthly business survey, confidence remained steady at negative nine points in July, to be at its lowest level since September 2001. The measure has fallen 24 points since last June, and 15 points since November 2007. In the NAB quarterly business confidence survey, confidence in the June quarter fell four points to negative eight. That is the lowest reading since early 1991. The measure has fallen 18.9 points since last June, and 13.8 points since December 2007. The quarterly Sensis Business index was particularly telling. The August 2008 index shows that confidence among small and medium businesses fell to its lowest level since the inception of the Sensis Business index over 15 years ago. The business confidence indicator currently sits at 24 per cent, which is less than half the level recorded this time last year. Small businesses’ lack of confidence in the government in particular has flowed through to consumers. That is hardly surprising given that small business is such an important part of the Australian community. The August Roy Morgan consumer confidence rating is at 90.1, the lowest since December 1991, down 1.9 points from July 2008 and 35.1 points lower than August 2007. The August 2008 Westpac-Melbourne Institute consumer sentiment index is currently at 86.2, a recovery from the July result of 79.0, which was the lowest level since July 1992. However, the index is below 100, showing net negative sentiment, and is 22.4 points below August 2007. It has fallen by 24.3 percentage points since the election. The June 2008 Sensis Consumer report showed a net balance of 35 per cent of Australians reporting confidence in their financial prospects for the year ahead—one in three. That is a shameful figure for this government. This is a fall of nine percentage points from last quarter, bringing confidence to the lowest point recorded since the start of the Sensis Consumer report in May 2004. Over the past six months, confidence levels amongst consumers have fallen by 26 percentage points. Only 22 per cent of Australian households believed they were better off now compared to a year ago, down three percentage points in the past quarter. That is the lowest level recorded in the history of the Sensis Consumer report. Nearly 80 per cent of Australian households believed they were no better off than they were a year ago. It is no wonder that Australians are losing confidence in the Rudd-Swan government. I made the point today in question time about the ‘Magic Pudding surplus’ of this government, and of this Treasurer in particular. I think it says a lot about the intention of this government. You cannot, on the one hand, say that you are building up surpluses to protect against international and domestic shocks to the economy, that you are going to preserve that capital to save for a rainy day and, on the other hand, in the next press release, turn around and say that you are going to collect all of those surplus moneys and put them into infrastructure or other spends. It does not work out. There are alarm bells starting to sound for Australian families. It is like saying: ‘We’ll go out and spend all our money at Myers on a Saturday morning and then we’ll spend the same money for our rent on a Monday morning.’ It does not add up. The Australian people know that this government certainly is not full of economic conservatives, and the Treasurer in his performance in question time today—and indeed over the last nine months—has proved that this is a government that, in terms of economic credibility, has well and truly lost its way. This is a government that argues—the Prime Minister did it in question time today and the Treasurer did it on Sky Agenda yesterday—that the coalition, in blocking about $6 billion worth of new government taxes, somehow are going to blow a $6 billion hole in this year’s $21.7 billion surplus, the 2008-09 surplus. That is quite a remarkable statement for the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to make. The people who are charged with managing a $1.1 trillion economy are running around putting out facts that really do not bear scrutiny. In fact they are liars. The reality is that the $6.2 billion of new taxes that this opposition opposes are over the forward estimates. That comes out on average to about $1.5 billion a year. It would run the surplus—projected currently at $21.7 billion for 2008-09—down to about $20 billion. That is in excess of 1.5 per cent of GDP. It shows what a fraud this government is. (Time expired) 7045 16:17:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —The characterisation of the Howard legacy which is contained in today’s matter of public importance demonstrates that this opposition is fundamentally deluded. What this government inherited through the Howard legacy was 10 interest rate rises in a row. What this government inherited was— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! The member for Dickson was heard in silence! HWQ Marles, Richard, MP Mr MARLES —the second-highest interest rates in the developed world. What this government inherited was 16-year underlying inflation at the highest level in that period of time. What this government inherited was a fiscal record of profligate spending. And yet the Howard government enjoyed probably the best economic conditions of any government since Federation. They had given to them the best terms of trade since the gold rush. They enjoyed a commodity boom. What did they do? They went off and they spent the money. Their beacon of inspiration in that spending was on an electoral cycle, and the beacon of inspiration was the pork barrel. Non-election year spending on average of $18.7 billion blossomed in election years up to a figure of $57.5 billion. We saw this in the now discredited Regional Partnerships program. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Corio has the call and will be heard in silence. HWQ Marles, Richard, MP Mr MARLES —We saw it in the $137 million which was spent on trying to sell the Work Choices legislation. But of course we ought not to be surprised about that, because the former Prime Minister John Howard, when he was the Treasurer in the Fraser government, delivered budgets which had a deficit in every one of them with the exception of one. It was John Howard, as Treasurer of this country, who delivered Australia its highest level of interest rates since the Second World War when in 1982 he gave us interest rates of 22 per cent. The truth is that, as the money came in as a result of the commodity boom and the best terms of trade that this country had enjoyed since the gold rush, the Howard government rolled in it. They washed in it, they tossed it in the air and their little trotters fairly quivered with excitement about the wonder of it. They had party time. They absolutely had party time. Did they invest in education? They absolutely did not. Did they invest in infrastructure? They did not. They let the basic structure of this country rust up. They did not invest in infrastructure, but they did deliver us Work Choices, which clearly put a foot on the throat of working Australia. Labour productivity was at a rate of 3.3 per cent at the time they inherited power from the Hawke and Keating governments. By the time the Rudd government inherited power they had delivered us labour productivity growth of zero. Did they engage in microeconomic reform? They did not. They were the single most economically lazy government that this country has ever had. They did not engage in microeconomic reform but they did, under the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition, let our education system slip to shameful levels. Year 12 retention rates, which had risen to all-time highs during the Hawke and Keating governments, absolutely stagnated under the now Deputy Leader of the Opposition. We saw spending on higher education as a proportion of GDP go backwards during the time of the Howard government. During that time we were the only country in the OECD which had that record. What were they doing when they were in office? What were they doing with education? What was the Deputy Leader of the Opposition doing as the minister for education? They were the only government in our country’s history who saw that the road to prosperity lay in dumbing our nation down, and that is what they attempted to do. We live in an information age. We live in an age which is based on knowledge. What we saw in the Howard government was a government that ‘deinvested’ in knowledge. On this side of the House we see education as being the most fundamental tool in empowering every individual in our society and, as a consequence, our nation. The Howard government saw education as something that was peripheral, something that at the end of the day was incidental. As a consequence of the failure to spend on education, we saw this country develop a skills crisis. That, combined with the failure to invest in infrastructure, gave us constraints on the productive capacity of our economy. That is what led to the now-famous 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank of Australia to deal with those capacity constraints. And that, which was absolutely the product of public policy on the part of the Howard government, is what gave us the highest rate of underlying inflation in 16 years. It is what gave us 10 interest rate rises in a row and it is what gave us the second-highest interest rates in the OECD. Since November—even though we have faced very difficult international circumstances, characterised by the credit crunch as a result of the subprime crisis in the US and not something to do with the government in this country; even though on an international basis we have had to deal with a massive oil shock, which has seen the price of petrol driven up; even though we have been dealing with far tougher economic circumstances than the Howard government ever had to deal with—on this side of the House we have seen strong and diligent economic management. We delivered a budget with a surplus of $21.7 billion—a surplus that the opposition are now busily trying to destroy in the Senate. It was 1.8 per cent of GDP, the largest budget surplus as a share of GDP in a decade. We saw $2 billion in spending cuts. We saw the lowest rate of tax as a proportion of GDP in a decade. But, with all of that, we also saw a $55 billion Working Families Support Package and the establishment of three infrastructure funds totalling $41 billion—the most important investment in infrastructure in this country that we have seen in a very long time. As part of that, we saw a massive investment in education: $2.5 billion for trade training centres in schools, $1.9 billion to deliver 630,000 additional training places and $1.2 billion to deliver the digital education revolution in our schools. That is what we saw for our budget—a fundamental difference to what occurred on the part of the Howard government during their 11 long years in office. You need only to look to the refreshing outlook of the commentators once they saw that there was a new government in town; once they saw that the reins of government had actually been picked up. In his comments about the budget, Saul Eslake said: Wayne Swan has had to put together his first Budget in more challenging economic circumstances than those which confronted Peter Costello in framing his last four Budgets. He went on: In the face of those uncertainties, the 2008-09 Budget strikes a reasonably appropriate balance. He continued that it: … does so through a combination of policy decisions producing net savings of $2bn … and adding to the surplus, rather than spending or giving away (as was the previous Government’s wont) … That is not us saying that; that is the Chief Economist of the ANZ Bank, Saul Eslake, giving that assessment. We also see the change in the very encouraging news today. We have seen our economy grow in the June quarter by 0.3 per cent, 2.7 per cent over the last 12 months. That stands in contrast to the rest of the world, where five of the G7 economies are either going backwards or stagnating. We are seeing developed economies in our part of the world doing the same thing. For the first time in a long time we have a government that is producing an economy that is leading the world, as opposed to the Howard government, which delivered us the second-highest interest rates in the OECD. Tonight, as the opposition celebrate the 11 long years of the Howard government—a celebration they were actually having for most of those 11 years over the fantastic luck they had had in the economic conditions that were provided to them—we ought to remember their legacy: a legacy of high interest rates and high inflation. (Time expired) 7047 16:27:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I am pleased to speak on this MPI on Flag Day 2008. In his presentation, the member for Corio asked the question: what was the Howard government doing when it was in office? I am happy to inform the member for Corio that we were doing a lot. For a start, we were paying off $96 billion of massive Labor debt. Secondly, we were trying to find jobs for a million unemployed people, who were the legacy of the previous Labor government. I know that the member for Corio is a new member in this parliament, so I give him points for trying in his presentation. I regret that I have only a handful of minutes to speak on this MPI, because it is very important. We all remember that during the election campaign the Australian Labor Party and Mr Rudd left a crystal clear impression in people’s minds that they alone had the skills to manage the $1.1 trillion Australian economy; that they alone would keep unemployment low; that they alone would keep inflation low; that they alone would ensure that wages would keep rising, as they did under the Howard government; that they alone, especially, would keep petrol prices affordable; that they alone would keep grocery prices affordable; and that they alone would maintain the prosperity enjoyed under the Howard government. We are almost a year into the Rudd government, and who really believes that Mr Rudd and his Labor team have done all this? Who really believes that petrol prices are low today? Who really believes that grocery prices are low today? Who really believes that this country is better off today than it was when the Howard government left office last year? I can say one thing: the people of Ryan certainly do not believe that, nor I am sure do the constituents of the seat of Dickson— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Or Curtin! 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr JOHNSON —or the constituents of the seat of Curtin. I am sure they do not believe that. Let us remember those ads on TV during the campaign, when the Prime Minister, then the opposition leader, was talking about being a fiscal and economic conservative. Where was this fiscal and economic conservative during the years of the Howard government when we were trying to cut taxes, balance the budget and create jobs? Remember those millions of jobs we were able to find for Australians during the decade of the Howard government? Well, of course, the economic conservative that was Mr Rudd as per those TV ads was nowhere to be found. Let me make it very clear once again: the people of Ryan do not believe that this country is better off. And I am starting to get a feeling that the people of Australia are coming to the conclusion that this country is not in fact as well off now as it was under the Howard government. What about the working families? Consumer confidence is falling, petrol prices are going up, grocery prices are going up and private health insurance is set to rise with the Rudd government’s outdated, ideological budget assault on the Medicare surcharge. What does this mean? It means that half a million Australians will go off private health insurance and join the public health queues all over Australia. Anyone from Queensland who is listening to this will surely know that the Queensland health system cannot afford to take any more, let alone thousands and thousands across the country—half a million, as the shadow minister for health reminded us in the parliament. One of the major achievements of the Howard government was to tackle the massive $96 billion of Labor debt that was left to us—$96 billion, a monstrous amount of money that was left to the Howard government to pay off. I want to remind all those who sit on this side of the parliament, and certainly the constituents of Ryan, of this important figure: in 1996 every Australian taxpayer had some $9,000 owing as a result of Labor mismanagement in the Keating years. This is a disgrace, and it is something that we on this side of the parliament must never forget in reminding ourselves of the economic management capacity of Labor. Australians today have a national government that is utterly and totally obsessed with the politics of symbolism and gesture. This is a government that cannot make its own decisions. This is a government that is utterly obsessed with committees, reviews, polls and myriad focus groups. People will remember what former Prime Minister Keating said about those opposite—that they could hardly get themselves out of bed without a focus group to tell them which side to get out of. This MPI is very important, and very important to the people of Ryan, because it shines a light on this Labor government and how it is mismanaging the Australian economy. This Labor government does not have a clue about how to manage this economy. We hear a lot about global challenges, but really—(Time expired) 7049 16:32:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I too am happy to rise to speak on this afternoon’s MPI. The member for Corio referred to this particular MPI as a reflection of how delusional those opposite actually are that they should make such a statement. I not only agree with him; I think it is almost audacious in its delusion in referring to the concerns that we are facing in the current economy as being a result of the nine months of the Rudd government. In fact, as we have heard said quite eloquently by my colleagues, it is the last 12 years of flagrant spending and irresponsible economic management that has created some of the pressures that we as a government dealt with most responsibly in our recent budget and are dealing with as we move forward with our economic program. If there were any example of how delusional the previous government, the now opposition, are, I think it was all summed up by the member for Ryan in his comments. I think it just demonstrates how out of touch those members opposite are when it comes to the economy and the future of economic prosperity in this country. We all know that good economic management, matched with investment in infrastructure and skills, is the way that you grow an economy. That is the way to grow an economy not just for the short term but for the long-term prosperity of the Australian community. We know that by developing a $22 billion surplus in the recent budget, by maintaining a responsible fiscal policy and sound economic management, we will see our way through the current global pressures and indeed we will manage to maintain good economic outcomes for the near future. But we also need investment in infrastructure and skills to ensure that economic prosperity is sustained over the long term—and that is what we did not see at all in the 11 years that the Howard government were in power. In fact, what they did was benefit enormously from a resources boom. Instead of actually investing wisely and buffering our economic prosperity, they simply squandered it. They squandered the windfall of the resources boom. They squandered also the gains that were made by some fairly courageous economic reforms of previous Labor governments. They inherited many economic reforms and they benefited from a resources boom, all of which set them in good stead to set up the Australian economy for the long term as a sustainable and prosperous one. But they squandered all of that on spending to create their own ideological gains and to promote their own political agenda, and they did not really invest in our future. If you listen to any of the commentators who are looking at the skills crisis that we have in this country, who are looking at the pressures that we are facing economically, they are saying most clearly that it is the result of a lack of investment in infrastructure and skills. It is clearly a lack of investment in the area, for example, of vocational education and training that has resulted in the pressures that we have seen, in the inflation increases and in the interest rate rises. It is in fact the failure to keep pace with the need for skilled labour in this country that has in a sense created this MPI— 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Order! The time allocated for this discussion has expired. 7049 Bills R3050 7049 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 7050 Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong —Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services) 16:37:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 7050 Business 7050 7050 16:38:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report of the recommendations of the whips relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 15 September 2008. I understand that copies of the report have been placed on the table. The report read as follows— Pursuant to standing order 41A, the Whips recommend the following items of committee and delegation reports and private Members’ business for Monday 15 September 2008. The order of precedence and allotments of time for items in the Main Committee and Chamber are as follows: Items recommended for Main Committee (6.55 to 8.30 pm) PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Orders of the day 1 INFRASTRUCTURE: Resumption of debate (from 1 September 2008) on the motion of Mr Ripoll—That the House: notes that: infrastructure planning provides the platform for regional economic growth; the rapid growth in many regional centres has placed the nation’s infrastructure network under significant pressure; the changing social and demographic environment in major regional centres presents significant economic and development challenges; and the past 12 years have been a missed opportunity for the nation to invest in the future beyond the current mining boom; and supports the Government’s: agenda of creating a stronger and more participatory regional development structure through the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, Regional Development Australia and the Major Cities Unit; and commitment to regional development and the delivery of regionally significant infrastructure. Time allotted—30 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Ripoll—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 6 x 5 min.] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Notices 1 MR BROADBENT: To move—That the House: notes the recent decision of the Federal Court to award costs against the incorporated community group, Your Water Your Say, following an unsuccessful action against the Australian and Victorian Governments in relation to the proposed construction of a Water Desalination plant at Wonthaggi, in the Electorate of McMillan; recognises that community groups such as Your Water Your Say: have a democratic right to express their legitimate concerns about the environmental impact of major infrastructure projects; have the right to pursue their concerns through legal action if they consider these concerns are not being properly addressed; and should not be constrained from seeking recourse to legal process because of a threat of onerous costs; and calls on the Australian Government to: waive the court costs awarded to the Commonwealth as a result of the failed court action by Your Water Your Say; and agree not to pursue individual members of Your Water Your Say for the recovery of the costs. Time allotted—10 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Broadbent—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 mins.] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MS RISHWORTH: To move—That the House: notes with concern, the previous Government’s termination of Australia’s Social Security Agreement with the United Kingdom in March 2001; notes: that the termination of this agreement led to a lost opportunity for the previous Australian Government to negotiate indexation of the British pension for those British migrants living in Australia; that many British pensioners made substantial contributions to the United Kingdom’s National Insurance system but many have not received an increase in their British pension for a decade, and as a result their payment has not kept up with the cost of living; and that the United Kingdom has entered into social security agreements that include pension indexation with many other nations, including the United States, Israel and Switzerland; calls on the Commonwealth Government to commence negotiations for a new social security agreement with the United Kingdom that includes provisions for the indexation of British pensions. Time allotted—35 minutes Speech time limits— Ms Rishworth—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 7 x 5 mins] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 3 MR SLIPPER: To move—That the House: notes: the continuing human rights concerns in Tibet; and the continuing restrictions on entry to Tibetan areas for journalists, international observers, non government agencies and foreign diplomats; welcomes the informal talks between the Chinese Government and representatives of His Holiness, the 14th Dalai Lama on 4 and 5 May 2008 in Shenzhen, China, and the agreement to hold a further round of the China Tibet dialogue; encourages both parties to work sincerely towards a peaceful and mutually agreed resolution on the China Tibet issue; welcomes the Prime Minister’s forthright statements to the Chinese Premier and President in public and in private on the need for constructive dialogue during his recent visit to China; recognises that the China Tibet issue was also raised with the Chinese authorities by the former Government; acknowledges there is bi partisan support in the Australian Parliament for a peaceful resolution on the differences between Tibet and China; and requests the Government actively to support and monitor progress of the China Tibet dialogue and to offer its support to help bring about a positive outcome. Time allotted—10 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Slipper—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 min.] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 4 MR BRADBURY: To move—That the House: notes that September is Prostate Cancer Awareness Month; notes that prostate cancer is the most common cancer in men after skin cancer and the second highest cause of male cancer deaths; acknowledges the work of the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia in promoting greater awareness of prostate cancer within the broader community and the need for men to undergo regular testing; and congratulates the Rudd Government for developing Australia’s first ever men’s health policy. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm. Speech time limits— Mr Bradbury—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 min.] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Items recommended for House of Representatives Chamber (8.40 to 9.30 pm) COMMITTEE AND DELEGATION REPORTS Presentation and statements 1 AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION Report on the inquiry into the Australian Crime Commission Amendment Act 2007 The Whips recommended that statements on the report may be made—all statements to conclude by 8:50pm Speech time limits— Each Member—5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 5 min.] PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 MR SIDEBOTTOM: To move—That the House: recognises the heroic efforts of Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean and his crew mates upon the sinking of the HMAS Armidale on 1 December 1942 off the Timor coast; implores the Government to award a posthumous Victoria Cross of Australia to Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean to recognise properly his valour and sacrifice on 1 December 1942; and urges the Government to establish a mechanism to address outstanding issues and anomalies in the military honours system such as recognising the courageous deeds of people such as Ordinary Seaman Teddy Sheean on 1 December 1942. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits— Mr Sidebottom—5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins.] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 MR MORRISON: To move—That the House: notes that Epidermolysis Bullosa (EB) is a rare genetic condition characterised by skin fragility and blister formation, which is incurable and in its most severe forms can be fatal in infancy and childhood; notes that children afflicted by EB are known as “butterfly children” and are required to pierce, drain and dress their blisters each day in an endless routine that lasts up to three hours in the most severe cases; notes there are currently 229 patients formally diagnosed and registered on the Australasian EB Registry and that based on international estimates there may be up to 1,000 people affected by this condition in Australia, of whom 100-150 have the most severe form; acknowledges the support and assistance provided to sufferers and their families by DebRA Australia, the national Dystrophic Epidermolysis Bullosa research association; recognises that families with a child suffering from EB have problems accessing dressings because of expense or availability from the public system, and in the more severe cases families must spend up to $5,300 per month on dressings; and calls on the Australian Government to establish a 12 month trial program, managed by the Department of Health and Ageing in partnership with DebRA, to: fund delivery of dressings directly to patients currently registered on the Australasian EB registry from suppliers identified through a public tender process; provide access to a dedicated nurse in each state and territory for patients suffering from EB; and review the program upon conclusion, with a view to establishing a permanent scheme. Time allotted—remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm Speech time limits— Mr Morrison—5 minutes. First Government Member speaking—5 minutes. Other Member—5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommended that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Report adopted. 7053 Bills R3054 7053 Debate resumed. 7053 16:39:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —The point I have been making is that the blame game mantra used by the government in relation to what are state government responsibilities has meant that basically everyone is responsible and, therefore, no-one is responsible, particularly when Labor is in power at every level. The government likes to talk about the buck stopping in particular places, but we have found that the buck is in a constant search for where to stop under the Rudd government. This buck is in perpetual motion, as it moves around this chamber and around the country and is unable to find a home. This is a homeless buck when it comes to responsibility on issues that relate to state governments. In Australia now, in what is called the end of the blame game era, we do not have competitive federalism and we do not have cooperative federalism; we have collusive federalism—a collusion between the states of mates. There is a convenient silence on issues. If we want to do something serious about truancy in this country, our first step must be to ensure that state governments do their job of ensuring that our kids stay in school, that our kids are effective in school and want to be in school, and that we move forward on that basis. In New South Wales, my home state, there are a range of issues which are very concerning. The Auditor-General’s report echoes many of the national statistics. It talks about retention rates being below national averages. It talks about at-risk groups—in particular, Aboriginal students and students from low-socioeconomic-status backgrounds—all having falling retention rates. This is of great concern in my home state. Literacy and numeracy standards, the tests of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, are suffering as a result of not only truancy rates but also, I suspect, the way that schools are run in that state. To be fair, I should confess that recent initiatives have brought about legislative changes in New South Wales that have resulted in 154 attendance prosecutions involving 191 children being launched since April. This is a positive matter, a positive step forward, and I commend the New South Wales government at least for doing that. Prosecutions do have an effect under state laws, under state responsibilities, of making parents more aware of their responsibility. However, as I was alluding to in my earlier comments, the answer is much closer to what is happening on the ground than what is happening here in Canberra. I believe that the solutions in our schools need to be community based. In 2004, a report entitled Disenchantment, disengagement and disappearance was prepared by the Australian Council for Educational Research. That report proclaimed the need to deal with issues relating to parental responsibility, which I would support. However, some of the measures it talks about for reducing truancy rates relate to matters that are much more local. Some of the recommendations of this report are a whole-of-school commitment to effort in reducing absenteeism and suspensions; provision of options for any suspended students allowing their learning to proceed; changing a school climate to emphasise cooperation and to encourage active learning to take place in and out of the classroom; cultural inclusiveness and sensitivity to learning cycles, languages and traditions amongst minority ethnic groups; smaller schools where values and expectations are shared and clear, both in policies and in their enactment; a thorough system of pastoral care and counselling which reaches parents as well as students. I note that there is only one counsellor per 1,000 students in high schools in New South Wales and only one counsellor per 1,500 primary school students in New South Wales, which is a matter that needs urgent attention. Further recommendations of the report are dynamic classrooms led rather than ruled by their teachers; classrooms which respond flexibly to students’ stated and perceived needs rather than a rigid qualifications-driven process; and strengthening teachers’ skills with in-service education which enables them to function more professionally for a wider range of student abilities and interests. The ‘heavy lifting’ on truancy is in how schools are run. If we allow our states to absolve themselves of their responsibilities simply on the basis of adopting a blame game rhetoric, I think we are seriously letting children and families down. To bluster on in this place about measures designed to try and send a message but not really do anything effectively on the ground—we already know they will be ineffective because the data will not be provided—is of great concern. It is in the context of reducing truancy through actions in our homes, our schools and our communities that I think we need to consider what level of support we give to community based non-profit organisations that are in our communities, in our clubs and often in our homes and see what role they can play in providing the answer. For a period of time I worked in New Zealand and was responsible to the New Zealand government for sport policy. One day, when on the South Island of New Zealand, I saw a great sign not far out of Picton. It had been there for a long time. On a big billboard, in painted letters, it said ‘A kid in sport stays out of court’. A few older people in our professional ranks of sport these days may be struggling to live up to that mantra, but I think the mantra of getting kids involved in sport is a positive thing. Why? Because that is where role models emerge. And by ‘role models’ I am not talking about highly paid sportspeople. I am talking about the coach that they meet. I am talking about the parents that they meet. I am talking about the opportunities they have to engage with someone who has taken a clear interest. If that influence is not in the home, then it has got to come from somewhere else. So who are the mentors and role models for these kids at risk? Who is taking an interest when the parents do not? What support, encouragement and recognition in hard policy are we providing for them to work in their communities? We can go on about these sorts of measures in this bill, which at the end of the day really amount to bluster and headlines, but if we are going to be serious about truancy then we have to look at our schools, homes and communities, not look to Canberra. These are state responsibilities. We have to hold the states accountable for what they are paid money to do. The minute we allow them to walk away from those responsibilities is the day we allow them to walk away from our responsibilities to our own children. (Time expired) 7055 16:46:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —Like most members in this House, I have a deep interest in education. I genuinely believe that education is essential in how we actually perceive the development of our society for the future. I am genuinely committed to improving the educational outcomes of our young people. It is a simple fact that, if children are to benefit from education, they must attend school. Kids of school age must attend school. Education is the key to developing the potential of our kids. To deprive a child of education, to me, is nothing more than neglect, and one that will continually serve to deprive development of a child right through to adulthood, with consequential effects on a community generally. I make it clear from the outset of my contribution on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 that I am concerned about the number of children not attending school for various reasons. Any policy measure which purports to deliver more of the same, as the member for Cook might have us do, quite frankly, is not acceptable. Central to any policy reform in this area must be a focus on children. The Deputy Prime Minister noted in her second reading speech: ... it is estimated that up to 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age may not be enrolled in school. Many more are not attending school regularly enough to meet any reasonable benchmark. We must act now to transform this statistic. Education is a priority of this government and that can be seen through this legislation. Of more concern to me is that this is not just another statistic. The 20,000 kids who are not enrolled for school, and the many more who are not attending school regularly, are real kids who are at risk of losing their future. This bill is designed to increase the enrolment and regular attendance of kids of compulsory school age and to improve parents’ recognition of the importance and benefits education has in respect of their child’s development through to their later life and the outcomes that brings in employment, financial independence and social inclusion. This bill introduces the concept of mutual obligation as opposed simply to a conceptual position of rights based welfare. Why? That is pretty simple: this is because of kids. This bill will introduce conditions on the recipient of income support whereby parents are obliged to ensure that their children of compulsory school age are enrolled in school and, what is more, that they take reasonable efforts to ensure their children attend school regularly. As a final step, this bill provides for those parents who fail their responsibilities of enrolling their children in school or having them attend regularly. Only after all efforts have been pursued, and in extreme circumstances, parents will put their welfare payments at risk. As I said, this bill introduces a concept of obligation. No-one is trying to hide behind that. I think the member for Cook had the view that the responsibility is somebody else’s and that we should impose that on state governments. I am sure that they also have responsibilities, but we ourselves have a very clear responsibility for welfare payments and income support payments. What we are saying through this legislation is that we intend to impose a responsibility on recipients of those payments. Their obligation in respect of their children is to ensure that they have the benefit of gaining an education. In this bill it is proposed to trial this welfare based approach to truancy in eight communities. This will be a genuine trial. There is no predetermined outcome with it. Quite frankly, simply doing nothing is not acceptable. All it means is that kids will continue to miss out. That is simply not an acceptable position for us. And we are not just talking about kids in Indigenous communities; we are talking about all kids. At the end of the day, we want children to go to school. It is vital in setting themselves up for the rest of their lives. It is a fundamental responsibility of parents to make sure that their children attend school. I understand that there may be excuses from time to time. Some of those excuses may be acceptable; some are otherwise. Let me tell you a little bit about my community. I live in and represent people in the south-west of Sydney. People would probably refer to it as a working class community. We have 41 government schools, nine Catholic systemic schools and eight non-government schools, all of which have very committed principals and teachers who do a wonderful job of educating the kids of my area. Generally, the kids who participate in education there do relatively well, as you would expect in any area. The dedication of the teachers is second to none. As a matter of fact, in some areas that are probably a little bit more sensitive, specifically those based around housing commission areas, I am overwhelmed by the commitment I see from principals. These are schools such as Sarah Redfern High School, Robert Townsend High School and others that put in day in and day out. They do wonders to ensure that these kids participate in and actually benefit from education. I know the principal of James Meehan High School, Gail Taylor, and I know much work goes on out of school through her facilities in Macquarie Fields to ensure that kids do not fall through the cracks. Education, quite frankly, is the key to escaping the welfare cycle. It seems to me that simply doing nothing is going to put at risk the future of young people and will probably commit people to another generation within that basic cycle of welfare. Research suggests that students who are absent from school are those at greatest risk of dropping out of school early, becoming long-term unemployed, becoming dependent on welfare and interacting with the criminal justice system. That is the research and I do not think we need to challenge that. We would each know that from our own electorates. Education is what empowers young people to participate fully in our communities as they develop. I know for a fact that the majority of parents in my electorate are doing the right thing because they believe in education. I would particularly like to acknowledge that I have a very high proportion of immigrants in my electorate, particularly Bangladeshi and Islander immigrants. I take my hat off to those parents. In coming to this country they know the importance of changing outcomes in their lives and in their children’s lives. They are quite forthright in their commitment to education. They know education is the tool for breaking the poverty cycle. On the other hand, I know there are also some parents who are neglecting their children for all sorts of reasons. Unfortunately, some of their problems are now being passed on from one generation to the next. The preliminary findings of the ongoing School Attendance Project show that reasons for poor school attendance essentially fall into three major categories: school related factors; home and student related factors; and demographic factors. The demographic factors include the socioeconomic status of the student’s family, and particular issues have also been identified in communities and families with a high level of dysfunction and welfare dependence. There are a number of relevant international studies that support the correlation between low socioeconomic status for individuals and poor school attendance. For example, a recent one was a report from the National Centre for Children in Poverty in the US, compiled in October 2007, entitled A national portrait of chronic absenteeism in the early grades. This report found that the lower the family income, the higher the student absentee rate. Living in a low-income family generally increased the risk of high or chronic absenteeism. More recently, a report commissioned in Ireland concluded that a social mix is predictive of truancy patterns, with students attending schools in disadvantaged communities significantly more likely to truant than those attending fee-paying schools. I cannot put that down to anything more than taking an interest in the education of one’s children. As I said, in my area a significant proportion of the population are immigrants, and they make it very clear that a significant aspect of their family’s plight in their country of origin was that they lacked education. These are probably the most profound advocates of education that I have ever seen out here. We cannot keep on talking about kids as though they are statistics. The kids that are missing out are missing out not only now—and not only tomorrow—but also on their futures generally, and that is why what we do is so important. It is not, as the member for Cook was saying, that it is sending a message. This is actually making a real statement about parental responsibility, and we can make that statement about those parents who are presently receiving welfare. My personal view is that this position should be put for all parents. Regrettably, there is no course that parents must do before they conceive a child. It seems to me that a lot must be learned by parents in bringing up kids to make sure that we give them every right and every chance to fully participate in our community as they grow. A series of articles in the Australian this year focused on suburbs where there is intergenerational welfare dependency. An article on 28 July highlighted one suburb in my electorate. The article states: The issue of welfare is one spoken about openly in Macquarie Fields. One Salvation Army welfare officer says: The education of people in Macquarie Fields is education in the welfare system. With that way of thinking, something must change if we are going to move on from this cycle of dependency so as not to condemn future generations of Australians to a lifestyle of welfare addiction. I found out that 17.9 per cent of the people in my electorate are infants or primary or secondary students. I would like to think that the more we can do for people in that category the more that we will be the society that we dream about, not only for our future but also for the future of our kids. I would also like to remind people that not all children in Macquarie Fields re-enter the welfare cycle, but certainly some do. It is those ‘some’ that I am committed to helping. The article in the Australian interviewed a Macquarie Fields resident, Julia Willmott. She indicated that she is committed to improving the situation in her local community. I note that she welcomes the attempt by the Australian government to reform welfare so as to try to prevent future generations from becoming, in her words, ‘welfare hooked’. A person mentioned in another of the articles is a young woman, Wendy Cocks, who is also a resident in Macquarie Fields. Unfortunately, she has already had four of her children removed from her care by authorities in New South Wales because of her addiction to amphetamines, or ‘speed’. I was touched when Wendy spoke out very bravely about her belief that she has beaten her drug addiction. She has been drug-free for the last two years. She is hoping that she can keep her fifth child, who is aged seven. Wendy only went to year 7. This did not empower her with the ability to gain employment, further education or anything else. Wendy left school early and this has locked her into a life of welfare dependency. When Wendy was asked about her ambitions for her seven-year-old child, she replied that she wanted them to have a good education. She went on to say that she hoped ‘he not be a ratbag’. I thought it was interesting that what she wanted for her child was something that she had not had—a good education. Another person referred to in this article is Mathew Boan. He is also a resident of Macquarie Fields. Due to the curse of drugs, along with stress and an inability to break the cycle of despair, he lost custody of his children. Ordinarily, you would expect these people to speak out against the system; they certainly speak out against certain aspects of the system from time to time. But when Mathew was confronted with the reality of the quarantining plan, within the spirit of this legislation, his position was: ‘I would have liked that.’ Mr Boan took the view that had this been in existence at the time when he was having his problems it might have caused him to sit up and take note. It might have caused him to spend less money on drugs and other vices and to have regard for his kids. Hindsight is all well and good, but here is a person who is freely coming out now and saying that this plan might have caused him to wake up. Once again, he acknowledges the benefit of education, which was something that he had missed out on. In the brief time remaining to me, I would like to mention a couple of other people who have made a contribution to Macquarie Fields. Andrew McDonald is a local paediatrician, who has worked and lived in the area for almost 20 years. I am proud to say that, since March 2007, he has been the state Labor member for Macquarie Fields. In the article, Dr McDonald is quoted as saying: The day the new Federal Government spoke about welfare reform “it was just like the fall of the Berlin Wall—it was music to my ears”. Further in the article, he is quoted as saying that he welcomes any examination of the way welfare works and what makes him sad is seeing kids without options. According to Dr McDonald: You see a kid with potential who doesn’t have options and the most common reason for that is social dislocation, being itinerant, away from your family, away from the extended family. Family breakdown and lack of options is the thing that I find most distressing. These stories are occurring right smack bang in the middle of my electorate. My electorate is probably not too dissimilar to many other electorates. As I said at the outset, Macquarie Fields is a working-class suburb, and the people who live there want the best for their kids. In the past, people might have referred to that notion as being aspirational. I think it is almost incumbent on us as parents—(Time expired) 7059 17:06:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I welcome the opportunity to rise today and speak about this bill. As well, I want to pick up some of the points that the member for Werriwa raised. As a father of two young children who attend the local state primary school in my electorate, I would like to try and raise my children guided by the example that my parents set me. Trying to be the best possible person I can be, I consider the example provided by my parents and try to improve on it. I think this is the way of the world. As a father, I know that if I lie, if I swear or if I cheat, those are exactly the sorts of examples that my children are going to take forward in their dealings with everyday life as they grow up. I also know that, if I live my life by the highest personal standards and provide good examples to my children, the chances are going to be far better that they will grow up to be good and productive members of society. There are of course no guarantees that they will always make the right decisions, but the odds are greatly improved when they are shown a good example. So, when I see parents providing bad examples to their children, I really do fear for the future of those children. For example, I have witnessed children being verbally abused by their parents, with the f-word used loudly. It is little wonder that those children grow up to think that it is common and even appropriate to use foul and offensive language in dealing with their peers or with other persons they come into contact with. I recently intervened in a fight in a park in my electorate. It was a fight between a number of females from two different racial groups. It always surprises me when I hear graphic and foul swearing from children. In particular, there was a girl of around 10 years old who was using not only the f-word but another extremely offensive word that is even beyond that one. It is my view that parents have a fundamental job to do. It is their priority to look after and raise their children. It comes before all other priorities and, while there may be a debate as to the methods used or the actions taken along the way, providing a safe and healthy home physically and morally is beyond question. A child will have a great chance of reaching their potential if they grow up in this sort of positive and nurturing world. No child should grow up in a home where they witness illicit drug use, drug abuse, pornography, sexual activity or crime, because these are examples of where parents or carers are failing their children. It was with this philosophy in mind that I made some comments at the doors of the House of Representatives back in February. I said that there are places right now in this country, in the suburbs, towns and communities, where children should be taken away from their parents because these children are at risk. I have just given some examples of such risks. It is my view that infertility is now such a problem for so many couples in this country that there are many homes where children would be loved and nurtured and where they would be far more secure. I stand by this position and oppose the view that there is something desirable about a child remaining with biological parents when those people place the child at risk by having illicit or illegal activities as priorities above their children. I would now like to come back to the substance of the bill—that is, education, which is really, in my mind, about opportunity and the chance for a person to reach their potential. When I go to schools in my electorate I like to say to the children, particularly the primary school children, that one day any one of them could grow up to be Prime Minister, to be a pilot with Qantas or another airline, to be a brain surgeon or a doctor or anything. I like to say that and I enjoy saying it in the schools in the lower socioeconomic areas of my electorate because I genuinely believe it. I believe it because I have faith in this country and the opportunities of education, training and employment that this great democracy holds out to each and every one of us. Regardless of the colour of the person’s skin or their religion, if an Australian wants to work hard to achieve their goals the means are there to achieve success. Australians, of course, respect hard workers, but I also say to these children that they should not just wait for success to be handed to them; they must work hard to achieve their goals. Again, I say these things to children because they are true. I have no time for those who want to talk about the past and seek excuses for young people not trying or accepting failure or defeat. I have no time for those who stake their future on the big Lotto win. I believe that it was Gary Player, the golfer, who said: The more I practice, the luckier I get. I believe that it is accurate to say that destiny is in the palm of our hands. The principle, therefore, is that if you work you can achieve your goals. For a young person the main work is education, which begins with the building blocks of literacy and numeracy that set up the acquisition of higher knowledge across the arts and sciences, leading to applied skills able to be used to produce work. Education, therefore, is the basis for achievement in life and a route to a life of effective working rather than welfare dependence. This is an opportunity to achieve goals, to acquire assets, to live a life you want to live. But children need to grow up seeing their parents or carers demonstrating a commitment to and encouragement of education. Parents are failing their children if they do not encourage them to go to school, learn and achieve to their potential. This has to happen from birth, when parents play with their children, teach them to make sandcastles, build with blocks—in many ways children just learn from their parents. This has to happen when they first start at school. The child has to be encouraged to learn, and a positive attitude towards education is needed firstly by the parents so that the child grows up knowing that this is a normal and integral part of life. Homework must be done and ambition must be encouraged. Parents should not only talk about the obstacles but also concentrate on the opportunities. This is the duty and responsibility of parents. I was recently in the pharmacy at Koondoola, a suburb in my electorate. I was speaking to the pharmacist, and he told me that one day a mother had come in with a number of children. The pharmacist asked why the children were not at school, to which the mother replied, ‘They didn’t want to go; I gave them the day off,’ as she laughed it away. The 12-year-old girl wanted to enter a competition in the shop to guess the number of jelly beans. The pharmacist said, ‘Just guess the number and write your name down.’ She was 12 years old and she could not do it. I really wonder about such parents. What do they think is going to happen in the future? Who are they going to blame for an illiterate child? Are they going to blame society, the education system or the principal of the school for not telling them that education is important? It would be great if we had a society where parents did not let down their children with neglectful attitudes. It would be good if parents first looked to remedy their own faults before trying to blame others or creating excuses of some or other disadvantage. Sadly, sometimes they just do not know any better. Ultimately it brings us back to what can be done to save children from the negative influence of parents who have the wrong attitude towards education. This bill offers an option that may be proceeded with only in the case of those on welfare payments in some circumstances. Suspension or cancellation may occur. It would appear that the schools would have to be told, or know, of which family was on welfare payments and then make the decision to inform the department. The department could then issue a notice requiring improvement in the attendance of the child. In the past, when the coalition government tried to get these sorts of figures from Western Australia, I heard that the Australian Education Union refused, saying that such information was bound by privacy restrictions. It will be interesting to see if the AEU still feel the same way now that their team mates are in government. I do not oppose this bill, but I do wonder whether it will be effective. I expect, of course, that the minister will regularly publish the improvement in attendance figures so that the parliament can judge the success of the measure. What does concern me is the truancy of other children: what is being done to address the truancy problems of children whose parents are not on welfare payments? Is the minister saying that, with regard to their children’s education, the only bad parents are those on welfare payments? This is a big leap to saying that truancy is confined to welfare recipient families. I am not sure if it was the minister’s intention to scapegoat just one element of our society. I do believe we need to think about the risk of truancy to any child and what can be done. The trouble for this federal government is that, by addressing the whole problem, it then clearly becomes a state responsibility. It is pretty hard for the minister to blame John Howard or the former coalition government for this problem. Yet we have already heard from the Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare, who has laid the blame at the feet of the Howard government. Clearly, she claims and believes—falsely—that if a young person does not turn up to Logan High School, the Queensland state run school, that is the fault of the former coalition government. How can that be? The Howard government was there for national testing and standards. The Howard government was there for $700 vouchers to help children attain standards. But how is it that a child not showing up to Logan High School is somehow John Howard’s fault? Consistent with the ‘no blame’ attitude to any Labor government, there is of course no responsibility or accountability for those whose task it is to address this problem. I sometimes wonder whether state ministers for education are even needed in this country with the way this federal government is acting by not holding them to account for their jobs. In Western Australia, the schools only seem important to the Carpenter government for photo opportunities and to make announcements for the coming election. Morley Senior High School has been in desperate need of a complete renovation of a student toilet block that is old and decrepit. Over the last 7½ years something could have been done by the Labor state government in response to my letters, the P&C’s letters, the school’s letters and letters from my state colleague, the Hon. Donna Faragher MLC; yet it takes this election campaign, just three days away now, to see the state Labor government actually making an announcement. I think that the people of the state electorate of Morley would be very cynical that the Labor Party interest in their high school exists only at election time. It is a bit like the announcement of the new policy of cooling systems for schools made at Landsdale Primary School this week. Over recent years, the Carpenter Labor government was happy for P&Cs to save up and fundraise for air conditioning or to use the Howard government’s Investing in Our Schools program to help pay for that air conditioning, but yet again in the last few weeks before the election it suddenly makes an announcement about cooling for schools. Surprise, surprise! It is election time. It is probably no surprise that these easy announcements, these glossy brochure photo opportunities, are the priority for the Carpenter Labor government in Western Australia, while it ignores fundamental problems such as truancy and school maintenance. The neglect of key issues, such as truancy, by the state government is not going to be fixed up by this narrowly focused bill—this tough on welfare recipients illusion. We already know that the Minister for Employment Participation has ordered Centrelink and job agencies to back off on negligent job seekers. The minister said: We are not going to allow children to be affected adversely because of a breach by the parent. I am all for accountability; I am all for responsibility. Parents have a duty that must be fulfilled. They must be held accountable for their actions and for their omissions. If this bill helps reduce truancy, then great—let it roll on. But when are the states going to take action? This federal government, in the name of stopping the ‘blame game’, does not hold the states responsible for doing their core business. If these state education ministers do not want to do their jobs, then they should get out of the way. In Western Australia let people like Colin Barnett and Peter Collier, as Premier and education minister, get on with the real jobs and get education back on track. 7062 17:20:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I rise to speak in favour of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. People that know me well would know that, by nature, I do not really favour punitive approaches. Those that know me who have heard this bill described that way might wonder why I am standing to support it. I would like to explain to those people that I, too, was concerned when I first heard about this bill in brief. I went digging, well and truly, into the detail of it. I found a bill that is not punitive by nature—in fact, quite the opposite. It provides a quite interesting approach to assisting parents who are clearly struggling with the role of parenthood. True, it has that punitive action of the suspension of welfare payments for 13 weeks, and that is probably the loudest bit, the bit that is most easy to understand and the part of the bill that has attracted the most attention. But it also has quite interesting ways for the community at large to identify children who have currently, effectively, fallen off the earth—fallen out of the system altogether—and to identify children who because they are not attending school. It provides a capacity for Centrelink to assist parents to do better in a range of ways over a considerable period of time and, as a very last resort, it provides the capacity for Centrelink to remove welfare payments until the parents comply. I would say that it also allows Centrelink to reinstate those payments with back pay when the parents do comply, in most circumstances. I would like to spend the time that I have explaining what I see as the positives of this bill and what protections are in the bill to guard our community against those excesses that the critics are most afraid of. For a start, there are at least 20,000 children in Australia who are not attending school—I say ‘at least’ because it is very difficult to collect figures on children who are not enrolled at school. I think everybody would agree, both critics of the bill and those who support the bill, that as a community we must act to find ways to improve the lot of those children. I think we would all agree, including those who support the bill, that there are a range of reasons, explanations and circumstances, and sometimes just excuses, why parents fail to provide their children with access to school. There are no doubt a small number of parents who just do not care but there are also others afflicted with drug and alcohol addictions, people with mental illnesses, some parents who are so drowning in the role of parenthood that they are unable to cope, people suffering depression and people just lacking the skills of parenting. Of course, some parents have children with issues of their own that elevate the degree of difficulty of parenthood to the point that they simply cannot cope. I think we would also all agree that it is best that we have options to deal with the range of issues and conditions which leads to such bad parenting and that we have very careful case management that allows for flexibility in the application of those strategies. In this bill we have that. This is not simply a punitive bill. It allows for the identification of children who have fallen out of the system; it allows for the assessment of the conditions under which those children live with their parents; and it creates pathways to assist those parents to improve their parenting skills; and, as a last resort, it allows the punitive action of suspending welfare payments, with the incentive there as well of the reinstatement with back pay of those welfare payments when the parent complies. It is, of course, the last resort that worries people—that suspension of payments. I would like to point out two things about that. Firstly, the suspension of payments is not unique to these circumstances. Throughout the Centrelink system that mechanism is used in a range of ways. There has been at times, under the guidance of different governments, a quite aggressive, one-size-fits-all approach to that; and there is no doubt that, when that approach has been taken, it is an extremely aggressive and destructive method. But that is not always the case. There are cases in the Centrelink system where that last resort is used with quite some sensitivity and with effect. Also, there is already a last resort at state level, which is called prosecution, for failing to send your children to school. It is not something that historically has been used much in recent years, but since April this year in New South Wales, where there have been legislative changes, there have been 154 attendance prosecutions launched for 191 children. That is 10 times the number that were launched in the same period last year. My personal view, and I suspect others would agree with me, is that that particular punitive approach which is growing so quickly in New South Wales is a far harsher regime than the one which I am describing. In this bill, as I said, suspension of payments is a last resort. A pathway to that last resort is available to Centrelink from that identification of the child who is not enrolled. Many opportunities will be provided over a long period of time to assist parents to move themselves off that path and put their children back in school. There are two essential elements to the strategy. The first is enrolment in school itself and the second is attendance. In seeking to improve both, this bill introduces Centrelink into the equation. That is really quite interesting because it expands the responsibility for educating our children from just the parents and the school to a larger organisation within the community. I think that is incredibly important. In our communities there are two institutions that wear the greater problems that surround them. One is hospitals and the other is schools. With hospitals, for example, if there are not enough aged-care beds, if there are not enough community nurses, if there are not enough doctors working 24 hours or if you cannot get enough bulk-billing then the hospitals actually wear the consequences of failure in policy surrounding that area. It is the same with schools. If there is insufficient attention paid to supporting people with mental health issues or with increasing drug and alcohol problems, or if there is insufficient attention paid to large policy failures like the decisions made long ago to build large public-housing estates, then all of these issues come to rest in our schools—they are first visible to the broader community in schools. But schools do not cause them and schools alone cannot solve them. So I am incredibly glad to see that the responsibility for assisting parents and children in this area is being expanded to the greater community. It was not always possible for Centrelink to be involved. This bill makes it possible. Back in 2005 there was a trial of a welfare truancy program. In fact there have been a number of recent trials but the one I am referring to in 2005 was at the Halls Creek school in Western Australia. The remote area service and Centrelink commenced a trial of a no school, no welfare program and around 16 parenting payment recipients and their children with attendance problems were asked to attend an interview at Centrelink. Those who did not turn up risked having their payments suspended. A number of recipients had their payments suspended during the two-month period when the trial was running. But the trial was stopped because of concerns that there were no provisions under the SSAA to suspend payments for failure to turn up to an interview when the interview was not regarding payment eligibility or participation related issues. In other words, the trial was stopped because Centrelink did not actually have the authority at the time to participate in this area. This bill brings Centrelink into the picture and it does it in the following way. The first element is enrolment. All parents receiving income support who have children of compulsory school age who receive income support and who live in the selected locations for this trial will need to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s school enrolment. This is not just about one parent. Any parent who has custody of a child for at least one day a week will have to provide Centrelink with that information. Parents who fail to provide enrolment information without a reasonable excuse will need to engage further with Centrelink and Centrelink will engage further with them. Those parents may have their income support payments suspended until they enrol their child or provide information acknowledging that that has occurred. For that first stage of simply enrolling your child, there is a rapid imposition of that punitive action. That stage involves simply enrolling your child or having a reasonable excuse as to why you have not. The second element, which is attendance, is much more complex, as you would all appreciate. Parents receiving income support will also be expected to ensure that their children are regularly attending school. In instances where a child is not attending regularly, the relevant state authority can inform Centrelink. At this point, Centrelink is able to and is required to interact with the parent or parents to develop a plan which improves the parenting capacity and which ensures that the children are enrolled or attend school. Centrelink must now help parents by raising the issue through letters, phone contact, referrals to appropriate services and Centrelink social worker support and must give parents the incentive to do their best to ensure their child is receiving the best possible education. Parents who remain in contact with Centrelink and remain on that path, who work with their child’s school and who do their best to keep their kids in school will continue to receive the financial and other assistance that they require. But the government will not stand by and do nothing if the parents are enabling their kids to wag school or are not participating in improving their capacity to be good parents. Parents who are not taking reasonable steps to improve their child’s school attendance may have their income support payments suspended until such time as they can show they are doing so. So, again, there is a pathway between the identification of a child and that last resort where Centrelink provides considerable assistance to parents. There is debate on the last resort, as there should be. There should always be debate on issues of children and education. Children, of course, do not wait. A year in an adult’s life is one thing, but a year in the life of a five-year-old or a six-year-old impacts on that life forever. So we cannot stand around and wait for adults to get it right. Some believe that the program will work and some are quite dismissive of it. I wish to point out again that this is a trial and a very important one. Results in the selected locations will be carefully monitored and evaluated to provide an evidence base for further action. So if this program is expanded nationally it will be done based on the evidence from this trial. As I said earlier, there have been other trials and the results have been quite interesting. In the case of the Halls Creek trial in 2005, which suspended welfare payments for those persons who failed to attend an interview, there was a reported increase in school attendance rates from 54 per cent to 80 per cent, which is quite significant, although I would point out that the numbers in that trial were quite small. A subsequent trial—the engaging families trial—also involving very small numbers, did not see improvement in school attendance rates. The results of those two trials were mixed. Some critics of the bill state that case management, rather than sanctions, is most effective in preventing truancy. But, again, this bill does not provide for one or the other; it actually provides for a combination of both. It provides Centrelink with both options. It allows for the identification of children who are at risk of falling outside the system. It allows for case management and the development of strategies with parents to improve their parenting abilities. It provides sanctions as a last resort. There are three steps. Two out of three are relatively easy. Identifying the children is relatively easy and the last resort is actually easy. The most significant part in this bill is the part that allows Centrelink to engage with parents. That middle part will develop over time as well, as we look at best practice and we identify mechanisms to assist families in distress. The legislation puts in place the capacity for case management and the options available to assist the full range of parents to do better in their parenting. I commend the bill to the House. 7065 17:35:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —In joining this debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 I want to associate myself with all the remarks that have been made from this side of the House from the opposition’s perspective. As has been said, the opposition are not opposing this bill. The principle of mutual obligation was introduced into this parliament by the former government. It did so against the strong opposition of those who now form the government. But as previous speakers have pointed out, the current government’s approach to this bill highlights a chaotic policy approach on their part, it highlights inconsistency and it highlights something that we have seen in the now almost 10 months of the Rudd Labor government—that is, an incredible focus on announcements and very little focus on detail or implementation. We have seen it in so many areas. We have seen it with Fuelwatch and through so many other areas: the real focus is the headline, the announcement; but, when it comes to actually implementing the things that they announce, there is always trouble. We do not oppose this bill. We absolutely agree with the principle that it is the responsibility of every parent to ensure their son and daughter are at school. That is a principle that unites all members of this parliament, and every measure necessary to ensure that kids attend school obviously needs to be taken. When a child is deprived of an education at school, they are deprived of rights. They are deprived of their best opportunities. They are deprived of all of those things that will give them an equal say and a great future. That is why it is absolutely vital that every child be at school and every parent meet their responsibility to have their kids at school. However, when this measure was announced—or should I say reannounced—a week or so ago, the public were entitled to be sceptical about the government’s motives and about what their real purpose was. We saw that in the announcement itself. It was not an announcement—or reannouncement—from the minister here in the parliament. It was not a ministerial statement. It was announced in the Daily Telegraph, which is fine for the Daily Telegraph but very clearly reminiscent of that new comedy series which those opposite obviously believe to be a documentary: The Hollowmen. Clearly this was dreamed up on the Sunday afternoon at the Lodge. Something needed to be announced and the solution was: ‘We’ll reannounce something that was in the budget and we’ll ring Malcolm Farr.’ That goes to the priorities and motives of this government. The member for Parramatta, who just spoke, talked about state truancy laws and said, rather casually, that up until now they had not been used very much. That is the nub of this debate in so many ways. It is the law of every state and territory that children attend school, yet we have heard nothing about that from those opposite. We just heard then, very casually, that these state laws had not been used very much, as if they were some sort of optional advisory requirement. Those opposite cannot bring themselves to say that the state laws are either ineffective or not being administered. If all of those state laws were administered, we would not have 20,000 people, as the minister says, not attending school. They casually say, ‘Well, the state laws are not administered; that’s a shame,’ as though the bus did not turn up and that is just the way it is. Those opposite turn a blind eye. Forget the fact that all the state governments are Labor governments; they should be honest enough to say that the failure to administer state truancy laws is an absolute disgrace. Did we hear even a mention of that when this was reannounced? Of course we did not. The other point previous speakers have made in this debate is about inconsistency. This is the problem those opposite have when they are in a Hollowman huddle making up announcements for the next day. As they met, presumably at the Lodge, on that Sunday before they rang Malcolm Farr, they forgot that, on the issue of suspending payments for those people who are on unemployment benefits and who refuse to attend job interviews, they had taken a directly opposite approach. As the shadow minister next to me, the member for Boothby, has pointed out, the new minister has acted and has criticised the process whereby someone on unemployment benefits who refuses their mutual obligation to attend job interviews will no longer have their payments suspended. At the very time he is reversing this position and arguing how important it is to act, two of his other ministers are racing past him on the other side of the road, heading in the other direction. That itself highlights the chaotic nature in which this government makes policy and the reasons why they make announcements. We see it in the lack of detail in this announcement. This is the truly amazing thing with this reannouncement. The ministers opposite say it was first announced on budget night, and that is true. But three months later it was reannounced through Malcolm Farr in the Daily Telegraph. There have been three months to do all sorts of things, but still there is no detail about the regulations—that is to be worked out later. Even in those three months, the minister responsible has done precious little work. First it was announced on the budget night, and that was the end of it as far as the minister was concerned. Then it needed to be reannounced to occupy some headlines on a Monday morning before a parliamentary sitting week. When we look to the detail, we find that all of the key detail on reasonable excuses—on how this legislation will actually work—is not there yet. That is all to be developed in due course. Amongst those opposite speaking in this debate—we are told through the media were members on the back bench concerned with this legislation. Those speaking in this debate cannot in good faith look their constituents in the eye and not mention the failure of state governments. We are going to support this bill; we are going to vote for it. But those opposite should also be banging the drum on state government failure. It is important that every single child attend school. This measure is designed to put pressure on those parents who are on unemployment benefits. Only the state truancy laws and their effective administration can have the effect for which they were introduced—to put pressure on all parents who do not meet their responsibilities. Those opposite cannot say that they value the education of every child, and that is why they are putting this bill forward to deal with children of parents on unemployment benefits. At the same time, those opposite are covering up and concealing the states’ failure to implement truancy laws that apply to all parents. I think there are some members on the other side who believe that. I know it will not be in the dot points that are circulated by the Prime Minister’s office. It will not be in the spin manual. It will not be in the speakers notes. But I do have some faith that there are some over there who do believe that every child has a right to an education and that state truancy laws should be enforced. 7067 17:45:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to make a contribution to this debate. The Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 is all about making sure that more children go to school. It is also about making sure that parents fulfil their responsibility to make sure this happens. As I said in my first contribution in this place, education is the most powerful cause for good in this country. It is what gave a boy from Cabramatta Public School the chance to speak in this parliament, and it is what gives the children at Cabramatta Public School today the chance to read, write and do everything that they have ever dreamed of. I am still a regular visitor to my old primary school. John Rice, the principal of that school, tells a very revealing story about the power of education. He tells me that 80 per cent of the children who turn up at kindergarten every year can barely read or write. A few of them can spell their name. But, within three years, when they sit the basic skills test, those children are outperforming the rest of the state in literacy and numeracy. It is a powerful story and evidence of the importance of education. It is education that gives these kids a chance in life. It is education that breaks the bonds of disadvantage that otherwise would bind them. Unfortunately, kids from disadvantaged backgrounds do not always get a crack at education. The Prime Minister understands this. He spoke about it at some length in the Press Club last week. In that speech, he said: In Australia, socioeconomic status is more strongly associated with educational achievement than it should be. He went on and referred to OECD research which found: … students in the lowest socioeconomic quartile lagged those in the highest socioeconomic quartile by 2½ years. Further, he said: If Australia is to be the land genuinely of the fair go, we must do a better job in ensuring that every young Australian gets a decent education. He is spot on. It is a question of fairness. Fairness is at the core of what we believe in and it dictates what this government will do in office. Follow the thread. We believe in fairness in the workplace; that is why we are abolishing Work Choices. We are committed to closing the gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians. We are equally committed to helping the 100,000 people around this country who will be homeless tonight—that of itself is a national disgrace. We are also committed to helping people with a mortgage to keep a roof over their head. Fairness is also key to what we are doing in education. The Deputy Prime Minister said in her second reading speech that up to 20,000 Australian kids are currently not attending school regularly. That is not acceptable. It just entrenches the type of disadvantage I was talking about. That is why this bill is so important: it gives these kids a chance. It will do something for these 20,000 kids. This is not just my opinion. Last week, one of my constituents, a gentleman named Tony Re, wrote to me about these matters. Tony has been a schoolteacher in my local community for many decades, and he recently retired as the regional director of education for south-west Sydney. I value his opinion on these and many other measures, and I think it is important that his contribution and experience be incorporated into this debate. This is the letter from Tony: Dear Jason I wish to give my full support to the decision by the government to halt welfare payments to the extremely small number of parents who deliberately prevent their children from attending school. For most people, it is incomprehensible that some parents would do this to their offspring. We find it very difficult to put ourselves into the position of these parents. Unfortunately such parents exist as I discovered when I was the Director of Education for a large cluster of schools in the New South Wales state school system. The reasons these parents give for keeping their children from school can be quite bizarre but I am unwilling to outline the most unusual as it could be a breach of privacy. At times they can be humorous, but usually they are very saddening. Action that can be taken to force the parents to send their children to school is actually quite limited. The threat of a jail sentence achieves very little. I found it very frustrating dealing with these parents. A return to school would be negotiated but the parents would change their mind within a short time. Very unfortunately, some of these parents need a dire threat before they act correctly in the interests of their children. I accept that the parenting skills of parents who do this to their children are often limited and that their lives are generally quite dysfunctional. I assume that these parents are, or will, receive assistance from the appropriate agencies. I expect the threat will achieve the desired result and that there will be an absolute minimum of cases, if any, when welfare payments will actually be halted. This might be the one way that we can break the cycle of educational poverty for some children. Yours sincerely Tony Re 27th August 2008 As I said, Tony has some experience in these matters. He has worked at the coalface. He probably knows these things, I think I can say quite fairly, better than anyone here. I am pretty lucky. I am the first person in my family to have gone to university, but I did grow up in a household that appreciated and understood the importance of education. I find it very hard to imagine what life must be like growing up in a household where education is not valued—the type of home that Tony describes in his letter. I hope that he is right. I hope that the monetary implications of the measures that are outlined in this bill will help ensure that more parents take their child’s education seriously and that it forces them to give school attendance the important attention that it well and truly deserves. The Deputy Prime Minister said when she introduced the bill last week: The majority of parents do the right thing by enrolling their children in school and endeavouring to support their children’s attendance at school. They do everything in their power to make sure their children are enrolled and regularly attending school. This legislation acknowledges the efforts of these parents by placing a minimal impost on them. However, for parents who refuse to send their children to school, this bill gives Centrelink the power to suspend payments to force parents to fulfil their responsibilities to their children. This in itself is not a new innovation to the transfer payment system. It is already available to Centrelink in a number of different circumstances, and it is designed to ensure that the person who receives the payment meets their appropriate responsibilities. As the representative of an electorate with many families who rely on these types of payments from week to week, I am obviously interested in how the provisions of the bill will work in practice. The bill does not target parents who take their kids to the Easter Show on the last day of term; it is about long-term unsatisfactory attendance. Schools currently work with parents in addressing these sorts of problems but, when a school is frustrated by a lack of cooperation from the parents, the school will now be able to notify Centrelink of the problem. From there, Centrelink will work with parents in receipt of payments, offering them assistance to overcome the barriers to their child’s enrolment and attendance at school. The suspension of payments in effect is a last resort. I hope this power is never used, but if its existence breaks through in just one case, if it means there is one more child learning in a classroom, then I think it is worth a try. If 20,000 kids are not at school at the moment then obviously something is not working, and doing nothing is just not good enough. So it is worth a try. Any family that relies on transfer payments as their primary source of income is going to find a suspension of payments really difficult; I appreciate that. But hopefully it will sheet home the seriousness of school attendance. If progress is made towards a resolution within the 13-week suspension time, then the parents will be able to have their payments paid back to the beginning of the suspension period. That is a good thing. I think that is fair. I know that sometimes, despite the best efforts of parents, some young people just refuse to go to school. Parents might wake them up, pack their lunchbox and get them off to school—even drive them to school—but the child may never find themselves inside the classroom and just refuse to cooperate. In these circumstances, parents will not be punished. If you take reasonable steps to ensure that your child attends school, then you will have satisfied the requirements. I think a trial is the right approach. If the bill works, it will allow for it to be rolled out across the country into communities like the one I represent, and I welcome that. A trial is an evidence based approach. The best evidence is real life. So I welcome the decision of the minister to introduce this legislation and look forward to the results of that trial. Any bill that supports disadvantaged kids in our education system has my support. It would be remiss of a Blaxland boy to do otherwise. I welcome the government’s commitment to education, and I am encouraged by its commitment to ensuring disadvantage does not determine opportunity. When these two ends come together, as they do in this bill, we get policy that will greatly benefit my local community. The Prime Minister talked about this at the Press Club last week, but he did not just talk about it. He did not just talk about helping the most disadvantaged schools in our community; he promised to back it with real money—half a million dollars for the average sized school. This is what will help turn disadvantaged schools around, and this is what will help ensure what the Prime Minister said he wants: … the next generation of Australians to be the best educated, best skilled, best trained in the world. That is real reform. That is economic reform. And it is big ambition. But I believe in the ambition of a guy who was once a kid in a disadvantaged school in rural Queensland. The kids of Blaxland need their political leaders to have this kind of ambition. That is why I support the measures in this bill that will allow the benefits of education to be shared by all. I commend the bill to the House. 7070 17:56:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I thank you for the opportunity, Mr Deputy Speaker. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to speak this evening to the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, because it is something that I have been deeply concerned with for my 10 years in this place. This bill is not before time. It ought to have been considered back in about 1967. And it is with some regret that I confess that not a lot of progress was made in the eight years prior to the last two, if I can put it that way. But, in the last stages of the previous government, the Hon. Mal Brough had the intestinal fortitude to take policies like this to the people, having been badgered by me for the previous eight years. The problem that exists currently in rural and remote Western Australia—and I will speak passionately about that location on behalf of the constituents of the federal seat of Kalgoorlie—is a shortage of labour, and especially a shortage of unskilled and semiskilled labour. We are talking today about how we can possibly solve the labour shortage—perhaps by granting working visas to Pacific Islanders. We had hoped to have East Timorese as well, but that is not going to come to pass, it seems. And writ clearly in the public mind presently is that we are abusing the opportunity to work for Australians. But my experience indicates that nothing could be further from the truth. In my electorate I have horticultural industry, I have vineyards, I have restaurants, I have roadhouses—I have a multitude of employers in the low-skilled and semiskilled areas screaming out for employees. I also have, in most of these areas where they are crying out for the opportunity to have an employee come through their door, a large number of able-bodied, very capable, Indigenous people. And very rarely do the two come together to form some sort of workable solution, because the majority of these unemployed people do not have the foundations of education and the ‘three R’s’ skills that we speak of. You will excuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, for generalising to some degree. But the problems are most obvious where the situation is most extreme—that is logic. In Broome, I see restaurants with half of their tables roped off because they cannot get waiters and waitresses to serve their public. I see roadhouses that apologise for their atrocious service because they cannot get somebody to fill the pie-warmer and take the cash. The situation makes some of my small business people literally weep. This bill will go some way, I believe, towards encouraging Aboriginal parents to be concerned about the attendance at school of their children. So many of my Aboriginal couples have no interest whatsoever in whether or not their children attend school, because there is nothing in it for them. They have no interest in education because they see the outcomes of education as having no significance. Certainly there are never going to be jobs provided to Indigenous people living in communities, because there is no commerce as such; therefore, why bother with all the rigmarole of sending kids to school, getting them out of the house, getting lunch for them, making sure they have clean clothes, making sure they go to sleep the night before and mucking around with homework and all the other humbugs? Education has never, ever had significance for a great number of my Indigenous parents in communities. This legislation, hopefully, will change that. But the solution is not going to be achieved with just this single tool. I am very tired of educational situations in my communities where the principals of the schools spend the majority of their time rounding up students to get them into class and apologising to parents for having to do so. I am sick of seeing the destruction of any sort of discipline or rigour within the classroom because teachers have to pander to the students to keep them in the classroom—fearful of imposing any sort of discipline, or rigour, as I said, for fear the children will simply up and walk out because it is no longer entertaining and fun. I go into so many classrooms where I see kids with runny noses and skin sores, and scaly, infested dogs. Why are the dogs there? The teachers say, ‘If I shunt the dogs out, the kids are going to leave with the dogs.’ There is no imperative for those children to attend school. Truancy officers throughout the majority of my lands are a joke; they do not exist, or they finish up with a patch of thousands of square kilometres. It is unworkable. I am sick of teachers having to play the role of truancy officers. We need to tie this legislation into a whole package, where the message is sent to communities and parents within those communities that it is imperative, for various reasons, that their children attend school and that that involves feeding and housing them satisfactorily and giving them an environment where class work can be kept up with because there is an opportunity to attend to homework. When teachers go from a suburban or high-standard country educational facility to some of my lands, communities are absolutely gobsmacked at the fact that they do not really teach anything; they just spend their time rounding up kids, occupying them, breaking up fights and keeping the skin rivalries under control. At the end of the day, or should I say at the end of the perhaps 18 months or two years of the teacher’s residence in the community, the exchange of information and knowledge has been from the members of the community to the teacher, in the main. The teacher goes away having experienced a very unusual environment and they dine out on it for the rest of their life. What do they leave as far as knowledge of the three R’s in a competitive sense in their students? Very, very little. The teachers have a lot of fun learning the local language. But do they equip their charges for whom they are responsible for the next grade, for job training or for financial independence so there is a high level of self-esteem and mobility, so those people can go out into the cities around Australia, possibly the world, and attend tertiary institutions? No. The great failure is because there is no motivation presently for children to attend school. This bill, as I said, will go some way towards providing that motivation. It is time we used a little bit of stick, but there needs to be consideration of a carrot as well. In what form? I am not qualified to suggest. But it has to be practical. It has to say to parents, ‘Yes, there is a reason to send your kids to school, because there is a future for your children.’ Those parents might just be given an understanding that in the future welfare will not be automatic or, dare I say, mandatory; that there will be an opportunity for financial independence and an increase in self-worth; and that there will be consideration by government that you cannot, as an Indigenous person in league with others around you, choose to live where you want to simply because of some cultural attachment and expect the taxpayer of Australia to support you in your lifestyle. Pastoralists in the industry have gone out, taken up land, leased it and built all of the infrastructure out of their own pocket in the past. But we are faced with this expectation by Indigenous people—handed to them, I might add, by various governments over time—that they may simply elect to live where they wish and they will be sponsored for every requirement. Blessed be the day when we decide to send the message that there will be a point in time when, like every other Australian, Indigenous Australians will be expected to move to where there is employment. Consider, if you will, why we have our towns and population centres in mainstream Australia. They are there because of some geographical feature. We have cities based around old shipping ports, cities based around resource rich areas and cities based around agriculturally rich areas, and we have huge bodies of people that are where they are in Central Australia and north-western Australia simply because they choose to be. There is no supporting job infrastructure; there is no commercial activity. The taxpayer of Australia pays. We live in a wonderful nation where many are heard to say that, as Australians, we have a safety net called welfare, and you may choose to work or you may choose not to work. I do not subscribe to that. But I believe the situation that exists in so many of my Indigenous communities today is there simply because there has not been any insistence that real employment be found. That takes me back in the full loop—if you are not having to work, you do not particularly want to work and you are fed and watered with a fairly substantial welfare payment, why would you worry about having a job? The day will come, I trust, when individuals will not automatically think of being on welfare as they mature but will consider that this existence may not be sustained forever and that there may be a requirement—as there is in the rest of the population of the nation—that one moves from a community, finds real work and is self-sufficient. When that day arrives, there will be true motivation for parents to say to their children, ‘You are going to be very poorly off indeed if you don’t go to school, get an education and be job trained and ready when the time comes so as to have a job, have financial independence and have improved self-esteem as a result.’ There have been many innovative ideas about getting children to school. Under the previous minister, Mr Andrews, there was a proposition to link welfare payments to school attendance that was put in place in Halls Creek in Western Australia in my electorate. This was a process that was very local, but word got out—goodness knows how—that if children did not go to school then their parents would not receive welfare payments. School attendance went from about 58 per cent to 85 per cent and that was a great thing. Additional classrooms had to be brought in to accommodate all these people. Very sadly, this program came to the attention of Canberra and it was analysed and found to be unacceptable, because one could not tie welfare payments—at that time—to school attendance. It was attacked by the Aboriginal Legal Service in Western Australia as being discriminatory on the basis of race. I would have loved to have seen it introduced in all schools, quite frankly. But that was what happened in that case. It got so bad—even though, do not forget, that this meant so many more children were getting an education than had done previously—and it became so unpopular that the Western Australian education minister issued an edict to educational staff that no attendance figures were to be provided to the Commonwealth. That leads me to the question in relation to this bill: what are we going to do to guarantee the on-the-ground support from the education departments in the states and territories—especially my state—to make sure that there is a flow of information in relation to attendance? What guarantees do we have that this—what I see as the beneficial aspects of this legislation—will ever be practically put into place? I have not heard any strongly expressed point of view so far that that will be the case. There are so many unanswered questions as to how this is going to be applied exactly. I have already said that I do not have all of the solutions that would make sure children attend school. But the one thing I am absolutely passionately emphatic about is that children must attend school. And parents must be involved in that process. There must be a degree of carrot as well as stick. In that regard, at Balgo Hills recently the experience was—or, should I say, the decision was taken—that, because there was such a problem of truancy and that was leading to petty crime around the community, something had to be done. The corporation—with elders’ leadership, of course—to their great credit, decided upon something quite innovative. They have the control of these communities. The decision was that the store would not open on any day until such time as a certain percentage of the total school enrolments had attended school. For the first few days when, by 10.30 in the morning, none of the parents could make a purchase at the shop because the shop was closed, there were a lot of kids very quickly rounded up and sent to school so that the basic commodities could be purchased. I commend the Balgo Hills community for such innovative ideas. I would recommend that leaders of many communities take a leaf out of their book—not perhaps in the use of the opening or closing of the community store but at least in thinking about the problem. I would like for this government today to send a signal to communities that says, ‘The future may not be as the past has been. There is a future for your children in real employment, gaining meaningful jobs and maintaining personal self-esteem.’ I would like a message to be sent that says, ‘We will not impose upon the taxpayers of Australia, from now until day dot, to support the individual Australian who simply chooses with others to live where they want to live.’ I would love the opportunity to be fed and housed and accommodated—with sewerage, electricity and running water—where I would like to live. It would be a special spot, believe me! But I do not expect that as a right. Indigenous people today do because they have been led to believe that they can, they may and they ought. I believe changes have got to be made. The sooner those changes are made, the sooner the message is tweaked to give some indication that the future does not hold the agonies of the past and that there will be a requirement of mutual obligation, the sooner we will have a real future for Indigenous people in this country. I have gone so far as to say in the past—and I will say it again—that to deny this future for children is in fact an act of genocide. If we do not think about the malaise that besets Indigenous people in remote communities today and do something about it quickly, we will lose those people and it will be at the feet of the government of the day. 7074 18:15:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, which is a bill that seeks to amend the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999, the A New Tax System (Family Assistance) Act 1999, the Student Assistance Act 1973 and the Veterans’ Entitlements Act 1986. In amending those pieces of legislation, this bill will allow for the measures that were announced in the most recent budget under ‘welfare payments reform’, which enables the implementation of the improving school enrolment and attendance through welfare reform measure. This is a measure that is intended to be initially trialled in eight locations, six of which are in the Northern Territory, one of which is in Western Australia and another location is to be determined. It is a trial which will affect parents and carers who are in receipt of income support and who have children who are of a compulsory school age. At the outset, I think it is important to understand the framework of this bill and the trial which is contained in it—in a sense, to understand what it is and what it is not. This is not a bill or a trial which will seek to punish children or parents. This bill seeks to link the support that is received from our society through income benefits with a basic obligation in our society to send one’s children to school. It is a bill which accepts that, despite concerted efforts by some parents, there will be some children who will continue to have unsatisfactory levels of school attendance. At the end of the day, it is a bill that balances the expectations of the community with the obligations and the abilities of parents to ensure that their children are attending school. This bill—and the trial contained within it—acknowledges the power of education. This bill acknowledges the power of education to change our society. It acknowledges the power of education to uplift those in our society who come from the most disadvantaged backgrounds. It acknowledges the power of education as being the single most fundamental way in which we provide opportunity in our society to each and every citizen. In acknowledging the power of education, what this bill will do—and what this trial intends to do—is provide and ensure that the right of every child to have an education exists. Given the discussion on this bill that has occurred publicly, I want to briefly go through the precise terms of the bill so that we are clear about what we are talking about. In the event that this bill becomes law, the bill will provide that, starting from next year, parents who are receiving income support, who have children who are of a compulsory school age and who are living in the trial areas will need to provide Centrelink with information about their child’s school enrolment. Parents who fail to provide that information to Centrelink will need to engage with Centrelink—and I will come back to that in a moment. Parents who fail to enrol their children in school will also be required to engage with Centrelink. The bill also provides that those parents whose children are enrolled in school but are not attending school on a regular basis will also be required to engage with Centrelink. In engaging with Centrelink there will an encouragement on the part of Centrelink for those parents to rectify whatever the situation is that is out of kilter—be it providing the initial information about the enrolment, ensuring that the child becomes enrolled in school or, if they are already enrolled and they are not attending, trying to make sure that attendance occurs. In engaging with the parents, Centrelink can rely on writing letters, phone contacts, referrals and ultimately providing social work support. I guess the point in making those observations at the outset is that, before we get to the issues in this bill that have gained the most attention, there will be a concerted effort to try to work with the parents to rectify whatever is outstanding in the situation that exists. If that is not successful, the bill provides an ability for Centrelink to suspend income support payments. In the event that the situation is rectified—the child starts attending school or the child becomes enrolled in school—there is the power for Centrelink to reinstate those payments up to a period of 13 weeks, and indeed in some situations to back pay beyond a period of 13 weeks. If that as a sanction is not successful in terms of ensuring that the children are enrolled at school and attending school, there is then an ability, in the most extreme of circumstances, for Centrelink to actually terminate those payments altogether. This bill provides for Centrelink to terminate payments in eight trial locations, which I indicated, in the Northern Territory communities which form part of the Northern Territory intervention and also in communities which are not part of that, as well as in schools which have Indigenous children in them and also schools which have non-Indigenous children in them. In having two locations outside the Northern Territory it is hoped that there will be a wider demographic so that a proper assessment of the affect of this trial can be obtained. It is acknowledged that ultimately the power for education and for schooling rests with the territories and the states, and it is acknowledged that there is not a power within this bill to compel non-government and government schools to participate. But a range of incentives may form part of this regime to be provided to the states and territories in order to encourage those schools to participate in the scheme. At the end of the day, that describes the trial and the regime that we are talking about putting in place. It is not a new idea. Linking parents’ welfare payments with children’s satisfactory attendance at school is an idea that has been put in place in 40 states within the United States. In some of those states there have been very encouraging outcomes from such programs. In California, for example, where there has been a comprehensive system of welfare sanctions combined with active case management—and that is a really important aspect of this—there have been results which indicated an increase of eight per cent in school attendance, and that is a very significant outcome indeed. The United Kingdom also has in place systems of conditional entitlements of this kind. Whilst it is in a sense new to this country, it is not an entirely novel idea and it is one which has an international basis. It is important that we embark upon a program and trial such as this now because of the statistics on school attendance which confront our country. It is estimated that right now there are 20,000 Australian children of compulsory school age who are not enrolled in school. That is by any measure a disgraceful statistic and one which brings shame upon our country. An OECD analysis of the population aged between 25 and 64 shows that in Australia people within that age bracket who have obtained upper secondary education—this is a 2005 figure—is 65 per cent. Of the 35 countries who participated in that particular OECD survey Australia was eighth from the bottom. Again a shameful situation for our country. Under the Howard government we saw school retention rates stagnate, after a period of significant growth during the Hawke and Keating years, such that year 12 retention rates now are at around 74 per cent. One in 10 year 7 students is currently unable to meet national reading and writing benchmarks, and one in five is not able to meet numeracy benchmarks. Again these are appalling statistics to characterise Australia in 2008. In my electorate of Corio, which covers the city of Geelong, there is equally difficult reading when one considers the statistics that apply there in relation to education, particularly when we look at the suburbs of Norlane and Corio, which have the lower socioeconomic outcomes. In Norlane and Corio secondary schools the average days of school lost for students range from 14.2 per cent, or almost three weeks, up to 28.7 per cent, or almost six weeks. According to ABS data from 2006 the completion rate for year 12 education in Norlane and Corio stood at 23 per cent. Fifty-one per cent of the residents of Corio and Norlane aged between 20 and 24 have not completed year 12, and that compares with 25 per cent in greater Melbourne and 29 per cent in Victoria. The school retention data over the past five years for students moving between years 11 and 12 at Corio Bay Senior College show that only around 50 per cent of year 11 students remain at school for year 12. These are statistics which absolutely bear out the need for us to look at new ways in which we can keep our children at school so that they complete their education. These statistics are staggering for a developed country like Australia and they bear out the failure of the Howard government over the last 12 years. We cannot improve those statistics if we do not have the most basic issue of our children attending school. We will not improve year 12 completion rates if children do not attend school during their early years. We know that regular truancy often results in an increased risk of students dropping out of school. It results, in turn, in an increased risk of those students ending up as long-term unemployed. It involves an increased probability that in adult life those students will end up being welfare dependent and it also involves an increased risk that those students will have an interaction with the criminal justice system at some point in their adult lives. This is stark evidence and it requires and demands a response. This idea and this trial is an attempt to provide that response. But from the opposition we have seen no clear direction at all on this issue which is confronting our country. We have seen nothing other than the consistent flip-flopping—the consistent inconsistency—which we have seen from the opposition on almost every major piece of public policy since November of last year. On 25 August, in an interview with the ABC, the member for Warringah said that he supported the government’s policy in relation to this area. On the very same day, a New South Wales senator, the shadow minister for human services, Senator Coonan, criticised the policy on the Liberal Party website but in the same breath noted that this was indeed a policy which had been announced by the government in the budget in May. The very day before that appeared on the Liberal Party’s website, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that this was a populist piece of policy being done on the run, even though, as I have just said, his party’s website acknowledged that this policy was announced in the government’s budget in May. Indeed, the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs had made public statements in relation to this policy in both June and July. The opposition, as always, seem determined on this issue to confound the electorate with their obvious lack of direction. They are clearly far more concerned about outdoing each other in their various media sound bites—which, in a sense, is what we just heard from the member for Kalgoorlie—than they are on focusing on the critical issue which is before this parliament and the Australian people today. This trial needs not to be seen in isolation. It forms part of a greater commitment by the Rudd government to a fundamental education revolution in this country. That is an important symbolic statement but it is in turn backed up by significant resources. It is worth reminding the House that in the budget $1.2 billion was committed to delivering computers to schools around our country. We have provided an education tax refund of up to $1,500 per child per year, at a cost of $4.4 billion over four years. We have provided $2.5 billion towards trade training centres in schools and of course an $11 billion Education Investment Fund. These are real commitments. This is a real desire to try and improve our education system. The current bill before the House and the trial which is inherent in it have to be seen in the context of that suite of measures to try and improve education in this country. In conclusion, let me say that the Rudd government is utterly committed to improving the state of our nation’s education system—an education system which, frankly, was allowed to fall into a state of disrepair over the 11 years of the Howard government. The 20,000 unenrolled children in this country—and their futures and what that means for our nation—are crying out for action. They are the clarion call for action within this area. It requires that decisive action be taken in this area. It requires that innovative action be taken and, yes, it also requires in certain circumstances that tough action be taken. But at the end of the day those children, and the potential for themselves and for our country that they represent, absolutely deserve nothing less, and so I commend this bill to the House. 7077 18:33:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I must say from the outset that I support the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008, recognising that it is no silver bullet to fix truancy and underenrolment, which is a permanent intergenerational handbrake on the children of our nation and their futures. There will undoubtedly be many teething problems in bringing state government bodies, education facilities and Centrelink together and sharing personal information, but let us take the government at its word that it can achieve all this. While it is envisaged that in the medium term these requirements will be rolled out through the wider community, there is no doubt that in the first instance it is about addressing the crisis in remote Indigenous Australia. My electorate of Grey, as I often have cause to say in this place, is by its nature extremely diverse. Part of this diversity includes the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands in the far north of South Australia. If in the first instance the government have seen fit to trial these changes in the Northern Territory as part of the intervention, then the question must be asked: when will they take the problems of the APY lands, which are part of the same inland communities, just as seriously and get started there as well? I would be the first to admit I am no expert on Indigenous issues in South Australia, or anywhere else for that matter, but since being elected last year I have devoted as much time as possible to trying to learn about the problems facing Indigenous Australia, both in the urban population and in the remote areas. While there are significant problems facing our urban Indigenous population, they pale into insignificance when compared with those of their remote brothers and sisters. Much of what I have seen on my journeys into these areas is totally dispiriting. The evidence of the dysfunctional nature of these societies is everywhere: poor health, domestic violence, substance abuse, poor educational outcomes, teenage pregnancy and the breakdown of traditional structures. The problems and symptoms are easy to identify; the solutions are much more difficult. I have just listened to the member for Kalgoorlie list the problems of his electorate, which is the same dynamic, the same group of people that I am talking about, as we have adjoining electorates. As he was speaking, I found myself nodding as he listed the problems of these communities and some of the issues we need to face. In the last few weeks we have seen the announcement by the government of a guest worker program. Immediately the cry has gone up that our Aboriginal population should be filling these roles. That is undoubtedly right, and a concerted effort will hopefully see some advances in this area. But it is a sad fact of life that, for many in this group, particularly those in remote areas, educational outcomes are so poor that this population is largely not equipped to participate in the workforce at any level. The problems of the lands have been exacerbated by a form of racism whereby, in almost every area, we the wider community, in our efforts to help, have accepted lower standards than we would accept for the broader community. This condescending attitude must end. Hopefully the proposed amendments to the legislation will at least be part of the answer. However, when we take into account the government’s full reinstatement of the CDEP scheme, we must question the government’s overall commitment to reforming the concept of mutual obligation. Education is not just about what happens inside the school gate; it is about how children are prepared for life. On Tuesday I attended a function here at Parliament House to promote National Child Protection Week. All of those who attended witnessed a very strong presentation that gave pause for thought. The abuse of children is a tragedy of national proportions. It includes physical abuse, mental abuse and neglect. Neglect, by any standard, includes not ensuring that all children receive an adequate education. But my purpose in mentioning that presentation by the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect is to highlight their slogan: ‘Children see, children do’. One of the purposes of CDEP is to prepare workers for the workforce and condition them to a working environment. The track record of this program is that many of the participants do not have regular hours or days of work. They roll up when they like. Sometimes they come; sometimes they do not. Not only does this not prepare participants for work in any real sense, but it also adds to the appalling role models presented to the children of these communities. We have evidence that the government are getting tough in one area, or at least talking the talk, but going weak at the knees in another. They penalise people who will not ensure that their kids are going to school, but to others they offer pseudo-jobs where it does not matter whether you roll up or not. But this inconsistency goes even further. As a result of these amendments, parents will be penalised if they do not ensure that their children attend school. This is an attempt to protect children by ensuring that benefit recipients are fulfilling their end of the bargain with taxpayers. It would seem logical, then, that the unemployed should also be penalised if they refuse employment or deliberately underperform. After all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. But the government are sending the opposite message. They are winding back the penalties for noncompliance in the labour market but tightening up the penalties for noncompliance in education. When we relieve people of their responsibilities, we reinforce and reward substandard performance. For all Australians, there must be carrots and sticks—too much of one and not enough of the other will not give the right results. Mutual responsibility means, yes, the government—that is, the taxpayer—will support you but you must be prepared to help yourself. That premise is inherent in these amendments; it should provide a guide to the rest of our system. Every time you relieve someone of a responsibility, you ensure that they will not do the task. It is no longer their job; it becomes your job. This condition affects not just Indigenous society but all groups. If you usurp responsibility, whatever your motive, you destroy the motivation for self-reliance. As I said at the outset, I believe these amendments are a step in the right direction. But they are just one step. Let us see if the government can follow up on the promise and treat the problems of the APY Lands as seriously as they treat the problems of the Northern Territory. An emergency is an emergency, children are children, and a state border should make no difference to a determined government. 7079 18:41:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I wish to commend the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Education and Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations for her commitment to education and the Rudd government’s education revolution. There is no person in this parliament who is more committed to seeing that every child in Australia gets a quality education. She and the Rudd government are committed to ensuring that young people, no matter what school they attend, will have an equal opportunity to learn and get the skills they need to succeed in today’s world. Education is the key to success. It unlocks the door that gives young people the opportunity to succeed and enjoy a prosperous life. That is why the Rudd government has invested in the computers in schools program and established trade training centres in schools. That is why the Rudd government is committed to raising literacy and numeracy levels in Australia. We on this side of the House know that, without the tools that a quality education provides, a person is denied life’s opportunities. The minister has introduced the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008 because she is committed to the education of all young Australians. She knows that there are 20,000 young Australians who are not attending school. The effects of this have been aptly identified by Graeme Withers, who noted in his paper for the Dusseldorp Skills Forum that failure to be in school long enough to gain basic skills and knowledge has personal and social costs—unemployment, poverty, homelessness and minor or gross criminal activities. The community bears the social and economic costs that escalate from a failure to attend school. The legislation before us will give effect to welfare payment reform measures announced in the 2008-09 budget. This bill enables the implementation of welfare reform measures to improve school enrolment and attendance. To begin this process there will be a rollout of measures from the commencement of the 2009 school year. The measures will be rolled out in eight trial locations and will affect parents and carers of children of compulsory school age. I know just how committed the minister is to ensuring that young people attend school. Part of this legislation will include the suspension of welfare payments for parents whose children do not attend school. That can happen over a 13-week period. The payments can be reinstated once the matter has been resolved. Parents who receive income support will also be expected to ensure that their children regularly attend school. Centrelink will actively work with these parents to assist them to comply with these requirements once parents demonstrate that they are taking reasonable steps to ensure that their children are attending school. I know, as I have said, how committed the minister is to ensuring that young people attend school. I know that this is an approach that is being trialled in countries throughout the world, and there have been some trials here within Australia. But there are other trials that have had great success in ensuring that young people attend school. To discuss those in some degree I would like to refer to overseas literature. In doing so I must say that, whilst I support this legislation and the minister’s position, I do have a few concerns about the suspension of welfare payments for families whose children do not attend school. Some of those children may not attend school for a variety of reasons. I am a person who likes to look at the causes of problems, and I think maybe this is looking more at the effects. Looking at the things that have been shown to work, in overseas studies in this area and in some of the projects that have run within Australia, there was the Halls Creek trial. That actually was quite inconclusive. I know that the minister is going to evaluate this program and that the result of this program is going to form part of her evaluation. But overseas research in this area has shown that the best programs aimed at improving school attendance involve relationship building, where students receive individualised attention at school; contacting parents regarding absenteeism; having a strong connection between the school and the parents; strong and clear attendance policies—and I know that part of this legislation looks at that; intensive school intervention programs, which look at mentoring and various other approaches; establishing ongoing truancy prevention programs for schools rather than one-time efforts only targeting high-risk students; trained and committed school staff; and ongoing rigorous evaluation of programs. Research of all of the different approaches has been inconclusive. Rewards and incentives for attendance have been found to have mixed benefits. Peer counselling once again has been shown to have mixed results. Probation officers devoted to truancy cases have also had mixed results. One of the things that have been found not to work has been school uniforms. They do not have an impact on truancy. Another thing that has been significantly found not to work is financial sanctions against families and tying their benefits to school attendance. That did not appear, from all the research that I have read—and I have read a lot of research on this—to have any impact at all. The research I am referring to here is in Effective Truancy Prevention and Intervention, by Gerrard, Burhans and Fair. That research shows that the best outcomes in truancy prevention involve a strong case management approach, mediation counselling support, improved involvement with interagency collaborations and providing family support. Let us be honest about it: truancy is a big problem. When you have 20,000 students not attending school it is a big problem. I think that we have to be creative in the way we address this problem. There is not going to be one size that fits all. We have to adopt an approach that is based on solidly researched evidence as to its effectiveness and that involves intensive ongoing intervention. We have to look at well-defined policies. We have to make sure that there is parental engagement, family counselling and individualised plans. That has been found to have a really big impact on truancy. I notice that members on the other side of the House have blamed the states for problems with truancy. I would like to talk about a program that was run in New South Wales, a program that I believe was one of the most effective programs dealing with truancy. I was involved in it. It was run out of the then Gateshead high school, which is now called the Hunter Sports High School. The program involved students from Belmont, Swansea, Broadmeadow, Cardiff, Gateshead, Newcastle, Warners Bay and Whitebridge high schools. Fifteen students were involved and they were between the ages of 12 and 15. These were hardened truants. These were students who had not attended school for a very long period of time. These were students who had had multiple suspensions. They were chronic truants; they just could not operate within the multi-teacher high schools. This program, JASPER, has won awards. It won the PCYC Blue Heeler Award and, for programs that actually worked, gained equal first place in New South Wales for the Australian Institute of Criminology’s Australian Violence Prevention Award. The students who enrolled in JASPER had not attended school; however, once they had enrolled, their attendance rate increased to 77 per cent. All but one of those students are now working in the community. After completing JASPER, some went back to mainstream high schools, some undertook traineeships and others undertook apprenticeships. This program was an outstanding success. It cost $45,000 a year to run and was run by the New South Wales government. However, eventually, because it was no longer funded, the program ceased. However, this program delivered. It cut down on chronic truancy even though, in nearly all cases, those involved in it had had such an appalling record of not attending school over a very long period of time. There is a variety of reasons for students not attending school. It can be because of poor literacy and numeracy. We have heard the case argued around the chamber in relation to Indigenous students. It can be because of bullying within the school. It may be because they are victims of child abuse. I think all policies that are introduced need to cover every aspect so that a holistic approach can be developed to address the issue of nonattendance at school. I know how committed the minister is to ensuring that all students have the opportunity to attend school. The minister says and has said on many occasions that we cannot have an education revolution without every child receiving a world-class education, and that is what she is seeking to achieve with this legislation. She has said that she knows that all students who are regularly absent from school are at greater risk of dropping out of school. Associated with that is that many students who do drop out of school and who are truants come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds and have a higher poverty index. Invariably, the problems that those children experience were experienced by their parents. A number of programs have been trialled in both the UK and the USA. A Personal Responsibility Program and a work obligation program have been operating across a number of states in the United States. But, even in those programs, it has been shown that the most effective way of dealing with truancy is through case management. Conditional cash transfers, which were modelled on a program trialled in Mexico, are another approach that has been adopted in New York. But, even with that program, the best results were found to be achieved by programs like JASPER. Sitting in this chamber earlier, I found it appalling to listen to members on the other side bagging the states. Our state governments are committed to seeing that students attend school. They do everything they can. They do their utmost in confronting the multitude of problems that exist. They are dedicated educationalists. Bagging the state governments is the opposition’s way of dealing with any issue. They do not try to get to the bottom of what the trouble is and look at what is really causing issues around truancy; it is, ‘We’ll use this piece of legislation that we’ve got before the parliament to say that we in the opposition are great and the states and the federal government are failing people, including the young people of Australia.’ I disagree strongly with those on the other side of the House and I welcome the commitment of the minister to ensure that all young Australians have access to a quality education. I truly believe that this legislation will ensure that more students do enrol in school. A number of those 20,000 students are not enrolled in school. You only have to look at what the previous government did with immunisation to see that linking payments to enrolment will achieve an outcome. But the area in which I think there may be a little bit of a problem is in ensuring that, once those children are enrolled, parents are able to ensure they attend school. I am very pleased to know that the program will be re-evaluated and that the minister will be looking at the research and seeing how effective it is—I hope it is effective. But I strongly argue in favour of looking at some of the evidence based research from overseas. I know that the minister will be evaluating these outcomes. I would also like to encourage her to look at other successful programs and strategies from around the world—programs such as JASPER and strategies that have been identified as effective in other countries. I encourage her to look at strategies that will not lead to any homelessness or breakdowns in families, and programs that build on the strength and resilience within that family and within the community. Like the minister, I am committed to ensuring that all young Australians have a quality education which will ensure they are able to reach their full potential and have a full and rewarding life—a life that is only delivered by having a quality education, by learning and by embracing everything that education can offer. You can only get that if you go to school. This legislation is about getting students to attend school. I know that the minister will evaluate the outcomes once the trials are completed. 7083 19:01:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 0 0 Mrs MAY —I rise tonight to contribute to the debate on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. This bill aims to 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 taking reasonable action to ensure regular school attendance. The bill provides the mechanism to suspend or cancel welfare payments of parents who are considered negligent in this role. I preface my remarks tonight with what I hope is a statement of the obvious: education is the key to the future. It is the key to my future, it is the key to my children’s futures and it is the key to my grandchildren’s futures. In fact, it is the key to all children’s futures in this country. Although the opposition supports this bill, I have some serious concerns about the extra bureaucracy and administrative burden the bill will place on welfare agencies, particularly Centrelink. I also have concerns that the Rudd government is imposing a punitive measure on parents while doing nothing to address the issue of truancy itself. I believe in its essence this bill has good intentions. It aims to reduce the high levels of truancy currently being experienced by schools across Australia—that is a good thing. And it certainly is a good thing that those of us speaking on this bill recognise what we are trying to achieve through this bill. Parents certainly must take responsibility for their children and they must also respect the importance of education. There is no denying that truancy is disruptive. It disrupts classes and it disrupts education programs being run by schools. Many of society’s long-term problems such as unemployment and social disadvantage have their origins in a lack of school attendance. I think it is great that the Labor Party has finally come to realise what a number of other Centre Left governments around the world came to realise a decade or so ago—I am referring the United Kingdom under Tony Blair’s leadership and the United States during the Clinton administration. Both the UK and the USA learnt long ago that welfare was seen as an inalienable right that came without any responsibilities for the recipient. It was not so long ago in Australia that if you questioned welfare payments or suggested welfare reform you were called ‘mean-spirited’. Certainly when we were in government we had those types of tags placed upon us. If you raised those same concerns in regard to Indigenous people, you were called ‘mean-spirited’ and a ‘racist’. I am pleased to see that the debate has finally progressed in this country. The truth is that there are no easy solutions to the problem of truancy. It is a complex and multilayered issue. The reasons for truancy can be related to medical problems. They can be related to financial problems. They can be related to crime in certain suburbs. Of course, we all know that families are under enormous pressures and stress at this time. They are feeling it through rising grocery prices and cost-of-living pressures. The Rudd government could do well to study the welfare situation in the United Kingdom and heed some of the hard lessons they learnt there. In the United Kingdom 55,000 students a day were missing lessons during 2003-04; this was an increase of 4½ thousand students from the previous year. In response to this poor result, the Blair government decided on a tougher approach to persistent truancy. Parents were given 12 weeks to improve their child’s attendance or face the threat of court action. Potentially parents faced fines of up to £2,500 or three months in jail. This approach in the United Kingdom has resulted in parents of truants spending time in jail, and yet the statistics out of the United Kingdom show that this hardline approach has not tackled the problem. The Blair government spent almost £1 billion pounds on measures to tackle truancy—and it would be fair to say the problem has worsened in the UK; it certainly has not improved. In the light of the UK situation, can the Deputy Prime Minister point the House towards any evidence that the Rudd government’s approach is going to get more truants back to school? I think that is a question that needs to be asked and certainly needs to be answered. In an interview with ABC 774 in Melbourne on 26 August, the Deputy Prime Minister said that there will be a range of support measures for families to help them get their child to school every day. The Deputy Prime Minister reiterated that same point four times in her short interview with ABC radio. What she did not explain once was what these support measures exactly entail, and tonight we still do not have those details. What are these support measures that the Deputy Prime Minister feels are so important to mention—four times during that ABC interview—but fails to provide any further details on? My concern and the concern of many on this side of the House is that the Rudd government is introducing a punitive measure without concurrently addressing any of the causes of truancy. At a time of rising inflation, rising grocery prices, rising fuel prices and stretched household budgets, this measure could place even greater stresses on households. As it is, families on welfare survive on barely more than $400 per week. What is missing from this measure is the parenting skills course, access to drug and alcohol rehabilitation services and an attempt to address the causes of these issues affecting people’s lives on a daily basis, which in turn affect young people in this country. I move to ask what it is that the states are doing to prevent and address truancy. It seems obvious to me that the answer is, ‘Very little,’ because, if they were, there would be no need for the federal government to introduce a bill that does the job that the states should be doing. It is their responsibility. The Prime Minister is fond of saying that he will end the blame game. If his answer to ending the blame game is to do the job of the states for them, I can only assume that in due course he will be seeking a constitutional amendment that abolishes the states. The much lauded saviour of wall-to-wall Labor governments is a complete and utter failure. This is their role; this is their responsibility. It is up to them. The new federal government is picking up the ball for the states. Where is the strengthening of truancy programs in this bill? Perhaps the minister might explain to members the process she intends to undertake through COAG to work with the states and territories to strengthen the truancy programs. Perhaps of more concern than the inability of the state Labor governments to do their job—after all, that is something we have come to expect; we see it day in, day out with the federal government picking up the states’ responsibilities—is that this new program from the Rudd government will be administered by Centrelink. The Prime Minister and the finance minister have taken a great deal of pride in the work of their razor gangs. Centrelink, a large and extremely important government agency, did not escape the razor gang following the Rudd government’s first budget in May. With 2,000 jobs at Centrelink on the chopping block, it is beyond comprehension that the government seeks to further increase the administrative burden on an agency that is already stretched beyond belief. What extra resources, what extra personnel, will be allocated to Centrelink to undertake this task? The detail of this bill requires school principals to report truancy to Centrelink if parents fail, as the explanatory memorandum puts it, ‘to comply with the school attendance requirement to the satisfaction of the person responsible for the operation of the school’. Does this mean that school principals will become judge and jury over welfare families, making their own determination about whether parents have taken reasonable steps to ensure that their children are enrolled in and attending school? If so, will it be administered consistently or on a school-by-school basis? In bringing this bill before the parliament, the Rudd government seems to be saying that it is only welfare dependent households that have or will have problems with truancy. This is patently not the case; it can occur in any household. However, this government is of the belief that in low-socioeconomic areas it is the family that is to blame. This is reflected in the communities chosen to trial this new measure. Given that truancy is occurring in the main in the most dysfunctional communities, schools should be given the capacity and the resources to work with these families, to find out what the problems are and to work with relevant government agencies to help these families. Indigenous families will be particularly hard hit from this new measure. Indigenous students do not always have schools to go to, particularly in remote areas. By denying them an education, you deny them a future. You deny them the opportunity to reach their own individual goals. You deny them the opportunity to flourish. You deny them secure futures. The alternative—no education—can lead to a continuation of the cycle of poverty, welfare, crime, alcohol and drug abuse. The lack of distinct detail in this bill as to how the government will address the issues really concerns me. I know this is of concern to many members on this side of the House. Statistics can only tell us part of the story. There is no simple solution. Try as they assuredly will, there is no easy grab for headlines for the government. There is no easy fix to the problem. There is one thing I can say with certainty: any attempt to address this issue will be resource intensive. I am just not sure that this government have the stamina or the focus to see it through. Notwithstanding my serious concerns about the bill that is before the House tonight, I do believe that both sides of the chamber want to see something done about truancy in this country. We do want to support those families and those kids who need an education. For me, an education for every young person in this country is extremely important. It is really about the future of this country. I certainly hope that, with the will of the government and with our support, this bill will address the issues and the concerns regarding truancy in this country. With the reservations I have put on the table tonight, I do support the bill and hope that, in doing so, we support the young people of this country. 7085 19:16:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise today to support the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Bill 2008. It is legislation aimed fairly and squarely at ensuring that kids get to school. As previous speakers have said, there is nothing more important in life than ensuring that kids—our children—get the best education and the best start in life. Part of that is making sure they get to school. Having listened to this debate, I have heard arguments about this legislation being seen as something in isolation. The reality is that there are plenty of programs being run by the state governments already which are about supporting kids at school and supporting parents. What this measure is about is providing another weapon in the armoury of government and of schools to support and encourage parents to get their kids to school. One of the things that the Rudd government have embarked on is an education revolution, because we do recognise that education does have to be looked at holistically. But this legislation is just one part of what we are doing in education. As part of our education revolution, we are looking at education from early childhood, primary, secondary, vocational education and training through to university. We recognise that we need to make additional investments and additional commitments to support our education sector, but this bill is an important reform as part of that overall package. If you do not go to school and you do not get an education then you are really setting yourself back in terms of your long-term prospects in life. Sadly, it is estimated that in Australia there are up to 20,000 children of compulsory school age who may not be enrolled in school; there are even more who are enrolled in school but who are not attending regularly. Research indicates that kids who are not going to school and who are not getting an education are more likely, as I have said, to end up unemployed. More importantly, they can also end up homeless. I believe that in certain circumstances they are also more likely to end up in the criminal justice system and, sadly, in jail, because if you do not have a good basis in life then you often do not have the self-esteem and the other life skills that enable you to participate fully within the community. This legislation needs to be looked at within that whole broader education and social context. I know that there are many kids in my electorate of Leichhardt that struggle to get to school. I have a very diverse and broad electorate. It ranges from the border of Papua New Guinea, including the Torres Strait, through Cape York Peninsula, including the great city of Cairns, to smaller regional towns like Mossman and Port Douglas. I have a broad spectrum of schools in my electorate, and I love getting around and visiting those schools; I have some fantastic schools. This year I have been up to Boigu Island and I visited a school up there. They are running a fantastic cultural program where kids come and get involved in dance. That encourages kids to come to school; they enjoy it, but they also get involved in reading, writing and arithmetic. Their benchmarks are improving. Tagai State College, which has really clustered many of those Torres Strait schools, is doing a great job, but there are still kids up there who are not getting to school, and we need to look at ways that we can actually encourage and support parents to get their kids to school. But, in the end, if they are not getting their kids to school, we need to investigate new ways of ensuring that that happens. That is what this legislation is about. It is about establishing a trial in the Northern Territory and in a couple of other locations to look at those other measures. Coming down Cape York Peninsula—it is a great part of Australia—there are real issues with attendance at school in that area. Members may not realise, but the reality is that welfare reform in relation to school attendance is already occurring in my electorate. Welfare reform is happening in Cape York Peninsula. The Aurukun, Hopevale, Coen and Mossman Gorge communities are already engaged in welfare reform. As part of that welfare reform program, parents who do not send their children to school can have themselves referred to the Family Responsibilities Commission. The Family Responsibilities Commission is led by Commissioner Glasgow, a retired magistrate, and is made up of Indigenous elders from those communities. It is a trial at the moment in those four communities in my electorate. It recognises that, if you do not send your kids to school, if you are having issues with child safety, if you have issues with the rent and maintenance of your property or if you are in trouble with the criminal justice system, the community needs to engage with you. There are community elders on the Family Responsibilities Commission who will work with you and look to encourage you to make changes in your life and provide you with support services. This has been controversial, but there is a clear difference between what is happening in my electorate on the Cape York Peninsula—and I see the member for Lingiari here—and what is happening in the Northern Territory intervention. That difference is that it is not about punitive measures against the whole community; it is about working with people who are doing the wrong thing and are not effectively getting their kids to school or are breaking the law and having some other problems in the community. It is about working with them in partnership with the community and working with the community to develop different norms. So it is a different approach, and I think that it is an approach that we need to trial and we need to tackle in my electorate. It is an interesting situation that we already have that reform going on in my electorate of Leichhardt and now we are looking at trialling a different measure in other parts of the country. But it is important that the House does realise that the Rudd government is already trialling these types of programs in other parts of the country. Turning to the more mainstream schools that we have in Cairns, it is obvious, when you get around there, that there are kids who do not often get to school and kids from difficult backgrounds who struggle at times to get to school. This measure is not going to impact on those schools. But I believe that, if we are looking at Indigenous children falling within this net, then we should also be looking beyond them to the broader population. We need to ensure that we are not just targeting Indigenous parents and kids but looking across the spectrum. Non-Indigenous parents can also have social problems and difficult situations, whether to do with alcohol or other things, and we need to ensure that we are providing them with support mechanisms and that they are providing their kids with every opportunity to get to school. So linking school attendance to income support through welfare reform is already happening in my electorate of Leichhardt, and this legislation demonstrates a further commitment of the Rudd government to trial and look at how we can introduce measures to get kids to school. The approach will initially be trialled in six communities in the Northern Territory as well as in two metropolitan locations in other jurisdictions. One, I understand, is part of the Cannington region in Perth and the other location is yet to be finalised. The impact of the measure will be minimal for those parents who do the right thing and have their children enrolled in school and attending regularly. We need to be clear: parents in those areas should not be frightened. If you are working with the school then you have nothing to fear from this legislation. Parents who actively engage with their school, who actively engage with their kids and look to get their kids to school, are not going to fall into the net of this legislation. However, truancy is a complex and difficult area, and there are kids who do not always do what their parents say and who do not always get to school, for a whole range of different reasons. They may have confidence issues. It may be about bullying. It may be about mental illness. There may be a whole lot of reasons why they do not get to school. What we want to ensure with this legislation is that parents are actively engaging with their schools and with their children and trying to ensure that they do make every effort to get their kids to school. So, as part of that, all parents receiving income support in those areas will have to ensure that their children are registered with a school and that they report that to Centrelink. I do not think it is too much to ask of parents who receive income support to demonstrate to Centrelink that they have their children enrolled in school. Parents who fail to provide enrolment information without a reasonable excuse will need to engage further with Centrelink. Those parents may have their income support payments suspended until they enrol their children or provide information that that has occurred. So we are asking parents in those areas to enrol their kids in school and to demonstrate that to Centrelink. If they do not, then Centrelink will look to engage with them further. But if they do not enrol their children in school then there is the real risk that they will have their income suspended for up to 13 weeks. Parents receiving income support will also be expected to ensure their children are regularly attending school. In instances where a child is not attending regularly, the relevant state or territory authority can inform Centrelink. Parents who are not taking responsible steps to improve their child’s school attendance may have their income support payments suspended until such time as they can show they are doing so. So parents need, first of all, to enrol their kids in school and to demonstrate that they are enrolled in school, and they need to get their kids to school. As I have said earlier, where a child is attending for less than one in five days a week, or 20 per cent, then there is a real chance that they are not going to reach their benchmarks. So we need to work with those parents and those schools to ensure that we are doing all we can to get those children to school. The previous speaker, the member opposite, seemed not to be sure whether they were supporting or opposing the legislation in their argument, even though, at the end, they said they were about supporting this legislation. But I would say to them that it is important to remember that there are already programs out there working with parents and children. Obviously, the states are already doing work on this, and we want to work cooperatively with the states in terms of this type of legislation. As I said, I travel extensively in my electorate and visit schools, and I talk to school counsellors about engaging with parents and engaging with kids. The ‘You Can Do It’ program is a fantastic program that is running in a number of schools in my electorate. Schools have breakfast programs to encourage kids to get to school. So there are already programs out there that are supporting and working with parents in encouraging kids to get to school. It is very simplistic to argue that this legislation is looked at in isolation, particularly in terms of the broader arguments, because truancy is already a problem, states are already making efforts, the Commonwealth is looking to support those efforts, and we need to work cooperatively. Just saying, ‘Oh, it is the states’ responsibility,’ is again going back to the old blame game. Well, we are not interested in the blame game. We are interested in improving educational outcomes for kids, and one of the first things we have to do in terms of that is to get them to school. If parents do not comply they can have their income support payments suspended for 13 weeks. But if they do start to engage, if they start to work with schools and start to work with their kids, then Centrelink has the capacity to reinstate those payments and back-pay them. This is not about being punitive; it is about providing a carrot. We are recognising that there are carrots in the system but that, in certain situations, there may need to be a stick involved. And we will use the stick, but only as a last resort. In the most extreme cases—of parents who do not cooperate, and where there is no evidence of a reasonable excuse or special circumstances, and then only after a minimum of 13 weeks of suspended payments—it may be appropriate to cancel income support payments completely. So, in certain circumstances, where the parent has had payments suspended and yet continues not to engage, then there is an opportunity to suspend the payments permanently. But, again, we are not looking at this legislation in isolation, and I would expect and imagine that state governments would engage with this. And, really, if a person is not getting their child to school then we need to have child protection and those sorts of organisations start to look at and work with that family. Again, we need to recognise that this is about looking holistically at the education sector. So I am supporting this legislation. I think it is important legislation. It is not about taking punitive measures against parents; it is about looking to provide a framework where if you are not engaging with the school and you are not engaging with your child then you do run the risk of having your welfare payments suspended. I support the legislation and I commend it to the House. Debate interrupted. 7089 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 7089 7089 19:30:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —Health services are of vital importance to rural communities, and these services are highly valued by those communities. During the 2007 election campaign, the Prime Minister stated ‘the buck stops with me’ on health, and the opposition will certainly be reminding the Prime Minister of his promise to the Australian people in the important area of health services. At the request of the community, I will deliver to the federal Minister for Health and Ageing a copy of a petition to the New South Wales parliament with regard to Bellingen hospital. The petition was signed by some 3,304 petitioners—no mean feat for a small community. The petition reads as follows: ‘The North Coast Area Health Service is proposing to convert the Bellingen River District Hospital to a multipurpose service. There is strong opposition to the MPS proposal from doctors and members of the community in the Bellingen shire. With an increasing population it is essential that we maintain our existing emergency surgical and obstetric services. Should the MPS be instigated it could mean the loss of these services and even the possibility of the eventual closure of the Bellingen River District Hospital.’ I commend the efforts of the concerned citizens of Bellingen in acting in support of their hospital. On 10 August a highly successful public forum was held. It was attended by some 200 residents, mostly from the Bellingen area. I am pleased to advise the House that the proposal to convert Bellingen hospital to a multipurpose service has been shelved. The efforts of the concerned citizens of Bellingen highlight the importance that smaller communities place on retaining high-quality health services where people live, not just in the major centres. When you live in a regional or rural area where public transport is very limited it becomes difficult to visit loved ones in a hospital if that hospital is in the neighbouring town. Quite clearly the increasing cost of increasingly complex medical technology means that many services cannot be provided in smaller centres. However, we should strive to provide reasonable levels of service in our smaller hospitals. They need to be more than just medical outposts; they need to be supported, just as they support the community. It is of concern, however, that our smaller communities must be ever vigilant with regard to the possibility that services at their hospital may be downgraded at the whim of some faraway bureaucrat—some faraway, faceless, unaccountable, unelected individual. It is interesting to note that the occupancy rates at Bellingen hospital have risen by 23 per cent over the last three years and currently stand at an impressive 96 per cent. When you look at the figures, Bellingen hospital is clearly doing the heavy lifting when it comes to the delivery of health services. It is a hospital that should be upgraded, not downgraded. I would particularly like to commend the efforts of Barbara Moore, Jillian White, Jo Erbacher and the rest of the community who put so much time and effort into this important campaign to retain a vital community service. Sadly, the challenges facing Bellingen hospital are not an isolated occurrence. This Saturday I will attend a rally protesting against the sale of land at Maclean hospital in my electorate—land that may be needed for future expanded services at some stage, that is a public asset and that will be difficult to replace. Maclean is a growing town where land is not plentiful. The action of attempting to sell hospital land begs the question: what plans does the North Coast Area Health Service have for Maclean hospital? Is it destined to face possible downgrading of services at some point in the future? That is a very good question. At Kempsey, too, we have an example of a local hospital which has seen its services eroded over time. I commend the efforts of the Kempsey hospital action group in supporting their hospital. The community have been making representations to the New South Wales state government seeking the redevelopment of this hospital. To this point, those calls have gone unheeded. That is why I will present a petition to this parliament seeking funding for Kempsey hospital from the national health and hospital fund. The redevelopment of this hospital is long overdue, and the community deserves a hospital which will meet the needs of Kempsey and the Macleay Valley into the future. 7090 7090 19:35:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —In this year’s budget, the Rudd government provided for a national consultation on the recognition and protection of human rights and responsibilities. This will fulfil Labor policy, and it is particularly appropriate that this provision be made this year, which in December will mark the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. That declaration is part of Labor’s human rights legacy because of the large part played in its drafting by HV Evatt, later Labor leader and then President of the United Nations General Assembly. The national consultation will ensure that all Australians have the opportunity to speak and be heard on the rights we value, the rights we cherish and the rights we want to protect. The consultation will build on the strong calls made at the 2020 Summit held here in April for an Australia where human rights are better protected and respected. These calls were made not just in the summit’s governance stream but also in the security, Indigenous and community streams. When it is held, the consultation process should be as broad as possible, asking open-ended questions which encourage free and open public debate. The thorough community consultation in Victoria which preceded the charter of rights enacted there in 2006 is a good example of the type of consultation which is required. When the consultation is held, I hope the debate will not be dogged by some of the baseless myths that have been spread in recent years about a charter of rights. These myths include arguments like ‘there is no need for it’, that a charter of rights usurps parliamentary sovereignty, that it gives power to unelected judges, that it is constitutionally impossible or that it will encourage litigation. This consultation should be conducted without these uninformed and emotional arguments, which can be quickly dispelled. Blindly asserting that there is no need for human rights protection pre-empts the very debate which the consultation is for. We have only to consider the history of injustices in our country, which are contrary to the fundamental human rights of women, Asian people, homosexuals, religious groups and Aboriginal peoples—or the more recent mistreatment by detention of refugee children by the Howard government—to understand that there is a need for some protection of human rights. A legislated charter similar to the model adopted in the Australian Capital Territory, Victoria and the United Kingdom would at least ensure consideration of basic human rights. The idea that a charter of rights would give too much power to unelected judges is also hollow. We trust our judges to make countless difficult decisions in criminal law, in family law and in all areas of life. We must trust our judges to stand between citizens and government. It is a strange criticism indeed to suggest that there may be some danger in involving judges in deciding whether fundamental rights have been breached. There is nothing constitutionally impossible, and certainly no loss of parliamentary sovereignty, with a legislated charter of rights. The Victorian model does not give power to courts to override laws made by parliament. If courts find an inconsistency between those laws and fundamental human rights, the inconsistency is communicated to parliament, which has the final say. That is the model used in the United Kingdom and it has been found to be a workable model which has certainly not led to the suggestion that parliament has in some way surrendered its sovereignty. I hope the national consultation does lead to a legislated charter of rights. If it does not, the consultation will still serve a useful educative purpose. As Labor’s national platform states, ‘An awareness and understanding of the human rights enjoyed by all Australians is essential to their maintenance and protection.’ 7091 7091 19:39:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —It will come as no surprise to members of the House that I rise to speak tonight on the Western Australian election. Saturday-next in Western Australia the opportunity arises for the people of Western Australia to break this yoke of wall-to-wall Labor governments across the nation. It gives me a great deal of pleasure to have the opportunity to voice the opinion of so many of my constituents about what is wrong with the west today—and how much better it could be. Already, we know that we are the economic powerhouse of the nation. My own electorate—some 30 per cent of Australia—produces much above Australia’s average production, but so much more could be done if it were not for the head-in-the-sand attitude of the current Western Australian Labor government. We have, for instance, the $200 million Yannarie salt project being proposed by Straits Resources. This has been knocked on the head by the Western Australian EPA in chorus with the Western Australian government. The reason it was knocked on the head by the EPA is because the bitterns would discharge from the project and upset the balance of salinity in the gulf. There is no bitterns discharge from the project. It is an absolute nonsense. In league with the Western Australian government, we have got a Labor federal government who wish to bash Woodside shareholders to the tune of $2½ billion over the next four years, because they want to welsh on a deal that was pivotal to Woodside getting off the ground. We have got an INPEX petroleum project— HW8 Symon, Mike, MP Mr Symon interjecting— 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —The members opposite want to be most vocal. Their turn will come one day and they know not of what they speak—they have not been to the west in the main. INPEX is an organisation that wishes to develop the Browse Basin field onshore in the Kimberley. They are being hunted out of Western Australia by a head-in-the-sand state government. They are going to go to Darwin because in Darwin they actually appreciate development—they actually appreciate the opportunity to have somebody come and make a quid in their patch and create revenue. However, in the Western Australian situation that I am speaking of, where we wish to change the government on Saturday, there is no appreciation of the opportunity to make a quid, to produce more jobs, to create more revenue and—dare I say it—to provide jobs for Indigenous people in the community. Dare I say that Indigenous people that live in the community these days deserve a crack at a real job, financial independence and the self-esteem that can be derived from that? The state government in Western Australia seems to have an attitude that, if it is out of the metropolitan area and it is going to make a quid, dud it, because somebody—especially the tree-hugging greenies, whom the Labor Party is in bed with—wants to have progress stopped in Western Australia. But, until such time as the greenies start riding wooden bicycles around the electorate, I am not going to believe that they are fair dinkum. We have so much to lay at the feet of the culpable Western Australia government when it comes to the inability for small business to find employees in Western Australia. Housing affordability is nonexistent in towns like Karratha and Port Hedland. We have got a situation in Karratha, for instance, where the only way that you can staff the take-away food joint is to import people from the Philippines to put on the job there. Thank goodness for a federal government that allowed that, under 457 visas. On Saturday the 6th of this month, Western Australians will have the opportunity to go to the polls and get rid of this head-in-the-sand Western Australian government who would try and prevent Western Australians from making a quid, who would try and curtail the situation where unemployed Australians on the eastern and south-eastern seaboard can come to the west, get a job, find a new life, get a new lease of life and raise their family with a future of prosperity in a wonderful state—a wonderful state that will be governed by a Liberal government that has some vision for the future, that does not think earning a quid is a crime, that does not think profit is a dirty word and that does not think making a quid is something to be ashamed of. (Time expired) 7092 7092 19:44:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —Last Friday I was very happy to host our Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd, during a visit to one of the many state primary schools in my electorate, Blackburn Lake Primary School. Having previously visited the school back in May this year, I had seen for myself what a great atmosphere and wonderful teaching environment exist at the school. The care and attention of the teachers, the close involvement of the parents and the leadership displayed by the Principal, Mr David Jewell, make Blackburn Lake Primary a great example of a state school that matches the needs of its community. There are 26 primary schools in my electorate of Deakin, and I am sure that the Prime Minister would be more than happy to visit as many of them as possible in the future. But for now I would like to describe what we saw at Blackburn Lake Primary. In the prep school class area, we watched and joined in as the children went through various literacy and numeracy exercises. The teachers composed these in a way that was both fun and exciting for the kids—and you could really see the enthusiasm on their faces. We also sat down with the prep school children and watched them do counting and addition exercises by using an interactive whiteboard. With colour, movement and sound, the kids could not wait to get up for their turn to show off their maths skills to us, each of them standing up and counting the objects on the screen and then writing their answers in the boxes at the bottom of the screen. It was really interesting to see kids of only five or six years old wanting to be that involved in learning. Each and every one got their answer right, and the interactive whiteboard played different sounds and music for each answer. Although I have seen and used interactive whiteboards before, this is the first time I have witnessed children of that age use interactive whiteboards. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —You might not see it again because you have ditched the Investing in Our Schools program. HW8 Symon, Mike, MP Mr SYMON —Plenty of money to come there, and you know it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Deakin will ignore the interjections. HW8 Symon, Mike, MP Mr SYMON —Although I have seen and used interactive whiteboards before, as I said, this is the first time that I have witnessed their use by such young children. Blackburn Lake has six interactive whiteboards, of which one is located in the library, and a total of 12 classes get to use the whiteboards in their lessons. So almost 350 students benefit from the use of this new technology in the classroom and enjoy it every day. But there are 17 classrooms at the school, and that means that sometimes there are students missing out on access to this technology. However, interactive whiteboards are not cheap. Costing around $6,000 for each unit, along with software and installation costs, they are not an item that every school can afford, and they have not necessarily been provided. Each interactive whiteboard has facilities to connect to the internet or any other computer application whilst operating on their own software. The interactive whiteboards are particularly useful in engaging reluctant learners, for whom such equipment tends to have a natural appeal. In many ways it can look similar to a video game, with its colourful display that both attracts and holds the children’s attention. Each of the six interactive whiteboards at Blackburn Lake Primary was paid for by local fundraising of the school community over a number of years through ventures such as school fetes, canteen sales and other fundraising ideas. Up until now there has been no government funding provided for any provision of interactive whiteboards at the school. Technology such as this, that improves learning outcomes in the class, should be made available to all students so that every child has a better chance of realising their potential. I would certainly encourage anyone who doubts the benefits of modern teaching equipment such as this to have a look for themselves to see what a difference it can make—not only for junior schools but for senior schools as well. I believe that there is a real need to expand the use of interactive whiteboards in our primary school education system, and I will certainly be advocating the cause wherever I can—to see if funding can be provided at state or federal level, or a combination of both, to speed up the installation and use of this wonderful technology. Finally, I would like to thank the school principal, Mr David Jewell, and the Victorian state education department for helping to organise the visit. I would also like to thank the many teachers and parents to whom we spoke to that afternoon whilst touring the school facilities. But I would especially like to say a big thank you to all the students for their polite behaviour and great personal interest in welcoming the Prime Minister and me into their school. 7094 7094 19:49:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —Earlier this week I spoke to a motion in relation to the franchise industry and the seeming inability of the ACCC to deal with the large numbers of franchises that seem to be failing. Because of the short time allocated to speak, I was unable to say all I need to say. What I would like to expand upon is the notion of ‘unconscionable conduct’ inherent in the provisions of the Fair Trading Act. Simply put, there seems to be an absence of a workable definition of the term that can be relied upon to protect franchisees. The reason we need to have certainty of description is that many, if not all, of these failed franchisees have been left bereft of any funding to afford a legal challenge in the courts, where they might have a chance of getting justice. In fact, so traumatic has been the collapse of their businesses that they have lost the will to fight. Many are broken in spirit and simply have abandoned any desire to challenge. Those who should have been held accountable have been let off the hook. And given the huge number of franchisees that I believe have been churned, very good money has been made at someone else’s expense. It is my view that the government has a responsibility and a duty to intercede on behalf of these many people whose businesses have been churned. In many cases there has been a breach of fiduciary duty and a breach of confidentiality that effectively engineered the failure of many of these businesses so that they could be resold at a profit to the franchisor. I would like to use the example of a former franchisee of Burger King, Rick Rampling, by way of demonstrating just one aspect of the way things are being done. This information was submitted to the South Australian inquiry and is on the public record. When a previous franchisee of Hungry Jack’s, Jack Cowin, won a court action against Burger King, all Burger King franchisees went under as a result of Westpac calling in their loans. Approaches to the ACCC were as fruitless then as they are today. Rick was made bankrupt and he could not afford to mount a legal challenge. Some might say ‘pure economics’, but does justice have to be affordable in Australia? As an option, Rick went to the Privacy Commissioner and made some amazing progress. Rick made his complaint six months ago that Westpac had passed his personal and business information to Jack Cowin and his reps, who were effectively his competitors. The Privacy Commission investigated and set to move on Westpac in the next few weeks. Apparently, the Privacy Commission moved quickly, drilled it down to one specific meeting and got statutory declarations from the people in attendance. The Privacy Commission contacted Rick a couple of weeks ago, informing him that they were moving. They told Rick that, when the pressure was put on some people in Westpac, they quickly folded and rolled on others. In fact, it was suggested that someone had perjured themselves in the process. Westpac settled with Rick—and it took just six months. The Privacy Commission is also working with the Australian Federal Police on the basis of ‘obtained financial advantage by deception’—a breach of the Criminal Code. Rick has a meeting scheduled with the Queensland internal investigation section. I am told that, in another interesting development, Susan Carr, the deputy commissioner of the ACCC, contacted Rick the day after he received his letter from the Privacy Commissioner confirming that they were moving. Rick met with her last week, and I wonder what the outcome of that meeting was. Why is it that the ACCC, in a raft of cases that have been presented to them, could not reach the same conclusion in just one case? This is just too far a stretch of the imagination, and that is why I am repeating my call to the Australian Federal Police to step in and investigate episodes of franchise churning. There is no shortage of informants willing to assist the investigation who somehow have been ignored by the ACCC. The other thing that concerns me is the closed-shop approach of the ACCC in sharing with us how they actually conducted their investigations. If the privacy commission succeeded where the ACCC failed, serious questions need to be asked. The only sensible conclusion I can draw is that the ACCC is incapable of performing a forensic investigation and, as such, is incapable of protecting consumers even if they are franchisees. I am calling on the minister to provide sufficient funding to afford a thorough investigation of churned franchises with a view of ensuring that justice is done and not denied on the basis of affordability. I can stand up here at every opportunity and recite each case that has been referred to me, but that is not why the ACCC was set up and neither should this be the way our justice system was designed to work. A number of my colleagues have been calling for action, but now we are of the view that the ACCC is not the way to go—although it should be. Convince me that the legislation is adequate and I will ask why the ACCC has not prosecuted one case. Tell me that the ACCC worked fully within the bounds of its legislative obligations and I will tell you that the legislation must be inadequate. In any case, changes need to be made—either to improve the way the ACCC does things or to tighten the legislation. There is a strong case to suggest that something untoward has been allowed to occur in the face of natural justice. The government must investigate all of these cases thoroughly, though perhaps not by the ACCC. That is why I am repeating my call that the time has come for the AFP to be called in, perhaps assisted by the Privacy Commissioner. Finally, I want to thank Deanne Deleeuw, formerly a franchisee of Bakers Delight, for her guts and determination in continuing her case against all odds. 7095 7095 19:54:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —Tonight I am pleased to update the House about the vibrant Indian community living in and around my electorate. I was honoured to join the celebrations with this community at their annual Indian bazaar last weekend. The three-day festival was held at the Mount Gravatt Showgrounds in the electorate of Kerry Rea, the member for Bonner, and it was a true celebration of Indian culture. It was a showcase of Indian food, fashion, art and entertainment, including guest artists from Fiji and India, along with local Brisbane band The Sounds of Bollywood. The festival attracted more than 12,000 people and was a great way for people from all walks of life to experience a taste of India and the Indian diaspora. This year the organisers of the bazaar, the Indian Cultural Association of Queensland, elected to bring forward the bazaar from its regular September spot on the calendar to last weekend so as not to clash with the Muslim fasting month of Ramadan. This recognises the large number of people in the Indian community who are of the Muslim faith and it is also a sign of the great spirit of cooperation and understanding between the various cultural groups in Brisbane. On that note, I want to recognise Deepak Kumar, Pamesh Chan and Neel Kashyap, the organisers and the executive of the Indian Cultural Association of Queensland. Their association does great work throughout Brisbane to promote cultural and religious harmony and to build links between Indian and other cultural groups. This is what makes the fabric of a healthy community. Last weekend I was also able to meet on the Sunday with the Indian Senior Citizens Association. This volunteer group provides support and friendship for Indian seniors in Brisbane and also helps to protect and support Indian cultural heritage. Australia is home to more than 150,000 people born in India. On the latest census data this is an increase of 50 per cent over the last five years. Eleven thousand of the Indian community live in Queensland. Indian-born people make a great contribution to our country. They are professional, highly skilled people helping to alleviate the skills crisis in Australia. The majority of recent Indian migrants to my community, it seems, are doctors, teachers, computer programmers or engineers. They come to Australia from many parts of the world, not just India but Fiji, Africa—especially southern Africa and Zimbabwe—New Zealand, the USA, the United Kingdom and a couple of other European countries. India is becoming one of the world’s great superpowers and is the biggest democracy in the world. The country has one of the fastest-growing economies in the world. Through increased trade links Australia has developed much closer ties with India in recent years. Way back in 1991 India was Australia’s 24th largest trading partner. To me, 1991 does not seem that long ago. Fast forward to today and India is the fourth largest market for the export of Australian goods. Finally, I want to convey my concern for all of those in India affected by the devastating floods in Bihar state. I know many in Australia would have family and friends directly affected by this tragedy. Our thoughts are with you at this most difficult of times. More than 100 people have been killed and more than three million people have been displaced from their homes as a result of the floods. Now those who endured the floods face the outbreak of disease in crowded makeshift camps. The Indian government has responded quickly to re-route emergency supplies, tents, army units, aircraft, boats and divers to help with the relief effort. While the Indian government is not seeking any international aid at this time, the Australian government and many of our NGOs remain ready, willing and able to assist if required. While I am not of Indian descent, I can say that my son is of Indian descent because his great-grandparents came out to Australia from India in World War I, so I feel a particularly close affinity with the Indian community. I was able to take my son along to one of the events and felt proud to be involved with a community that comes from the world’s biggest democracy. Many of the Indian community in my electorate come from Fiji and, unfortunately, they more than anyone else know how fragile democracy is. So it is great to see that a great country like India can maintain its democracy despite the many cultural and religious differences. Once again, I want to put on the record my thanks to the Indian community in my electorate in Brisbane and my appreciation for their contribution to cultural and racial harmony in Queensland. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 8.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 7097 20:00:00 House adjourned at 8.00 pm 7097 Notices 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a bill for an act to establish Safe Work Australia, and for related purposes. (Safe Work Australia Bill 2008) 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a bill for an act to deal with transitional and consequential matters in connection with the Safe Work Australia Act 2008, and for related purposes. (Safe Work Australia (Consequential and Transitional Provisions) Bill 2008) 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a bill for an act to amend Australian Research Council Act 2001, and for related purposes. (Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2008) JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a bill for an act to address discrimination against same-sex couples and their children in Commonwealth laws, and for other purposes. (Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws—General Law Reform) Bill 2008) 8T4 Ferguson, Laurie, MP Mr Laurie Ferguson to present a bill for an act to amend the law relating to migration, and for related purposes. (Migration Amend-ment (Notification Review) Bill 2008) HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of the Australian Pavilion at the Shanghai World EXPO 2010, China. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Proposed fit-out of new leased premises for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations at Block 9, Section 31, Canberra City, Australian Capital Territory. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Bridging of Kings Avenue over Parkes Way at the Russell roundabout, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Construction of new warehousing facilities at Wadsworth Barracks, East Bandiana, Victoria. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, it is expedient to carry out the following proposed work which was referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works and on which the committee has duly reported to Parliament: Australian War Memorial Eastern Precinct Development and National Service Memorial, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory. 2008-09-03 The DEPUTY SPEAKER took the chair at 9.30 am. 7099 Constituency Statements 7099 7099 09:30:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise today to bring to the parliament’s attention the commendable actions of the Cooper Creek Protection Group, which is based in my electorate of Maranoa. This group is chaired by a local grazier, the untiring Dr Bob Morrish, who along with his group is dedicated to the ecological sustainability of Cooper Creek in western Queensland. While travelling through the western part of my electorate during the winter parliamentary recess, I had the opportunity of meeting with Bob in Windorah, where he and a few other committed locals kindly gave me a tour of the creek and Windorah’s tourist nature drive. Standing on the banks, we witnessed the beauty of Cooper Creek being shared between its amazing birdlife, including herons and pelicans, which fly from the coast every winter to nest and breed on the Cooper, and humans, whether they be camping families, grey nomads or just keen local fishers. Calling it a creek is rather deceptive; in fact it is one of Australia’s most significant desert rivers and the largest catchment in the Lake Eyre Basin. The survival of unique species of flora and fauna is dependent on local cyclical flooding. Here, cattle thrive on the flood-borne plains of the channel country and it is from here that some of our best beef, including organic beef, originates. However, Dr Morrish and the members of the Cooper Creek Protection Group are worried, and I certainly understand their concerns. Around 12 years ago, due to the concerted effort by local pastoralists and city based scientists, the farming community of Windorah was able to prevent the development of cotton irrigation in the Cooper Creek basin and keep the creek flowing and flooding naturally. In 1999, a 10-year moratorium was passed, ensuring the creek was protected from irrigation. The Cooper Creek Catchment Water Resource Plan is currently being reviewed, and I support Dr Morrish and the local Cooper Creek action group’s call for the 10-year moratorium on irrigation along Cooper Creek to be made permanent. I welcome the assurance of Queensland’s state Minister for Natural Resources, Craig Wallace, that there will be no increase in water taken from the creek’s catchment, and I hope that the review will confirm what the locals of Windorah already know: keeping the creek untouched is the most ecologically sustainable course of action. I believe local grazier and cattleman Sandy Kidd summed it up best. He said that the people of Windorah will fight for this and that ‘there will not be a cup of water come out of the Cooper to grow cotton’ in this very fragile part of Queensland. ‘Creek’ is not an accurate description of this magnificent system. In Queensland, the Thomson River and the Barcoo River join just below Jundah, and two rivers become a creek. It floods out into areas often 30 or 40 kilometres wide and goes right down into Lake Eyre in big flood times. It is a magnificent part of Australia. I thank the Committee. (Time expired) 7100 7100 09:33:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —Today is Battle for Australia Day. This has been commemorated in various parts of the country since 2001, but today is the first day it will be a national day of commemoration. It is appropriate to commemorate in a national way all those who have fought in defence of our nation in our darkest hour. At the outset I would like to acknowledge the role of Smithfield RSL. Smithfield RSL subbranch was one of the first, if not the first, in the country to commemorate Battle for Australia Day many years ago. It has played a significant role in ensuring that the nation realises the importance of this day. I specifically recognise the contributions of Alex Peken and Fred Fisher, as well as of the subbranch president, Bill Newell. It gave me great pleasure, as a matter of happenstance, to be briefing His Excellency the Governor-General as a member of the Executive Council about the government’s legislative program. As it happened, the day that I was scheduled to be the minister performing that function was the day that we briefed him on Battle for Australia Day and the national commemoration. I was pleased to be able to tell him about the role of Smithfield RSL. Smithfield RSL are holding a commemoration today, as they do every year. As usual, I will not be able to be there because the House is sitting. I was able to go last year when the House was not sitting, but generally the House is sitting on the first Wednesday in September. So I have sent my apologies and I send them my best wishes. The Battle for Australia Day will be officially recognised on the first Wednesday in September each year. It commemorates the service and sacrifice of all those who served in defence of Australia in 1942 and 1943. Close to 6,000 casualties occurred on the Kokoda Track, 243 people were killed in Darwin and 161 were killed in the battle for Milne Bay. There were direct attacks on the Australian mainland, particularly in Darwin, and of course New Guinea was at that time part of Australian territory. Battle for Australia Day ceremonies recognise a small group of men and women who can say, with justification, ‘I saved my country.’ There are very few people around the world who can say that, but people who were involved in the Battle for Australia can. It is appropriate that we take this day to mark that service. Kokoda, of course, in recent years has become as important nationally as Gallipoli and Tobruk as part of our recognition of our heritage, and it is appropriate that it does so. Of course, it is wonderful that we have so many people young people in particular travelling to Kokoda every year to recognise that service. Locally, my office, in conjunction with Smithfield RSL, has developed a Battle for Australia kit, which is being sent to every school to help schools commemorate the Battle for Australia Day. Some commentators say that there was no Battle for Australia, that Australia was not under threat. I happen to disagree with that view but, at the end of the day, what is important is that the men and women who were fighting were certainly of the view that they were fighting for the defence of Australia. That was certainly the national view at the time and it was certainly the view of the Australian government and our then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Curtin. Today we all pause to recognise their great service. 7100 7100 09:37:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —A few weeks ago I paid a visit to the 18th Company Wanneroo of the Boys Brigade in Western Australia. I attended their midyear awards. I would like to thank the volunteers who run this great organisation. The Boys Brigade in Western Australia has been successfully undertaking youth work programs since 1895, when the first company started at the Wesley Church in Perth. The Boys Brigade is a Christian organisation, delivering programs that focus on training and developing boys and young men into balanced people through physical, spiritual, social and educational activities. The Boys Brigade, in particular the 18th Wanneroo Company, is an extremely positive organisation. The Boys Brigade develops an awareness of community and the need to make a contribution to that community. The Boys Brigade state president in Western Australia is Ray Speers. He is also the company captain of the 18th Wanneroo Company. The other volunteers at the 18th company are Alan and Nicky Roper, Neil Thomson, Elma Thompson, Mitchell Thompson, Paul Thompson, William Craig, Eleanor Stewart, Frank Stephen, Paul Gerritsen and Kim van Keule, together with section leaders Claude-Francois Sookloll, his brother Pascal Sookloll, and Maria Price, who also administers the Girls Brigade of Western Australia. I also would like to thank the company chaplain, Darrell Thatcher, for all his good work with the 18th Wanneroo Company. I take this opportunity not only to endorse the great work of the Boys Brigade, and of course the Girls Brigade, in Western Australia but to pay particular tribute to the volunteers who undertake this great work. These days, where it seems that an increasing number of people vigorously pursue their rights and are only interested in what society owes them, it is reassuring to know that there are others out there who see their volunteer work as fulfilling a responsibility to the community. Whether it be a great organisation such as the Boys Brigade and service clubs or whether it be in the coaching or the administering of volunteer sport or parents groups at schools, they are the people who keep this country going. I have spoken about volunteers before in this place and I will do so again in the future. But this morning I say thank you to the Boys Brigade in Western Australia. To Ray Speers and his team of the 18th company: what you do is very positive; I ask you to keep it up, and we will end up having a stronger and safer community through your efforts. 7101 7101 09:39:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to talk about and congratulate the work that Hand Brake Turn do on the Central Coast. Hand Brake Turn is an employment agency that offers a chance for young men, usually, to come and work for 12 weeks and do their certificate I in a range of automotive areas. The young men who are attracted to these courses are people who have had bad experiences in life. They often come from very disadvantaged areas. This course gives them a start in some training but also gets them used to the idea of turning up regularly to a job. For many of these young men it is often the first time they have had to attend something on a regular basis. Many of the people who attend Hand Brake Turn have been involved with juvenile justice; many of them have not even completed year 10 at school. Hand Brake Turn is the sort of program that needs to be supported because it gives these young people a start in life. Since 2003, 485 people have gone through the program, with 75 per cent of them receiving their certificate I at the end of the course. Recently I had the great pleasure of going along to one of the graduations, talking to the young men who had just completed their courses and looking at the great confidence and the skills they had gained by participating in this program, which will get them jobs in the future. The very important thing about the program is that it has often led not just to employment but also to people taking up apprenticeships in the industry through the work that they have done there. They spend 12 weeks doing panelbeating and electronic work on a car and at the end of the program they have a car that they have completely done up. They then donate that car to a citizen in the area who is down on their luck and needs assistance. So not only does Hand Brake Turn provide these young men with a great opportunity; in the end it also provides someone who is struggling in the community with a car. Hand Brake Turn runs on a shoestring budget, obviously subsidised by the federal government. It is the sort of program that the government needs to continue to support and one that I am very happy to lend my support to because of the tremendous work that they have been doing on the Central Coast. 7102 7102 09:42:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —During the winter break I took the opportunity to travel extensively throughout my electorate—far west to the Aboriginal community of Yalata, to the southern regions of the Yorke and Eyre peninsulas, the lower north and then to the far north including Marree, Oodnadatta and Coober Pedy. While much of the southern parts of my electorate are enjoying seasonal conditions which are running closer to normal, the northern regions are still well and truly in the grips of drought. Some of the large cattle stations in the Oodnadatta-Marree area have not experienced useful rainfall for three years, even though I must temper this advice with the news that last weekend Oodnadatta received falls of 28 millimetres; however, they were patchy and inconsistent, and the four millimitres recorded at William Creek was not uncommon. This, to some extent, is the nature of these properties, and those that live and work on them understand this and allow for this type of outcome. However, they are being stretched in this instance to the very limits of their endurance. Theoretically, high commodity prices at the moment should compensate agriculture for the rapid rises in input costs. Unfortunately this just cannot occur where we have total production failure. This is just the case we have been dealing with in our more marginal cropping zones and our large inland pastoral properties. Anna Creek Station is the largest cattle property in the world and at full stocking rates carries about 30,000 head. When I visited in July they were down to 300. Staff had shrunk from nine to three, and the last of the cattle were expected to leave within weeks. Even by the standards of the hard men of the Birdsville and Oodnadatta tracks things are decidedly grim, and this pattern is repeated commonly across vast areas of the South Australian outback. The ramifications of this large destocking to the viability of the local communities are significant. The loss of a generation will come back to haunt not just those who live in this difficult part of the world but also those who love and appreciate the beauty and the legend of outback Australia. There are serious questions among these communities as to whether they and their industries can survive in the current economic, environmental and political environment. Further south along the northern cropping zones, across the upper Eyre Peninsula and upper mid-north, while the current season still offers some hope, the situation is very similar. The loss of skilled human capital is threatening long-term harm to the region. The costs associated with the cropping region are even more pronounced and the penalties for abandonment of these areas are even higher to the communities and to the environment. The government has appointed an expert committee to tour Australia, taking evidence as to the appropriateness of current drought relief, including the exceptional circumstances arrangements. Their recommendations will encapsulate Australia’s attitude to our rural population. Do we as a nation want to make sure that our traditional economies survive, that the keepers of the outback Australian legend survive? Do we want caretakers for our inland environment or do we abandon that part of the nation to feral pests and weeds? I wish the committee well. (Time expired) 7103 7103 09:45:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —Everyone knows that the demon drink can get people into trouble. Sadly, alcohol, if consumed in excess, can unleash pent-up emotions or simply remove common sense. The results can sometimes be at best embarrassing while at worst fatal. I am pleased then to lend my support to the Just Think campaign of my local paper, the Cairns Post. It is aimed at combating irresponsible drinking. The campaign is focused fairly and squarely on getting people to just think about their drinking and what it might mean, not only to themselves but to others. The campaign follows a series of alcohol and drug fuelled violent incidents in Cairns. The Cairns Post reported on these events and wanted to do something positive for the local community. It saw the need for a public education and safety campaign to help combat the violence and it has joined a sister News Ltd paper, the Geelong Advertiser, in the Just Think campaign. The Cairns Post website, www.cairns.com.au, sets out clearly what the campaign is about. It states: It’s not a wowser, unrealistic anti-drinking campaign. It’s a campaign that simply asks you to just think about it … To think about alcohol and your behaviour, your decision-making. To think about your levels of control when you drink. To think about how alcohol and you affects your friends, your partner, your children. To think about what it does to your body. To think about how you behave as a bystander when confronted by alcohol-fuelled violence. Posters featuring our local basketball team, the Cairns Taipans, and a tragic victim, Craig Hadrick, who died following a violent, alcohol fuelled fight at a sporting club, have been distributed among hotels and clubs in the tropical north. The campaign has the support of the local branch of the Australian Hotels Association. It is not about saying ‘don’t drink’ but ‘just think’. Having returned to parliament, I have taken the opportunity to speak with the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, about the campaign, and to Geelong based members of parliament like the member for Corangamite and the member for Corio about the Geelong Advertiser’s campaign. As we all know, our local Cairns based senator, Jan McLucas, is backing the campaign. The campaign fits well with the Rudd government’s new national strategy to combat binge drinking. The national strategy begins with new initiatives aimed at supporting community action to combat binge drinking among young people, ensuring that young people take personal responsibility for the impacts of their binge drinking, and includes a national advertising campaign. I was pleased to be able to support local community organisations that applied for funding through this new national binge drinking strategy and hope they are successful in the first round. I believe we can build links between these projects and the Cairns Post’s Just Think campaign. Working together, we can combat irresponsible drinking and by doing so we can not only save lives but repair relationships and build stronger families and communities. It is incumbent on us all to drink responsibly and encourage our family and friends so that as a community and a nation we develop a more responsible drinking culture. I want to congratulate the Cairns Post and their editorial staff, led by Mark Alexander. Remember: it is not about saying ‘don’t drink’ but ‘just think’. (Time expired) 7104 7104 09:48:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —In late July the annual conference of the Nationals, Queensland, took place, as did the special convention of the Liberal Party of Australia, Queensland division. Those two conferences were co-located at the Sofitel Hotel in Brisbane. I have to say that they took place on the same floor in rooms separated only by a wall that was removable. There were overwhelming votes in favour of merging the two political parties to form the Liberal-National Party of Queensland, or the LNP, at both the Nationals conference and also the convention of the Liberal Party. We then adjourned for morning tea. The doors were opened, the walls were pulled back, the seating was reassembled and there was an incredible sense of optimism in these two political parties, which for many years had fought it out through the media and had experienced a great deal of disunity. The Labor Party in Queensland had been the beneficiary of that disunity over so many years. Labor had said to us, ‘If you can’t govern yourselves, you can’t govern the state.’ Since the merger there has been the most incredible degree of cooperation. I am very pleased that the honourable member for Hinkler, who is here beside me in the chamber, and I are now in the same political party, the LNP, although under the transitional arrangements, those who were elected as Liberals will continue to sit as Liberals and, similarly, those who were elected as Nationals will continue to sit as Nationals until the next federal election. We are now seriously competitive under Lawrence Springborg as state leader and Mark McArdle as deputy leader at the next state election whenever Premier Anna Bligh chooses to call it. We hope that there will be a federal merger of the Liberal Party and the Nationals and that they will follow the template which has occurred in Queensland because—let’s face it—people on our side of politics require us to operate as a strong cohesive force. We are that now in Queensland and there has been this most amazing sense of coming together. I have never experienced such cooperation between those people who are former Liberals and former Nationals. There is a will to work together and an incredible sense of oneness of purpose. The community will benefit. I believe that the Labor Party is the party in Queensland which is now at serious risk. They have been in office for far too long. Now for the first time in many years the LNP provides a credible alternative to Labor. I am quietly confident that, when the next state election is held, the LNP will be elected to government. I am hopeful that the result of electing an LNP government in Queensland will assist the defeat of the Rudd government at the next federal election. 7104 7104 09:51:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to acknowledge the great work that is occurring at the St Hilary parish, led by Father Peter Simmons and Anglicare, in setting up a new emergency assistance site, called the Food Barn, at the old courthouse in Morphett Vale. I was pleased to be able to attend the opening of this new service in the south that is there to help many people in the local community. It has been set up by a number of dedicated volunteers and staff who have made a commitment to help those most vulnerable in our local community. The Food Barn has been set up in a supermarket style with food and other basic products, including blankets and nappies, that have been donated by the local community. Families in need can come into the Food Barn and select the products that they are in most desperate need of. This approach ensures that, although the families may be desperate and vulnerable, they are still able to feel empowered to select the products they may need. There has been significant demand for the emergency food and grocery items at the Food Barn, and even though its doors have only been open for a couple of months there has been great community interest. The services at the Food Barn are clearly needed, with volunteers already assessing up to 16 needy client and families per day. The parish community is not only relying on canned food and donations but is also starting a veggie garden out the back to provide clients with fresh food items which in today’s society are getting quite expensive but which are needed by the local community. This garden will also be tended by a great number of volunteers who will give their time to grow food for those most in need. The vision that the local community has for the Food Barn is greater, though, than just providing emergency groceries. From this week onwards emergency counselling will be available to help those who are struggling and need support. Counsellors will be available to lend a sympathetic ear. I congratulate the Food Barn for providing this extra service because, for many families or people in crisis, the problems they have seem insurmountable and talking to someone will help these clients to resolve their problems. In addition, in the future, the Food Barn will also provide community cooking groups which will provide families and individuals with assistance in nutrition and menu planning. As I have said, the Food Barn is staffed by dedicated volunteers who help in all areas of the barn, including tending the garden and providing tutoring and assistance. I would like to congratulate all those who have contributed. (Time expired) 7105 7105 09:55:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —The Traveston Crossing dam will be an eternal blight on the Mary Valley communities west of Ipswich and the environmentally precious Great Sandy Strait adjoining Fraser Island. It will flood valuable agricultural land, displace families and farmers, wreck existing infrastructure—road and rail—and potentially harm the Great Sandy Strait, risking endangered wildlife. The latest slight from the state government is its refusal to release the supplementary environmental impact statement into the dam to the wider public. It has been provided to state and local government agencies but not to anyone else—not to me, not to the public and not to organisations. This is outrageous. The engineering foibles of the project are well known. It will be, on average, five metres deep and, as the Save the Mary River Coordinating Group has said in evidence to a Senate inquiry, it could experience evaporation of up to 1.4 metres per year. Because it is built on an alluvial flood plain, it could lose between 0.3 and three metres of water each year through seepage—what a dam! It might make a wonderful mud puddle but it is a woeful way to store water economically. If the dam stats do not worry you, let me tell you about the downstream modelling done by the Environmental Protection Agency of Queensland. In recent weeks, the EPA let the cat out of the bag by confessing to the Gympie Regional Council in its sewage outflow regime it should allow for zero flows downstream of the dam on the Mary River. Zero flows in the Mary River would kill wildlife and damage the Great Sandy Strait. It would damage commercial fishing and recreational fishing—and the list goes on. The best that the state member for Hervey Bay, who ironically is the Queensland environment minister, could come up with was a panicked line that the admission was simply confusing and that the EPA had got it wrong. The dam brings no benefit to impacted communities, which have already been trampled underfoot by the state Labor government. I call on the state government to give the people the right to read the supplementary EIS and to make their own submissions. I also call on Peter Garrett, as the federal Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, who has visited the dam site, to refuse any consideration of the case until this is done and the scheme is properly assessed. 7106 7106 09:57:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —The NT Indigenous Music Awards and the Darwin Festival, which finished on Sunday, have shown yet again that the best of the best is synonymous with the best of the bush. This year marks the 30th year since the Darwin Festival was first held, in 1978, as the Bougainvillea Festival. Since then it seems to have become bigger and better with each passing year. Record crowds and top-quality entertainment were the order of the day this year. Artists, musicians and dancers from my electorate of Lingiari were especially prominent this year. I am very proud to represent such a multitalented mob, who always have so much to offer every year to discerning festival audiences. In dance, Lingiari was represented by the Kenbi Dancers from Belyuen, the high-profile Red Flag Dancers from Numbulwar and the esteemed Yawalyu women from Lajamanu. Yawalyu performed in conjunction with Darwin’s Grey Panthers in the festival hit Lipstick and Ochre. In music, Nabarlek from Manmoyi headlined the Santos Concert on the Esplanade, and the Yilila band, from Raminging, spent an incredible night performing at the Star Shell with musicians from Flores, Indonesia. Wildwater from Maningrida, Geoffrey Gurrumul Yunupingu, Manuel Dhurrkay and Saltwater Band from Galiwinku were standouts from the NT Indigenous Music Awards night, performing before a record crowd at the amphitheatre. Yirara College band the Rocky Creek Band took out the honours for School Band of the Year. The world famous Chooky Dancers, under the inimitable leadership of Frank Djirrimbilpilwuy, also featured at the awards night. Frank was also MC for the music awards night and did a great job. Crossing Roper Bar featured an amazing collaboration between the Australian Art Orchestra and Wagilak Gujarra and Nyilapidgi musicians from the Ngukurr region. Lingiari artists abounded, with Buku Larrangay from Yirrkala exhibiting new etchings and larrakitj, or burial poles; Angelina George from Ngukurr with more of her stunning landscapes; and Utopia artists, represented by Jeannie Mills and Kathleen Ngale, with Janelle Stockman exhibiting beautiful works of their country. Other artists from Lingiari featured this year include the renowned west Arnhem painter Lofty Nadjamerrek AO, Dorothy Napangardi, Regina Wilson from Peppimenarti, Lena Nyadbi, Jean Baptiste Apuatimi from the Tiwi Islands, Galumbu Yunipingu and Butcher Cherel. All in all, it was a tremendous spectacle—indeed, it was a tribute to the vibrancy of contemporary bush culture. My congratulations to all involved, especially to outgoing festival director Malcolm Blaylock. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Congratulations to the minister on that sterling effort. In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 7107 Bills R3050 7107 Debate resumed from 27 August, on motion by Mr Martin Ferguson: That this bill be now read a second time. 7107 10:01:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —The purpose of the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Datum) Bill 2008 is to make a minor technical amendment to the datum provisions included in the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. To my understanding and the understanding of the opposition, there is no policy change attached to this amendment. Although the advent of global positioning systems justifies the adoption of an international geocentric datum, the OPA still needs to refer to the AGD66 for the purposes of determining the position of graticular sections or blocks and refer to the GDA94 for certain other purposes, including description of coordinates of a point in the title. Madam Deputy Speaker, isn’t it lucky that I am the grandson of a geologist, a very good geologist? If graticular sections or blocks are determined by reference to GDA94, as the amended Offshore Petroleum Act currently states, the grid used to determine the position of the titles will be moved approximately 200 metres in a north-easterly direction from a grid that refers to AGD66. This is not the policy intention and would cause concern and uncertainty for the petroleum industry if not corrected. Certainty is a fundamental component of the resource sector, as I noted in a speech in this place earlier this year. Without that certainty, we risk undermining one of the most critical contributions to our economy, a part of our economy that generates not only thousands of jobs but literally billions of dollars of exports. Of course, any industry that currently generates jobs is incredibly important to Australia—doubly so since the advent of the Rudd government and a new phenomenon in the 21st century: rising unemployment. The resource industry in Australia, despite what is being done to it by the Rudd government, is an industry that is investing tens of billions of dollars to secure not only the future of Australia in terms of jobs and exports but also the future of this planet by ensuring that we produce a clean energy product—a product that can be used instead of coal in countries all over the world. In fact, the history of the petroleum and LNG industries in Australia shows that they are leading innovators in terms of the efficiency gains that they are making—for instance, in the North West Shelf between trains 1 and 2 and trains 3, 4 and 5. It also needs to be highlighted that LNG has greenhouse gas emissions with about half the life cycle of those of traditional fossil fuels; it also has very low levels of particulate and sulfur emissions. If the potential of the LNG industry in Australia were fully realised, it would save the globe around 200 million tonnes per annum, according to ABARE. Whilst this amendment to the legislation is important with regard to giving the petroleum industry certainty in relation to the leases it holds, it is minute in comparison to the uncertainty that is currently being created by the Rudd Labor government, and I will speak of two areas. The first and most concerning area is the way in which the LNG industry in Australia will be treated under the proposals put forward by Senator Wong and the Prime Minister. In that green paper on reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the LNG industry—despite the fact, and almost in spite of the fact, that they have lowered their emissions in producing what, as I have just stated, is an incredibly friendlier fuel in terms of greenhouse gas emissions—have been caught by an arbitrary threshold that means, had they not made those gains in lowering greenhouse gas emissions in the production of LNG, they would be eligible for compensation. But, under the misguided plan that has been put forward by the Rudd government, that industry is going to be penalised for its good work and its efficiency and the greenhouse gases it has already saved. There is no logic in what is being proposed under the green paper. It penalises those industries that have made savings, whether it is the LNG industry and the savings it has made, whether it is the cement industry and the savings it has made, whether it is the aluminium industry and the 40 per cent savings it has made or whether it is the ethane industry, which in producing plastics has made some enormous savings in emissions of some 40 per cent. The LNG industry— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I would draw the member for Groom back to the bill before us and ask him to— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I am talking about the LNG industry, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is the petroleum industry, and the bill covers the petroleum industry. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, I know, but it is a fairly technical bill and I would really like you to put your remarks in the context of the bill before us. WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —Madam Deputy Speaker, of course I am happy to do that. The petroleum industry is, of course, an industry that needs to know exactly where it is both in a geophysical sense and also in a political sense. I will talk on both. This bill, which is a political instrument—that is, it comes through this parliament—will enable the industry to have a small amount of certainty that where it is drilling for oil and gas is actually where it is legally allowed to, within its own confines. But, as I have said, we need to ensure that the industry has certainty on all fronts. You do not deliver the industry certainty by just making sure that the latest scientific technology in terms of global positioning ensures that these industries are in the right spot. You need to ensure that they have economic certainty, you need to ensure that they have legislative certainty and you need to ensure in fact that there is a suite of certainty, because this is an industry that has to invest billions and billions of dollars. In fact, in one project alone as much as $30 billion can be invested. This bill is incredibly important—I do not understate that—but so too is the fact that, along with the uncertainty brought about by the proposed carbon trading scheme to be introduced by the Rudd Labor government, individual companies and groups of companies involved in the petroleum industry covered by this act are also being subjected to some incredible changes in the terms and conditions under which they operate in Australia. In operating in Australia, one thing that companies do want is certainty—and this bill gives some certainty. But they also want certainty when they do a deal with the government and negotiate the relationship between the government, the company and the royalties they pay. There needs to be certainty there. Of course, we saw in the last budget an unbelievable act that will no doubt affect the sovereign risk and the certainty that these companies operate under, and that is the imposition of an extra $2.5 billion in tax on a group of companies that to date, according even to the department when they appeared before the Senate hearing in 2005, have received no benefit or exemption, in relative terms, in the current excise arrangements. That is, had they been taxed under the current arrangements, the petroleum resource rent tax, they would have in fact paid the same as they would have paid under this so-called concession. The Rudd Labor government now sees that as being too generous and is imposing an extra $2½ billion in taxes for no reason other than this government is a high-taxing, high-spending government. Certainty is an incredibly important thing, and by doing that the Rudd government has destroyed a major chunk of certainty, far greater than the certainty that this bill creates. Important though this bill is, important though geophysical positioning is, a suite of certainties is required, and on a score of one to 10 the Rudd Labor government is running at about two, I reckon. There is not much more you can do to the resource industry in Australia at the moment except take away the certainty of their leaseholds, to completely destroy the confidence they have in investing in Australia. Madam Deputy Speaker, I know you want me to be relevant to the bill, so I will move on to something that is very relevant to this bill—that is, what happens when someone is able to position themselves in an exact position, seek oil and gas and perhaps exploit that resource at a later date. There is no better example of that outcome than the North West Shelf for the enormous contribution it has made to Australia in the investment that has been made and the wealth it will bring to Australians, not only to those who work in that industry but, as I am sure the Rudd government understands, to mums and dads who own shares in the many companies that operate in that North West Shelf precinct. By way of example, the latest train to be operated in that North West Shelf consortium is Train 5, and it was announced just the other day that it is moving into production. The fifth onshore LNG train is located with the other four on the North West Shelf, and I am sure the Minister for Resources and Energy has taken the opportunity to look over it, as I know he is an excellent Minister for Resources and Energy. His predecessor also took the opportunity to go there—perhaps not to my wife’s pleasure, because it was three days before Christmas, but I thought: ‘Hey, it’s the festive season. What better could you do than look at a fine example of Australian engineering!’ LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —I’ll make sure you get an invitation to the opening! WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —Thank you, Minister. It is worth noting, as I talk about the importance of this bill and the investments that it creates, that that fifth train project cost $2.6 billion. It makes the total investment in the North West Shelf worth $25 billion. It is the first LNG train of what we call a modular construction, and it also entailed a jetty extension and the securing of a second LNG loading berth. Two additional power generation units and a whole range of other equipment were put in place, including equipment that, on top of the efficiency gains that come from these latest gas compressors, will also see even less of an environmental footprint, particularly through acid gas removal units. During its construction, 83,000 cubic metres of earth were moved and 17,600 cubic metres of structural concrete and 32,200 cubic meters of paving were set. These projects are enormous. These and other resource projects right around Australia are projects that will underpin the future economic wealth of Australia. This legislation does not involve a policy change and will see further expansion in the LNG industry. It is disturbing to me, as a previous resources minister and as someone who takes a very close interest in trade through their portfolio, to see the Browse project run by INPEX now being forced to consider going to Darwin because of the incompetence and ineptitude of the Carpenter government in Western Australia. That is a much more expensive prospect and an opportunity cost to Australia. I think this highlights the inability of the Carpenter government to provide any real recognition of the billions of dollars that foreign companies invest in Australia. It would be nice if the only people who use this legislation were Australians, but that is not the reality. The reality is that foreign companies are investing in Australia, sharing their wealth with Australians and providing jobs for Australians. This legislation gives the industry some more certainty on that, but whilst we have a Carpenter government in Western Australia we will continue to have the sorts of conflicts that force the oil and gas industry to look to the Northern Territory for their LNG plants and, in doing so, rob Western Australians of jobs and income. It is proposed that the amendments in schedule 1 of this bill be retrospective from 1 July 2008 to provide the following benefits for the industry: to remove uncertainty about title boundaries for petroleum titles, to ensure alignment between existing and future titles and to facilitate the award of new exploration permits and the release of new exploration acreage. There are no adverse effects for the industry due to this retrospectivity and the bill does not impose any new regulatory burden on the petroleum industry. I commend this bill to the House. I hope this small act of certainty will provide some reassurance to an industry whose confidence has been shattered by the Rudd Labor government. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Member for Groom and member for Mallee, it is not my requirement that you be relevant to the bill; it is a requirement of the standing orders. 7110 10:17:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Datum) Bill 2008, which seeks to amend the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. I listened to the honourable member for Groom make his arguments in relation to this bill. He raised the principle of certainty as being the guiding mantra for this debate, which is appropriate because this is ultimately about providing greater certainty. I make the observation in terms of certainty that, if our country were to have to rely on the policies of the opposition when it comes to the great challenge of climate change, which he referred to, this country would be in a sorry state indeed. What we see on the part of the opposition is really the Wheel of Fortune method of political management: every day they spin the wheel and a different policy comes up. There is absolutely no consistency on their side in terms of how we deal with the challenges of climate change, which provides absolutely no certainty to either the LNG industry or any other industry. I am going to attempt to explain what this bill does. It is a very technical bill. It corrects a technical oversight which occurred in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008, which came into force on 1 July 2008. That act replaced Australian Geodetic Datum with Geocentric Datum of Australia. Datum is a mathematical surface on which we map and have a coordinates system. It is the basis on which we engage in surveying—and, in this context, surveying offshore petroleum titles. Australian Geodetic Datum, which has been the traditional means by which we have undertaken that mapping and surveying, is based on the surface of the earth within the Australian region. By definition it is an approximation, but it is a very accurate approximation. It has served us well and it does provide precise boundaries for petroleum lease titles within Australian waters. Geocentric Datum of Australia is a method of surveying, as the name suggests, based upon the centre of the earth. It is able to be done because of the advent of global positioning systems. Consequently, it is a system of surveying which will give a set of coordinates that are consistent globally. There is therefore good reason to start using it in many of the ways in which we survey and operate in Australia. It is a useful means of, for example, determining points, lines and areas which exist within petroleum titles. Describing a precise set of coordinates, for example, within a title is best done in a way which can be consistently viewed around the world through the Geocentric Datum of Australia. The problem is this: if we apply that method to the graticular sections and blocks which are the basis for the boundaries of petroleum titles then, because it is based on the centre of the earth rather than the earth’s surface, it will have the consequence of shifting the grid upon which the boundaries of these titles are determined by about 200 metres in a north-easterly direction. That obviously will then give rise to a great deal of uncertainty in relation to titles which currently exist. Not only will it create uncertainty there but, in terms of issuing new titles into the future, how they sit adjacent to existing titles will also be confusing. For that reason—and because the original Geodetic Datum does provide an accurate means by which we can provide boundaries within our waters—this bill proposes that we retain the new Geocentric Datum of Australia as a method for surveying—for many of the reasons we do that within the act—but, when it comes to the establishment of boundaries in petroleum leases and, in particular, the points of graticular sections and blocks which are the cornerstones of those boundaries, that we go back to the original Australian Geodetic Datum. That means that the current positioning of the leases will remain unchanged and that future leases granted under that scheme will be compatible with them. A simple way of putting this is that it makes sense not to change horses as you are crossing a stream. While there is a new method here which can be applied to different circumstances, given that we already have one rider on this horse we ought to stick with them so that we can have consistency between what has been done in the past and what happens in the future. This bill proposes that this be done retrospectively from 1 July, which will give continuity of title. As I said, in doing that we remove uncertainty around the existing boundaries of petroleum titles, but we also ensure that there is alignment and compatibility with future titles that are granted. It is important that this goes through the parliament relatively quickly because, until we rectify this issue, we are in a position where we have to suspend the release of new exploration areas. There was an auction process by which new exploration areas were available for bidding. That bidding closed on 18 April this year. In order for the successful bidders in that process to take over their new leases, this bill needs to pass. So it is important that it goes through parliament quickly. Indeed, for those areas where there were no bids, it is intended to rerelease them and go through another auction process. Again, in order to do that—and the current schedule is to do that next month—this bill needs to go through parliament so that we can rectify that situation. It is a technical amendment, but it is clearly an important amendment. As the member for Groom said, it is an amendment which is ultimately very much about certainty. I think that talking about this and the foundations of the way in which we establish petroleum leases in our offshore petroleum and gas fields affords the opportunity to explain to the Main Committee and the House how significant the industry which is founded upon those leases is to the Australian economy. Currently Australia refines about 75 per cent of its petroleum products. We import the remaining 25 per cent—principally from Singapore. Seventy-five per cent of the petroleum products in this country are refined in the seven refineries which exist around Australia—one of which, the Shell refinery, is in my electorate of Corio—and that does provide the bulk of our product. About 70 per cent of the crude oil which goes into those refineries is imported from a range of countries. There is a good reason for diversifying the supply that comes into this country so that we are not beholden in a sense to one source. Interestingly, the largest amount that we import actually comes from Vietnam. Of the 30 per cent of the crude oil that we refine in Australia, 90 per cent comes from offshore petroleum reserves, which are based on the very leases that we are talking about in this legislation. Ninety per cent of the oil and gas reserves that we have in this country, which we use, comes from offshore deposits, so it is a very important part of our petroleum industry. There is now a real need to engage in the further exploration of gas reserves and, ultimately, oil reserves in this country. Having a secure system by which we do that is similarly important. Recent commercial decisions have really underestimated or not anticipated the extent of the commodities boom in Australia which means the demand for gas has given rise to a very tight gas market, particularly in Western Australia where, of course, the Varanus Island incident has further complicated issues. But that has to be seen in the context that Australia actually has very abundant offshore gas reserves. It is anticipated that, at the current rate of consumption of our gas reserves, we have something like 110 years worth of supply. So we have an interesting situation where we have significant gas supplies but a very tight domestic market. In addition to that, there is real potential for a significant increase in the LNG export industry in Australia. What that necessarily implies is that we have to open up areas for gas exploitation to occur in Australia. We have to open up these new reserves. Following recommendations of the Joint Working Group on Natural Gas Supply, the minister’s department is reviewing the government’s retention lease policy and going through a process of consultation with stakeholders which may well ultimately review the way in which we manage our retention leases. Retention leases are a low-cost form of tenure that is held by exploration companies over gas deposits which are not commercially viable at the moment but which are anticipated to be commercially viable at some point. Retention leases, which are very much based on the surveying methods that I have described, become very important in terms of mapping the future potential of gas exploration in this country. If we need to open up gas reserves—and we absolutely do—it is important that we look at the way in which these retention leases are managed. Again, the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism is reviewing the commerciality of a number of existing retention leases to assess their viability in the current climate. One would think that the current climate will actually mean that, in the tight market that I have described in WA and the rest of Australia, it is more commercially viable to start opening up these enormous reserves. So that is a very important step that we need to take in dealing with our gas reserves. In saying that, I think the other point that needs to be noted is the very significant cost of developing a new LNG project. Typically, it is in the order of $20 billion, and often these projects do not start to return a profit for something in the order of seven to 10 years. That said, it has been estimated by the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association that: Australia’s vast gas reserves mean that we have the capacity not only to assist our own nation move to a much less greenhouse polluting future but to triple LNG exports to 60 million tonnes over the next 10 years. The association goes on to say that if we could do that it would result in a reduction of 120 million tonnes of greenhouse gas pollution in the Asia-Pacific region—that is, of course, on the basis that LNG is a far more greenhouse friendly fossil fuel than other fossil fuels; it would generate an additional $10 billion per year of tax revenue; it would improve Australia’s balance of trade to the tune of $20 billion per year; and it would create many thousands of jobs. So it is a very important industry indeed and needs to be developed. Offshore oil is an area that also needs developing. Currently it is anticipated that on the basis of existing consumption rates we have about eight years of known oil reserves remaining. If we do not open up new oil reserves, Australia is looking down the barrel of a $27 billion trade deficit in oil condensate by 2015, which, of course, is why it is so important that we move down that path. What all of this describes is a very significant industry but also a market which has become tight domestically and one where there is an increasing need to explore and develop new offshore oil and gas reserves. To do that, we need the kind of certainty in our surveying methods and in the granting of our leases which this bill will provide. In assessing the significance of the offshore oil and gas industry to the Australian economy, I want to make the following points. Currently the offshore oil industry accounts for 33 per cent and gas accounts for 21 per cent of Australia’s primary energy consumption. The oil and gas industry amounts to something like 2.5 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product. The value of oil and gas produced in Australia in the financial year 2007-08 was estimated to be in excess of $27 billion, of which $21 billion was export. The industry employs around 15,000 people and pays $2.6 billion in taxation revenue to the Australian government. The industry consists of over 200 small, medium and large companies. Exploration spending for oil and gas in the financial year 2006-07 exceeded $2.2 billion and, as we stand here in 2008, there are 220 active exploration permits, 49 retention leases, which I explained earlier, 70 production licences and 52 pipeline licences in Australian waters. So there is a very significant investment in this area. Offshore oil and gas production is absolutely vital to the efficient running of Australia’s economy. It is clear that in order to allow this industry to grow and to open up more oil and gas reserves, which we so desperately need it to do, there needs to be a solid foundation upon which that is done, and there is nothing more fundamental to that than ensuring that the boundaries of the leases that are given to these companies to explore and ultimately exploit their reserves are completely certain and completely secure. Ultimately, that is what this bill seeks to do, so I very much commend it to the Committee and to the House. 7114 10:34:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —As has been indicated by previous speakers, the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Datum) Bill 2008 is largely a technical amendment bill. I will not say a minor technical amendment, because it does actually have a significant impact on the way we let and record our offshore leases. The purpose of the bill is to make a technical amendment to the datum provisions included in the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. It is not a policy change; it is, as has been previously indicated, a change in the way we record survey results in allocating leases in this country. The bill will correct an error resulting from a technical oversight in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008 which inadvertently replaced all references to the Australian geodetic datum, AGD66, with the geocentric datum of Australia, AGD94. The amendments in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act commenced on 1 July this year. The ‘datum’ is the way that the mathematical survey results are coordinated with the description or the title in question. The Australian geodetic datum, the AGD66, was based on the mathematical surface of the earth which was designed to fit the Australian region. Whilst this has been a good datum for local use, its origins are approximately 200 metres offset from the earth’s centre of mass. That was not an issue when we surveyed using precisely that as the reference point for issuing our leases. However, with the advent of global positioning systems, GPS, the international standard, as I understand it, is now looking at the geocentric, or the earth’s centre in terms of establishing datum points, which is the basis of the geocentric datum of Australia, the AGD94. Whilst we can actually still use that, all of our leases are calculated on the basis of the AGD66, and that is how it is divided up into contestable areas for offshore oil and gas exploration. Under the recently repealed Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, the graticular sections and blocks—which I understand are sections of about one minute latitude against one minute longitude—are based on and determined against the older reference, which is the AGD66. To provide certainty to the petroleum titleholders and to ensure that boundaries are not changed, what we need to do is to readmit those older survey coordinates, the AGD66, into the new act. The more accurate GPS, which is increasingly used for surveying and navigation, will also be expressed in the act, but in the allocating of titles it is to revert back to AGD66. As I say, this is a technical bill to an extent, but it has huge ramifications. Not all that long ago I had the opportunity to revisit the North West Shelf. I used to spend a lot of time working at the North West Shelf and the Timor Sea. I know a fair bit about the competition for our offshore leases and I also know how desperate we were to find oil, particularly in the Timor Sea, to replace Bass Strait. Regrettably at that stage, and I am going back a number of years, every time we drilled for oil we found gas and for a period of time we capped a number of our wells—in fact, many of them still remain capped—as we had to move to extend our markets. We established our markets particularly from the Woodside finds, from the Rankin A platform. We certainly managed to sell a considerable amount of gas to China, Japan and now to South Korea. This country, despite what the pundits might have you believe, is an energy rich nation. It is just that some of our resources are a little hard to obtain. At the moment on our current consumption rates we have about 110 years supply of natural gas. That includes what we are sending offshore to China, Japan and South Korea and our existing domestic market. I have a few more figures. At this stage we have about 800 years supply of brown coal and 350 years supply of black coal. I understand that there are always going to be some issues about the burning of fossil fuels, and that is why this country must become a leader in establishing clean technologies for the production of sources of energy. But we have an abundant supply of gas, and one of the things I have constantly indicated to the minister is that this country, with its abundant supply of gas, must start to work on policy that moves in the direction of gas to liquids. This is an important part of our future development and will certainly be important for future Australian industries and also the domestic market. To that extent, whilst we do have 110 years known supply of gas reserves, it is important to us to extend that industry. We need to find more gas in order to facilitate that future. Unfortunately, when we talk about oil, our oil reserves are estimated to be depleted within the next eight years. That will have a significant and deleterious effect on our economy unless we find a suitable replacement for those stocks. With the depletion of the Bass Strait oil, our main oil production is now in Western Australia, but those reserves are old and rapidly diminishing. It is important that we encourage further exploration in order to find further oil and gas supplies for this country. Hence, although this bill makes a minor amendment to the act, it is quite central to allocating the leases to allow bodies to develop, prospect and explore in those new areas. Mr Deputy Speaker, I have spoken just briefly about the importance of the bill in that respect, but one thing I probably should leave you with is that, whilst at the moment we have known gas reserves in this country—around 110 years supply—it has been estimated by the International Energy Agency that Australia will become the third largest exporter of LNG within the next decade. Obviously, in that calculation they are factoring in an approximation of further discoveries of gas in this country. I understand from talking to many of the players in the industry that they are relatively confident that the gas is out there. They are looking at various business models that allow them the opportunity to invest in further gas exploration, and this is something the International Energy Agency has already made some judgements on. Within the parameters of the territorial base of this country, within the next decade it is likely that we will emerge as the third largest exporter of LNG. If we are going to be supplying gas to the world, from my perspective it is also vitally important that we develop the domestic market for gas. Hence, I am an ardent advocate for the development of our gas to liquids and the creation of synthetic diesel through our gas supply. I think that, probably more than most other energy sources, that is likely to be the backbone of the future of this country. Whilst the resources of this country will be many and varied and we will require a suite of responses to accommodate our future energy needs, I believe that the development of gas to liquids as well as coal to liquids is going to play a very significant role in the future energy needs of this country. On that basis, I commend this bill to the House. 7116 10:45:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —The purpose of the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Datum) Bill 2008 is to make a minor technical amendment to the datum provisions included in the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. The amendments in schedule 1 of this bill have retrospective effect from 1 July 2008 to provide benefits to industry, including the removal of uncertainty about title boundaries for petroleum titles, ensuring alignment between existing and future titles, and facilitating the award of new exploration permits and the release of new exploration acreage. There will be no adverse effects on industry due to the retrospectivity. Drilling or digging for oil has occurred in one way or another for hundreds of years. The Chinese, for instance, invented a bamboo rig to obtain oil and gas for lighting and cooking. But only in the last 40 to 50 years has humanity been able to efficiently extract petroleum from beneath the seas, an achievement that I believe ranks with the 20th century’s mightiest technological triumphs. I had the honour of representing workers in the offshore oil and gas industry in my previous occupation and I got to know many of them very well. It is a very hard and difficult job working in the offshore industry. I found the helicopter rides hard enough! In particular, I would like to acknowledge the contributions of a number of proud offshore workers who I had the pleasure of working with: John Clarence, who spent 30 years as a caterer in Bass Strait; Tony McDonald, who has spent 30 years as an Esso operator and is on Kingfish A at the moment—indeed, as I talk to the Committee; Colin Fisher, who worked as a caterer for 25 years on Western Australian drilling rigs; Dale Bond, who has spent 20-plus years with Esso, is a health and safety representative working right across the fields and is currently at Kingfish West; Paul Flood, who has worked with Schlumberger in Bass Strait for 10 years; Bruce Pendlebury Nabors, who spent 10 years as a driller; Ross Ritter, who worked for 20 years as an electrician with Esso; Vinnie Heaton-Harris, who worked for 15 years at Esso offshore; Scott Mckenzie, who is currently at Cossack Pioneer Woodside and has worked in the industry for the last 12 years; and Damien Beaumont, who has spent the last five years drilling in Western Australia. The list of people who work in this fine industry is almost infinite. According to the Australian Petroleum Production and Exploration Association, or APPEA, over 15,000 people are employed directly in the Australian petroleum industry, from rig tender workers, divers and seismic vessel workers to workers on mobile offshore drilling units, pipe-laying vessels, construction vessels and floating production and storage off-take facilities. It is also estimated that more than 30,000 additional jobs are created in this most important industry through suppliers and contracting and support companies. Given that the offshore petroleum industry accounts for about 90 per cent of the total Australian industry in this field, producing nearly 30,000 megalitres in 2006-07, the offshore industry would also be expected to account for 90 per cent of the employment in this field—or about 13,500 direct jobs and 27,000 indirect jobs. Australian exports of refined and unrefined petroleum products were valued at over $10 billion in the 2006-07 financial year. Australian petroleum production has been declining slowly since a peak in 2000. However, the Australian Bureau of Agricultural and Resource Economics, or ABARE, projects that production will increase from now over the medium term before declining to below 500,000 barrels a day by 2029-30. This increased production will likely be met from new offshore reserves. The number of onshore exploration wells has been declining over the past two decades, while the number of offshore wells drilled has remained approximately constant. In contrast to onshore activity, offshore exploration expenditure has been increasing significantly. Despite the difficulties of the procedure and the nature of the work, we have been forced to look well beyond our shores for such a precious resource. Locating an oil and gas ‘trap’, as it is known, and extracting the oil and gas is difficult enough on land. But offshore, in deep and often stormy waters, it can be an awesome undertaking. Potential traps are identified by analysing seismic survey data, but whether they contain oil or gas will not be known until a drill bit penetrates the structure. Directing the drill bit to a precise location, perhaps several kilometres away, requires sophisticated computer technology. A navigation device installed above the drill bit feeds back information which enables the exact position of the well to be measured and monitored. In Australia up to 100 offshore wells per year are drilled. About a quarter of these are development wells to produce oil or gas found by previous drilling. Before a well can be drilled, government approval must be obtained. Drilling must then conform to statutory conditions, and further operations are covered by industry codes of practice. In Australia’s medium to large fields, fixed production platforms are commonly used. These platforms house all the processing equipment and can accommodate up to 80 workers, who typically work a 12-hour day, one week on and one week off, or sometimes on longer cycles of two weeks on, two weeks off. There are also concrete structures which are big enough to store oil; gravity holds them on the seabed. The world’s biggest platforms are larger than a football field and rise above the water as high as a 25-storey office tower. The largest platforms in the world can be home to up to 500 workers. There are still some issues which workers in the industry inform me need addressing in the future—issues which, of course, this legislation cannot deal with. These include ensuring that there are specific offshore national licensing procedures and that accredited certificates of competency are required for high-risk work—the cranes, the rigging and the scaffolding, for example; improving and standardising accommodation standards across the offshore industry to ensure that the men who work in their shifts have reasonable accommodation when they are not working; addressing the skills shortage—the use of visa workers in drilling and servicing companies is becoming more common through a lack of genuine training in past years by the industry; and ensuring that the regulatory body, NOPSA, has proper enforcement powers to make sure that standards and guidelines work throughout the offshore industry. This legislation provides certainty to the industry. It is important that, when oil companies are developing the fields of Bass Strait and other resources, they look to source much of the work from Australian contracting companies, as opposed to perhaps bringing in companies from overseas who may have alliances with the oil companies drilling in Australia but who may be more expensive in the Australian operation. The foreign companies receive favouritism because of arrangements in other oilfields, to the disadvantage of Australian producers. The offshore oil industry is an important industry for Australia. The workers employed in that industry, the unions that represent them and management do a great job to try to secure our energy supplies for the future. I commend the bill to the Committee. 7118 10:52:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to the debate on the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Datum) Bill 2008. As I said when I introduced the legislation into the House, the purpose of the bill is to make very minor technical amendments to the datum provisions included in the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006. The bill will give effect to the policy intention for the Offshore Petroleum (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008, ensuring the correct use of the datums AGD66 and GDA94. The bill will remove uncertainty about title boundaries for petroleum titles, which is very important; ensure alignment between existing and future titles; and facilitate the award of new exploration permits and the release of new exploration acreage. The bill will also correct an error resulting from a technical oversight in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008 which inadvertently replaced all references to the Australian geodetic datum, or AGD66, with the geocentric datum of Australia, or GDA94. The amendments in the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Miscellaneous Measures) Act 2008 commenced on 1 July 2008. To explain this technical matter further, a ‘datum’ is a mathematical surface on which a mapping and coordinate system is based. The Australian geodetic datum, or AGD66, was based on a mathematical surface of the earth which was designed to fit the Australian region. I am sure the member for Mallee, who is in the chamber and is an engineer, understands the nature of this debate. While this has been a good datum for local use, it has an origin approximately 200 metres offset from the earth’s centre of mass. The advent of global positioning systems has justified the adoption of an international geocentric, or earth centred, datum. This is the Geocentric Datum of Australia 1994, or GDA94. You learn something new every day! Under the recently repealed Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967, the graticular sections and blocks on which petroleum titles are based had been determined by reference to AGD66. The responsibility of government was therefore to provide certainty for petroleum titleholders, ensure that title boundaries do not change and maintain alignment between existing titles and new titles, so the Offshore Petroleum Act 2006 was necessary. That act, which replaced the Petroleum (Submerged Lands) Act 1967 and came into effect from 1 July 2008, allowed continued determination of graticular sections and blocks by reference to AGD66. To more accurately reflect the global positioning system which is increasingly used for surveying and navigation, the points, lines and areas in a petroleum title have been described since 2002 using GDA94. However, the grid on the earth’s surface used to determine title areas—that is, AGD66—has to remain unchanged. Although the advent of global positioning systems justifies the adoption of an international geocentric datum, the Offshore Petroleum Act still needs to refer to AGD66 for the purposes of determining the position of graticular sections or blocks and refer to GDA94 for certain other purposes, including describing coordinates of a point in a title. If graticular sections or blocks are determined by reference to GDA94, as the amended Offshore Petroleum Act currently states, the grid used to determine the position of the titles will move approximately 200 metres in a north-easterly direction from a grid that refers to AGD66. This was not the policy intention and would cause concern and uncertainty for industry if not corrected. For example, if not corrected the situation may create uncertainty for existing titles and risk future titles moving out of alignment with existing titles. It is proposed that the amendments in schedule 1 of this bill have retrospective effect from 1 July 2008 to provide the following benefits to industry: firstly, to remove uncertainty about title boundaries for petroleum titles; secondly, to ensure alignment between existing and future titles; and, finally, to facilitate the awarding of new exploration permits and the release of new exploration acreage. There are no adverse effects on industry due to retrospectivity. Industry welcomes it. This is a technical but nonetheless important and urgent amendment bill. Until the datum provisions in the Offshore Petroleum Act are amended, it is necessary to suspend the release of new exploration areas and the grant of new and renewed petroleum titles. Early amendment of the Offshore Petroleum Act is required to enable offers of exploration permits to successful applicants over areas for which bidding closed on 18 April 2008 and re-release in October 2008 of areas that received no bids. I express the government’s appreciation to those members who have contributed to this debate. It gave them the opportunity not only to talk about the technical nature of the bill before the House but also to appropriately focus on the importance of the oil and gas industry to Australia, both in terms of domestic energy security and also in the context of us being a major exporter of energy supplies. I specifically refer to the contributions by the member for Groom, the former Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources, and the members for Corio, Werriwa and Maribyrnong. Whilst I appreciate the member for Groom’s support for the legislation, I will make a few concluding remarks with respect to a number of other issues that he raised during the course of the debate. Firstly, with respect to his remarks concerning the government’s commitment to develop a carbon pollution reduction scheme and the uncertainty he believes it has created in the oil and gas industry, I simply say that the government is involved, as it is a green paper process, in genuine consultation with representatives of the oil and gas industry, both at a peak council level and at an individual company level. We are about making sure that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme not only assists industry in reducing greenhouse gas emissions but in a measured way also maintains a capacity for the industry to grow and expand in Australia, thereby creating additional export opportunities, jobs and training opportunities for Australia. We understand there are concerns, and representatives of the industry participated in a day of consultations that I undertook with my department and representatives of other ministerial offices and departments in Canberra on Friday last. In going to the issue of the member’s more extensive remarks about the government’s decision to remove the condensate excise exemption, can I say the government appreciates that, yes, it is fair enough to have incentives to actually get major resource projects up and running in an initial instance. But I think, in the context of the national interest, the Australian community also accepts that once such major projects are up and running the Australian people are entitled to get their fair value from their resources. The government makes no apologies for reviewing the condensate excise on a project that has been in place for 24 long years and has produced a great incentive to the development of the North West Shelf. It is now a mature project in the context of oil and gas prices far higher than those in the original time frame for the development of the project 24 years ago. It has also been a highly profitable project for those companies which saw Australia as a good place to invest. The record shows that their investment has actually produced considerable financial benefit not only to Australia but also to those companies. For the information of the chamber, this condensate exemption has represented a major gain for one project. For example, over the last five years it has been to the tune of at least $1.5 billion. We believe that, given those considerable opportunities for the North West Shelf Venture partners, the Australian community is entitled to have this condensate excise reviewed so as to guarantee that it gets a fair share of the proceeds of the commodities boom. I also indicate to the chamber that the North West Shelf has also had a major competitive advantage over all other gas projects in Australia that are struggling to get off the ground. This is important to me, because when you look back over 24 years you see that we have only got two oil and gas projects to market. I am not accepting that that is good enough. Our responsibility is to create opportunities for other investors to bring projects such as Gorgon, Browse and Sunrise to fruition. Our government is going to level up the playing field to get more competition in the market and more investment in Australia’s gas resources for our future prosperity and in the nation’s best interests. In terms of a factual consideration of this matter—and I ask that the member for Groom take this on board—the tax is a tax on condensate. Condensate is not gas; it is like crude oil. It is not a tax on natural gas. I say this because there has been some press speculation—I suppose in the context of the state election in Western Australia that will be held on Saturday—about a claim by Woodside, one of the North West Shelf venture partners, that domestic gas prices will increase as a result of this tax. From the government’s point of view, there is no good reason why domestic gas prices should increase. More importantly, I would remind Woodside and others involved in the project that I did not see any offer of lower gas prices to customers when the crude oil excise rate was cut in 2001. That has produced significant gains of about half a billion dollars, although if you actually examine the Hansard of the relevant debate in 2001 you see that the then government—represented by the then member for Leichhardt and former Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Industry, Science and Resources, Mr Entsch—indicated that it estimated that the cut would produce benefits to the North West Shelf partners of about $75 million over 10 years, so I think they have done considerably well out of that decision by the previous government to actually reduce tax with respect to this project. I cannot understand why these venture partners would suggest that if one concession were reduced prices should go up. Alternatively, when tax on their project was considerably reduced there was no indication of them reducing the price of gas for domestic or international partners. This is a highly technical debate but it appropriately gave members an opportunity to talk about an industry that is exceptionally important to Australia in export opportunities, an industry that is also going to grow in importance in the Asian region because countries such as Korea, China and Japan are looking to Australia for energy security. They regard the LNG industry as a clean energy industry and they are looking for us to further develop the industry and to bring on projects such as Gorgon, Browse and Sunrise. As I said recently during a visit to China, Australia is open for business. We simply say to those countries interested in investing in Australia that projects such as the North West Shelf clearly indicate that Australia is a good place to do business. If any of those companies are interested in further investment in Australia, and also in applying for our retention leases, they should consult the department and my office because we will be doing everything possible to facilitate such investment. I am also pleased to say that, in the context of the development of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and the detailed discussions held with 50 to 60 companies here in Canberra last Friday, not one company argued against the introduction of such a scheme. The debate was about the nature of the scheme and also international considerations. I simply remind the House that you would not have got that commitment from industry two to three years ago. They understand that, from the Australian government’s point of view, the time has come for us to act as a community but also to have regard for international developments in the context of developing such a scheme. In conclusion, I note that the Notice Paper provides for a discussion of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources report entitled Down under: greenhouse gas storage. I welcome that debate in the Main Committee. The primary industries and resources committee did an exceptionally good job in the consideration and preparation of that report. The Main Committee presents an opportunity for members to contribute to what is going to be a key debate for Australia in the context of developing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We will see in the future a growth in renewables, but Australia, like the rest of the world, will remain a heavily fossil fuel dependent community and, as part of that, we have to make sure that we invest in technology which will enable us to extract carbon dioxide and safely store it, therefore guaranteeing that we maintain fossil fuel energy opportunities in Australia which are low in emissions. That is not only important to Australia but also important to the global community because not only are we a nation that is heavily dependent on coal-fired power stations but we are a major exporter of coal, and the world in which we live, especially the Asian region, is looking to us to provide not only coal but also LNG, uranium and a range of other energy sources to power their economies and to facilitate economic growth in countries such as China and India. I thank the members for their contributions to the debate and commend the bill to the House. 7121 11:08:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, on indulgence: the minister has made reference to my background—hence my interest. I was impressed with the attempts of the member for Corio, the member for Werriwa and the Minister for Resources and Energy to explain the technical nature of the amendment. To put it in simple terms, the challenge of surveying is to take into account the curvature of the earth. It is not a two-dimensional profile; it is three-dimensional. Add to that the fact that petroleum exploration is conducted two and three kilometres below the surface of the earth. The title is actually a concentric keystone in three dimensions with a curved surface; that is probably the best way I can explain the challenge to laymen. But I commend those members who have attempted to explain the highly technical nature of the bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 7122 Delegation Reports 7122 Debate resumed from 28 August, on motion by Mrs Vale: That the House take note of the report. 7122 11:10:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —I was honoured to attend the 118th Assembly of the Inter-Parliamentary Union as a member of the Australian delegation to Cape Town, Republic of South Africa in April of this year and then to further participate in the bilateral visit to Jordan. The delegation was certainly very ably led by the Speaker of the House, Harry Jenkins. I have been asked in the past: what is the IPU? I suppose it could be described as the equivalent of the United Nations for members of parliament. Although it obviously does not meet as often as the United Nations it has a similar role in many areas. The assembly was inaugurated on 13 April in the presence of His Excellency the President of the Republic of South Africa, Mr Thabo Mbeki. Delegations from the parliaments of 130 countries took part in the work of the assembly, with observers from a range of organisations such as the United Nations Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the OHCHR; the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees; the United National Children’s Fund, UNICEF; and others. It was particularly inspiring to note delegations from the parliaments of Malawi, Swaziland and the United States of America, who participated as observers with a view to considering further affiliation with the IPU. Of the 1,467 delegates who attended the assembly, 700 of us were members of national parliaments. The parliamentarians included 51 presiding officers, 42 deputy presiding officers and 196 women. On the first day the assembly observed a minute of silence to honour the memory of several political leaders killed in recent months as a result of political violence. That is certainly something that we in Australia do not really think much about because we do not generally have assassinations in this country, although we had one in New South Wales. I think that has been the only assassination in Australia’s history. The overall theme of the assembly was ‘Pushing back the frontiers of poverty’. One of the keynote speakers, Ms Yassine Fall, a senior economist at the United Nations Development Fund for Women, said that poverty was a complex topic and a great challenge. I recall Ms Fall saying that it was women worldwide who bore the brunt of, and were responsible for dealing with, the consequences of food, water and other shortages. She went on to say that at no time in history had so many resources been available to end poverty and that although some countries in Africa, Asia and Latin America were experiencing growth, millions of people were not benefiting. Ms Fall urged the assembly to view poverty as the responsibility of parliaments as well as governments and reminded us that fighting poverty involved fighting inequality and upholding the rights of individuals. On Tuesday, 15 April, the assembly was addressed by the Prince of Orange, His Royal Highness Willem-Alexander of the Netherlands, Chair of the United Nations Secretary-General’s Advisory Board on Water and Sanitation, and Mr Valli Moosa, President of the International Union for Conservation and Nature. His Royal Highness Prince Willem-Alexander recalled that 10 years ago the IPU had adopted a resolution on water and the means required to make the best use of that resource for sustainable development. He went on to say that 7,500 people were still dying every day because they lacked access to clean water and sanitation. Whilst we have problems in Australia with water supply, I think people would recognise that it is nothing in comparison with what some other countries are going through. He noted that there is still a long way to go, and in light of those sobering statistics I wholeheartedly agree with him. Even if the Millennium Development Goals were achieved, more than one billion people would still have no access to basic sanitation. His Royal Highness was confident that the challenges could be met by working together. Later that day Dr Francisco Songane, Director of the Partnership for Maternal, Newborn and Child Health, addressed the assembly and said that the IPU member parliaments should play a substantial leadership role. It was certainly an interesting time to be in South Africa, given that neighbouring Zimbabwe had not released the results of their elections more than two weeks after the people of Zimbabwe had cast their votes. For a large part of the assembly, up until the Speaker of the Republic of South Africa raised it, it was the elephant in the room that nobody wanted to talk about. Indeed, at the closing sitting the president of the assembly read out the declaration on the situation in Zimbabwe which had been prepared by a working group at the assembly. At the end of the IPU, I was equally honoured to participate in the bilateral visit to the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Jordan is a constitutional monarchy consisting of a bicameral parliament with a lower House of Representatives and a Senate. The 110 members of the House are elected with a number of seats being reserved for women and for various religions and ethnicities. The Senate’s 55 members are appointed by the King. Whilst the Senate is similar to the Australian parliament, it has half the numbers of the House of Representatives. They are appointed much more like the Canadian parliament and the British parliament. Political parties were legalised in Jordan only in 1992 and political reform has been a priority of the government in the last few years. I think they have come a long way in a relatively short time and have done a very good job in bringing democracy to Jordan. With my keen interest in parliamentary committees and the value I hold of these in the workings of parliament, it was interesting to learn that in Jordan all proposed laws are referred to relevant committees for inquiry and report, and ministers attend these meetings to explain the proposed law. I think it would be wonderful if we took that procedure up in the Australian parliament. I was particularly honoured to attend an Anzac Day dawn service commemorating the landing at Gallipoli 93 years ago. This year, 2008, also marks the 90th anniversary of military engagements of Anzac troops in and around Amman in 1918. The service was held in the grounds of the Amman Citadel in the area of the Roman temple directly overlooking downtown Amman. It was quite an extraordinary experience to be part of that dawn service in such a place of reverence. I note the Chief Government Whip has entered the room and he would certainly agree with me how that special commemoration of the Anzac Day dawn service made us feel as Australians in that special place in Amman. I valued the opportunity to meet with international members of parliament and it was further an honour to meet with the Prime Minister, Mr Nader Dahabi, with the President of the Senate, His Excellency Zaid Rifai, and with His Excellency, Abdul al-Majali, Speaker of the Jordanian Parliament. The delegation’s visit to Jordan and Cape Town was highly educative and informative. It certainly gave me a greater understanding of its history and the dynamics of the complex challenges that impact on the peoples in troubled or impoverished parts of the world. We did have the opportunity of visiting the Dead Sea. It was, again, a very interesting experience and I have to say we have a parallel in Australia. It is called the Coorong, unfortunately referred to several times yesterday by the Prime Minister as the Coorong lakes. In my whole life, I have never heard the Coorong called the Coorong lakes. I think the Prime Minister was getting it confused with the Coorong and the Lower Lakes. They are two quite separate problems in my electorate and there are two quite separate solutions. They are not very much related to each other. I noted there was a proposal to dig quite a large channel to refresh the Dead Sea with sea water and I have actually proposed that for the Coorong—without much success I might add. It is interesting that they were not only looking at refreshing the Dead Sea, which is falling in its level as every day passes, but also using the fact that it is about 200 metres below sea level to produce hydroelectricity. I am interested to see how they approach that and how successful they are. It certainly was very interesting to look at the problem that they have with the Dead Sea and to see the West Bank over on the other side of the Dead Sea, which showed how important Jordan is to the whole Middle East area because it is surrounded by Iraq, Iran, Syria and so on. It is quite an interesting place to be. I have to say I was very impressed with the country and felt quite safe when walking the streets. I congratulate the members of the group ably led by Mr Harry Jenkins and also the deputy leader, the Hon. Danna Vale, the member for Hughes, Ms Jill Hall, the member for Shortland, and Mr Roger Price, the Government Whip. There were many highlights of the work. I would particularly congratulate Ms Hall on being elected to her position which is ongoing. Well done! She made a great contribution to the delegation and to the IPU conference. Thank you again to the Australian parliament for giving me the opportunity to be part of a wonderful delegation that was very much working towards Australia’s future and the future of the globe and, with the trip to Jordan, our interests there as well. 7124 11:23:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I would like to thank the member for Barker for his contribution and associate myself with his remarks. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the role played by the Speaker, Harry Jenkins, who led the delegation to the IPU and Jordan. I would also like to make particular mention of Michele Jenkins who accompanied our Speaker. I know that the spouses in particular valued the contribution that she made to the overall success of the trip. The delegation deputy leader was Danna Vale, and I would like to acknowledge the role she played as deputy leader. The member for Barker and the member for Shortland were also members of the delegation. In particular, it was a delight for me to be on this trip with the member for Shortland. As the Speaker and other speakers have noted, the member for Shortland—Jill Hall, the Government Whip—was elected as a titular member of the coordinating committee of women parliamentarians, succeeding Kay Hull, the whip of the Nationals, in that role. I turn to what we accomplished at the IPU. Danna Vale was elected to the third committee; she was on the drafting committee and became a rapporteur for its report. I am pleased to say that I was involved in the second committee, which looked at migrant workers, people trafficking, xenophobia and human rights. The drafting of its report took all day but it was a delight. Both reports were unanimously adopted. There are two other things I would like to mention. One is that our emergency motion on nuclear proliferation and the comprehensive test ban treaty was adopted as an agenda item for Addis Ababa next year. That was done with the help of a number of countries—in particular, the UK and Japan. I would like to acknowledge the contribution that those countries made to the success of that item getting up. I should report that I am a rapporteur, with my colleague from Zambia, and we will be presenting a draft report to Geneva later this year on that subject matter. One thing I would like to comment on is the emergency item that was adopted—that is, the role of parliaments and the Inter-Parliamentary Union in ensuring an immediate halt to the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian situation in conflict areas, and its environmental dimension; in facilitating the Palestinians’ right to self-determination, particularly by ending the blockade in Gaza; and in accelerating the creation of a Palestinian state through viable peace processes. I want to put on the record that I think we could have had a completely unanimous stand-alone motion on the issue of Palestine, a path which was not taken. To dispense with an alternative motion on climate change by including the expression ‘and its environmental dimension’ in the item demeans the IPU in trying to forge such a compromise. Hopefully we will avoid that in the future. I reiterate that quite a number of us were very new to the IPU. We valued the experience the Speaker had and, in particular, the office of Mr Neil Bessell from the Senate. He was very helpful and was instrumental in our success. I would also like to acknowledge Debra Biggs, adviser to the Speaker, and Ms Alison Purnell of the Ministerial, Cabinet and Parliamentary Services Section of DFAT. Alison was simply terrific. I should also mention the assistance we received from the High Commission in South Africa. At the time, Zimbabwe was a hot item. We left Australia determined to make sure that Zimbabwe was raised, and thankfully that occurred, with the Speaker of the National Assembly of South Africa, Ms Baleka Mbete, raising it in her presidential address. The events in Zimbabwe meant that our Foreign Affairs officials were stretched on the ground in South Africa, but they helped us and I would like to acknowledge that help. I also thank the National Assembly of South Africa, the host parliament, for hosting the IPU at Cape Town. It was really terrific. I am sure the member for Shortland will share with us her experiences in getting out of the conference and undertaking a couple of visits associated with the IPU, which were very moving. South Africa is to be congratulated for the wonderful job it did in hosting the IPU. I am sure all members of the delegation are really grateful. We did undertake a bilateral visit to Jordan, and what a wonderful country that is. There are a few memories I will take away from that visit. One is sitting and having a cup of coffee with the honourable member for Shortland. Can I point out to the House that I paid. But we were asked by two teenage students where we came from and who we were, so we said: ‘We’re from Australia. We’re members of parliament.’ They were absolutely delighted. They disappeared into the shop and they came back and said: ‘Here’s a chocolate. It’s so nice of you to be here.’ So I would say to any Australians proposing to visit Jordan that the people are overwhelmingly friendly and generous. Although we had security as part of the delegation, we were freely able to walk around Amman and did not have any concern for our security at all. The other aspect that I think will always be an enduring memory for me was in fact the Prime Minister of Jordan, who was very generous with his time. I think we had three-quarters of an hour with him. He dismissed all the officials from the room and then gave us a very frank assessment of the Middle East—its history, its present and the prospects for the future. Of course, the delegation is always interested in peace in the Middle East, but he was able to really put out a grid map of the current situation and the potential dangers. I cannot emphasise enough the threat that is posed to Middle Eastern countries by Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. It is somewhat of a frightening prospect. But, having said that, I would like to reiterate the generosity of the Prime Minister to the delegation and the frankness of his address of all the issues. We met the Speaker of the parliament as well as the President of the Senate and quite a number of ministers. Last but not least, the delegation had a very unique experience—and that is that there was a member of the Jordanian parliament, Dr Hani, who had in fact studied in the fair state of Victoria. He got his degree and doctorate there and returned to Jordan. It felt as though Dr Hani was a fifth member of the delegation. He was with us everywhere and he really smoothed our way tremendously—not that there were any difficulties, but he made it that much easier for both the Jordanian side and the Australian side as he floated between the two. He and his lovely wife, Attica, both showed us great generosity and hospitality. I might say that I think all of the delegation would be keen, should he visit Australia or when he visits Australia in the short term, to reciprocate and show our appreciation for that hospitality. So, to the ministers and all those that we saw, a big thankyou. To the ambassador there, Trevor Peacock and his staff: thank you so much for your assistance. As I say, and as the member for Barker commented, Anzac Day at the citadel, at the high point in Amman, was something very, very special that we will carry to our deaths. I would like to thank the parliament for allowing me to be a member of this delegation. I would like to acknowledge the good teamwork and camaraderie between all the delegates on this delegation and thank them sincerely for their efforts. I believe it has been a successful delegation. 7126 11:34:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I join with my colleagues who attended the IPU in firstly congratulating all those who were associated with the delegation. I would like to acknowledge the work of Neil Bessell, secretary to the delegation, Mr Debra Biggs and Ms Alison Purnell, who was a great resource and assistance to all delegates at the IPU. I would like to thank everybody for the enormous contributions they made. It is the assistance, the briefing, the information and the support that you get when you are at these delegations that actually determines whether or not they are successful. Like the member for Chifley, the Chief Government Whip, this is the first time that I had attended the IPU Assembly and, I must say, I went not knowing what to expect and left having learnt a lot and having a totally different impression of what it involved. The theme of the assembly was ‘Pushing back the barriers of poverty’ and it included the role that parliaments have in striking a balance between national security, human security and individual freedoms and averting the threat to democracy. The delegation was led by the Speaker, Mr Harry Jenkins, and he made a presentation in the main assembly on the theme of ‘Pushing back the barriers of poverty’. All the delegates from this parliament to the assembly made an enormous contribution. Mr Price was appointed to report at the 120th assembly on the nuclear motion that we were successful in getting up. Ms Vale was elected to the drafting committee of the second committee and Mr Price was also elected to the drafting committee of the third committee, I believe. I made a contribution to the third committee and presented a paper on migrant workers, people trafficking, xenophobia and human rights. I was also elected as a titular delegate to the women’s organising committee along with 14 other members from parliaments and I took over from Kay Hull, the member for Riverina. I report that Kay Hull made an enormous contribution to the IPU in the time that she was a delegate from this parliament. She is very highly thought of by the women who are on the organising committee and her presence there was sorely missed. I hope that in my role as titular delegate to the organising committee I can make a similar contribution to hers. It is also worth noting that, because of the work that she had done on the women’s organising committee, she was also invited as a delegate to the conference earlier this year that looked at the impacts of HIV-AIDS. So she has made an enormous contribution and it is through her involvement in the IPU that she was actually able to make that contribution. One of the aspects of the committee that I found particularly interesting and important was the countdown to 2015, which looks at child and maternal health and how the 60 developing countries are working towards reaching millennium goals Nos 4 and 5. It was a very moving experience to learn of the issues and difficulties faced by developing countries, but it was also inspiring to see the work that was being done by organisations such as UNICEF. Whilst talking about UNICEF, I would like to refer to a visit that I made. I left the conference and spent a day with UNICEF. I visited an African community. We had the choice of three visits and I chose to go to a community that had child-led households. It is interesting to note that in South Africa currently there are three million women with AIDS and 300,000 pregnant women who are HIV-positive. Each year 32,000 children and 400,000 adults die of HIV-AIDS, there are 500,000 new infections and 300,000 people are treated. There should be 1½ million people receiving the anti-retroviral treatment that is available. I visited an African community and, to be quite frank with you, I had never visited a community where there was so much poverty and where people were living under such appalling circumstances. The one thing that came through to me was the hope and the support that existed within this community. The wonderful program had been developed within the community. We visited two households. One was where three young people whose parents had died of HIV-AIDS were living and supporting each other. The young people were attending school and they had the support of the community. ‘Isibindi’ is Zulu for ‘courage’. What I saw there showed that those involved with this program have a lot of courage. I also visited a woman who had been in the last stage of AIDS. She received anti-retroviral drugs and has regained her health. She is living back in her community with her young son. She moved from having one foot in a coffin to living and having hope for the future, hope to see her young son grow up. The other programs that people could have visited were mothers2mothers, which works with mothers who are HIV-positive, and Mount View Primary School, which implemented a safe and caring child friendly society. These were communities that had enormous pressure on them, yet from within those communities there was great strength, resilience and coming together. They are working to see that there is a future and are making real changes in people’s lives. I found it absolutely inspiring to be involved with that. In relation to the IPU conference, I feel that Australia made an enormous contribution to the debates and I feel it was a very worthwhile experience. Along with attending the IPU, we had a bilateral visit to Jordan. That was also a very interesting experience. Jordan is a country with a modern history that began with the fall of the Ottoman Turks, who dominated the region from the 16th to the 20th century. It is a constitutional monarchy consisting of a bicameral parliament with a House of Representatives and a Senate. It was really interesting learning how that parliament worked and actually sitting around the table and getting an understanding of the situation in the Middle East from a totally different perspective. Since I visited, I scan the papers on a daily basis to keep in touch with the issues in that area. We met with a number of ministers. We were given a totally different perspective on the Middle East peace process and the issue of refugees. In this country over the last few years we have had quite a debate on refugees, and I acknowledge, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, your fine contribution to that debate. Visiting a country like Jordan, which is confronted each and every day with refugees from Palestine and Iraq—an enormous number of people crossing the border into this small country with limited resources—and seeing the way the Jordanian people open their hearts to those refugees was a learning experience for all of us. Whilst we were there we visited a Palestinian refugee camp. Once again, we could see the different approach that has been adopted there and the enormous stress and strain that it places on those communities. Like previous speakers, I acknowledge the work of Dr Hani in organising such a fine visit for the delegation. His contribution was enormous. Particularly I would like to say that the meetings we had with the various ministers—the Prime Minister, the Minister of Social Development, the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of the Interior—and with the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President of the Senate were of particular significance. Once again, they gave us a totally different perspective on what is happening in the Middle East, the issues that we in this country should be aware of, and how we as a nation can make a contribution towards a resolution of these issues. Our attendance at the Anzac Day dawn service was a truly memorable experience. I think it impacted on all the delegation in the same way. It was very moving and really brought to our attention the fact that, no matter where Australians are on Anzac Day, it is a very special day. Whilst we were there we also attended the opening of an exhibition of historic photos from the Australian War Memorial collection, which linked in, the night before the Anzac Day dawn service. I would like to thank everyone associated with the delegation. It was a very useful experience. I learned a lot and I think the delegation worked together to the benefit of this parliament. Debate (on motion by Mr Danby) adjourned. 7129 Committees 7129 7129 Debate resumed from 1 September, on motion by Mr Adams: That the House take note of the report. 7129 11:49:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak to the committee report Down under: greenhouse gas storage—review of the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill. The Minister for Resources and Energy referred this inquiry to the committee in May because it is groundbreaking legislation—no pun intended—and it is very important that we get it right. This recommendation does not happen very often, I am informed. Even though as a new member of parliament I have limited experience of committees, I understand this sort of referral does not happen very often, especially to a committee that was comprised of Labor, Liberal, National and Independent members. It shows how significant this project was for Minister Ferguson. This legislation will enable carbon dioxide to be stored safely and securely in geological storage deep under the seabed in areas controlled by the Commonwealth. It would also be a guide, wherever possible, for the state legislatures considering the same problem. As a member of the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources I was very pleased to have been part of this inquiry and appreciated the opportunity to delve into an industry that could be a part of the solution to reducing Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. As the Rudd government faces up to the harsh realities of climate change and the catastrophic impact that human-made CO2 emissions are having on our environment, we are exploring ways to reduce carbon emissions and also to remediate existing emissions through carbon capture and storage. Geosequestration, a word that rolls more and more easily off the tongue, is basically permanently storing captured CO2 under the seabed. This is a solution that complements the existing offshore petroleum industry. New industries are driven by innovators, developers, entrepreneurs and consumers. Unfortunately, it is usually the case that governments play catch-up when it comes to regulating emerging industries and balancing the rights of existing industries. A good example of this is the internet. By 1997 there were three million internet users in Australia but, unfortunately, there was no Commonwealth legislation concerning matters such as copyright or privacy for this new media. Imagine three million road users who did not have any road rules. As the number of internet users grew and the technologies developed through the late 1990s, the internet became a breeding ground for music and video piracy. By the year 2000 nearly four million households had internet access, but it took ages for the government to introduce legislation to regulate what happens on the internet. However, when it comes to offshore greenhouse gas storage, the Rudd government is getting on the front foot early. In fact, Australia is one of the first countries in the world to establish a framework that will support such geosequestration. To use an old mining analogy, the Rudd government is the canary in the mine shaft. This inquiry included a broad consultation process and received 32 submissions from governments around Australia, from industry stakeholders of various sizes, from environmental groups and even from individuals. These groups represented a range of interests, including petroleum titleholders and greenhouse gas storage proponents. In my view, it was a very interesting manifestation of a truly consultative government prepared to receive a broad range of views. The committee’s inquiry learned that one of the most significant challenges for this legislation was to effectively balance the rights and interactions between greenhouse gas storage and pre-existing petroleum titleholders. The value of oil and gas produced in Australia in 2007-08 is estimated to be in excess of $27 billion, with exports valued at around $16 billion. Total production of crude oil in 2006-07 was 28,844 million litres, or 504,000 barrels per day, while total production of natural gas was 39.4 billion cubic metres. The industry in Australia consists of more than 200 small, medium and large companies and employs about 15,000 people, so it is a very significant industry. This financial year the industry will pay about $3.6 billion in resource taxation to the Australian government. I am sure Mr Swan would agree that it is a very, very significant industry. With more undiscovered petroleum reserves offshore, the industry has a bright future in Australia—which is why the inquiry concluded that minor improvements could be made to the bill to strike an appropriate balance between the two industries, between the petroleum and gas industry and geosequestration. The inquiry’s most significant recommendation was that the minister be given power to direct parties to negotiate in good faith where there are potential or actual overlapping greenhouse gas storage and petroleum titles. This agreement process is modelled on legislation in Queensland, the Mineral Resources Act, which has been used to successfully mediate between the interests of coal and coal seam gas industries in Queensland. This agreement process was put forward by Anglo Coal and the joint submission of the Australian Coal Association and the Minerals Council of Australia. The ACA and MCA submission stated: The key features of the Queensland CSG— coal seam gas— regime are that parties with competing natural resource interests are required, firstly, to exchange relevant information and, secondly, consult or negotiate with each other with a view to achieving the best resource management outcome, including safety management arrangements. Before being elected to parliament, I was a policy adviser to the Queensland Resources Council and, before that, I worked as a mines and native title adviser to the Queensland government, so I have seen the Queensland Mineral Resources Act in action. I have seen how the parties, when confronted with a minister making a decision, can, surprisingly, come together and reach an agreement where they are happy—or less unhappy, perhaps. The ACA/MCA also recommended that the minister be granted circuit-breaker power in the event that parties cannot reach an agreement. So we will have the Minister for Resources and Energy, Mr Ferguson, being like Solomon, I guess—making a decision with the public interest test in mind. Greenhouse gas storage is an expensive endeavour and obviously will be much more viable in a carbon tax environment. With this in mind the committee made a number of recommendations to help stimulate investment. These included the recommendation that existing petroleum operators be offered a one-off opportunity to incorporate a greenhouse gas assessment permit over their exploration or production licence. Petroleum operators are best placed to develop storage sites, in terms of their knowledge and expertise. The committee also recommended that investors who can demonstrate a readily available CO2 stream for geosequestration be given preferential consideration. Obviously, they have the inside running if they have the greenhouse gas ready to go. The committee also recommended financial incentives for the earliest movers in this new industry. These are very common-sense approaches. The committee is confident that the legislation introduced by the Minister for Resources and Energy will provide a solid base on which to cultivate this very important new industry. It will also serve as an example to the rest of the world on how we can reduce our greenhouse gas emissions. This week we have heard a lot of comment from those opposite about greenhouse gas, about climate change. I am embarrassed to say this, but I was in the Senate last night and I heard a new Liberal senator talking about climate change. It is a line that I seem to have heard over and over from those opposite: we produce less than two per cent of the world’s CO2 emissions and it is not that much. But this is a fundamental error in thinking. We must be a bit more visionary. We must make more of a commitment to the collective future of the planet, rather than just holding on to that tenet of Liberal Party beliefs of looking after the individual. This is not the time for individual beliefs; this is the time to realise that we are part of a planet, and there will be significant consequences if we do not. I commend the chair of the committee, Dick Adams, the member for Lyons; the deputy chair, Alby Schultz; and the rest of the committee, some of whom are here today, for their great work on this. I commend the report to the House. 7131 11:59:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I am really quite pleased to take note of this report. It is an excellent piece of work, on an important piece of legislation, referred to us by the minister on 18 June. As a committee we beavered away at it, completing our report by August—a pretty short time line. I think it is good that the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources has been utilised in this way. I think it is an efficient use of committee resources, particularly on legislation as technical as this can be. We had a debate earlier in the day on a previous offshore petroleum bill which is highly technical, so to utilise a committee in a way that can broaden consultation with all the key players is very useful. In fact, the member for Moreton made reference to the fact that this is not usual procedure, particularly for the House of Representatives. I am grateful to the Clerk for providing me with evidence that, over the last 13 years, there have only been nine occasions when legislation has been directly referred to a House committee, and the last one was on 20 April 2000. In the Senate, of course, it is regular practice to refer legislation to committees, and I think it is an excellent opportunity for the House committees to be utilised in a very constructive way. Very often we beaver away on an inquiry on a matter of incredible public importance and we collect evidence over a long period—12 or 18 months. We pour our hearts and souls into the report, we submit it to the parliament and then we wait for too long a period to get a response. But this one was short and sweet, and I think we would like to see a lot more of that more strategic use of parliamentary committees. Sometimes I think it is a great shame that the public do not see the hard work of committees as they go about their business in the national interest in a non-partisan way. In fact, the public, particularly the media, focus on that short 1½ hours of theatre every day in question time and do not see the real productive capacity of a parliament. Committees are made up of people with a range of expertise and they can make an important contribution. This particular legislation, the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008, is quite sensitive, as indicated by the enormous interest that was shown in it as the committee collected evidence. There are 19 recommendations, a fact that other members have made reference to. In the short time allocated for this discussion, it is not possible to refer to all of them but, of the 19 recommendations, there are four that I would particularly like to make reference to. One was quite clearly the challenge of the co-existence of future petroleum interests associated with greenhouse gas storage and sequestration in the same licensed area, if you like. It is particularly relevant in the Victorian location offshore from Gippsland because of the close proximity of the potential storage resources and a very high emission electricity industry out of the Victorian brown coal industry. It was a particularly challenging inquiry to take into account all of those interests. I might come back to some of these issues shortly. The second recommendation is the need for confidence in this industry. The member for Moreton made some reference to that. We are talking about substantial capital investment—huge—measured in billions of dollars, so the potential players in this market need absolute certainty. I am fairly convinced that the provisions of this legislation will not be necessary for some time yet, but I think at this early stage it is very strategic that the bill has been introduced to give some certainty in the long planning process that is going to be involved in getting offshore sequestration up and operating. The committee noted that there are examples all around the world, but again it is still a very new science and there is no ‘one site fits all’ example because of the geological vagaries in the way the earth’s crust was created. It will be an enormous challenge for industry, particularly in a commercial sense, to be confident that what they are doing is in the long-term interest and provides storage security. That then led us to consideration of the evidence on the issue of long-term liability. We are talking about the sequestration of carbon into geological formations over a long period of time, which could be 30 or even 50 years, and then the longevity continues beyond that, perhaps for hundreds of years or even thousands. We had to consider all of the uncertainties of the earth’s crust. I mean, it moves. So the question is how to manage the ongoing liability while still maintaining the common-law responsibility of those people injecting the carbon so that they do the right thing, invest in the right sort of technology and take every precaution. An interesting issue which the committee dwelt on towards the end of the inquiry, which came out of some of the evidence, was the need to have a public awareness program to make sure that the public completely understand what carbon sequestration is—that is, injecting carbon dioxide into the earth’s crust. There is some perception around that this is a noxious gas. It is not. Carbon monoxide is dangerous to human beings in an immediate health sense but carbon dioxide is not. It is a dangerous gas, as we now know, as advised by the world scientific community, in terms of its impact on the environment, but we need to make sure that people understand that this is, in an immediate sense, a safe gas. It is important that people make the distinction and understand the long-term reasons for it to be sequestered so deep down in the earth. The committee was charged with the responsibility to asses this new legislation because it sets up a very important framework for the introduction of greenhouse gas geological storage. This is a very important piece of legislation. As I have said, it is quite timely in order to provide the opportunity for the long-term planning that has to be associated with that. The bill we discussed earlier today was about petroleum licences and the need to make sure that there is consistency in the way that licences are allocated all around the globe, which is an orb. We touched on the challenge of surveying an orb with a curved surface and the fact that these operations, whether we are talking about sequestration or the extraction of oil and gas, are operating in a concentric environment. As I tried to explain earlier, it is like a keystone with tapered edges as it comes into the centre of the earth. It has a curved surface, so the surveying challenges are fairly intense. The legislation that we debated earlier today is important because we are going to have to have absolute accuracy as the provisions of the carbon sequestration bill which the committee considered come into play. There is an enormous concern out there about resource security for the petroleum extraction industry and the protection of the huge investment they have made. There is also concern about the concept that within the same licence area there is the possibility of an exhausted gas field being used for the sequestration of carbon. I found the inquiry quite challenging and quite exciting. I would like to commend the committee. We are a good, hardworking committee. We are chaired by the member for Lyons. We are a committee composed of all of the parties, including the Independents. We have a reputation for pursuing matters in the national interest and avoiding any partisanship. This is an excellent report. The title, Down under, makes it very much Australian. As the member for Moreton made reference to, we are leading the world with the introduction of this legislation. In that sense we will be at the coalface, if you like, in getting this right. I do not think we are there yet. I will be very keen to see what the minister does with the 19 recommendations that the report makes. We are in an area of science and geological pursuit where there are enormous unknowns. But the Australian way is to take on challenges like that. The committee have worked hard to assist the parliament to make sure that we get it right. We have consulted widely and heard the views of a wide range of players and the public as well. At the end of the day it is about creating an environment where there is absolute resource security so that the players know and understand at an early stage what is involved before they start making their plans. It will involve multimillions of dollars and, without doubt, the interests of players who are outside Australia as well. I am pleased to take note of this report. I commend the committee for the great work that we have done together. I look forward to the ongoing improvement of this bill to make sure that the things that we have set out to tackle are in fact secured. 7133 12:10:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —by leave—I thank the honourable member for Forrest for his contribution to this debate on the Down under: greenhouse gas storage report and his contribution to the committee’s work. He always brings his expertise in engineering to committees dealing with such matters. The Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008, which was introduced into parliament by the Minister for Resources and Energy, the Hon. Martin Ferguson MP, on 18 June 2008, will allow for the storage of greenhouse gas in offshore Commonwealth waters. I am pleased the committee had an opportunity to look at this legislation. It is pretty rare that House committees get an opportunity to do so. It is important. It is a new thing that we should encourage. We should be asking the executive to do this. I think we get better legislation if committees get the chance to look at legislation. The mother parliament, the House of Commons, does this quite regularly on major legislation. It means that not only do ministers have to be up to date a bit but also that government and opposition members have some input and understanding and have a go at the legislation before it hits the parliament. I think this provides opportunities to improve the legislation before it is enacted. The inquiry reviewed the draft Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008 to establish legal certainty for access and property rights for the injection and long-term storage of greenhouse gases in offshore Commonwealth waters. It ascertained whether it would provide a regulatory regime that would enable management of greenhouse gas injection and storage activities in a manner which would respond to community and industry concerns. It was also important to provide a predictable and transparent system to manage the interaction between greenhouse gas injection and storage operators with pre-existing and co-existing rights that prevail under that act, including but not limited to those of petroleum and fishing operators, if there is likely to be any conflict. Of course, the committee was able to deal with some of that. We also needed to promote certainty for investment in injection and storage activities and establish a legislative framework that will provide a model for adoption on a national basis. People are waiting for opportunities to do further work in the states in this area. The committee received over 20 submissions, conducted many public hearings and heard from a variety of witnesses. The proposed management of interactions between greenhouse gas storage proponents and pre-existing petroleum title holders was of particular interest to the committee during its deliberations. In discussions, the petroleum industry indicated that they were not totally happy with allowing other companies to drill holes where they already have rights to abstract oil and gas. They felt that it would or could have a considerable impact on their operations and may compromise their leases where they have the right to drill or are already drilling and abstracting oil and gas. Those companies which are looking for greenhouse gas storage space believe that pre-existing abstraction areas would be the most appropriate to develop for storage. Of course, this is true in the Gippsland Basin in Victoria and offshore there. A lot of work has already been done in that area, where much gas and oil are abstracted, and a lot is known about that basin and the opportunities for storing CO2 there. Those companies with CO2 streams to store would be seeking to do so especially in those areas. The oil industry have the technical expertise as they are already in the business of extracting oil and resubmitting CO2 into these underground basins and have been doing so for many years. They have great expertise in this area. So the natural conclusion would be that they should work together with what is essentially a new industry so that both of these commercial interests—the petroleum industry and the companies looking for storage for their CO2 stream—could benefit. The committee thought that somehow we needed to bring these two groups together and explain their possible common interest, both economically and technically. The petroleum industry is the prime body to inject, store and monitor the sequestration, value adding to their production cycle, while those collecting the CO2 could have a ready and highly competent technical partnership to dispose of their product. It needs to be an open and commercial relationship, where they come together in a fair and proper manner. The committee recommended that the current bill be amended to provide for the responsible Commonwealth minister to direct parties to negotiate in good faith where there is potential for actual overlapping greenhouse gas storage and petroleum titles under both recommencement petroleum titles and post commencement petroleum titles and for the responsible Commonwealth minister to be empowered to direct an outcome. Petroleum companies are still a bit reluctant but, with further negotiations, we believe not only that it would it have both financial and technical advantages for them but also that they would be on the ground floor of a brand-new industry and could attract some financial assistance. In recommendation 13, the committee recommend that the government consider further financial incentives for the earliest movers in this new industry. To make it a transparent process, this should be made public at the earliest opportunity. The issue of where there is just gas drilling came up during the inquiry. The gas and the petroleum industry have to deal with the CO2 that is currently coming from their production or future production. This issue arose in the good state of Western Australia, just outside the Broome area, where there is a new opportunity. There will probably be four or five different well sites offshore. Companies will look at using their planning and engineering expertise to bring that together so that they can bring the gas ashore, remove the CO2 and put it underground in one of those areas. I do not think the old pearl shells of the Broome area have, as yet, been rotting long enough to produce coal, so it does not look as though there will be another stream of CO2 that needs to be dealt with from that production. There are two different situations to deal with. We think that this will need to be dealt with in an area that the bill does not really look at in any way. This would somewhat take away an open tender process, but when we are just dealing with the one area and the one region it can probably be dealt with in the public good. We have the waste product and areas have been identified as to where it might be safely contained in the long term. The petroleum companies can exercise their rights over their existing titles, but if they are prepared to look at storage too then there need not be an open tender process as long as they are prepared to bring the two together. If new supplies of gas and oil are found under pre-existing title during the carbon storage development, that would convert to the original title owner, as we heard in evidence. I think everybody was of the opinion that, if somebody has got to have a pre-right to that, even if someone else was drilling the hole to seek storage of carbon, the original title holder should benefit from anything found and that if nobody has a title over it then it should convert to the Commonwealth. As you can see, it made for a very interesting inquiry with sunrise industry opportunities but with conflicting ideas. So it was important to try to achieve a nationally consistent framework, with the public interest being the main theme in what we were trying to achieve. It will require further work between the Commonwealth and the states. Already a number of states are making progress on the development of greenhouse gas storage legislation designed to fit their own pre-existing legislative frameworks. In addition, it is evident that a number of industry and community groups prefer the legislative framework to be developed in the states. The best hope would appear to be that active cooperation between the different levels of government and industry may be achieved despite legislative differences in that area. I believe the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008 will allow these differences to be explored and that a new industry can be born to assist in helping Australia to meet its greenhouse gas targets while still using the predominant world energy source of coal. The world is very interested in what we are doing here. This is a brand new piece of legislation for the world in the sense of having a legislative process that can deal with CO2 storage. The committee heard evidence from the Norwegians, who have been abstracting CO2 from gas production offshore at a place called Slagen for around 10 years. They have been very successful in making that work and have gained a lot of expertise and knowledge from that. In other parts of the world, including the United States, CO2 is used by the petroleum industry to put pressure back into their oil and gas abstraction holes to build pressure to allow them to gain more of the oil and gas from those wells. Coal is the world’s dominant energy product. We have 400 years of reserves in the ground—probably more, I think, from some of my reading. That is based on the present production use. So it is still a major energy source for our country and of course a very cheap one. So it is logical that we should endeavour to spend money to find the expertise and find the way that we can extract the CO2 from it, and then store that in a very sensible and responsible way. I think we can do that. We have made recommendations which I hope the government will pick up and, therefore, improve the bill that is before the parliament. I look forward to this industry emerging and dealing with a part of the greenhouse gas abatement that we have to deal with as a country. 7136 12:25:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —It is with pleasure that I support the Down under: greenhouse gas storage report and endorse the remarks of the member for Mallee, the member for Moreton and our current chair, the member for Lyons. This is a very good committee. It has been very effective, both under the previous chairmanship of the member for Hume and currently under the member for Lyons. As most people would know, I was in the state parliament for 10 years, and being on a committee in New South Wales was something you did when you wanted to waste your time. In my view, those committees were not very effective and were very politicised, in the main. I have spent six years on this committee now and I would defy a stranger to come into the committee room while debate is taking place and identify particular individuals as running a party or philosophical line. The conduct of the committee has been very good. The minister that referred the inquiry to the committee, Martin Ferguson, was in fact a member of this committee previously. No doubt he could see that he would get genuine consideration of the issue at hand, rather than some game-playing activity that definitely would have happened if it had been introduced in the New South Wales parliament. I do congratulate my fellow members for the work they have done. They have actually done a lot more on this report than I have, because I was away for about a month. This is an area that I do have some interest in: all the greenhouse gas issues—carbon emissions, methane, nitrous oxide—and the impact that they have on the longevity of the globe. I think these are exciting times that we are in. Too often this is seen as something that we would rather not face and something that we tend to be frightened of, whether that be in the agricultural sector or just as normal citizens reflecting on the possible impact on electricity prices or fossil fuel prices. There are a whole range of concerns that are very easy to beat up in a political sense. I see Australia in particular as having the potential to lead this debate—and we are in terms of this legislation. I do thank the minister for actually bringing the draft legislation to a committee for consideration because therein lies a solution, a model, that we probably should develop in terms of an emissions trading scheme. What the minister has done has brought groups from both sides together to formulate a strategy on a particular proposal for the injection and storage of greenhouse gas—carbon dioxide. That is exactly what the parliament needs to do. If there were ever an issue where we needed to come together and establish a system that we can all back, this is it. It is too easy to complicate this issue with simple solutions. It is too easy to say that the price of electricity will increase and therefore we should do nothing. It is too easy to blame one side or the other—this goes to the Labor government—about the impacts of an emissions trading scheme. Of course it is going to have an impact. Of course there will be some difficulties. I would challenge the opposition and the government to actually breathe in a little and try to formulate a path. We could take the example set by this committee and establish a pathway where a common agenda can be driven, rather than taking the easy path of establishing some political agendas, whether they be the climate sceptic agenda or that every price increase from now on is going to be the fault of one K Rudd. We know those things are not true. The opposition is not full of climate sceptics in my view. Any increases in electricity are not going to be all the fault of the Prime Minister. But if we were able to establish a framework, as this report does around an emissions trading scheme, it would be far better for the population of Australia to see that leadership being expressed by the parliament rather than by a game that may well play on the fears of many people about the price of electricity and other activities. As I said, I believe this is an exciting time in the formulation of legislation. This particular report is about how we successfully store greenhouse gases in Commonwealth offshore waters. There are other ways of addressing this problem as well. Essentially—and I am probably oversimplifying the issue—globally we have extracted carbon deeply buried in the mantle of the earth and emitted quite a lot of that back into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. That is one of the greenhouse gas problems that we have. It is not the only one. Methane, nitrous oxide and other gases play a minor role. In this case I am focusing on carbon dioxide. We have taken it out of the ground and put it in the air. How do we get the situation back into balance? Some people would suggest the answer lies with trees—and we probably should stop chopping them down—and others suggest we should plant a few more. I and others have suggested that we develop more healthy soil technologies such as no-till farming and some of the pasture techniques that are out there now where there is less and less disturbance of the topsoil. That will have a positive effect on the natural sequestration of carbon in organic matter, humus, in the soil. Others would argue that is difficult to measure. Measurement in a sense plays on the debate that is all around. You only enter this debate if you can make money out of it. If you cannot trade it, it is not worth looking at and to trade it there has to be a degree of certainty in terms of the market. I would argue and have argued to the Prime Minister and the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry that it is very important to look at this not only in terms of emissions trading but also in terms of drought policy and encouraging better techniques in the custodianship of our soils. If a by-product of that is a greater accumulation of carbon in the soil, so be it. If you can put a price on it, that is all to the better but I think the real benefits will be much greater to the long-term nature of the soil and the agricultural producers that look after that soil than any trading arrangement that could be put in place. Others would argue that that is nonsense. Everybody has a view. I am aware of activity in your electorate, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, and in the member for Capricornia’s electorate where work is being done on measurement of soil carbon with a view to being part of the process of putting the carbon dioxide back in the ground from whence we took it. This document Down under also looks at a framework to develop a storage program that can put it away so that it is not in the atmosphere. I was in Canada a couple of years ago as part of a study tour and I visited an ethanol plant that had just been commissioned. I had had a little bit to do with ethanol plants and I noticed that there seemed to be more to this particular plant. There was a structure attached to the end of part of the plant. I said to the people there, ‘What is that?’ They had some convoluted name for it, but essentially it was a carbon capture device on the end of the ethanol plant. The carbon dioxide that was being emitted by this plant was being captured at source rather than released into the atmosphere. Essentially, some of the variations of this document are similar. In future we might have coal-fired power stations which have carbon capture facilities at the end, and that will be transferred back into the ground so that the nasty is taken out at source and stored in some way. We are in a fascinating period of time really, and we really need to be progressing a whole range of research activities. In a sense, this relates to the food-fuel debate. Another part of this issue is deciding whether the priority is to feed ourselves or to keep ourselves cool. Some people would rather see a little bit less rain and temperatures two degrees higher than have no food. There is crossover in those debates. The debate in relation to biofuels production has been too simplistic in terms of whether it has to be food or whether it has to be fuel. The interesting part of carbon capture at the ethanol plant that I was visiting was that it was seen as an asset, something to sell. One thing they were looking at doing—and there are people in Australia looking at exactly the same thing at the moment—was injecting the carbon dioxide into greenhouses to expedite the production of vegetables. It is known technology. An injection of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere of a growing plant—hydroponic tomatoes, for instance—will expedite its growth, if you can control that environment. Instead of looking at all these things and saying, ‘It is going to be too hard; the electricity bills are going to go up; there is a political dimension, so we can blame someone else for this and maybe win an election,’ I see an extraordinary capacity to launch the initiatives that a lot of Australian researchers have wanted to launch for years. In my view, it is time that we looked at this as a positive part of our history rather than a negative one. The other day the Climate Institute released a document that talked about a computer model where people can feed different variables into the system. That document may not be totally correct, but I would encourage people to have a look at it because it is saying that we can achieve some of these targets—20 or 30 per cent, or whatever the numbers are—by 2020 without a significant increase in the cost of electricity. It can be done through a range of efficiency measures. The key point I would like to make out of this whole report is this: it was a case where the government of the day said to the parliament of the day—that is, the parliament in miniature as a committee—‘Could you people have a look at this and try and find out something that we can agree on?’ and the committee has produced not only a model for developing a framework but also a model, in my view, for trying to address what is possibly the most significant issue any of us will address in our political careers. So I would encourage the government and the opposition to use this as a template—to put some of the simple politics aside and actually try to develop a process that solves the problem. Many say, ‘We’re only two per cent of the world; we can do this and suffer all the consequences.’ But I think that does not put us behind; it puts us in front. At some stage—perhaps after the American election in a few months time and the various issues that could occur there—the world is going to cotton on to this. If Australia is in front of the game, I would rather be part of that process, because we have the opportunity to set the pace rather than lag behind and be sceptical about every activity that is happening in the parliament. 7139 12:40:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —It is great to join with my colleagues from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources to discuss this new report, Down under: greenhouse gas storage, and to join with my colleagues on the committee in recognising what a terrific committee it is. I cannot take any credit for any of the past good work that the committee has done. Its inquiries and reports in the past have really made some substantial contributions to the parliament and also to the industries that are supported and considered by the committee. Having joined the committee in this parliament, I am very much getting a sense of the sorts of things that the member for New England was talking about. It is a committee in which you are dealing with very significant, key Australian industries that support regions that are close to our hearts, that is for sure—and yours too, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott—and you feel like you are at the cutting edge, not just in dealing with challenges to those industries but also in getting some insight into the great opportunities that exist as we overcome some of those challenges. So it is a great committee to work with. The inquiry into the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Bill 2008 that the minister referred to us for consideration was a great process to be part of, not just in working with my colleagues on the committee but also—and I record my appreciation here—to see the time and effort that the companies and organisations working in the resources sector put into their contributions to this inquiry. Going into the inquiry, I read as much as I could about the technical and legal aspects of the bill, but the real eye-opener for me and the value of the inquiry was to have major players and operators in the resources sector and the research sector coming to share with the committee their experience of the commercial and practical realities of what they are doing in their companies at the moment, what they need from this legislation to give them certainty in existing investments and what they need from the legislation to encourage investment in this important new industry of greenhouse gas storage. Throughout the process we were very conscious that we were dealing with questions that go to our national interest and the future of nationally significant industries. There is no doubt, and we heard this from previous speakers, that there are huge issues at stake here that are very well encapsulated in my very own electorate. In the west of my electorate I have the communities and mines of the Bowen Basin, and on the eastern boundary of my electorate I have the Great Barrier Reef, which, as we hear from all the scientific evidence, is going to be one of the first ecosystems in Australia that will be impacted upon quite dramatically, in a devastating fashion, by climate change. So right there in my electorate I am faced with, on the one hand, how we secure the future of the coal industry and, on the other hand, how we reduce our emissions, because the clock is ticking on the sustainability of some of our national environmental icons in Australia. In preparing this report we were faced with that whole juggling act between the threats of climate change and what we can do to reduce emissions and, on the other hand, the fact that 75 per cent of our electricity in this country is still sourced from coal-fired power stations. Our coal exports amount to $25 billion a year, and many of our other big exporters are also energy intensive industries. In the last few years here in the parliament we really have seized on the opportunities and the answers that we hope clean coal technology offers to us in this country as we look for a solution to both sides of the problem—environmental sustainability versus our national prosperity, based as it is so much on the resources sector. The other side of it to me, as someone who represents an area based largely on coalmining, is that if we get carbon capture and storage technology right it has the potential not just to be the solution to that problem but also to be a huge opportunity in itself as part of a new industry where Australia can export that technology and knowledge to countries that are also trying to reduce their emissions. One side of it is that there is an awful lot of work going on, a lot of it in my electorate, with Stanwell’s ZeroGen project involving the capture of carbon from those industrial processes and from electricity generation, but now we are getting down to the nitty-gritty of putting this into action and making it work to reduce our emissions, and that brings you up against the question of storage. How do you store it? Where do you store it? And, of course, very importantly, how do you acknowledge and protect the investments and the sovereignty of those companies that are involved in the petroleum and gas industry? That is what we were grappling with here. The bill is about regulating and managing the injection and storage of carbon dioxide and also, very importantly, managing the interaction and protection of the legitimate property interests of pre-existing oil and gas operators. The bill as originally drafted was very much about regulating a future greenhouse gas storage industry, but after hearing the evidence the committee formed the view that the bill could and should be amended to facilitate and encourage the development of a greenhouse gas storage industry. I think it is true to say of the committee that we are supportive of a carbon capture and storage industry and can see ways, through the bill, that we can expedite the development of that industry and facilitate the investment needed to get that going. You can see that in the recommendations, such as recommendation 1, which suggests that we include an objects clause in the legislation. This recognises that the amendments to provide greenhouse gas storage are included in the offshore petroleum legislation. In the objects clause we really want to have it saying upfront that this is about greenhouse gas storage as well as a significant industry in its own right. Recommendation 3 deals with acreage release and suggests: .. no acreage be automatically excluded from consideration for selection on the grounds of pre-existing petroleum activities. Again, we want to do what we can to facilitate investment in greenhouse gas storage operations. Recommendation 13 calls on the government to provide financial incentives for early movers in this industry. There are also the common-sense recommendations. One great thing about the committee process is that the companies that are investing big dollars and operating in the petroleum and natural gas industries appeared before us and we gained some insight for getting greenhouse gas storage happening in a big commercial way and encouraging investment. These operators in the oil and gas sector are already out there with their investments and property rights. How do we get the new industry going alongside those existing interests? We tried to come up with some common-sense recommendations that would facilitate the greenhouse gas storage industry at the same time as drawing on the expertise and information that the oil and gas industries possess from the work they are already doing. Recommendation 9 is about the minister having the power to bring the parties together. Where there are potential or actual overlapping greenhouse gas storage possibilities and existing petroleum rights or prospective petroleum titles the minister will have the power to bring the parties together. Let us try to get some practical commercial arrangements in place that everyone can be happy with. It is very much based on the coal seam gas regime that operates in Queensland that the member for Moreton spoke about in his contribution. We have the national interest in mind in seeing if we can come up with negotiated arrangements to promote both of those industries. Also along those lines is recommendation 11, which states: ... incumbent petroleum operators be offered a one-off opportunity to incorporate a GHG assessment permit over their exploration or production licence, with the condition that they must demonstrate utilisation of this permit within five years, or surrender it. Again that is recognition that it is the oil and gas industries that have the existing knowledge and expertise. If we can give them the opportunity to drive this new industry, that could produce good outcomes all around. One of the things in the legislation and in this report that has gotten quite a bit of attention is the stance that we took on the long-term liability. The bill lets common-law liability lie where it falls. After the evidence we took the view that it was reasonable and responsible for the Commonwealth government to take on that long-term liability under very strict conditions. That very much came from the evidence about the time frames involved. A company will be injecting greenhouse gases for 30, 40 or 50 years. You then have the site closure time frame. So you are talking about operational time frames of 50, 60 or 70 years potentially. The evidence very much was that it is at the start of the process that you are going to know whether there are any problems. After it has operated and been closed down for 60 or 70 years the residual risk to the Commonwealth is very small. This is something different, and I understand it might be something that the Commonwealth is a bit reluctant to do. I think we had very good reasons, based on the evidence, to make that recommendation. Another important thing that my colleagues have not touched on that I do want to spend a bit of time on is recommendations 17, 18 and 19. These are very much about community education, consultation, transparency of information and sharing data with the public as the site closure processes are followed prior to the site closing certificate being issued. This is very important. It is something that the bill is silent on. It came out of the evidence rather than being something we were specifically requested to inquire into. We talk a lot about clean coal technology and the importance of carbon capture and storage but we need to realise that even though we are dealing with these terms and processes in parliament all the time, they are very new to the community and we need to take the community with us on this. It is something that the CO2CRC, with their Otway project, has shown can be done very effectively. I think those recommendations 17, 18 and 19 that talk about the need for community consultation on projects and the need for data to be shared publicly are very important if we are going to get community acceptance of this very new but very vital technology. In closing, I look forward to seeing the government’s response to this. I encourage my colleagues in the government to respond quickly because we need that certainty for industry and we need to encourage investment in this technology which is so important for the future—not just for our industries in Australia but also in the quest for reduced emissions and sustainability. Debate (on motion by Ms George) adjourned. 7142 12:56:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.56 pm 7143 Questions in Writing 7143 7143 146 7143 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr Truss asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 24 June 2008: In respect of a Major Cities Unit: has it been established in his department; if so, (a) what is its budget, (b) from where is it funded, (c) how many staff does it employ, (d) what are its objectives, and (e) what will be its relationship with Infrastructure Australia. 7143 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: A Major Cities Unit has been established in the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Funding available in 2008-09 for the Major Cities Unit is $1 million. The funding for the Major Cities Unit will come from Departmental funds. Staffing numbers for the Major Cities Unit are yet to be determined. The Major Cities Unit role will be providing advice to the Government on issues of relevance to urban development, particularly on productivity, sustainability and liveability issues, including urban congestion. The unit will also provide an integrated and coordinated approach to urban policy development across the Commonwealth Government. The Major Cities Unit will be co-located with Infrastructure Australia in Sydney.