2008-10-22 42 1 3 REPS 0 0 2008-10-22 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 9847 Business 9847 9847 9847 09:01:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —I present the report relating to committee and delegation reports and private members’ business on Monday, 10 November 2008. I advise honourable members that this report and motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. 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 10 November 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 Notices 1 Mr Hale: To move—That the House: commends the Australian Government for its Economic Security Strategy initiative in the face of a global financial crisis; supports the extra assistance to sustain economic growth and the cost of living pressures for rural and regional Australia; acknowledges the Government’s efforts to ensure that pensioners, seniors and carers are included in this strategy while the Harmer Committee of Inquiry continues to ensure long-term issues related to the most vulnerable in our community are properly assessed; and acknowledges the Government’s efforts to help families receiving ‘key family payments’. Time allotted —45 minutes. Speech time limits — Mr Hale —5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 9 x 5mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 Mr Forrest: To move—That the House: notes with concern the high level of market concentration in the retail grocery sector; notes this is a situation that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission describes as ‘workably competitive’ and that this is not a term found in competition law; and calls on the Government to address the issue of market concentration in the grocery sector and to implement policies to achieve improved outcomes for consumers, food manufacturers and producers. Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 8.30 pm Speech time limits — Mr Forrest —10 minutes. First Government Member speaking —10 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 2 x 10 mins and 6 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend 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 DELEGATION —54TH COMMON-WEALTH PAR-LIA-MEN-TARY CON-FERENCE Report of the Delegation to the 54th Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference, Malaysia and to Thailand The Whips recommend that statements on the report may be made —all statements to conclude by 8:45pm Speech time limits — Each Member —5 minutes. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 1 x 5 mins] 2 Mr Windsor: To present a Bill for an Act to make provisions for dealing with the threat posed by climate change. (Climate Protection Bill 2008) Presenter may speak for a period not exceeding 5 minutes —pursuant to standing order 41. PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BUSINESS Notices 1 Mrs Moylan: To move—That the House: recognises the serious state of housing availability and affordability in the public, not for profit and private sector in many cities and towns in Australia and the hardship it causes those on low and fixed incomes; notes that: it is having a serious impact on many in the community including those on low and fixed incomes, pensioners, disability pensioners, veterans, young families and students; the situation has been exacerbated by the dereliction of duty of State governments in failing to maintain adequate stocks of public rental properties, with unacceptably long waiting-lists for public housing; in Western Australia (WA), for example, it has been reported that there are 16,000 families on the Homeswest waiting list in May 2008 with similar trends in other states; there has been a contraction of approximately 30,000 public dwellings, which, factoring in population growth over the last decade, amounts to a loss of 100,000 dwellings in the public sector; this dereliction of duty is increasing the reliance on the private rental market where housing is in short supply, new building approvals are plummeting and rental vacancy rates are at the lowest levels in 20 years; Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) is not adequately addressing the gap between the high level of rent being paid and what is affordable and that in many areas there are few, if any, housing choices available; despite the twice yearly adjustment of CRA to the Consumer Price Index of 4.3 per cent, the average rental increase has been 7.1 per cent; the median weekly rent of three bedroom houses has increased on a nationally weighted average by 46.75 per cent, and in fact, from June 1998 to June 2007 rents have increased by 93.55 per cent in WA and by 105.88 per cent in the Australian Capital Territory (ACT); rent assistance as a percentage of median weekly rent in WA has dropped from 31.8 per cent in June 2001 to 20.4 per cent in June 2007 and in the ACT from 25.6 per cent in June 1998 to 17.4 per cent in June 2007; overall, renting has become less affordable nationally even for those in receipt of CRA; according to national figures from the Australian Government Housing data set in June 2006, over one-third of CRA recipients pay more than 30 per cent of their income on rent, after CRA is factored in; and public housing approvals have plummeted to 131 new council approvals in March 2008, well short of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ decade average of 350 new public housing approvals monthly; and calls on the Federal Government to: work with State governments through COAG to urgently address the national shortage of public, not for profit and private housing including delays in local government development approvals; urgently review the adequacy of CRA paid to those on low and fixed incomes; investigate making CRA or similar payment available to eligible recipients who are purchasing their own homes and who are experiencing severe mortgage stress, with the aim of keeping people in their own homes and taking some of the pressures off the public and private sector rental market; consider changing the CRA formula to reflect the lack of choice and the increasing cost of rent beyond inflation, by linking CRA to actual rent using the highest median rent in each area; target a proportion of assistance for development of housing in high employment growth areas, in recognition that for those looking for work in areas of high labour demand, high rents are acting as a disincentive for some people to escape the poverty cycle; and pay particular attention to development options for multi-dwelling supported accommodation models to provide for those with disabilities who may formally have been housed in institutions. Time allotted—20 minutes. Speech time limits — Mrs Moylan—5 minutes. First Government Member speakin —5 minutes. Other Member —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. 2 Mr Danby: To move—That the House: congratulates Mr Morgan Tsvangirai, leader of the Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), on his appointment as Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, which is a just recognition of his long struggle for democracy and reform in Zimbabwe; acknowledges the courage of the people of Zimbabwe in defying the thuggery and intimidation of the Mugabe regime in voting for a change of regime at the Zimbabwe elections of March 2008; condemns the Mugabe regime for instituting a reign of violence and intimidation which forced Mr Tsvangirai to withdraw from the second round of the presidential election, despite his clear lead in the first round; calls on the international community, and particularly Zimbabwe’s African neighbours and its fellow members of the Commonwealth, to maintain pressure on the Mugabe regime to ensure that it carries out the terms of the power-sharing agreement between the regime and the MDC; and calls on the Australian Government to render every assistance to Mr Tsvangirai in carrying out the reforms urgently needed to restore democratic elections, good government and economic prosperity to the long-suffering people of Zimbabwe. Time allotted —remaining private Members’ business time prior to 9.30 pm Speech time limits — Mr Danby —5 minutes. First Opposition Member speaking —5 minutes. Other Members —5 minutes each. [Minimum number of proposed Members speaking = 4 x 5 mins] The Whips recommend that consideration of this matter should continue on a future day. Report adopted. 9849 Committees 9849 9849 9849 09:01:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —On behalf of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works, I present the eighth report of the committee for 2008 relating to the proposed Australian Super Hornet facilities project, RAAF Base Amberley. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —by leave—The committee’s eighth report of 2008, Australian Super Hornet facilities project, addresses the Australian Super Hornet facilities project, RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland, valued at $117.1 million, referred to the committee by this House on 28 May 2008. The proposal will expand and modify facilities and infrastructure to support No. 82 Wing’s No 1 Squadron, No. 6 Squadron and No. 278 Squadron in their transition from the F111 to the FA18F Super Hornets. During the inquiry, the committee assured itself that the proposed facilities would cater not only to the FA18F aircraft but also to any future aircraft introduced to the Australian fleet to ensure that this building work has a multifunctional and long-term use. While a number of issues were raised with the committee, it has reported on an exception-only basis on issues that it thought warranted further comment. I would urge those interested in this work to supplement the report, with the transcripts and submissions being available on the committee’s website. Local residents raised concerns about the impact on other developments within RAAF Base Amberley. While they were not strictly relevant to this project, they are important and I urge the Department of Defence to continue an open and transparent consultation process on base changes with the local community. The committee has recommended that the House resolve that the works be carried out. I would like to thank the members and senators on the committee for their work in relation to this inquiry and I commend the report to the House. 9850 Bills R3081 Cognate bill: 9850 Bills R3082 9850 Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 9850 09:04:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —Earlier this year—I cannot recall the exact time—I spoke in this parliament about the extent of the carnage on our roads, which I again raise today in speaking in support of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 is one of two bills to implement the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination, which sets a new road user charge and new registration charges for heavy vehicles in Australia as agreed by Australian transport ministers back in February 2008. The determination recovers from the heavy vehicle users in that industry its share of Commonwealth and state and territory government road infrastructure costs. The second bill, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008, will amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. It too was agreed to by Australian transport ministers at their meeting in February this year. Regrettably, in talking on these bills I do need to remind the House of the extent of the carnage on the roads that we experience each year. In the year to April 2008, 275 people died in heavy vehicle accidents throughout this county. Of all the road deaths that occur in this country, one in five involves heavy vehicles. Over the same period, the number of deaths in articulated heavy vehicle and rigid vehicle incidents increased by almost 12 per cent when compared to last year. These are astounding figures. In 2004-05, 5,350 people who worked in the transport industry suffered serious injuries. This equates with the rate of about 31 serious accidents per day. In 2005-06, 2.8 per cent of the workforce in this industry suffered serious work related injuries. Apart from the pain, suffering, loss and grief, there is also an economic cost to these accidents. If you go through and look at the figures for last year, you can see that for each one of the road deaths that occurred there was an economic cost of $1.7 million. These figures are deplorable, but what is worse is the suffering, pain, hurt and grieving that the carnage produces. That will take a long while to be alleviated for the families—as a matter of fact, it probably never will be. As I said, the prevention of road fatalities and serious injuries has been at the forefront of the Rudd government’s $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. Under this $70 million package, the government will fund bridge-strengthening projects and upgrade the linkages between the existing AusLink freight routes, enabling access to those roads by more productive heavy vehicles. It will also trial black-box technologies that electronically monitor a driver’s hours and the speed et cetera of a vehicle. In respect of that, I had the opportunity, not all that long ago, to talk to Lindsay Fox. He was telling me that he was absolutely committed to this form of technology being introduced, not simply to work out where his trucks were going at any particular time but, because the safety of his drivers is paramount, to ensure that issues such as management of fatigue and proper adherence to road regulations were being maintained. That technology is very much at the forefront of his mind as a critical safety measure. The other aspect of this $70 million plan, which I have spoken about previously, is the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops on our highways. Again, the provision of facilities to pull these vehicles over so as to ensure that the appropriate rest breaks are taken and that people are not driving with fatigue is a critical aspect of our road transport infrastructure. The passage of these bills will make this safety package possible by introducing a fairer heavy vehicle charge which will ensure that all heavy vehicles pay their way for the impacts that they have on our roads. Heavy vehicles operate right across Australia, moving freight through every state and territory. They are responsible for moving 1.7 billion tonnes of freight, which represents some 70 per cent of the total tonnages carried by all transport modes in this country. Of the 365,000 heavy vehicles operating on Australia’s roads, a fair proportion of those actually pass through my electorate of Werriwa. As you would be only too well aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, running right through the middle of my electorate is the Hume Highway. The Hume Highway is the main interstate corridor between Sydney and Melbourne and carries some 20 million tonnes of freight every year. For some time I lobbied the minister responsible for roads in the former government, trying to make a case for the widening of that freeway. Far too often the freeway is blocked during peak hour traffic and it also causes freight congestion around our intermodal terminals at Minto and Ingleburn. It is a vital piece of infrastructure upgrade—one that the opposition, while they were in government, could not agree to. Fortunately, on taking office the Rudd government committed to widening that piece of road infrastructure, agreeing to fund it through AusLink 2. The government committed to 80 per cent of the road project, which I understand is valued at around $140 million. That will be a significant net contribution to infrastructure in my electorate of Werriwa. It will not only allow residents to access one part of my electorate from another without facing the difficulty of road congestion—parents will be able to get kids to and from schools—but, probably more importantly, allow for commercial operations to run more seamlessly through our intermodal terminals, where rail freight can be unloaded and placed on the Hume Highway for distribution to various towns and cities between Sydney and Melbourne. I must say that this is a top priority for my community, as we have currently 80,000 truck movements per day, including 6,000 heavy trucks. This figure is expected to grow by some two to three per cent over the next 20 years. Therefore, it is a significant issue in my electorate. Improving road safety, quite frankly, is the single biggest thing, I think, that we should be addressing here today. The only real way to address road safety is to address the issue of road conditions and road infrastructure itself. Investment in these pieces of infrastructure, we say, is critical, and therefore road safety involves the individual and shared responsibilities not only of the operators of heavy vehicles but also of those responsible for ensuring that these roads are in a condition which is as safe as possible not only for the heavy vehicles but for all the associated road users who come into conjunction with these roads while they are being used for transport and freight between one location and another. A range of measures have been adopted in recent decades in an effort to mitigate road trauma, with some considerable success. The latest initiative is the National Road Safety Strategy and related plans, which were approved by the ministerial council in February this year. They provide a framework for coordinating the road safety initiatives of Australian state, territory and local governments as well as the major organisations with road safety responsibilities. The aim is to reduce our road fatality rate by some 40 per cent by the end of the decade. However, the government must play its role in formulating and reviewing these road safety practices. A key to that is for users of heavy vehicles and the heavy vehicle industry itself to pay their fair share of upgrading the road infrastructure to provide for safety and more sound operating conditions for all transport operators in that industry. A little earlier I said that I had the opportunity to have a discussion with Lindsay Fox. I know how much he stresses safety in his industry, but I also know how critical it is that he, his organisation and all the other heavy truck based organisations out there play a role in servicing the needs of our community by providing freight both inwards and outwards at appropriate times to ensure that our local communities operate reasonably. In 2007 the then Minister for Transport and Regional Development, Mark Vaile, put reform of the heavy vehicle charges on the agenda of the Council of Australian Governments. He said: The National Transport Commission (NTC) will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes. What that did in bringing this to COAG was to put fairly and squarely on the national agenda the full recovery of costs associated with road infrastructure from the heavy vehicle industry. Currently the amount of money raised does not cover anywhere near the cost of providing the infrastructure necessary for the heavy vehicle industry. Recovery of the expenditure is achieved through a combination of fixed registration charges which are collected by the states and territories and a road user charge collected by the Australian government. The heavy vehicle charges have not changed since 2001, when it was determined that the charges would recover past expenditure from the heavy vehicle sector, which subsequently lowered registration fees for some larger trucks, effectively cross-subsidising them from other road users. This overhaul of the heavy vehicle charges is urgently needed to construct and maintain the infrastructure necessary, as I indicated, for the proper functioning of the heavy vehicle industry itself. In fact, the National Transport Commission estimated that the underrecovery of transport charges is currently in the order of $100 million per annum, which is a pretty sizeable chunk of infrastructure missing from the Commonwealth and state governments and also from local governments that take responsibility for facilitating the use of roadways for many of the heavy vehicles in this particular industry. In 2007 the National Transport Commission was asked by the Australian transport ministers, who were directed by COAG as part of the overall transport reform package, to prepare a new heavy vehicle charge determination to deliver revised charges for introduction during this year. In undertaking the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination, the National Transport Commission determined that the current rate of the Commonwealth’s road user charge of 19.63c per litre was insufficient to recover the infrastructure costs caused by heavy vehicles and proposed changes to truck registration charges imposed by the states to end the cross-subsidisation of larger truck operators by smaller truck operators. If not addressed, the underrecovery of heavy vehicle charges provides a strong disincentive for states and territories to invest in road infrastructure. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 will allow an increase in the road user charge of 1.37c. That will take it from 19.63c per litre to 21c per litre. It will come into effect from 1 January 2009 and, as I mentioned earlier, was agreed to by all Australian transport ministers in their February meeting this year. As I noted at the opening of this speech, the purpose of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008 is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s voluntary Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. I understand that 97 per cent of trucks are registered under state based schemes and have already implemented these charges, which have applied from 1 July this year. This bill will allow regulations to be made to specify heavy vehicle charges that will apply under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. It will enable the implementation of the registration charge elements of the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination, which revises the national charges for heavy vehicles and trailers. The implementation of the determination is part of the national road transport reform agenda and will go a long way to fully recovering the costs for the provision of the road network for the use of the heavy vehicle industry. It will also contribute to nationally consistent heavy vehicle registration charges being placed throughout the country. This is a necessary piece of legislation. It is absolutely critical for the efficient operation of our heavy vehicle industry, which plays such a critical role in our modern economy. The industry has at its forefront the delivery of appropriate safety. It is also, regrettably, an industry which has shared the awful experience of many. As I say, one in five deaths that occur on Australian roads at this stage involves heavy transport vehicles. We need to address that. It is not just for the heavy transport industry to address. This is also good for the rest of the community who are road users as well. I commend the bills to the House. (Time expired) 9854 09:24:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —I have risen in this House many times to support the trucking industry. It is no secret that I am an advocate for all issues that will benefit truck drivers across Australia, who do such a sensational job in supporting and underpinning our everyday lives. Many of them go unnoticed for that. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 are very significant for that industry. From the outset, I will follow the lead of the representative industries for the trucking industry in order for us to get the best outcome over time to benefit those sensational truck drivers and their families across Australia. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No.2) 2008 deals with the implementation of the registration charge elements of the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. This revises the national charges for heavy vehicles and trailers for application to heavy vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. It is my understanding that there is no objection to that bill by the trucking industry at this time. The fact is that there is a need for consistency of registration. Some people will find that difficult, but I understand that the vast majority of the trucking industry is now paying the new charges. The three separate charging systems are causing some cross-border anomalies. It is probably a sensible thing to do, although I have fought this in the past. Truck registration going through the roof was not something that I wanted to see happen for the owner-drivers of Australia. I recall, when we were first discussing this whilst I was in government in a debate on the National Transport Commission, that I opposed it vigorously because it meant that registration costs would go extraordinarily high for some users, particularly in South Australia. I certainly was not advocating new costs for owner-drivers. However, I can see now that there are anomalies. It is currently cheaper to register a three-axle rigid truck in New South Wales than in the ACT, but it is cheaper to register a B-double in the ACT than in New South Wales.  In itself, that poses some problems. I want to talk about the bill in depth. The Rudd government has said it will supplement the determination with a $70 million, four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package that will fund the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to enable truck drivers to rest. The package will also include trials of black box technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed as well as bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to link existing AusLink freight routes. I quote from an ATA press release: The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) is calling on federal politicians to deliver 900 extra truck rest areas on major highways by 2019, under the industry’s plan to amend the Government’s new heavy vehicle charges legislation. The ATA goes on to say: The legislation would increase the effective fuel tax paid by trucking operators – the road user charge – from 19.633 to 21 cents per litre, and would give the Government the ability to index this rate in the future. The legislation would also introduce new registration charges for the 21,500 trucks with Federal Interstate Registration Scheme (FIRS) number plates. The chairman has said that the ATA’s plan would be to tie future increases in the road user charge to the construction of truck rest areas on the AusLink national network. I absolutely agree that there is a need to have many truck stops right along every highway in Australia. As the ATA’s press release states: A recent independent audit found there isn’t a single major highway in Australia that meets the national rest area guidelines. Our estimate is that the AusLink National Network needs an additional 900 rest areas to bring it up to the mark. The ATA calls for those rest areas to be in urban areas, such as near the intersections of the M7 and the M4 in Sydney, through to gravel parking bays in remote areas. The ATA discusses the issues of heavy trucks and says: … on average, at least 90 additional heavy vehicle rest areas per year have been constructed on the AusLink National Network since the last road user charge determination was issued … That is clearly still not enough. I repeat that the ATA has proposed that 900 extra rest areas should be delivered across the AusLink national network, and I guess that is a realistic plan. The most important thing is that the truck owner-drivers and owner-operators see the benefits when their road taxes are increased. The previous legislation also included an annual adjustment component, which was to be based on a road expenditure formula. The problem with this proposal was that the formula was very expensive for our truckies. The costs associated with road construction and maintenance, such as steel, concrete and asphalt—all of the inputs that go into building roads—have skyrocketed, and we certainly understand that. The automatic adjustment component locked in an annual increase well above the CPI. That is unacceptable and I am pleased that the opposition is steadfast in that belief. The opposition and the shadow minister responsible, Warren Truss, recognised that the pressures that the heavy freight sector was operating under were extreme. Over the last few months, the daily life of the average Australian has got tougher and it has certainly got tougher for owner-drivers and transport industry operators, with rising fuel costs and other costs that must be factored into running a business. These stresses fall particularly hard on those who do the job of getting our essentials to market, helping our lives to operate smoothly. The ATA have called for quite significant improvements in this whole process. They do not want the government to automatically index the road user charge by an annual adjustment formula. They would like the government to adopt an open and transparent system for periodically setting the road user charge and they would like to see a link between future increases in the road user charge and the construction of an estimated extra 900 truck rest areas on the AusLink national network by 2019. The industry themselves vigorously oppose indexation and refer to it as a stealth tax on the trucking industry. They strongly oppose the plan to index the road user charge, because it would be based on a weighted percentage change in road construction and maintenance expenditure and it would be a proxy for increases in the size of the heavy vehicle fleet and vehicle kilometres travelled. The industry believe that the formula in the government’s plan would increase the road user charge by more than seven per cent per year without any consultation with the industry or parliamentary scrutiny. That is why they describe this as a stealth tax, and I can certainly understand that. They are calling for an open and transparent system for setting the road user charge, not indexation. In support of the industry and the job that the ATA does on behalf of the industry, I certainly support the amendments moved by the opposition to fix this indexation. Four national highways run through my electorate of Riverina: the Hume Highway, the Sturt Highway, the Olympic Highway and the Newell Highway. In September last year statistics showed that about 7,000 vehicles and, in particular, 4,500 heavy vehicles travelled over the Sheehan Bridge at Gundagai on a daily basis. As a result of an AusLink project by the previous government, we are now seeing the duplication of that bridge. More than 6,000 heavy vehicles use the Hume Highway around Tarcutta on a daily basis. So there is quite a significant traffic movement across the Riverina electorate and there is a need to ensure that safety is paramount for those drivers, who are doing such a sensational job in distributing goods across Australia. In fact, we have information from the RTA website that shows that most of the general traffic movements on the other three Riverina highways are of significant heavy vehicle value. The Olympic Way had an annual average daily traffic of 3,040 vehicles in just one very small area. I found statistics which showed that the Sturt Highway at Collingullie had an average daily traffic of 2,782 heavy vehicles in 2006, and that figure would no doubt have increased since then. It is a significant issue for us to ensure that we act in the best interests of the Trucking Association, the owner-drivers and certainly their families right across the nation, who are entitled to know that their husbands or wives—there are women who are driving trucks now, which is sensational to see—or family members going out to work have the best possible chance of returning home to them safely and not being involved or, worse still, killed in a heavy vehicle accident. In Tarcutta in my electorate is a remembrance wall. It is staggering to see the numbers of drivers who have been killed while delivering goods across Australia in their everyday vocation. When you stop at the Tarcutta memorial you cannot believe it could be possible that so many of those drivers did not make it home safely to their families. Each year there is a memorial service. People come from right across Australia to mourn their loved ones or friends who have lost their lives to enable the Australian economy to keep functioning. We talk about our economic downturn at the moment and every eye is on the television watching the stock markets; every eye is on the day-to-day performance of finances in the Australian market and the international market. It would be sensational if there were as much concern and consideration and as many eyes focused every day on ensuring that those people who transport every good across this nation were able to do so in the safest possible way and were given the opportunity to return home safely to their families. It would be a wonderful thing if all of those eyes in Australia that are watching those markets now had the same interest for truck drivers particularly. These two bills are significant for the industry. I welcomed the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Anthony Albanese, to the Riverina for a visit just recently to inspect the progress of the work on the duplication at Kyeamba Hill. I was most impressed with the minister’s commitment to ensure that the road networks across Australia were going to be the safest and the best that he could possibly manage whilst he was responsible for this portfolio. He was very positive about the work on the Hume Highway. I thank him for that. You learn something about road construction every day, and it was good to accompany the minister. I thank him for including me in his visit to the Riverina and for allowing me to accompany him to this site project. It is very important to me. I have always been a great advocate for road safety in the industry and that will certainly not diminish. I stand here today to urge the minister to implement the ATA’s recommendations in full, thereby increasing the benefits to the trucking industry. 9857 09:42:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I rise today to speak in support of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. These bills will help to strengthen the government’s commitment to road safety and the improvement of local roads, particularly for heavy vehicles. It fits well with our AusLink 2 legislation when it comes to safety. The legislation also ensures that the heavy vehicle industry will contribute its fair share of infrastructure costs incurred by governments in building and maintaining the roads that the industry uses. The purpose of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s voluntary registration scheme. The bill will enable the implementation of the registration charge elements of the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination, which revises national charges for heavy vehicles and trailers registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, otherwise known as FIRS. The determination was agreed to by the Australian Transport Council on 29 February 2008 and was implemented by the states on 1 July 2008. The implementation of the determination is part of the national road transport reform agenda, as agreed under the intergovernmental agreement for regulatory and operational reform in road, rail and intermodal transport. The determination implements the Council of Australian Governments request to fully recover the costs of provision of the road network for the heavy vehicle industry. In his second reading speech on the bill, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government stated that this legislation will help restore uniformity of heavy vehicle registration charges throughout Australia and enable nationally agreed new heavy vehicle registration charges to be applied to heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s voluntary FIRS system. Operators have the choice to register their heavy vehicles under FIRS or under state and territory legislation. At present, FIRS registration represents approximately three per cent of the total heavy vehicle registrations in Australia. We look at the economic arguments for this bill, of course—and I am going to talk about my electorate of Forde more specifically in a minute—but it is really directly related to safety. It is more than just an academic argument when we are talking about safety and our road users. Certainly the previous speaker spoke about her electorate and the concerns and the terrible cost of carnage on our roads. National consistency in heavy vehicle charges and regulations is essential for our national economy. At present there are approximately 365,000 heavy vehicles operating in the country. It is important that the industry has certainty and is able to operate nationally without red tape or confronting issues at state borders. I have had a number of representations from industry groups who rely on heavy vehicle transportation concerning their frustration at the red-tape barriers that occur at the Queensland and New South Wales border where my electorate sits. As a government, we talk about red-tape reduction, our cooperative federalism model and efficiencies, and this certainly applies to this piece of legislation, which is about bringing in enough revenue to provide better and safer roads throughout the country. In the current economic climate it is important to ensure that we reduce the burden of unnecessary red tape, particularly for heavy vehicle road users when travelling through different states and territories and the businesses that depend on them. This is important for rural areas where industry relies on this transportation or in some cases where rail infrastructure is poor or nonexistent. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know the situation in your own electorate, which is quite a large and diverse electorate, is not unlike some smaller parts of my electorate where we simply have either no infrastructure or decent infrastructure. The road infrastructure in my electorate, which by default forms an integral part in a very important link across the border into New South Wales on the Mount Lindesay Highway, is very poor. For a whole range of reasons there is congestion and bottle-necks on the route across the border to the Gold Coast. A lot more transport facilities are being provided and so there is a lot more traffic coming across that area. It is important, of course, that good planning allows for the connection with other transport and logistics infrastructure. I have spoken a number of times in this House about my own electorate of Forde and the area of Bromelton, which has just been announced as a development at the state level. It is of major interest to the Queensland state government and to the rest of this country. It will be, by the time all the development has occurred, probably the largest industrial development in the country and the largest intermodal port. It will be an inland port which will service not only South-East Queensland but also northern New South Wales and beyond. I have also referred in this House to the notion of the great south-west, where we look at the congestion and the confusion of transport logistics across the border. Proper planning and infrastructure—certainly road linking with rail—will make a huge difference to Bromelton and have great economic importance for the state. Of course, we cannot do this without a proper charging and funding regime that will support this sort of rollout. At the moment, the major logistics routes receive a certain level of funding—never adequate—but when you look at some regions, like my own electorate and that inland link across the New South Wales border, you will find that this is a major concern. Previously I have mentioned as a benchmark one little area that is just near the border, Duck Creek Road. While it is a dirt road that runs up the mountain and will never carry large transport trucks, Duck Creek Road is probably typical of the lack of provision of funding for roads. But take that model and put it towards our major transport routes: if we do not have adequate funding or proper infrastructure it certainly has a major bearing on the safety of people who use our highways. The member for Werriwa talked about the 270 road deaths that have so far been directly attributed to heavy vehicle accidents. I take the point of the previous member of the opposition who spoke about the level of carnage on the roads. It is not an academic argument; we have to take every step to fix the problem and to make our roads much safer. We have all said it and we understand it very well: one road death is one too many. If we look at the increasing number of logistical movements and the number of trucks that are involved in those particular incidents we must take immediate action. This bill goes some way, at least, to helping those who are using these corridors and infrastructure and getting them to participate in funding the changes. I spoke about Bromelton and the need to have that interconnectivity and safe road infrastructure for the cross-border area from Beaudesert in my electorate across the border ranges into New South Wales to areas like Kyogle. I have also mentioned the notion of the great south-west, which is about looking regionally at providing proper infrastructure for transport movement. This can be based on the levies and charges provided through this particular industry. I know the argument is about potentially more taxes and charges, but we need an understanding of the need for safety and that it has to be funded. The productivity increase alone that comes from saving people’s lives—and the economic value we can put on that—and simply the number of road incidents that occur mean that it is very important that this bill proceeds. I have also mentioned the Summerland Way, which is another area of interest and a major transport corridor that has been well underfunded. I know that both the member for Page and the member for Richmond share similar concerns, given that the Summerland Way—part of the great south-west—is integral to our region. With the growth of Bromelton we will see much more discussion in this House about its impact and why we need to support the road infrastructure in that area. It is interesting that productivity is related to the level of road deaths. In fact, one in five road deaths are attributed to heavy vehicles, with up to 31 accidents a day. They say that 2.8 per cent have suffered serious work injuries as a result of trucking and road accidents. I have spoken before in this House about the Mount Lindsay Highway, which is the main spine through the electorate of Forde, connecting the areas of Park Ridge, Jimboomba and Beaudesert. It has been described by many people, including me in this House, as essentially a goat track. It is only a two-lane carriageway but it carries an enormous amount of traffic travelling towards the Border Ranges and towards the Summerland Way. It is with great concern that we look at reports from the RACQ, the Royal Automotive Club of Queensland, that rate the lack of safety on our roads. The reports have a scale of 1 to 5, from less safe to safe. The Mount Lindsay Highway, a major piece of road infrastructure in my electorate, only rates at 2. The reports also rate the level of safety, and this highway has a zero for safety because of the number of roads and intersections that make their way onto it. Linked with road issues are not only the lack of infrastructure and safety issues but also the provision of all the other services, particularly transport services, that we lack in that region. The constituents of Forde for a long time have argued, complained and spoken about and asked for good transport connection in the region. As I have said on other occasions, we need to put this together and say that transport is important, that the logistics movement is important and that the way we fund those things is important. Putting dollars back into the road system will also allow the communities in Forde to be better served by not only the safety of those roads but also the other services that can be provided along those road corridors. At the moment we lack any decent public transport through the Forde region. To a large degree that comes down to safety. We do not have rest stops for trucks, which means we do not have any areas that are set aside for safely picking people up along that stretch. If you are a working couple, unless you have two vehicles you simply cannot get in and out of the Forde electorate. We essentially have no public transport. The township of Beaudesert is serviced by many other small towns around it, but it is the only provincial town outside of Brisbane that does not have a four-lane highway, a bus service or a train service. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know you are nodding your head because of the lack of services in your region. We would all love to have the benefits of such infrastructure but, given that the seat of Forde starts only 30 kilometres south of the capital city of Brisbane, it is clear that something is missing from this particular region. I seek leave to continue my remarks later. Leave granted; debate adjourned. 9860 Miscellaneous 9860 9860 09:55:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended for a period of five minutes to allow the Leader of the Opposition to apologise for and retract his reckless and irresponsible attack on the Secretary to the Treasury in Question Time yesterday at a time of global financial crisis. (Quorum formed) Yesterday in question time the Leader of the Opposition overreached when he raised in a question of the Prime Minister the dismissal of the Secretary to the Treasury for misleading the cabinet. Given the global financial crisis, this overreach was indeed reckless and dangerous. This followed an interjection by the Manager of Opposition Business that Dr Henry was ‘just one voice’. Dr Henry is a respected public servant who has served governments of both sides of this House with integrity and with honour. This is an institutional matter, not a political matter. At a time of global financial crisis, it is imperative that political leaders express their confidence in our economic institutions. Dr Henry is to appear this morning before the Senate estimates committee; he is appearing right now. It is important that there be no ambiguity as to whether he retains the confidence of all members of this House. It does not need to be long. It should have been thought through by the Leader of the Opposition overnight. It should be concise. It should be clear. It should be straightforward. At a time of global financial crisis, it is imperative that there be complete confidence from this House in the Secretary to the Treasury. I commend the motion to the House. 9860 10:00:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —The opposition does not support this suspension of standing orders to allow the Leader of the Opposition to come into the House. This is a stunt. Government members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I have got 10 minutes to speak actually, if I want to. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 10:01:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 10:05:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 76 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. 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. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 36 Andrews, K.J. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. May, M.A. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Somlyay, A.M. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Albanese’s) be agreed to. 10:11:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. BC Scott) 77 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. 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. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 35 Andrews, K.J. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. May, M.A. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Somlyay, A.M. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. * denotes teller Question agreed to, with an absolute majority. 9862 10:14:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —It would appear that the Leader of the Opposition has no intention of complying with the order of the House. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On what basis is the Leader of the House being called to speak on this motion? 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The leader of opposition business in the House will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I seek your guidance, Mr Deputy Speaker. The motion has now been passed, the suspension of standing orders has been carried, allowing five minutes of debate on this matter. I am the leader of opposition business in the House today, and therefore I will step in and speak for five minutes on behalf— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The member for Sturt will resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Mr Deputy Speaker, it is quite clear that the Leader of the Opposition is not prepared to comply with a very simple request from the House of Representatives. That request was that he come in and apologise to— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: on what basis is the Leader of the House now having a second bite of the cherry on this foolhardy, pathetic stunt? He has moved his motion; it has been passed. It is the opposition’s opportunity to speak to it, not for him to have a second go! 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat! The Leader of the House, as the leader of government business in the House, has the right to talk about government business. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. Given the fact the Leader of the Opposition is refusing to comply with the resolution of the House, I suggest that government business be brought on. 9862 Bills R3081 Cognate bill: 9862 Bills R3082 9862 Debate resumed. 9862 10:16:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I was getting close to a conclusion before the debate on this bill was interrupted, but I want to go back to those statements about the issues of my electorate—its proximity to the capital city of Brisbane and the fact that it is bordered by New South Wales. It is a Gold Coast hinterland seat, and I see the member for one of the Gold Coast seats sitting here in the chamber. We know our region has been underfunded, we know that we have a lack of infrastructure and we know that all of those things I have spoken about are serious issues. My concern is that we now have to get some leverage in place to ensure that we can provide the sorts of facilities and infrastructure that we require in that region, particularly the road infrastructure which then leads to the transport infrastructure. In fact, I was very happy to have Minister Albanese visit the region some time ago during the announcement about the area of Bromelton—the state development area I spoke about before. It is a major area for development. It will need an enormous amount of private and public investment, certainly in road infrastructure. It is an area of great interest to the state and to the nation because it will be the largest intermodal port in the country. But at this point in time, essentially there are no major roads that service the area and no corridors have even been put aside. It is going to need an enormous amount of planning, but these bills are all about ensuring that through the road transport logistics industry and through all the users, the growth of that industry—which, in my region, will be a major amount of growth—and the fact that some minimal charges will be put back into the system will provide for the safe use of those roads. I will continue to bring the issues of my electorate to this chamber, particularly when we have legislation like this that lends itself to allowing us to make better investment. I mentioned earlier in this speech the example of Duck Creek Road—and I will continue to use it. I know that the member for Dobell, who sits next to me, has on a number of occasions been aware that in an area like the seat of Forde—in south-east Queensland, close to the capital city—the level of infrastructure has been very poor. This is one small part that will go towards the transport logistics side of providing infrastructure. Our work with local governments, our Building Australia Fund and Infrastructure Australia will certainly allow us, as a government, to achieve. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, I know your area. I have heard you speak many times about the lack of infrastructure in transport logistics. I am sure that this is a start, to have a piece of legislation that will allow us to roll money back into areas of need and priority, particularly if it is for the safe use of roads and if it is in the interests of the public as well as the industry who use those highways. With that, I commend these bills to the House. 9863 10:20:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I too would like to speak to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and related bill. The issue of road transport is very important to my electorate as I have several major highways dissecting it—most notably the Newell Highway, which is the main corridor between Melbourne and Brisbane. I am pleased that the changes have been made to the original bill to make it more worth while. I would be a little more opposed to the charges except for the fact that this bill is only going to affect about five per cent of trucks—the interstate plated trucks and the ones registered in the ACT—and, to a large degree, the states have already implemented a level of charges, so this legislation is just keeping everything in line. What I am pleased to see in the amendment to this bill is the commitment to build rest areas on these highways. The Newell Highway through my electorate has large areas between towns and fatigue is a major problem. Indeed, we have had some severe tragedies over the years on the Newell Highway. I commend the work of Rod Hannifey, who is an advocate for the trucking industry. Through his lobbying, there are now some trial locations on the Newell for rest areas with signs leading up to them. A truck driver who is not familiar with the road gets warning that a rest area is coming up and can prepare to slow down and turn in, because if they miss that one, it is quite a few kilometres to the next one. One of the things that I am a little bit concerned about in regard to this bill is that it does concentrate on the AusLink roads and the main transport routes. We need to not forget the minor highways and the other local roads that feed off the main highways. One of the problems that the transport operators confront in the regions, particularly in my area, is the mixing of tourists—especially the so-called grey nomads—with heavy transport. I spend a lot of time on the road in my electorate, Deputy Speaker Scott, as would you, and the situation that causes the most discomfort is a campervan travelling at 80 kilometres an hour along with half-a-dozen B-double transports that can comfortably sit on 100. When you get these bottlenecks that is when frustration seeps in and people make foolhardy decisions. One of the remedies for this is funding alternative routes. Indeed, I would commend the previous government for the instigation of the strategic fund, a component of Roads to Recovery. Work is underway in my electorate now on a couple of those alternative routes. One in particular is the Wellington to Narrabri road and the Coonamble to Bindra road, which connect to each other. When there is an alternative sealed route through probably smaller, picturesque towns it will encourage those nomads off the highway and separate them out from the trucks. The freight task is growing. It was interesting to listen to the previous speaker, the member for Forde, Mr Raguse, when he was speaking about the development at Bromelton. That is quite an exciting development because, hopefully, with the Queensland government getting on side and the planning process underway for the inland rail, Bromelton will probably be one of the very important sites on that network. While the trucking industry is in the here and now, the freight task is set to double in the next few years and we need to be always pushing for that alternative, for the rail line, to take that pressure off these major highways. One of the other issues of this concentration on the major AusLink highways is the transport that uses the alternative routes. A lot of the laws that come in are fine for line haulers and people who have large companies and regular runs, but quite often the operators that get caught up in legislation and fall through the cracks are people like local transporters and stock transporters. The fact is that a lot of these people operate on secondary roads and quite often there is no provision for rest areas. The other issue is the lack of uniformity across states. The top end of my electorate, as you know Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, joins yours at the Queensland border. There are huge problems with the transport industry because a truck can be perfectly legal in Queensland—I have got to say that the Queensland government seems to be more progressive and innovative in their approach to transport than New South Wales—but as soon as they cross over the border they will have issues with dimension, mass-weight limits and even with accessibility of road trains. If we are really going to make the transport industry more efficient and safer, we need to identify that. In Gwydir shire in the northern part of my electorate we have an issue with road train access only to the boundary of that shire. While we have perfectly acceptable roads, because of the bureaucratic nature of the Roads and Traffic Authority in New South Wales, road trains are not allowed into that area. So we have problems then with animal health issues, where road trains will come in bringing stock down to the Myola feedlot from large areas up in Queensland. They have to unhook the trailer. There is no provision for uncoupling in these areas. Quite often in wet weather they are parked on the road or the cattle are left in the sun for maybe an hour and a half or two hours while one trailer is emptied and the other one comes back. We are going to have to have a national approach to this problem, because it is causing all sorts of problems. The lack of uncoupling areas between road train routes and non-road train routes is a big issue. In Gwydir shire last year, when I was the mayor, we got B-double access. It was quite ironic. I was bringing cattle to my property from Queensland and they were brought in on a truck configuration with two B-doubles, the equivalent of three single trailers, right to the Queensland border. Then they had to come in separately. For the last few kilometres it was even difficult getting access for the B-doubles. The issue is the number of movements. On a lot of these country roads movements are the issue. It does not matter whether it is a single semitrailer, a tabletop or a road train, there are still issues with dust and overtaking and things like that. I think we need to have a more rounded approach when we are looking at the issue of making uniform configurations for trucks across the state. The other issue we have trouble with across borders is that of fatigue management. No-one understands more than I the issue of fatigue and the fact that it is a great cause of accidents. But there is a lack of consistency from state to state in fatigue management. In New South Wales there has been a reprieve for 12 months with the workbooks that were introduced for people travelling within 100 kilometres of their base area. That is particularly important for the grain industry when leading up to the harvest, which is commencing in my area at the moment. There is a real issue for drivers when their trucks are spending maybe eight hours a day in a line-up at a silo, and that is considered work. They will sign off there and then they will have to pull up and have a rest because they have timed out on their logbook. We need to have a sensible approach to fatigue management, taking into account the local operators. I commend this legislation to the House. We do have issues with the bills—we need to make sure that we do not have these charges indexed. If we are going to increase the charges to transport then that money must be used wisely. I commend the fact that in the bill we do have an allocation of a number of rest areas per year. I think that is a positive. 9865 10:30:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. These two bills will implement the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination as agreed by all Australian transport ministers on 29 February 2008. The purpose is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian governments Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. The new charges that were implemented by all states on 1 July 2008 will ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of the cost of providing the road network and for the damage that they cause to the roads. The new changes meet the COAG requirement that cross-subsidies between heavy vehicle classes be removed. The new charges result in decreases in registration charges for one quarter of the fleet, increases of no more than 10 per cent for 69 per cent of the fleet and significant increases for the remaining six per cent of the fleet, being the heavy truck trailers and multicombination vehicles that are currently subsidised by smaller vehicles. Starting from 1 January 2009 the Australian government intends to implement an increase in the road user charge from 19.633c per litre to 21c per litre, as agreed upon by Australian transport ministers. Additionally, the ministers have agreed to heavy vehicle registration charges. So as to remain fair and equitable with the rail system, it is important that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of the costs of providing and maintaining roads. As with a lot of electorates, roads are a major problem in my electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland. Considering the damage to roads generally attributed to heavy vehicle usage, the Productivity Commission report of 2006 found that the industry as a whole was not paying or contributing enough to cover its share of road construction and maintenance costs. Therefore, in April 2007 the Council of Australian Governments directed the preparation of new heavy vehicle charges in order to fully recover the cost of damages caused by these vehicles and remove cross-subsidies between different elements of heavy vehicle fleets with the aim of maintaining full cost recovery in the long term through amended indexation arrangements. According to National Transport Commission figures, the current total shortfall from the heavy vehicle industry amounts to more than $100 million per annum, or around $170 million inclusive of enforcement costs. Since road user charges were last set, there has been a significant increase of approximately 33 per cent in road expenditure by Commonwealth, state and territory departments. In addition, the number of B-doubles has increased, but they do not pay their way. The amended charges will not only provide parity among vehicles classes and between road and rail but also address the current under-recovery of these costs. I have some examples of how many trucks used the highways in my electorate of Flynn in 2007. The average daily number of trucks using the Bruce Highway between the townships of Mount Larcom and Port Alma was 1,417; the figure for those using the Capricorn Highway between Comet and Emerald, to the west of my home town of Gladstone, was 490; and the figure for those using the southern intersection of the Burnett Highway to the northern intersection of the Burnett Highway was 575. It has become imperative to substantially increase the registration fees of large trucks so as to avoid them being subsidised by small trucks and to endeavour to spread costs fairly throughout the industry. Long-haul and interstate runs are usually served by larger vehicles such as B-doubles, road trains and large combination vehicles; and it is these that will feel the greatest impact of the new charges. The increases will be introduced incrementally over a three-year period in order to allow the industry to adjust. Once the new charges are fully implemented, smaller trucks can expect a total fee increase of around 0.2 per cent, with fees for larger B-doubles increasing by up to 2.8 per cent. According to estimates from the Australian Trucking Association, the new charges will result in the average grocery bill increasing by only about 30c per week. As previously stated, all governments are currently spending 33 per cent more on road funding than they were in 2001. These charges aim to recoup from the industry only costs of enforcement which result directly from damage caused by extra weight loading. Such infringements cause untimely wear and lessen the life of road surfaces, ultimately resulting in increased road maintenance costs. Enforcement needs to be carried out to ensure that road users adhere to safe practices. Currently, agencies that enforce these procedures are not benefiting from the fines collected. Commercial vehicles share our roads with private motorists, therefore their behaviour must be monitored and the costs incurred should naturally be carried by the industry. There was extensive consultation in the development of the new charges. On 6 July 2007 the NTC released a draft heavy vehicle charges determination regulation impact statement that outlined a number of options. In developing the options the NTC was informed by the third determination process, the analysis of potential impacts of changes in the level of charges and the Productivity Commission inquiry. Stakeholders were strongly encouraged to participate in the subsequent public consultation process. Written submissions were accepted and a number of focus groups were held throughout Australia. A technical workshop was conducted with road transport industry representatives and government. The NTC conducted further discussions with industry representative groups such as the Australian Trucking Association and its member associations as well as the National Farmers Federation. Following this consultation process the NTC made further changes to the determination to take into account feedback from key industry stakeholders. A group of key industry stakeholders were further consulted about the subsequent changes, to gauge their views. In theory the heavy vehicle industry agrees that costs should be fully recovered, and also accepts that some adjustments in the registration charges from smaller heavy classes towards larger classes may be necessary. It is also in agreement regarding the estimated amount that needs to be recouped, although the industry believes that it already pays this amount and that, as such, it is not necessary to increase charges further. The industry cites a figure of around $130 million as the amount it believes it is currently being overcharged. However, independent analysis shows that the methodology used to determine that claim has resulted in an overestimate of the current payments. It goes without saying that no industry wants to pay more than it already does; however, the trucking industry has benefited from major increases in funding over recent years and can expect to benefit further from record levels of investment in road infrastructure in the future. Unsurprisingly, the trucking industry opposes having to pay for the full cost of monitoring its practices—around $66 million in enforcement costs—although this is a major component of the package. In order to ensure the safety of all road users it is vital that enforcement is carried out to make sure that trucks are not overloaded, potentially causing damage to our roads. Industry has stated that if the proposed charges eventuate it would like to see an increase in funding in the area of productivity-boosting investments. However, during recent years the industry has benefited from major productivity improvements. Among these improvements was an agreement to enable the use of higher productivity vehicles such as 26-metre B-doubles as opposed to the 25-metre previous maximum, a trial introduction of quad-axle combination vehicles with an increase of up to eight tonnes, an expansion of the higher mass limits network and an agreement to an extra four tonnes for semitrailers fitted out with twin-steer front axles. This bill addresses the concerns, raised during the Senate debate in March, that the first bill did not allow the Australian government to set charges for FIRS vehicles without the agreement of Australian Transport Council ministers. This new bill provides the Australian government with the flexibility to implement charges for its FIRS registered vehicles in its own right, through regulations. The Australian government supports national consistency and full cost recovery. To this end, implementing the new charges as set out in the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination will bring charges for FIRS vehicles into line with those of the rest of Australia. This will provide full cost recovery for FIRS vehicles as well as creating a level playing field for all of Australia’s heavy vehicle operators. Charges introduced into regulations will be subject to scrutiny through compulsory RIS and parliamentary disallowance processes. The Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 was enacted by the Commonwealth on behalf of the Australian Capital Territory and was designed also as a regulatory tool to allow jurisdictions to implement aspects of national heavy vehicle reform, such as registration charges, by adopting or referencing the national legislation within their own respective legislative arrangements. However, this process is now not used by most jurisdictions as they implement these reforms directly in their own legislation. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 will enable the Australian Capital Territory government to implement the new national heavy vehicle charges directly in its own legislation in the same manner as the other states and territories. The repeal also accords with the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport—the intergovernmental agreement—entered into by the Commonwealth of Australia and the states and territories. The road user charge is one component of heavy vehicle charges, the other being registration charges. Being based on the amount of fuel consumed, the road user charge is a much better proxy for heavy vehicles’ use of, and damage to, our roads than a flat registration charge. This is one of the reasons cost recovery from the road user charge makes up the bulk of heavy vehicle charges revenue. The National Transport Commission has reviewed all heavy vehicle charges and rebalanced them to ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share and that each class of heavy vehicle is not subsidising or being subsidised by another. The National Transport Commission will collect and collate the necessary data to undertake the annual adjustment calculation each year. This will then be published in the Commonwealth government Gazette and take effect on 1 July each year. Inclusion of the road user charge in the annual adjustment process was a principle specifically supported by the Howard government. The June 2004 energy white paper released by John Howard included a specific commitment to annual adjustment of the road user charge in the same way that the states and territories adjust heavy vehicle registration fees. Should the government implement regulations which establish automatic annual adjustment of the road user charge, it is likely that the rate of the road user charge would increase by between 1c and 2c per litre in the early years because of recent government road expenditure increases. The annual adjustment will help to ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs. If government spending stabilised, then so would the road user charge. The National Transport Commission will undertake annual reviews to ensure that the automatic annual adjustment does not result in charges which would overrecover or underrecover heavy vehicles’ share of these costs. It is perhaps worth mentioning that, should government expenditure on roads fall or should other factors result in greater productivity within the heavy vehicle industry, the automatic annual adjustment could actually lead to a reduction in the road user charge and heavy vehicle registration charges. These bills allow regulations to be made to specify heavy vehicle charges for application to the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme vehicles. I commend the Rudd Labor government’s leadership on this issue. It cannot be overstated that these bills are for the safety of all road users. Safety for our road users is of absolute paramountcy, and I commend these bills to the House. 9868 10:46:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 will allow the application of new registration charges to the five per cent of heavy vehicles that are registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. Apparently there are some 21,500 trucks, out of a total of 470,000 trucks, that will fall under this registration scheme. Obviously all the states have their own registration, and this bill will affect five per cent of the total number of registered heavy vehicles across Australia. These changes were agreed to at the Australian Transport Council meeting in February this year, and the states and territories have already imposed these new charges because that is where most of the trucks are registered. To give a bit of background on this proposal, the bills originally proposed by the Labor government earlier this year were blocked by the Liberals and Nationals in the Senate because the schedule of charges contained an annual adjustment component based on a road construction index—in other words, that index would have been a measure of the costs of building roads—and that would have resulted in a likely annual increase in these charges of some seven to eight per cent. Also, the government wanted to increase the road user charge from 19.633c per litre—that is the fuel excise that the trucking industry and heavy vehicle industry pay for every litre of fuel consumed—to 21c per litre from January next year. Once again, this would have been subject to an annual adjustment. If the Liberal and National parties had not been successful in blocking that bill in the Senate, we would have seen the reintroduction of a fuel excise indexation scheme, where fuel excise as it applies to the trucking industry would have been increased annually based on the CPI. The former coalition government rightly abolished the automatic indexation of fuel excise, but what we were going to see was a new stealth tax, not announced by the now Prime Minister to the trucking industry prior to the last federal election. This would have meant an increase in tax on the very transport sector that is so vital to the health and wealth of all Australians. We do not oppose this second form of the bill, but we still have some concerns. We will propose amendments, and we want to see this government accept our amendments, because we want to make sure that the government cannot automatically index the road user charge by a formula. Our amendments would mean that the government must submit any proposed increases in charges to the scrutiny of the parliament. When a new tax is imposed on an industry—in this case the trucking industry—I think any fair-minded Australian would agree that that should really have the scrutiny of the parliament, and that is what our amendments would seek to ensure. We want to make sure that the charge is open, that there is a transparent process to the establishment of any increases that the government would want to propose in the future and that part of this fuel excise increase that the government would have the ability to make should this bill pass in its amended form goes to the construction of truck rest stops across the AusLink network. I have a very significant interest in truck stops. My electorate of Maranoa is of some 560,000-odd square kilometres and has major arterial roads. The Warrego, Gore, Cunningham and D’Aguilar highways are all major arterial roads that lead from Brisbane through to Darwin, Adelaide, Melbourne or Sydney. We know that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and the government have responded to our concerns on this side of the House, but we want to make sure that this bill removes that link between the road user charge and the indexation and leaves the matter of adjustment to future regulation and the scrutiny of the parliament. So we will certainly be watching very closely, should this bill pass with our amendments, to make sure that the process is open and transparent and that the parliament is able to scrutinise any proposed increases in the fuel excise. Currently, the government may make a regulation that contains an indexing formula, which means that, should a regulation pass this parliament, the charge would increase every year without the opportunity for parliamentary debate or disallowance. Our proposed amendment would require the increase to the road user charge to be passed by the parliament. One of the concerns I have, of course, with the establishment of this road user charge is the fact that, whilst it will go towards establishing rest stops on our major arterial highways, it will not put any money into the roads that are not on the AusLink network. I notice the Minister for Resources and Energy is at the table. I have large networks of roads in my electorate that go into the resources sector, which I know he would have a very keen interest in. All of those industries out there in the Cooper Basin, the Eromanga oil and gas basin and the Surat Coal Basin, including the beef industry, are significant contributors to the national wealth. They will not see any of that money going to those roads for truck stops. I will give you a little example, Mr Deputy Speaker. I was recently out at Birdsville in the back of my electorate. It is some 400 kilometres through the Cooper Basin and through to Windorah before you start to get onto a sealed highway. On the way back, I went into the Cuddapan oil refinery. Almost daily they truck out oil—a vital product in this day and age—for processing further east. They bring that out on type 2 road trains. A type 2 road train has three trailers and carries a very heavy load. They are pulling that out on a gravel road for the first hundred or so kilometres, and then they have another 250 kilometres into Quilpie, for example. But it is still not a road that will get any truck stops. They then have to go from Quilpie to Charleville before they get anywhere near an AusLink highway, another 200-odd kilometres. The point I raise here is that the trucks that are coming in and out of the resource rich Cooper Basin and Eromanga Basin will also be paying—they pay it today—the fuel excise. They continually ask me when the money that they pay in fuel excise is coming to benefit their roads in the outback of my electorate. Many of those fully laden type 2 road trains—whether it is with oil, with equipment for the exploration of oil and gas in the Cooper Basin or with cattle for export into meatworks in the processing sector and, of course, into the feedlot industry—will be using two litres of fuel per every kilometre. So you can start to see how any increase in tax will impact on those industries and those truck operators without any benefit being returned to the roads on which they have to operate. The electorate of Maranoa really is a powerhouse for the Australian economy. I mentioned the oil and gas industry in the Cooper Basin and the Eromanga Basin, but we also have the Surat Coal Basin further east in between Dalby and Roma. That is really in its developmental infancy. We know it is a great resource. I am sure the minister is aware of the potential of the coal seam methane in that area. Power generation using natural gas is a very clean source of energy. Power stations are being developed and built as we speak, but that also requires trucks to come in and out loaded with equipment to construct the new power stations or powerlines to feed into the national grid. We have one just west of Dalby—there is going to be a base load, gas-fired power station at Braemar. There is another one near Miles going in for Queensland Gas using coal seam methane as one of their sources. This is all putting additional pressure on the Warrego. I met yesterday with members of an energy company, Linc Energy, who are using the resource of fairly deep coal—it is not economic to mine that coal for the quality of the coal that is there. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —Chinchilla. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —It is exactly as the minister says. Only this week, the company ran the world’s first trials of the technologies that they will use to convert that coal into methane and into hydrogen and to bring it to the surface to then produce kerosene and diesel. If they get the approval of the state government and from the EPA and other approvals required, they will be constructing the enterprise. It is just one of many, I might add, that is being constructed right now, but this particular one will deliver 800 jobs during the construction phase and 200 jobs permanently thereon. Their estimates, on which they base their economic studies for the viability of their operation, indicate that they are looking not to the next two, three or four years but to the next hundred years. They will be producing 100,000 barrels of oil equivalent per week. Putting aside all the coal seam methane development, the power station developments using coal seam methane for clean energy or the coal resources of the Surat basin that Xstrata want to open up near Wandoan and the development that will go hand in hand with that—the equipment will of course all come in on roads along the Warrego Highway—Linc Energy say that by 2012 they will be putting a B-double on the road transporting fuel from Chinchilla to Brisbane every half-hour, 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We are seeing in the electorate of Maranoa an exponential rise in transport not only on our major roads but also on our local government roads and, of course, state governed main roads. I am sure the Minister for Resources and Energy, who is at the table, would be aware that if the road user charge goes up to 21c not every road will benefit from that increase in terms of a truck stop. We will certainly be monitoring the situation to make sure that truck stops are appropriately placed along our national highways. I have raised this concern about truck stops with some of my colleagues. In the far west in my electorate there are very long distances between communities, even between small communities. I am not sure that we should be putting truck stops in the middle of nowhere. Many people would say that they would be in the middle of a beautiful part of Australia, and I would agree with that, but I think that these truck stops would be much better placed if they were close to or on the outskirts of those smaller communities. When truckies stop they like to get a cooked meal from the local cafe or service station, which generates some revenue. If you put them in the middle of nowhere there is very little benefit to those smaller communities. On the Landsborough Highway there are places like Tanbar and Blackall, and then you get to Winton on the way up through to Cloncurry. East of Tanbar are Augathella and Morven. They are very small communities and their economies are very fragile. Locating some of these truck stops near those small communities will bring a benefit not only to the trucking industry but also to the economies of some of those communities. I think we would see a win-win situation. If we put them 30, 40 or 50 kilometres out of town, between major centres or even small communities, as we have in my electorate, I think we would see tourists pulling up to camp the night and use the facilities. Although their vehicles are often self-contained and they have their food and water in their refrigerators, I think they would use these truck stops, which is not their intended purpose. I hope the minister has some influence on his colleagues in relation to where these truck stops will be located. I will certainly be pushing that point, as I will be pushing the issue of outback roads, where truckies will still be paying the fuel excise but seeing little if any benefit on the roads on which they operate on a day-to-day basis. My time has almost expired, so I would like to say that I hope the government will accept the opposition’s amendments. I want to make sure that we do have transparency in any increase in taxes that are imposed by this government. It is important that we do not have a process where the government can automatically increase indexation on fuel excise without the scrutiny of the parliament. As I said earlier, that was something that the coalition abolished. It was one of those policies introduced by the Hawke and Keating governments, and we all know what that led to in Australia. When there is a process of automatic indexation of any excise there can be no scrutiny and no influence from the other side of the House. The industries that have to pay that increased fuel excise do not have any input into how and where those moneys are spent. I commend the bill to the House in the hope that we can get these amendments through. I hope the minister at the table is able to have some influence in relation to the points I have raised about the location of truck stops and the importance of making sure that the outback roads of the AusLink network will benefit from the increased revenue from this fuel excise. Those who use the road pay the excise and they deserve to see some benefit from it on the roads on which they operate on a day-to-day basis. 9872 11:04:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise to speak in support of the two bills before the House, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. In doing so I think it is appropriate to commence my contribution to this debate by reflecting upon the principles that are contained within these two bills. They are principles that have received bipartisan support in the past and that have formed the basis for the policy of successive governments in this area. They relate largely to the notion of cost recovery from heavy vehicles and the heavy vehicle industry in respect of road construction and maintenance. These have been incurred through the collection of heavy vehicle charges and, as I said earlier, these principles have been supported by successive governments. Indeed, in a speech delivered on 28 June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition government’s transport reform agenda’ the then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the Nationals, Mr Vaile, said: The National Transport Commission will develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination to be implemented from 1 July 2008. The new determination will aim to recover the heavy vehicles’ allocated infrastructure costs in total and will also aim to remove cross-subsidisation across heavy vehicle classes. The sentiments contained within that comment really do support the propositions that underpin these two bills. They are that there should be, appropriately, a reallocation of costs imposed upon various heavy vehicle drivers and users to reflect the contribution to the damage and the requirement for continued maintenance generated by those vehicles. As a result of the reference of the matter to the Council of Australian Governments at that time, the comments of the then minister were ultimately taken on board and the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination was made. Earlier this year, on 29 February, the Australian Transport Council adopted and supported the implementation of the elements of the heavy vehicle charges determination. In respect of the two bills being considered by the House, the first of the two bills, the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2), deals specifically with changes to the registration costs principally of those vehicles that are registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. It is relevant to note that they account for only approximately three per cent of heavy vehicles. There is the voluntary system of registration at the federal level, but there are obviously many more vehicles covered by the respective state and territory regimes. In respect of those particular regimes and the actions taken by those jurisdictions it is worth noting that those jurisdictions have already implemented the terms of the agreement nutted out at the meeting of the Australian Transport Council, which in effect endorsed the implementation of the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. What we now have is a situation where various changes have been made in respect of road user charges that apply insofar as those vehicles that are registered at the state and territory levels are concerned, but those adjustments have not been made under the federal scheme. This is of course an integral part of our ongoing efforts to achieve a seamless national economy to try and overcome some of the barriers and challenges that the federal system can sometime present. In the area of heavy vehicle driving, I think that is one example of where there are numerous issues that arise on a fairly frequent basis in respect of different regulations, requirements and charges that apply from one state or territory to another. It is important that we restore a position where some uniformity is achieved, and that is what this particular bill seeks to do. It is worth noting that, in respect of the registration charges, one-quarter of the drivers of heavy vehicles that are registered will benefit from an overall reduction in costs as a result of this measure. It is worth taking that into account. They are, in particular, the smaller of the heavy vehicles, which are currently carrying a disproportionately high share of the burden of ongoing maintenance costs associated with our very extensive road network. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 deals specifically with changes in respect of the road user charge, which is ultimately levied as a result of the excise impost in concert with the fuel tax credit rebate process, which under present arrangements ultimately leaves a 19.63c per litre impost in the form of the road user charge. This bill proposes that that be lifted to 21c per litre. This initiative comes against the backdrop of increased road funding by all levels of government. I note that in the press release made by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government when he introduced this bill was the following statement: It will also lift the Road User Charge for heavy vehicles to 21 cents per litre from 1 January 2009. This small increase reflects the fact that since the last change to the charge in 2001, spending by all levels of governments has risen by 33 per cent. This reflects the additional contribution that governments at all levels are making when it comes to road spending. As a result of that, to ensure that we continue to provide sufficient investment in roads, that charge is being increased by a fairly modest amount, to 21c per litre. One of the key elements of this package, and it is one that I wish to direct my comments to, is the range of initiatives that will address some of the safety concerns on our roads—safety issues facing all road users but more particularly those who are behind the wheels of heavy vehicles and who do such a great job in keeping the wheels of the national economy moving. The issue of the safety challenges faced by people in the road transport industry in particular is particularly close to my heart and one that I have spoken about in this place on numerous occasions in the past. Importantly, this package makes provision for $70 million to be spent on safety initiatives. I think most observers would say that this is a welcome investment and a step in the right direction. In fact, I note that the Australian Trucking Association, in a press release, said: The $70 million of funding is a good start, but it is not nearly enough to build all the rest areas that we need. That is probably a fair point, but it is worth noting that it is a very good start. Those funds will be applied to a range of purposes, all relating to various safety initiatives that we hope will make our roads safer not only for heavy vehicle users but for all road users. The package sets out some of the detail of the vehicle productivity and safety agenda of the government. There is a four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, which will fund a number of things but in particular the construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers rest. It will involve trials of black box technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed. There will also be significant investment in bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes. I want to direct my comments towards three particular aspects of the safety package. There is the issue of providing greater investment for rest areas. This is a critical area, and I commend the government for recognising the great need for more rest area facilities for heavy vehicle users across this country. The Australian Trucking Association issued a press release setting out a list of funding priorities. There are many items that have been identified within that list and, as a consequence of their consultation with other stakeholders, they suggest many areas which would be and should be some of the first locations to be considered for these new rest areas. The No. 1 priority that was identified—at least, it appears as the first one on the list—was: Construction of a major rest area, including adequate capacity for changeovers and decoupling, in proximity to the intersection of the M7 and M4 in Sydney. This area is located very close to my electorate, although it is not in my electorate. The Westlink M7 is a tremendous motorway that has been of great assistance to economic development right across the Western Sydney region. Where it intersects with the M4—if you consider the M2 to be the north-western motorway and the M5 to be the south-western motorway then the M4 is the central western motorway—has become known as the Light Horse Interchange. It truly is one of the most significant intersections throughout our road network in this country. It has been a great boon for investment in the Western Sydney region. Anyone who has driven along the M7 in that area will see the proliferation of new businesses providing local jobs in the Western Sydney region. The sheer volume of truck drivers using that particular route does lend real support to the proposition that we should look at funding improvements for rest areas in that location. I support the comments that have been made by the Australian Trucking Association and would like to lend my voice in support of that particular proposal. Another element of the safety package is the trial of black box technologies that electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed. Clearly, the very demanding and gruelling hours required of many truck drivers, who often subject themselves to these as a result of financial necessity, need to be balanced against the need for public safety on our roads. Governments at all levels are moving, albeit somewhat slowly in some cases, towards increasing the extent of regulation in this area to ensure that drivers are not being forced to work hours that ultimately threaten the safety of other road users—not to mention the safety of the drivers themselves. It is one thing to start to beef up these requirements and to increase the extent of regulation on our heavy vehicle drivers, but that really only underlines the significance of my earlier point about the need for greater investment in rest areas if we are requiring greater monitoring of the hours that are being driven. I think there are legitimate reasons for doing that; there are, of course, arguments on how best to achieve that. Certainly, some of the chain of responsibility initiatives that have been supported by the New South Wales government in the past have gone a long way towards achieving best practice in that regard. But as we require more of our truck drivers at a regulatory level, it is only fitting that we make that investment in the rest areas. The bridge-strengthening initiatives are also to be supported. These bills form an important package. They will go some way towards addressing the massive safety concerns and issues that we face on our roads, particularly those that are faced by heavy vehicle users. I think it is a package that will be welcomed throughout communities right across this country because of the important role that it will play in trying to make our roads safer. I commend the bills to the House. 9875 11:20:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008, and also in support of the transport industry in Australia, which is part of the lifeblood of our economy. Truck driving is an arduous, difficult and dangerous occupation. As one of the few members in this House who has a heavy vehicle licence—that is, a licence to drive a truck—I have great admiration for the road transport industry. These rigs, which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars—some of them are worth more than half a million dollars—are not only essential in the transport of our goods but take real skill and capability to manoeuvre on the road in a way which maintains the safety of not only the trucking industry but, more importantly, the general public, who at times are held in awe by the size of these vehicles and the speed at which they travel. They travel at the same speed as a normal motor vehicle and they are able to stop in a more than safe distance, but they do require highly skilled operators—men and women who are dedicated to the profession. Part of my speech on these bills will deal with some of the issues which those men and women face as they go about their day-to-day activity of not only earning an income for their family but also, importantly, transporting goods across Australia. These goods provide the powerhouse of Australia in the energy they deliver to households every day as well as to industry, which in turn provides jobs. The transport task in Australia is going to increase dramatically over the years ahead. We need to ensure that the industry is sustainable—sustainable in terms of its economics, sustainable in terms of obtaining people with the skill set and the desire to drive these rigs often from one side of Australia to the other and sustainable in terms of the infrastructure that those people travel on and the service they provide. These two bills implement new charge-setting elements of the heavy vehicle industry: the registration charge and the road user charge, which is deducted from the fuel excise rebate paid to operators of heavy vehicles, an arrangement that was introduced by the previous government. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 applies the first feature of this legislation—that is, it deals with the registration charges that apply to the five per cent of heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme. Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers agreed to these new charges in February in a process that was undertaken to provide an outcome, and that process included consultation with the industry. Therefore, the states and territories have already implemented the new schedule. This means that 95 per cent of Australia’s truck fleet are already paying for the charges. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 puts in place the second charge-setting feature, the road user charge. At the moment, the road user charge is set by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government using a feature of the Fuel Tax Act 2006. This bill will amend the Fuel Tax Act 2006 and set the road user charge at 21c per litre. It will also enable new regulation to change or index that charge. The bill also repeals the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 to allow the ACT to set its own registration charges, a practical amendment which the coalition in opposition supports. The history of these bills is very much part of the continued development of legislation around and applying to the heavy transport industry in Australia. The coalition recognises that the changes that have been made in these two bills were presented in essentially similar terms earlier this year to the House. Importantly, changes have been made to ensure the Commonwealth maintains the discretion to determine its own charges on federally registered trucks. This is important as it allows for competitive pressures to be applied to state registration fees and in turn ensures maximum efficiencies in state based regulation systems, bringing into play a very important facet of this bill. The reality is that states can, by and large, charge whatever they like for registration. Some states allow their own quirkiness and peculiarities to come into the equation. Thus, having an anchor, a cornerstone or a point at which their charges can be judged is extremely important. It may only affect five per cent of the fleet, but it provides a base from which not only state governments can be judged but also the industry itself can say, ‘This federal charge is based on a transparent policy which we understand,’ because it is involved in consultation with the federal departments. Therefore, its arguments are strengthened when it goes forward to argue its cases on the balance of trucks that are registered under state schemes. It is important also that the legislation has been changed to remove annual adjustment fees to fees based on costs related to road construction and maintenance. This could have been in the order of seven to eight per cent, and it would have been a huge impost on the trucking industry, which is already bearing the burden of high fuel costs and the impact of global financial pressures. The trucking industry is an industry where profit margins are slim. It is an industry which requires a huge amount of investment. As I say, these rigs—B-doubles and, in western areas, B-triples, double-B-double road trains and other massive rigs—can cost up to $1 million. If you are operating a three-B-double combination—that is, effectively six trailers pulled behind a prime mover—it is more than possible that, by the time you put all the extra electronic monitoring equipment on it, you could be approaching a million dollar investment. Also, if you own one, you tend, as is always the case, to own half-a-dozen. So you have truck fleets worth millions of dollars. You are then employing men and women to drive them—predominantly men. I am informed that women are gentler on trucks, and I also hear that is the case in the mining industry. From my previous profession, I also know that women harvesting contractors have a lighter touch. But the industry still is predominantly a male domain. These men and women have to be paid, and it is a profession which requires them to be away from home. So, on top of the initial capital expenditure, you have the wages and the conditions for the drivers. Then, as is always the case, fuel costs are a very significant part of operations. We see an industry that is very competitive and that operates in an environment where costs fluctuate almost on a weekly basis with fuel prices. This industry could not have borne the burden of the extra costs associated with road construction and maintenance. The removal of the annual adjustment of that is certainly important. The coalition recognises the importance of a consistent regulatory regime to the trucking industry that covers all of Australia. That is of particular importance to the trucking industry because an industry which operates the same truck in perhaps every state or at least in four or five states, sometimes in the same week, needs to know that the rules are consistent. If they have a fleet based in Brisbane they need to know that the rules are the same as for a fleet based in Adelaide, Melbourne, Perth or Sydney. The coalition therefore has no objection to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 component of this legislation. The bulk of this tax is already being collected, as I said earlier, as the states have already implemented the changes. The coalition also has no objection to the element of the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 as it applies in the ACT. Without the change, ACT truck owners would be paying higher registration fees than those in the states. The second component of the bill lifts the road user charge to 21c per litre from 1 January next year. The idea behind this is to recover some of the costs that are incurred from heavy vehicle use on our roads. No-one denies that there is a cost associated with that, and the road transport industry certainly acknowledge that they need to make a contribution. Currently the road user charge is 19.633c per litre, which is calculated by applying a rebate to the 38.14c a litre in tax that the trucking industry pays per litre of fuel. The coalition acknowledges that changes have been made to this provision from the original position, in which it was linked to indexation and was essentially the reintroduction of the indexation of fuel. In terms of industry consultation, there has been a comprehensive, consistent and safe system of road regulation in Australia, and that is a fundamental part of road transport in this country. It must be transparent, it must be accountable and it must be developed in close consultation with the industry. The coalition has long believed that sharing the load is an important part of the system and that the trucking and transport sector should make a financial contribution for the betterment of the entire transport network in Australia. The industry certainly agrees. It is a collective responsibility; it is one which is shared, but it is a responsibility on all of us. However, this legislation should not lead to the declaration of open season for a tax grab on the sector. It is important that it should not be a one-way street. The Rudd government has made it very clear that its proposed four-year, $70 million, heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, which will fund the construction of roadside facilities and trials for electronic monitoring equipment, is a commitment that is contingent upon the successful passage of this bill. I express my support for the investment through this package. The construction of roadside facilities, though, has not been defined. We do not know where they will be and we do not know when they will be constructed. We hope that the package will include a transparent process to ensure that these facilities are built where the industry needs them. The industry knows this issue best. It is very easy when you are driving a motor vehicle from A to B and see a truck stop on the side of the road to wonder: ‘Why is that there?’ The reality is that the truck using that stop may have started its journey in Melbourne, Adelaide or perhaps even Perth and that that truck stop is strategically placed not only to give the driver the opportunity to rest but, probably more importantly, the opportunity to rest as per the legislation—that is, that he or she does not exceed the number of hours before a rest is required to comply with the legislation. As I mentioned earlier, the road transport industry is a crucial part of Australia’s future economic growth. This is important in looking at where Australia goes with infrastructure—and I note the government’s infrastructure fund becomes more and more complicated and less and less transparent every day. I also note the fund is currently allocated $20 billion, which is substantially less than was promised by the Howard government. If the coalition had been re-elected we would have been spending more than $30 billion on infrastructure in Australia. Particularly in the area I come from, that infrastructure would have been crucially important to the development of South-East Queensland. There is a massive amount of road transport going on in Australia at the moment. Road transport is the key to economic growth, so it should be no surprise to anyone that the areas where there is very high pressure on the infrastructure because of the need for extra freight tasks are those with high population growth. Talking of high population growth, I see the member for Braddon sitting over on the other side of the House. I know he has some beautiful roads down there in Tasmania but high population growth perhaps is not his most immediate problem. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom —Planning for the future, Macca! WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I like to hear a strategic approach from the member for Braddon. But the here and now, Member for Braddon, is that in South-East Queensland we are under enormous pressure for infrastructure to be built. I look forward to a process through Infrastructure Australia where the mayors of the local shires, the transport operators, the commuters, the state governments and all community groups have an opportunity to explain the priorities. In terms of explaining the priorities, I reject the comments by the member for Longman. I note he is not here now, but if I were him I would not be either. He suggested that there should be retribution against coalition seats because of the coalition’s debating of government legislation in the Senate. He said that, for holding up those new taxes that this government is trying to introduce, there should be retribution taken against coalition seats and that the infrastructure should not flow to those seats. I hope the member for Longman has reconsidered that statement, because not only is that a damnation of democracy in this parliament but it highlights the fact that the Labor Party is already considering a political fix on infrastructure rather than making Infrastructure Australia a proper, transparent and clear process. If it is a proper, transparent and clear process, one of the priorities of Infrastructure Australia should be the Toowoomba bypass of the range crossing north of Toowoomba to ensure that 5,000 trucks a day do not have to drive through Toowoomba’s main street and mix with school buses and, in particular, mums taking their children to school. The main street of Toowoomba cannot sustain carrying heavy vehicle transport in the longer term, and at the moment it is starting to choke the economic growth of western Queensland. The Howard government recognised the importance of the Toowoomba bypass. They allocated in the May 2007 budget $700 million to start the construction of this range crossing. That money has been withdrawn by the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. That money is being squirreled away for some other process. The people of Toowoomba are growing impatient. On the basis of necessity, on the basis of the environment, on the basis of safety and on the basis of economic growth—criteria that the Prime Minister outlined in this House about the allocation of these moneys through Infrastructure Australia—the Toowoomba Range crossing should be at the top of the list. If you have a B-double at Helidon and you want to traverse that crossing and end up who knows where—perhaps in Roma, Darwin, Moree or Goondiwindi—you face the prospect of travelling for nearly an hour up a range crossing that has such a steep gradient that some of these trucks do less than 10 kilometres an hour. The emission from those engines is then carried into the city as the trucks traverse the city, stopping at 16 sets of traffic lights. It is not only the safety issue but also the impact on the environment. All of that can be swept away and these trucks can traverse the range in probably 15 minutes or less, saving three-quarters of an hour of operation. The range crossing is a priority and I support this legislation. 9879 11:39:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I acknowledge the contribution by the member for Groom. I agree with 95 per cent of it, except I would remind him before he tears out of the House looking for the Toowoomba Range crossing application that he is going to put in— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane —It’s already in. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —that the former government had 12 years to deal with major infrastructure throughout Australia and the bottlenecks that the lack of infrastructure caused. I can assure him that our processes for introducing major infrastructure funding throughout Australia will be transparent and open and will not be the political fix that he so ungraciously commented on. But in the main his comments on this legislation were very positive. Indeed, he has made a very positive contribution towards improving transport and infrastructure in Australia, particularly in his role as a former minister. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 is to amend the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985, which imposes registration charges for heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s voluntary Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, or FIRS. By way of background, the vast majority of trucks—that is, 97 per cent—are registered under state schemes that have already implemented these changes and, indeed, these charges. The bill allows regulations to be made to specify heavy vehicle charges for application to FIRS vehicles themselves. The bill will enable the implementation of the registration charge elements of the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination, which revises national charges for heavy vehicles and trailers for application to heavy vehicles registered under FIRS. Again by way of background, the determination was agreed to by the Australian Transport Council on 29 February 2008 and was implemented by all states and the Northern Territory on 1 July 2008. The implementation of the determination is part of the national road transport reform agenda as agreed under the Inter-Governmental Agreement for Regulatory and Operational Reform in Road, Rail and Intermodal Transport. The determination implements the request of the Council of Australian Governments to fully recover the cost of provision of the road network to the heavy vehicle industry. This bill is another important but small step that will help to restore balance in this country and put players in the transport industry back on a more level footing. The bill will essentially mean that everyone is paying their fair share to cover the impact they have on the transport network around Australia. Our broad and diverse nation cannot survive without an efficient and well-maintained road network, and this is what we are trying to achieve through this current amendment. My own state of Tasmania is particularly reliant on road transport. As a very productive state, we have a great need for strong links between the various corners of the island state to send our quality products to the world stage. I note my Tasmanian colleague the member for Franklin is in the House and would agree that these quality products that we all share very much rely on movement by road transport in Tasmania. If the transport industry is not driving then the Tasmanian economy is not moving. More than 400 heavy vehicles traverse Tasmania daily, and the industry directly employs thousands and is critical to the success of so many other businesses throughout the state. Robin Phillips, from the Tasmanian Transport Association, tells me that the importance of the road networks to my state cannot be underestimated and, with some uncertainties currently surrounding rail operations in Tasmania, it may even play a greater role. Mr Phillips says this is why investment in road infrastructure, which this bill is partly about, is so critical. He says many parts of Tasmania’s key roads are at a similar stage to the Hume Highway of more than two decades ago, when a major push for upgrading began. Road accidents will always be an issue when there are a huge number of vehicles travelling towards each other on one carriageway. The more one can isolate vehicles from oncoming traffic the better. We have seen a great example of this recently in my electorate, where I was privileged to open the final stage of the duplication of the Bass Highway between Burnie and Devonport. The Bass Highway is the most heavily freighted traffic road in Tasmania, due in part to the ports of Bernie and Devonport. Indeed, the Bass Highway goes through to Launceston. The completion of this section helps overcome poor service levels and queuing problems; reduces the number and severity of accidents with consequential economic benefits to our community; delivers longer term economic benefits through improved trade and commerce, both within the state and with markets on the mainland and overseas; and improves the connectivity in the north-west of the state. The final stage of the duplication was worth $47 million and it included a second bridge over the beautiful Leven River at Ulverstone. It also completed the entire $70.5 million project, which has meant a major improvement in the safety and travel time between the two major centres of Devonport and Burnie. Safety on our roads is something that we can never downplay. An important spin-off of this legislation will be the Rudd government’s $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. So what does this include? As the member for Groom mentioned, trials of black box technologies that electronically monitor truck drivers’ work hours and vehicle speeds can only have but good, positive, safety oriented results. The construction of more heavy vehicle rest stops and parking areas along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities again can only have very positive, safety oriented effects, as can bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes. The safety measures will tie in with other changes in the transport scene across Australia. In February 2007, as I mentioned, the Australian Transport Council approved model legislation to reform the management of heavy vehicle driver fatigue. The new nationally consistent laws should have come into effect in most mainland states on 29 September this year. Tasmania plans to introduce the reforms next year. The reforms will apply to heavy vehicles with a GVM of 12 tonnes or more and buses that seat more than 12 adults. Driver fatigue remains a leading contributing crash factor for heavy vehicle drivers. Indeed, the pressure on heavy vehicle drivers is great, and I am not sure that people appreciate the demands that are made on these drivers by the transport sector. I sometimes also believe that most car drivers fail to recognise the significant driving skills needed to handle these rigs in particular on our roads. The new laws change the focus from regulating hours to managing fatigue. Working longer hours and fighting the body’s natural clock at night is recognised as a high-risk activity and dealt with accordingly. More flexible working arrangements are offered to those parties who can clearly demonstrate proper management of driver fatigue issues. The new laws also recognise that other parties in the chain of responsibility can influence on-road driving behaviours. Parties in the supply chain whose actions, inactions or demands cause or contribute to road safety breaches can be held legally accountable. Everyone in the supply chain must take reasonable steps to prevent driver fatigue and ensure that a driver does not drive a heavy vehicle while impaired by fatigue—an approach consistent with occupational health and safety laws. Offences under the new laws are classified according to the actual level of risk: the greater the risk involved the more significant the penalties. Penalties will range from fines under an infringement notice to court imposed penalties and the loss of demerit points. Responsibility for fatigue is something that the Transport Workers Union says cannot be overstated. Bill Noonan, branch secretary for the Transport Workers Union, says it is up to everyone in the delivery chain to play their part in ensuring the safety of heavy vehicle drivers and, in turn, everyone else sharing the roads. That is common sense and makes for greater safety. He says people on the distribution end of the supply chain need to make sure they do everything they can to avoid excessive queuing wherever they can, but also provide proper facilities and areas for drivers to rest, hence the relationship to this legislation. This is not just peculiar to areas of the transport industry on long-haul road transport but also relevant to sectors like logging, where it can sometimes be overlooked. Indeed, the transport undertaken by logging contractors and others in my state is considerable. Mr Noonan tells me that people often think of transport as being the big long-haul routes across the various states. But he challenges anyone to go to their local shopping centre and look at everything on the shelves and realise that it was all delivered by a truck or a van of some description. He says the industry is one that is used to meeting challenges, such as the current rise in fuel prices, and is prepared to pay its way for a reasonable return in areas such as road infrastructure and safety. Some have said it will be just another cost that will be passed on to consumers, but these are recommendations that have come from work initiated by the former government. The National Transport Commission says the cost of groceries in remote areas may increase by a maximum of 17c for every $100 spent. I accept this is a cost, but in terms of trying to develop greater safety it is something that we must do for the benefit overall. It must also be noted that the change to this legislation will only impact on a small number of transport operators across the industry who have federally registered vehicles. State registered trucks, as I mentioned at the commencement of my speech, are already covered under the new regime. Improving transport infrastructure and increasing safety is the central point of this bill. It will ensure that everyone is making a fair contribution to the funds that will make that infrastructure a reality and encourage government to invest in both roads and safety both now and into the future. 9882 11:53:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —As I rise to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 I do so knowing that the transport industry is always under pressure. The owner-operators of trucks—and there are thousands of them; they are probably the biggest class of self-employed small business people in Australia—by and large are under the most competitive pressure of almost any small business people in Australia. They do a good job. Unfortunately I think they are taken advantage of at times by big companies and big operators, because a lot of their work is subcontract work. Obviously this country is very dependent upon road usage, road haulage, and always will be. But it is acknowledged by everybody that we need to get as much as possible onto rail—not so much the current amount of goods moved around Australia, but the increase that is going to happen over the next 10 to 15 years. We need to get it onto rail rather than have it all come on-road, because common sense says we are not going to lower the amount of goods that are hauled around Australia. The object certainly is to get as much of the increase, especially the long-haulage increase, onto rail as is possible. The first part of the bill, as has been mentioned by others, we basically agree with. The fact that the Commonwealth registration situation is coming into line with the changes made by the state governments to user charges we pretty much agree with. It is good to see that FIRS will continue to exist. It does provide an alternative—competition, if you like—to what is done by the states. I think in one sense it keeps them on their toes—and they know it, because registration is a very big income stream for state governments, particularly New South Wales—and while ever FIRS exists, which is an alternative registration situation, if they get too out of line, then instead of registering with New South Wales or Victoria or whichever state it might be, operators do have an alternative. I believe that is a good thing. It is very important that the approximately $88 million that will be raised out of these increased user charges—and I certainly hope that the current government takes note of the fact—is spent by the government state counterparts on roads and not stuck into general revenue. In New South Wales, certainly, that is something that will need to be watched pretty carefully, given the desperate situation of the government and their desire to simply try to keep Sydney, Wollongong and Newcastle thinking at least that they are being looked after. There is no guarantee that that money will be spent on roads and certainly no guarantee at all that it will be spent outside of the Sydney basin. There are some issues in the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill that we are far less comfortable with. In March this year the government attempted to bring in what was in effect indexation—something brought in by Labor originally that we put a stop to in 2001—when they increased the charges for trucks. I think to line it up in an indexation sense was a very dangerous thing to do. The fact that they have removed that section from this bill is obviously a good thing. They will no longer be able to automatically increase those charges to the trucking industry or to any other sector of the road industry. I acknowledge that that is no longer there. Once again, though, the extra almost 2c that will be gathered from heavy road users really does need to go into roads. As I look at New South Wales in particular it would seem that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is very keen to help New South Wales out in urban transport rather than the roads and the passage of goods around the country. One of the things that he seems to have totally ignored, forgotten or deliberately put aside is the need to put through a Melbourne to Brisbane rail link, which is called the western route, which would go through— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Baradine? 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr JOHN COBB —Parkes. It would go through, quite obviously, between Dubbo and Narromine, which is the obvious route for it to take, as indeed it should. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Pilliga? 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr JOHN COBB —Well, yes and no. It must happen; it is a question of when. Personally I have no problem with private industry being involved in making it happen, but the point is that it will not happen—and neither will something probably just as important, and that is to have a freeway through the mountains opening up Sydney to western New South Wales. This is very, very important and I believe it should be rail as well as a freeway. Linking western New South Wales via a western route for a Melbourne to Brisbane link is an incredibly important thing. We had allocated $20 million to do the engineering study for that route through the mountains. We put in $15 million to push ahead with the engineering placement for the western route for rail access from Melbourne to Brisbane. If you link those two things up in western New South Wales, you have immediately unclogged Sydney. I think one of Sydney’s biggest problems is access. To persevere with getting goods from Melbourne through to Brisbane and vice versa, even from Sydney to either of those two places, via the coastal route is a little akin to madness because you are going to keep throwing good money after bad. Without spending the kind of money that the American administration is currently spending on underwriting credit in the US—and around the world, in effect—you are never going to make it an open link from Sydney. It would be far cheaper, far faster and far better to spend money where our previous government saw it needed to be spent—that is, in opening Sydney up to western New South Wales and making western New South Wales the much faster route for goods going from south-eastern Australia to the north; and also linking it up with the Indian-Pacific railway line going to Perth, and by virtue of that also linking it up with Adelaide and with Darwin. As trade increases—and it is generally the lighter and faster goods that are travelling out of Darwin to Indonesia, Malaysia et cetera—that will become more and more important. But this does need a strategy, and that is certainly lacking in New South Wales transport ministers. I recall the previous Deputy Premier of New South Wales, Mr Watkins, once saying, ‘Why would you want to spend money west of the Blue Mountains putting in a rail link from Melbourne to Brisbane?’ I guess it is that kind of short-sighted ignorance of strategic planning that has left Sydney in the mess it is in today. It is well known, and many people involved in transport have proved this, that businesses with their warehouses located in Sydney could deliver goods much cheaper and much faster, for example, from the town of Parkes to south-eastern Australia—in fact they could deliver all the way from Brisbane to Adelaide within 24 hours. If they warehoused there, they could deliver anywhere from Brisbane all the way around to Adelaide within 24 hours and it would save them money compared to their situation in Sydney now. Sydney is such a bottleneck in terms of going north, south or west. If you put a freeway and a decent railway line through the Blue Mountains out to the central west, you would open up Sydney. I think the estimate is that 14 hours less is needed to go through the central west—through Parkes and Dubbo—from Melbourne to Brisbane or the other way to transport goods as against the 2½ to three days it takes currently to go along the coastal route through Sydney. That does not make very much sense. We do have to think long term. I get very worried when I hear the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government talk about in effect subsidising the deficits owed by state governments, particularly New South Wales, and wanting to put all the money held in reserve for infrastructure—out of AusLink, be it 1, 2 or 3—into urban transport. Clearly that is nobody’s responsibility except the state government’s, who have obviously got themselves in a terrible pickle in New South Wales, but that is their fault and nobody else’s. They should let New South Wales concentrate on fixing that. The federal government and the new minister should take responsibility for fixing the strategic nature of transport infrastructure around Australia at the federal level. Previous transport ministers—be it Warren Truss, John Anderson or Mark Vaile—set up a system whereby we took over the major train routes. To simply forget them now that we have actually taken responsibility for them and start spending more and more money on what are very much state responsibilities is going to condemn the strategic movement of goods around Australia to continued confusion. It is all very well to pick up urban transport, be it in Melbourne, Brisbane or Sydney, but to do that at the cost of the future of transport, be it transport to port or transport inland, is to do a very short-sighted thing. It is certainly looking after your old mates, as the minister would be if he starts pouring all that money into Sydney. I think that money was designated for the strategic movement of goods around Australia, as I just said—things like the inland rail from Melbourne to Brisbane through the central west of New South Wales and things like opening up a freeway, which will in effect in the medium and long term be of enormous benefit to Sydney. His only concern seems to be relieving the pressure on the New South Wales government. In conclusion, I would like to say that we basically support the first part of this bill. It is certainly good to see that those parts which relate to indexation seem to have been removed from the second part of the bill. The issue really is that the money gathered by the Commonwealth government and by the state governments is spent on roads rather than trying to get them out of a hole that they may be in. 9884 12:06:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I rise to speak in support of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and cognate bill. Before we get into the substance of the bills, I welcome to the parliament today Drysdale Primary School and Gary Vaughan, who is looking after a group of 70 kids from Drysdale Primary School who will be here later in the day. Drysdale Primary School is within my electorate of Corio. It is always a wonderful thing to me to be able to go out to Drysdale Primary School, which is a fantastic school run under the stewardship of its principal, Claire Wilson. These students come to this place in a very significant week. They will see some important discussions about our nation’s affairs, not the least of which is this debate, as well as the debates afterwards on the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 and, particularly relevant to them, the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. So I very much welcome them to the parliament and hope that they have an educational and enjoyable time. This bill amends the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act of 1985, and it does so to enable the implementation of a new registration system of charges under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme as detailed in the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. The minister, in his second reading speech in relation to this bill, noted that there are approximately 365,000 heavy vehicles currently operating in Australia. The work that the heavy vehicle industry performs is vital for our national economy. It generates $1.95 billion per annum in revenue for road funding. To put that in some kind of context, the total national road funding expenditure in Australia is currently running at $11.67 billion per annum. This revenue is generated through the application of registration fees and through the road user charge. The National Transport Commission has identified that the current revenue-raising methods provide for a shortfall of about $168 million per annum in relation to the heavy vehicle industry share of road usage. The Council of Australian Governments has determined that the costs associated with providing our national road network to the heavy vehicle industry ought to be fully recovered. That is, in its essence, the fundamental purpose of this bill that we are debating today. It brings the federal charges into line with those that currently exist under state registration systems and state enforcement systems. It ensures that there is a uniformity amongst heavy vehicle registration charges throughout Australia. By providing that consistency we will also remove what might otherwise serve as a disincentive for the states to invest in road infrastructure designed to serve the heavy vehicle industry. That said, the Rudd government understands the vital importance of the Australian heavy vehicle industry to our national economy and also the difficult conditions under which drivers in the heavy vehicle industry operate. It is for that reason that part of the proceeds that arise from this bill will go into a government fund—a $70 million fund—for heavy vehicle safety and productivity, which will provide a safer working environment for those who are driving heavy vehicles and, of course, therefore provide a safer environment for all Australians who share their roads with heavy vehicles. Before I entered the parliament, in my previous career it was my great honour and privilege to serve as an official of the Transport Workers Union—indeed, ultimately as its national assistant secretary. The Transport Workers Union is a body which represents 85,000 transport workers around Australia, a number of whom work in the heavy vehicle industry. So it is an industry with which I am familiar and so I am also very familiar with the pressures that are placed upon those who drive heavy vehicles. But I also understand, through that experience, the importance of continued investment in road infrastructure, which is what this bill will ultimately provide. It will increase productivity and it will provide for a safer working environment for all drivers of heavy vehicles. The industry supports this measure. The Business Council of Australia’s Infrastructure: roadmap for reform in September of 2007 stated: We need to ensure that high productivity (that is, larger and longer travelling) trucks are charged appropriately. Not only will this help road/rail neutrality, it will facilitate having B Doubles and B Triples on our roads. According to current forecasts, those needs only stand to increase. There is a real imperative for additional infrastructure investment, particularly in our road network. Our nation’s roads carry 72 per cent of all the annual national freight tonnage in Australia, and Engineers Australia predict that the current national freight tonnage will double over the next 20 years. If you add to that the overall projected increase of 2.6 per cent in road usage and congestion you can see that there will be a significant demand placed upon our road system by all vehicles leading up to 2020. You can then see what will happen if you do not have that investment. You will move to a point where the level of road congestion ends up stifling productivity and growth. This, indeed, has been one of the key capacity constraints on the productive capacity of our economy, which is why it is so essential that we now invest in our road transport infrastructure. The Rudd government understands that roads are the arteries of our nation. They provide cheap and accessible means for industry to transport goods around our country. Their maintenance and expansion is utterly critical to continued national growth and productivity. This is an understanding which has permeated through federal Labor governments going back into history. It was the Whitlam government in 1974, for example, that established the national highway system with the National Roads Act 1974. It was Paul Keating, in his One Nation statement of February 1992, who articulated the importance of transport infrastructure to the national interest. Indeed, it was the vision contained in that document which was vital to the establishment of many of the ring roads which now encompass our nation’s cities—such as Melbourne’s Western Ring Road, which the Keating government funded to the tune of $555 million. As well in that package was the upgrading of rail links between major capitals such as Melbourne and Sydney, and Sydney and Brisbane. Of course, in the first budget of the Rudd government in May of this year, funding was provided for the completion of the Geelong ring road, which is in my electorate, and that road will be utterly critical to the continued growth and prosperity of the Geelong region. Indeed, the Rudd government allocated over $3 billion for road funding for the current financial year in the May budget, and in doing so it maintained the ALP’s legacy of nation building in this area. Under the Hawke and Keating governments, average funding per annum for roads ran at a rate of $2.3 billion. Conversely, in the first eight years of the Howard government, that average dropped to $2.05 billion, representing a total reduction of $2 billion in spending on our road infrastructure system during that period. Overall, it represented an 11 per cent reduction over the term of the Howard government in spending per annum on our nation’s road infrastructure compared to the spending that occurred under the Hawke-Keating government. The diminished level of investment in our nation’s road infrastructure coincided—and it is no coincidence that it did so—with a corresponding drop in national productivity growth under the Howard government. In 1995-96 the annual increase in labour productivity was running at a rate of 3.7 per cent. In 2007-08 the rate of productivity growth had fallen to 1.1 per cent. In 2006-07 productivity was increasing at a rate of 0.9 per cent. In fact, on average the rate of productivity growth in the four years leading up to 2007-08 was only 1.2 per cent. The Howard government had a multiplicity of views when it came to infrastructure investment and productivity. There was absolutely no consistency at all in the way they acted. The former member for Lyne, the former Deputy Prime Minister, said in this place on 20 June 2007: You— in reference to the government— need to continue to invest in much-needed infrastructure across the country to continue increasing competitiveness and productivity. Yet, at the same time, there was a decreasing level of funding and an ignoring of the infrastructure capacity constraints which then existed in our economy. What we saw from the Howard government was mere blaming of the states—buck-passing for their alleged underinvestment in infrastructure. The hypocrisy in all of that would have made Machiavelli himself blush. But the Rudd government is utterly committed to improving our nation’s infrastructure, to meeting the current shortfalls in our infrastructure and to removing the capacity constraints on our nation’s economy so that we can allow it to grow. We are committed to investing in the nation’s road network to ease congestion, to provide increased capacity and to increase access for Australia’s heavy vehicle operators to our national road system. Most importantly, we are committed to ensuring that our nation’s roads are safer for heavy vehicle drivers and for all users. This bill assists the government in meeting those commitments. This bill allows regulations to be made to specify heavy vehicle charges for application to Federal Interstate Registration Scheme vehicles. In doing so, it enables the implementation of registration charges prescribed in the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination as devised by the National Transport Commission. The determination was requested by the Council of Australian Governments following the April 2007 meeting chaired by the former Prime Minister, and it was in part a response to the 2006 Productivity Commission study which found that heavy vehicles and the heavy vehicle industry were not paying their fair share of infrastructure costs. That meant, accordingly, that those vehicles were gaining an unreasonable advantage over rail and also over smaller trucks operating on the road. So what this scheme will do is bring the new charging regime into line. It brings registration costs for heavy vehicles registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme into line with the same levels of cost of registration which currently exist in the states. It is important to understand that only three per cent of heavy vehicles are in fact registered under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme; the remainder are registered under the state schemes. Part of the proceeds that will come from this bill will be directed into a $70 million heavy vehicle safety package. At the moment approximately one in five road deaths involves a heavy vehicle. Speed is regarded as the causing factor in 30 per cent of those crashes and driver fatigue in 60 per cent. According to the report of a House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts inquiry in the year 2000, entitled Beyond the midnight oil: managing fatigue in transport, fatigue was regarded as being a factor in 20 to 30 per cent of general motorists’ accidents, costing the nation around $3 billion per year, while heavy vehicle accidents related to fatigue cost around $300 million per year. These are very disturbing figures, both in the contribution that they make to the very tragic size of our national road toll—which last year totalled 1,616 people—and in the staggering costs which they impose upon our nation’s economy. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Transport Workers Union on all of its campaigns and in particular its recent campaign to highlight the importance of safety within the heavy vehicle industry. One of the key elements of that campaign has been to stress the importance of managing driver fatigue. (Quorum formed) I am impressed by the power of the Transport Workers Union; the mere mention of their name sees the opposition jump to their feet and close down the debate. But I would like to congratulate the Transport Workers Union on the campaigns that they have run in relation to safety within the transport industry and, in particular, the heavy vehicle industry. If you go to their website, you will find a video which has some stark footage which compares the effects of fatigue amongst office workers to those driving trucks. The video ends with the office worker tired, the result of that fatigue being that they drop their coffee cup. Of course, it then cuts to the tired driver of a heavy vehicle, and the consequences of their fatigue are much more considerable. In conclusion, this bill will provide increased uniformity and fairness in heavy vehicle registration fees. It will assist in improving safety within the heavy vehicle industry and within the road transport industry in general. It will also assist the government in rectifying the years of disinvestment in infrastructure, which was the hallmark of the previous government. The Rudd government is determined to address infrastructure capacity constraints. We are determined to increase productivity and access to suitable roads for Australia’s heavy vehicle operators, as demonstrated by the investments announced in the last budget. This bill absolutely forms part of the Rudd government’s commitment to its nation-building agenda. 9888 12:26:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on theInterstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. Many of the members opposite, in speaking about both of these bills, have taken care to emphasise their understanding of the trucking industry, their understanding of what life is like to be an interstate truck driver and of the difficulties those drivers face, but I think they speak with forked tongues. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government makes it very clear in his second reading speech that the package dealing with driver fatigue ‘can only be funded following the passage of this bill’. I think that that is an insult to all of our hardworking truck drivers, both those employed by trucking companies and those who work as independent contractors and who are doing it particularly tough at the moment. If this government really cared about truck drivers, they would act quickly and effectively to put in place their $70 million package to fund rest areas for truckies. Anyone who travels the state highways would have to conclude, if they thought about it, that there are insufficient places for trucks to pull over. For the government to arrogantly say that some sort of increase in excise over a period of four years is required down the track before it can take action and build these vital rest stops is, as I said, an insult to truck drivers and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of and a lack of care for this important sector of the community. There are two bills under consideration today, and the coalition has very little issue with the first one. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 permits new registration charges to apply to the five per cent of heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, which we have heard called FIRS in this place today. Already, 95 per cent of Australia’s heavy vehicle fleet are operating under the revised registration schedule. FIRS provides an alternative to state based registration for heavy vehicles and is designed to provide uniform charges and operating conditions for heavy vehicles that carry interstate goods exclusively. Currently, slightly more than 21,000 heavy vehicles are registered under FIRS. In spite of its limited application to our heavy vehicle fleet, we in the coalition recognise not only that the bill promotes regulatory consistency for vehicles solely involved in interstate operations but also that this is a scheme that provides competition and discipline in the heavy vehicle industry. I think it is fair to say that not charging heavy vehicles for the full cost of the damage they cause to roads is, if you like, counterintuitive to an efficient freight industry. The consequence of not recovering costs in full is that heavy truck operators, especially operators of B-doubles, are being subsidised. The National Transport Commission estimates the value of the subsidy to be around $168 million, and there has been some discussion that this subsidy may adversely affect the rail freight industry because heavy trucks, notably B-doubles, compete most directly with rail freight. The principle does hold that the service user should pay the full cost to society of providing the service, though with some important considerations and some genuine understanding. But an efficient freight industry requires that this principle does apply to road and rail alike. I would like to point out that the revised registration charge that is now being levied across almost all of Australia’s heavy vehicle fleet will generate an extra $88 million per annum to the coffers of the states and territories, and I would expect that the states and territories will use this extra money appropriately—or I would hope that they would use it appropriately; I cannot say that I would expect it. I do think it is essential that truckies see a return on this charge. The Rudd government has made much of its great relationship with state governments and I think this is an area where it should put some pressure. I think it is fair to say too that the coalition will not support future increases in registration fees unless we can see clear evidence that this extra money is being spent on roads. With those qualifiers, we will not oppose the bill. The second bill, about which more has been spoken today, is the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. I want to talk about the second part of the bill, which amends the Fuel Tax Act to implement a road user charge rate of 21c a litre from 1 January 2009. The road user charge is levied on the basis that the costs arising from the industry’s use of the road system should be recovered. Both the trucking industry and the opposition accept this principle, but what is most important is that the amount is seen to be fair, not hiked up unnecessarily, and that it is spent on roads. Motorists and the trucking industry currently pay 38.14c in tax for every litre of fuel they purchase. That, of course, is the excise. The trucking industry claims a partial rebate under the Fuel Tax Act, and this act sets a road user charge for the heavy vehicle sector, which is intended to recover the costs attributable to the industry’s use of the road system. Trucking operators can then receive a rebate through the tax system for the difference between the fuel tax they pay at the pump and the road user charge. The road user charge is currently 19.633c a litre, and the rebate is 18.51c a litre. Should the road user charge be set at 21c a litre, the rebate will be 17.143c a litre. So, effectively, that is a 1c a litre increase in the road user charge. It sounds a small amount, but of course it does not take long to add up the number of litres of fuel used on long-haul truck driving routes. When you consider the distance travelled, the freight covered and the task at hand, this is certainly a significant increase. This increase is the result of a decision by the Australian transport ministers earlier this year. It is very easy for transport ministers to sit around a table and make decisions about increased charges. I do not think it is that easy for those who have to wear the effect of them, but I accept that the transport ministers did make that decision. In this bill the government has removed the link to indexation, which was something that the coalition raised as a very serious concern earlier this year, and we acknowledge that it has made that change and we believe that it is a constructive improvement. But, as has been mentioned in previous speeches, there is a concern that there is still some ability through regulation for an automatic indexation to take place and we need to make absolutely certain that that is not the case. Parliamentary scrutiny of an increase in this charge should not be removed the next time the government decides that it needs to extract more money from the trucking industry. My main concern is that the government has linked these bills to the implementation of its announced $70 million, four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. Members of the government have talked up this package in their speeches and emphasised its importance. I am not sure how many rest stops you would get for $70 million, even if you spent the entire $70 million on rest stops, but I acknowledge that any funds allocated for this important provision should be recognised. What the transport minister is doing by tying the passage of these bills to date to this productivity package amounts to blackmail. Threatening to block this $70 million package, inadequate as it is, is dirty politics. It harms the safety of those who work on our roads and it harms the safety of those who drive on our roads, whose lives and whose families’ lives matter to us as their representatives in this place. Anyone who has experienced the life of an interstate truckie, or who has seen a truck pulled over at the side of the road, knowing that they themselves are on their way to a comfortable bed in an air-conditioned room, when the temperature outside might be 45 degrees—notwithstanding that the truck might be air-conditioned and notwithstanding that it is not the same as sleeping in the back of a car—will tell you that it is not particularly comfortable. You get up the next day and use inadequate washroom facilities and in many cases there are inadequate catering facilities and then you have to present yourself for a full day’s work, which requires a high level of concentration to drive at the speed you do on our interstate highways. You are dealing with other drivers, who are not always predictable, and when you get to your destination, you possibly have to wait hours in a queue while you get your slot in order to unload the freight that you have brought. During that time you cannot sleep. You just have to sit there and wait. I cannot overstate the annoyance and the anger that I have at the government’s tactics in relation to this paltry amount of $70 million that we are allocating, which I might add is not all for rest stops; it is for three other measures as well. The amount that will actually trickle down to rest stops is bound to be very small indeed. The arrogance that they are displaying over this measure is an insult. We really need to make a very strong statement about that in this place. New tax increases are not required. State governments and this government have very efficient methods of collecting tax. They have the money in the bank. They need to get out and do the job and get the rest stops in place. I think the Australian Trucking Association has nominated 18 that need to be built immediately. Members in this place need to travel some of our highways—they say they have—and actually observe where the rest stops would be and how inadequate they would be. The government has not linked the new charges to obligations on the states to deliver their promises to harmonise transport regulations, and I think that is a real problem with this bill, when Mr Rudd talked about ending the blame game. What is the government doing about this failure of the states to eliminate these cross-border rule changes, which are completely impeding the development of an efficient and cost-effective national road transport system? All this talk about wall-to-wall Labor governments meaning we can get things happening has come to nothing. The key weakness of these bills is that they simply do not address the problem of regulation reform. We have talked in this place about heavy vehicle driver fatigue reforms. As I said, I think that links very strongly to rest areas. The states and territories have responsibility for the regulation of heavy vehicles in their jurisdictions. They have to pass the required heavy vehicle fatigue management laws and implement them, but the problem is that all around the country, despite promises made by transport ministers sitting around a table and signing off—how easy is that—the laws are not being implemented nationally. If you are driving an interstate truck between New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland and South Australia, in some places the new laws came into effect on 29 September but some have been given a period of grace. So as a truck driver you really have no consistent picture in your mind of how the new laws will impact on you and whether you are breaking them in the particular state you are in, because of the differences in laws and transitional arrangements. I think the need to harmonise laws between states is the most important thing, apart from providing adequate rest areas. In New South Wales, my home state, 29 September saw the introduction of the new fatigue management laws. The government has passed laws requiring trucks to stop at rest areas that do not exist, and that is outrageous. There is a work diary that truck drivers are required to fill in. When I conducted a fuel forum in Broken Hill, in the west of my electorate, some months ago, truck drivers raised the concern that they had gone to a forum where the issue of these new requirements and laws was discussed. They had been told—and I appreciate that this is anecdotal, and I need to note that—that if they made spelling mistakes in their work diary they could be fined. A group of them heard this and obviously did not react very positively to it. I think truck drivers are paid for their ability to drive and operate an extremely complex piece of machinery, not their ability to spell correctly. So there are baffling inconsistencies in the treatment of national road freight by the states. Nothing sums this up better than a letter I received from Hehir’s Transport, based in Rand in my electorate of Farrer. I will read part of the letter: Dear Sussan …            …            … I write … to express my support for the development of a single national heavy vehicle licensing, registration and regulatory system for heavy vehicles in Australia. … my business and my drivers have been frustrated and penalised routinely by inefficient and ineffective regulation of the road transport industry. In these tough times the burden of regulation is crippling my business and the industry. Our company has been accredited in the National Heavy Vehicle Accreditation Scheme since 2004 in Mass and Maintenance modules. A national scheme it is far from. As you may be aware, the road transport industry is separately regulated by every State and Territory Government as well as by the Commonwealth Government. My business, moving freight into and out of my local community, is not limited by borders, however in the 21st century the regulation that affects my business is. As an example, there are individual pieces of legislation in every state and territory governing numerous issues that affect the day to day operation of my business, ranging from fatigue (In some States this can be three different pieces of legislation), driving hours, vehicle axle and gross weights, dimensions, road rules, driver licensing, registration, vehicle access, driver behaviour, vehicle roadworthiness, load restraint, vehicle design, combination design, emissions and noise control, to name a few. Each of these matters is duplicated around the country, and none, not one is the same. There are more than fifty pieces of legislation around the country, and that’s not even starting to list the other general business operating laws … taxation, workers compensation, OHS etc. In addition, we must know about and carry individual permits for each state, in each vehicle, just to move freight for the benefit of the nation around the country. Each permit can range from 2 pages in length to some … 300 pages long, with every page required. These permits are regularly updated. To administer this process can be a nightmare, and if we miss a single page the fine can range from $180 to $1100 on each occasion. You may be aware that over recent years, the chain of responsibility provisions has been introduced to a number of pieces of legislation governing the road transport industry. By and large a positive move, however as a result my customers now require my employees to fill in more documentation, complete more forms on every journey and carry more paperwork on their behalf. Much of this has been done under a national model approach overseen by the National Transport Commission (NTC). With all due credit to the efforts to date by the NTC, the national model approach has not worked. The practical implications of the laws are also a significant concern for my business. Rest areas are a key issue. Laws regarding fatigue and driving hours are very specific in relation to the need for drivers to take rest breaks, which will often occur whilst in the middle of a journey. There is a fundamental shortage of heavy vehicle rest areas, and when drivers do find a rest area it is often full. Combined with Road Rule 200, which prevents heavy vehicles from parking around towns and cities for greater than an hour, heavy vehicle drivers are being forced to drive in contravention of the law and whilst fatigued due to demonstrably insufficient places to take quality rest breaks. It is in this context that I write to you seeking your support to bring some sanity to the current situation. I cannot emphasise strongly enough that running an interstate transport business efficiently is now almost impossible. The paperwork is never ending. I would like to thank the truck drivers in my electorate, the independent contractors, the big truck companies that provide employment to drivers, the owner-drivers and those who travel the long and sometimes terrible distances in rural and outback Australia, with very little thanks and certainly not much understanding, it would seem, from the present government. I look forward to the amendments that the coalition will move in this parliament to the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill to prevent the establishment of an automatic formula for excise rises. As I said, although there has been some recognition by the government in this legislation, we want to make quite sure that the next time the government needs to find an excuse to raise taxes it does not go to the trucking industry. We are also moving to lock the federal, state and territory governments into promises made in February to build heavy vehicle rest areas. We in the coalition believe that at least 50 should be constructed on the national road network each year, and plenty of money has already been collected from the industry to fund such works. We do not have to turn to the transport industry in this time of drought and financial uncertainty and, as a government, put our hands out for more money. States are introducing new fatigue management rules requiring drivers to stop and rest but, as I said, there are inadequate rest areas available. The coalition wants the states and territories to get on with the task of delivering uniform national transport laws and regulations because so far the promises have been empty. I have not mentioned—and I probably should—that the increases in charges that these bills will bring about when they are passed through the Senate will of course be passed on to consumers, increase the price of goods that we buy in the supermarket and add to the pressure that households are already under. It would have been good if the government could have absorbed some of these costs. I look forward to the amendments that we in the coalition will move and to the ongoing support from this side of the House of the trucking industry generally. 9893 12:45:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a great pleasure for me to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. Not only do I support truckies and their families and not only do I—like many people, if not everyone, in this House—have friends who are truck drivers but also I have a real affinity with the work they do. I think many of us in this place should ponder the type of work they do, the workload, the time away from home and what it means to their families. Truck drivers, particularly interstate truck drivers, are very much like us. They tend to leave home, perhaps on a Sunday evening, travel interstate, spend the whole week away from home working and then return home on a Thursday night or Friday morning. That would be very familiar to members of parliament. I always feel that there is an affinity between our working hours, if not the type of work that we do. I have been known on occasions, when asked what I do, to say, ‘It’s like being an interstate truck driver; you leave home on a Sunday afternoon and you get back on a Friday morning.’ With that said, I want to acknowledge the essential services provided for this country by the broad trucking industry and truck drivers. There is no question of the essential nature of the service they provide. There is no question of the need. It really is the backbone of Australia. Moving freight across this nation is what makes our economy tick. There have been a number of reports in this area. In the last parliament, I was involved with a very significant report as a member of the House Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services. We inquired into the freight task across Australia and learned a lot about some of the needs of truck drivers and some of the job and family pressures that are on them. They also do a very complex job, while on the surface it may not appear to be to some—we have heard in this place a variety of views on that. We just heard the last speaker saying that truck drivers drive an expensive and complex piece of equipment. It is good to hear that from at least some members of the opposition, but that is not the view of all members of the opposition. We heard a most interesting view last night—a contribution from the member for O’Connor, Wilson Tuckey, who tried to make a comparison in his normal, colourful way between what a truck driver does and himself. He was saying that he was once the holder of a heavy vehicle licence but was not allowed to renew it because there had been too much of a gap. He had lost, the authorities said, the experience or skills to drive a truck, so he could not renew it. He thought that was an affront to him. He likened it to riding a pushbike. He said: ‘Once you know how to drive one of these trucks, you know forever. You don’t need to go through all this complex stuff like having a licence and renewing it and all the other bits and pieces. It’s just like riding a bike. Once you know how to do it, you’ll know how to do it for the rest of your life.’ It is probably a little bit more complex than riding a bike, and you are not going to kill too many people or get into a very serious accident on a pushbike compared with what you might be doing hauling an 18-wheeler or a B-double down a crowded road. What has characterised the opposition in this debate, sadly, is either their lack of empathy, understanding and knowledge or their sheer opposition for opposition’s sake. In debating what makes a really good bill and in moving forward on a range of things that need to be done, we need to make it very clear from the outset that both of these bills perform some very critical tasks. One is a very small increase in the fuel excise from 19.3c to 21c. It is a very small increase, a very small charge, but an essential one and it is essential for truck drivers. This increase gives them a boost. It is about providing them with better facilities and resources. It is about improving the road transport network for them and other road users. Those are the facts not according to us but according to a Productivity Commission report which was commissioned by the previous government. It was commissioned by John Howard, who in April 2007 was the Chair of COAG, which required the Australian Transport Council, through the National Transport Commission, to come up with a new system of charges, to be implemented by 1 July 2008. This is really a follow-on from the previous government’s acknowledgement that there was a need to do something. I think we in this place need to accept that there are only two things you can possibly do that will make a real difference practically and immediately. The first thing is to improve our road network in terms of safety. Improving our road network is critical. If we want fewer accidents, if we want truck drivers to be better rested and if we want the freight task to be more efficient and safer overall, then we need a better road transport network. How do you pay for better roads? In the end you do it through taxes. That is the bottom line. The states and territories very clearly provide the greatest proportion of funding for roads within the states and territories, and the federal government comes to the party for the national road network. The reality is that the Productivity Commission’s study into road and rail found that there just was not enough capacity in the existing system. The recommendation is that we have a very small increase. We need to be clear about that. It is a very small increase from 19.3c to 21c, but it will make a very big difference. That is the key. We have coupled it up with a number of other packages, but it is essential. The government is determined to make a difference in road safety to improve our roads and to make sure that truck drivers have the proper legislative networks in place and that there is harmonisation across the states and territories so that the things we here are criticising are dealt with. That is why we are moving down this path. We also heard from opposition members on unfair increases of taxes and charges and how detrimental this might be. A number of organisations, including trucking bodies, have done their own estimations of the impact this charge will have on families and out in the community. Their best estimates are that between 7c and 17c per $100 will be added to the grocery bill. That is the sort of difference. I think it is an acceptable difference when we start talking about people’s lives, about road carnage and about the things that we in here can practically do to make a difference. I am prepared—and I know most families are—to accept 7c to 17c extra on a $100 grocery bill as a necessary cost of improving the safety in which those goods at our supermarkets travel. Let us not hear this claptrap from the opposition, this banging of the table and this carrying on about how there is going to be devastation and carnage and how this will be the end of the industry. You hear all the doom and gloom. There really is a three-ring circus in the opposition. Yesterday we saw the first ring of that three-ring circus. The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, came into this place and did what he has been doing for some time. He is trying to create the greatest magic trick of all time. He is the Australian version of Harry Houdini. He is trying to make a budget surplus disappear not once but twice. He is getting up on stage and trying to do this. Yesterday we heard from the member for O’Connor, Mr Tuckey. He decided he was going to be a clown in that three-ring circus. Today we see the third ring. We have opposition members coming in here and claiming all sorts of rubbish about what this bill will do, about its necessity and about where it has come from. I would say to them: take a close look. (Quorum formed) I have to say that it is pretty rich of the opposition to come in here and call a quorum on what they consider to be one of their areas. This is their territory. They are talking about road transport. You hear the National Party batting on and carrying on in here about how important it is. But, when the debate is on and when there is freedom to speak in this place, what do the opposition do? They take every opportunity to silence debate. They want to gag debate. We see the member for Ryan in here. He is the culprit; he is responsible for gagging debate. The reality is that, if you are interested in these issues—and these are about really important things such as safety and reducing the road toll—then you will allow people to speak on these bills. I am quite disappointed in the way that the opposition have behaved. Let me put on the record right now some of the statistics, which are the reason we are making the very vital changes in this bill. At a national level, one in five road deaths involves a heavy vehicle. Usually speed and fatigue are the largest contributing factors. That is why the state, local and federal governments need to act together. They need to act in a coordinated way to ensure that we provide safer roads. I am sure I am about to get a little bit more, if the member for O’Connor has been listening to my contribution, as he is walking into the House! I expect a few words to come flying across any moment. In 2007, at the national level, road crashes killed 1,616 people. Those involved motorists, truck drivers, passengers, cyclists and pedestrians, and the number was 18 more than in 2006. The really frightening part about the statistics, particularly those involving heavy vehicle use, is that there has been a dramatic increase in the number of fatalities on our roads. Governments, trucking associations and everybody else involved cannot just sit back and let these shocking statistics continue. We are talking about people’s lives and people’s families. We are talking about essential services. Forty-seven per cent of those accidents involved single vehicles and 10 per cent involved articulated trucks, the rest being made up of others. On the surface, these figures may not seem like a large percentage but, when you look at the national level or turn to my own state of Queensland for a moment, the figures are much higher and much worse. In fact, they are quite frightening figures. Today, when I did some extra research on the carnage on our national roads, I was taken aback by just how large the problem is. In Queensland as of 10 March this year, heavy vehicles were involved in 26 of the 65 deaths that occurred on Queensland roads. This represents around 40 per cent of the total road toll for this year, and that is despite the fact that in Queensland heavy vehicles represent only two per cent of registrations. It is a very disproportionate representation in terms of road fatalities and it must be acted on. For a long time there has been a debate, and again I think a false debate, as to who is at fault. Often truck drivers get blamed. The blame is pointed squarely at them because they drive the bigger, heavier vehicles, but let me assure people listening to this debate now and people who might read this debate later that that is actually not the case. It is a myth. The case is that the great majority of fatal accidents involving articulated vehicles, heavy vehicles and trucks are not the fault of the truck driver. I think there is an easy explanation as to why that is the case. While at times it is the fault of the truck driver, and accidents will occur—there is no question of that—I think where we come in and where our responsibilities can best be applied is in providing better roads. That is why this government is acting, after waiting 12 long, wasted years and seeing the now opposition do very, very little about the road transport network, investing very little in national infrastructure and not dealing with the issue or accepting that our road transport network and rail systems interlink. We need to play a leading role. I think the former federal government for a long time decided they were busy doing other things, that there were other things more important. They actually articulated that over many years and in many different places. They said it was not their responsibility. Their view, their ideology, was, ‘We’ll do the big-ticket things that we think are really important—national security, immigration and a couple of other things.’ We agree they are important. We also agree, though, that road transport is important, that the freight task in this country is important. We think it is just not good enough to say, ‘That’s just the responsibility of states and territories.’ We say no, that we live in a pretty wide land—this is a big country—and that if you are going to move freight right across the country you need to act in partnership with the states and territories, you need to harmonise and you need to take some action, as we are doing today. Again, I heard criticism earlier from one of the members of the opposition, who was saying that there was no real commitment to working with the states because we had not compelled them. Let me inform the opposition there is more than one way to deal with this matter. It is not all about compulsion. It is not all stick. You can actually offer a few carrots in this debate, and that is what we have done. We are prepared to work through COAG. We are more than prepared to sit down at the table and negotiate. We see this as a long-term strategy. We see this as a way forward in partnership with the states and territories—something I know is a foreign concept to the opposition. They have never worked in partnership. They have always worked for themselves. They have always worked in their own best interests. These two bills will do a number of significant things. They will be part of a $70 million fund across the country to improve rest stops and to provide some new black box technology for trucks. We are going to be working with trucking associations, the trucking industry and trucking unions, making sure that we consult widely and with the whole sector. We want to make sure that businesses have their concerns addressed, we want to make sure that truckies have their concerns addressed and, in the end, we want to make sure that we provide a decent level of funding and an ability for the states and territories to provide the safe road network that we need. If there is one thing we can do in this place and one thing alone that will make the biggest difference in reducing the road toll, it is improving our roads. We have taken that on board and we have done it in a number of ways, not only through this legislation but also through Infrastructure Australia and through making a massive commitment to infrastructure right across the country. We said in opposition and through our policies coming up to the last election that we wanted to be nation builders, and we are now delivering on that. These two bills that we are discussing and debating here today are adding to that. I think both of these bills should be supported unanimously by everyone in parliament because of the essential work they do. The small, petty criticisms that we have heard from the opposition are just that. In the end, they began this process last year through COAG. John Howard, then the Prime Minister, was chairing the COAG meeting when he asked the Productivity Commission to look into this and look at new charges in terms of delivering better roads. So there was some commitment, but what happens when they get in opposition? They just decide, for opposition’s sake, that they will oppose, criticise and hinder these bills as much as they can. I commend these bills to the House, because they are about road safety. They are about truck drivers. They are about improving the lot of all the families involved in the freight task across Australia, about acknowledging and recognising the contribution they make and about the partnership role that we ought to be playing with the states and territories. 9897 13:06:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —It is with great pleasure that I speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. I have to make the comment, though, that when the government members have spoken on these bills they seem to have forgotten about a program called AusLink. AusLink was a creature of the Howard government. It did a lot for our country and would have continued to do so. In fact, I think the last amount we spent in government on AusLink in about five years was $38 billion. To put that into perspective, in real money terms that is about eight times the size of the Snowy Mountains scheme. So it was a nation-building exercise and, whilst we do not have a problem with the nation-building exercises of the present government, it almost seems strange that this government does not give any credit where credit is due. My electorate under AusLink, in the last three years alone, got $225 million for main roads. There is the Dukes Highway, which is the main highway from Adelaide to Melbourne, and the Sturt Highway, which is one that goes through the Barossa, the Riverland and on to Sydney. So they are two major highways which have received a huge and very necessary commitment in funding. Of course, on top of that we had the Roads to Recovery program which every local government in Australia is very thankful for because of what it has delivered for local roads. In many cases we have been in partnership with both state and local governments all around Australia to improve our roads. In fact, the first speech in this parliament that I made after my maiden speech was about infrastructure. That is something that I feel is very important. I know you do too, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, because we, as part of a committee in our first term, brought down one of the most important standing committee reports to do with infrastructure in rural areas and that is something that we are both very proud of. Like the member for Groom, I also have a heavy truck licence. It would be interesting to actually see how many people in this chamber have a heavy truck licence. Being a farmer I have been involved with trucks all my life. The first truck that I grew up with was a Chevy long-nose truck from around 1953 and it did not have any indicators. It had a thing that stuck outside the door and you pulled it to say you were turning right or you put your hand up to say you were stopping. We have come a long way since then. In fact, when my parents got their driver’s licenses, they wrote away for them. It was a bit like getting them in a Kellogg’s Cornflakes packet—you just wrote away and got a licence. To this day, I think, my 91-year-old mother still has a licence to drive a semitrailer. Thank God she has never tried, although she is quite a good driver in her own right. The semitrailers, the B-doubles and the road trains that we have in this country now have certainly made the transport industry much more efficient than it was when we just had the simple lorries of, say, 50 years ago which were basically all we had. If you look at our transport industry in comparison with, say, Europe’s, we are far more efficient because they still have a large number of lorries rather than the B-doubles and the semis that we have, certainly in the same sorts of ratios. Indeed I still have a truck on my farm, which my son runs. It is an international ACCO bullnose truck. One of the great enjoyments I always had was driving the truck because generally if I was driving the truck it meant I had something in the back that was worth some money. That is why it was important—whether it was carting hay, grain, lucerne seed or sheep, there was always something in the back that was going to be part of my income. The transport industry is a very important part of our economy. I do not think anybody doubts that and I do not think anyone doubts what this legislation will do for the transport industry. It is nowhere near as large as AusLink, but it is nonetheless a very important part of what we do as members of parliament. Transport is a major industry in my electorate of Barker and the road network is a challenge across the region. We all take it to heart as MPs when somebody dies on our roads and we believe those roads could have been better. We wish we could have made sure that that sort of thing did not happen. Unfortunately, you can never engineer or legislate against stupidity or people who, through lack of attention, make mistakes. Often it is in a split second and we have fatalities as a result. The city of Mount Gambier in my electorate is situated midway between Melbourne and Adelaide and is the centre for a very large transport industry. It is the transport hub for Scott’s Transport, K&S Freighters, SWF Transport and many other trucking companies, and all of Mount Gambier’s and the surrounding region’s industries rely heavily on incoming or outgoing freight services. Elsewhere, firms like Ielasi Carriers, McKenzie Freighters and many others contribute billions of dollars annually to South Australia’s gross domestic product. While a firm like Scott’s Transport in Mount Gambier would have at least 600 trucks, there are many small business owner-drivers in the electorate struggling to cover the costs of diesel, which daily gets closer to $2 a litre, as well as the expenses involved in increased registration charges along with higher maintenance costs of their vehicles. Given that transport and in particular heavy vehicle transport is of immense importance in my electorate, I have taken a very keen interest in the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 before us today. If the Labor government is so keen on bringing forward bills which aim to increase the road user charge by 1.3c a litre and raise charges for vehicles under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme then it is essential that any benefits of those charges be returned to the industry and its hardworking operators. Fatigue is a significant issue for drivers in South Australia and indeed for all of Australia. We have vast wide-open spaces and fatigue is particularly relevant for those travelling long distances in our rural road environment. It is estimated that heavy vehicle driver fatigue is estimated to cause about 30 fatal crashes, 150 serious crashes and 3,200 minor accidents a year. The provision of rest opportunities for drivers through heavy vehicle rest areas is therefore paramount in addressing fatigue related crashes. Historically, rest areas in South Australia have been subject to greater criticism by road users and representative groups. Criticisms of rest areas in South Australia include their poor quality compared with other states both visually and functionally, and I can certainly attest to that; that many of them are poorly maintained, with particular issues being rubbish and damaged facilities; a lack of toilets—many rest areas have used toilet paper and human waste present because there is a lack of toilets, and that is not a very nice thing for anyone; and, in many cases, the use of those rest areas for stacking aggregate for building future roads. It seems to have been a convenient place for local government but mostly, I think, state government to deposit all that aggregate, which of course takes space away from those rest areas. A further criticism is the lack of truck-friendly rest areas. Many rest areas are prohibited to trucks for whatever reason, although historically used by the industry. Another criticism is the inappropriate size of rest areas. Many of them, because they were built some time ago, do not have the required capacity for the number of trucks and B-doubles in my area. At some rest areas it is necessary for road trains to turn across traffic to access the rest area, which is contrary to regulations for these vehicles. So there are still many complaints about the rest areas around South Australia. Fatigue is not the only reason that drivers break up long-distance trips; they also need rest stops, toilet stops and time to consume the food they have with them. Unfortunately, there is also a growing trend for tourist travellers, with a large percentage of new caravans and all motorhomes being self-contained, to camp for free in rest areas, and that is not what they were designed for. Whilst I support tourism, especially in my electorate—we welcome everyone; we have a green light at all the borders to encourage people to come into the electorate—we should encourage caravan and campervan drivers to plan their journeys to take advantage of the available opportunities in towns and commercial facilities. They need to do this so as not to impact on the ability of heavy vehicle drivers to continue to utilise the rest area facilities for genuine fatigue management reasons at any hour of the day or night. In June this year, the Rann Labor government identified a number of locations in my home state of South Australia where the demand for rest stops is high. These included the South Eastern Freeway; Dukes Highway, between Tintinara and Bordertown; the Sturt Highway, between Waikerie and the Victorian border; and the Sturt Highway, between Truro and Gawler. All of these come within the electorate of Barker. Others out of the electorate were Port Wakefield Road, between Port Wakefield and Gepps Cross, and approaches to Port Augusta. In August 2008 the Australian Trucking Association called for heavy vehicle rest areas on key interstate routes to be given the highest funding priority, which makes sense in a lot of ways. In its submission to the government, the ATA provided a list of 18 priority locations where new or expanded rest areas are needed right now across Australia. Confusingly, there was only one specified in South Australia and it was not in my electorate. It is a mystery to me why the critical areas identified by the state Labor government just months earlier were not included. However, I am pleased to note the South Australian Road Transport Association is submitting an additional list of rest areas in South Australia to the Australian government for its consideration. I trust this list, whenever it is submitted, will include areas identified in the electorate of Barker and that attention to these areas will not be delayed in any way for not being on the recent list. Monday, 29 September 2008 saw the introduction of the new fatigue laws in Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia. The new fatigue laws require truck drivers to take more breaks, including seven hours of continuous rest every 24 hours, and to drive fewer hours each day. I remember that one of my neighbours used to do a regular trip to Perth, non-stop, which took him 25 hours. I do not think we should ever encourage that sort of practice. So we have new fatigue laws requiring truck drivers to stop for rest breaks more often, but there simply are not enough places for them to stop. It is all well and good to have these laws in place but, if they have nowhere to stop, what is the point? It is putting the cart before the horse. These new laws to reduce accidents caused by driver fatigue will only work if there are enough rest areas for drivers to stop. They cannot just park on the shoulder of a major highway and go to sleep for seven hours; it is unsafe and it is likely they would not be able to sleep anyway because of the passing traffic. The Australian Trucking Association’s recent audit concluded that none of Australia’s major highways have enough rest areas to meet the national guidelines. I will repeat that: none of Australia’s major highways have enough rest areas to meet the national guidelines. The ATA said in their media release of 22 August 2008 that thousands of new rest areas are needed across the country, including on state roads. Specifically, they called for 900 new truck stops to be built by the year 2019 on the AusLink network and they have given their support to the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill before us today in return for a commitment from the Rudd Labor government. The lack of places for heavy vehicles to stop is not unique to South Australia, and the Australian Transport Association says thousands more are needed to address the severe shortage of truck stops around Australia. They call for capacity upgrades to the existing rest areas, given the rest areas just are not big enough to cope with the larger number of trucks that will need to stop at each place. The amendments to the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill proposed by the coalition today are necessary to ensure that the heavy vehicle industry benefits from the higher charges being imposed on trucking companies and owner-drivers. Labor should not be free to index the excise at will. They have certainly got form in that: the Hawke government had an automatic excise increase in line with the CPI. What Labor are proposing here is a road user charge that is actually greater than the CPI, and they should not be allowed to do that without further parliamentary scrutiny and negotiation. If these amendments do not succeed, the Rudd Labor government will have given itself yet another stealth tax lacking in scrutiny and consultation and with no need to justify why the increase is necessary. Our proposed amendments would require the government to adopt an open and transparent system for setting the road user charge, instead of indexation. A few weeks ago in this place I spoke out about the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s stated intention to link the passage of AusLink legislation to the release of funds for rest areas. While he ultimately did not reflect that in the legislation, it nonetheless revealed that we do not have a minister with the safety of Australia’s heavy vehicle drivers in mind. Holding the safety of drivers to ransom at a time when there are not enough rest areas for truck drivers on Australia’s major highways reflects the level to which this government will stoop. Lack of rest areas means that drivers are forced to press on when they are fatigued—a serious threat to road safety. Just last week the Chief Executive of the Australian Trucking Association, a former member of this House, Stuart St Clair, provided details of a report by the government research agency Austroads. It has audited the rest areas along 12,700 kilometres of Australia’s major freight routes against the national guidelines for rest area facilities. The report concluded that none of Australia’s major highways fully meet the national guidelines, which require a major rest area every 100 kilometres, a minor rest area every 50 kilometres and a small truck parking bay every 30 kilometres. We are certainly nowhere near that. It is with reluctance that I support bills which impose higher charges on the Australian transport industry, but I do support these bills because of the assurance of the industry bodies, such as the Australian Trucking Association, that the industry will wear the charge in return for a commitment to a specified number of rest areas. I support them because it would be unfair to impose tough penalties under the new fatigue laws on truck drivers who have to keep driving because there is not a rest area nearby where they can stop safely. I give notice to the government that I will be watching them very closely on this commitment. I expect to see evidence in the form of many more rest areas as I travel throughout my electorate. My electorate is bigger than Tasmania. I do a lot of travelling. Every day that I have been in my electorate since I was elected I have averaged over 300 kilometres. Because of the size of my electorate that is the amount of travelling that I have to do to service my constituents. It is not unusual to have a 500- or 600-kilometre round trip in one day, because of the size of the electorate. This is not something I complain about; it is just a fact of life. I do see a lot of our roads and get to know every turn, corner, bump and hole. I used to regularly ring up the former minister and say: ‘We need to do a bit of work on this road’—the Dukes Highway or the Sturt Highway—‘We need to fix this up.’ In time we did get those patches filled. That was not just as a result of my complaints, as I am sure other people made the same sorts of complaints. Like most members of parliament, when the road is in your electorate you believe it is your road and you take responsibility for that road and what happens on it. I commend this legislation to the parliament and wish it well in the future. I hope we can get some support for the amendments that we propose. They are only about transparency and commitment, and that is all we are after. 9902 13:26:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 are keystones of the Rudd government’s commitment to positive reform of the road transport industry. They will tidy up outdated modes of collecting national heavy vehicle charges and address imbalances that exist in the current system. The intention is to produce a consistent nationwide structure for the recovery of costs from the industry for maintaining Australia’s critical interstate road network. Industry and all Australian governments have been pursuing vigorous reform in order to improve efficiency and safety within this vital industry. Long-term national reform is always challenging, and the challenge of committing to high-priority national transport market reforms is crucial to Australia’s transport infrastructure. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill implement the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. The effect of the two bills is to create a uniform set of charges for the entire Australian road transport industry. A new road user charge and new vehicle registration charges for heavy vehicles will be established throughout Australia. As part of this initiative the Rudd government is supplementing the determination with a $70 million four-year heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. This legislation is the culmination of a series of interactions between industry, the Australian Transport Council, the National Transport Commission, the Council of Australian Governments, the previous coalition government and the Rudd Labor government. This legislation will have a significant and positive impact on my seat of Corangamite and the major transport route that crosses the electorate—the Princes Highway. This major arterial road runs through Geelong into my electorate and across the width of Corangamite and heads towards Warrnambool. The Princes Highway is a conduit for agribusiness products from south-west Victoria and south-east South Australia to the export gateways of Portland, Geelong and Melbourne. The highway runs through the fastest-growing dairy production area in Australia, which accounts for 21 per cent of national milk production and has annual exports now exceeding $1 billion. A large proportion of logging trucks from the Otway plantations transport wood for timber and woodchipping along the Princes Highway to the ports of Geelong and Portland. The aluminium smelting company Alcoa, which has plants in Geelong and Portland, uses this route. Potatoes and grain from south-west Victoria also travel along the Princes Highway to market and consumer destinations. Traffic along this corridor is expected to increase by between 25 per cent and 66 per cent over the next seven years. Whilst this road is vital to primary industry, it is also vital to the tourism sector. The route also provides access to the Otway Range and provides alternative access to the Great Ocean Road and coastal communities. I understand fully the implications of the road transport industry for my electorate and it has been a main focus of my tenure as a federal member. During last year’s election I campaigned heavily on having this vital road, the Princes Highway, upgraded as part of Australia’s infrastructure demands, particularly by having it duplicated. This year, the Victorian government matched our election commitment of $110 million to duplicate the Princes Highway, and I can report that planning is progressing well on this important and vital piece of infrastructure for my electorate. This government is also assisting the heavy vehicle industry along busy transport corridors such as the Princes Highway through a $70 million supplementation to the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. A lot of work and commitment has gone into this important reform and the Rudd government has consulted with industry and state and territory governments to determine the best combination of projects for the use of this $70 million package. From the numbers on the Princes Highway, it is understandable that the road carries a dangerous and high-volume mix of heavy vehicles, commuter vehicles and tourism traffic. As part of the heavy vehicle safety and productivity package, there will be construction of more rest stops along our highways and on the outskirts of our major cities to assist truck drivers in implementing rest. This package will also include trials of black box technologies that will electronically monitor a truck driver’s work hours and vehicle speed. This is a positive development in road safety standards for this very important industry. Serious injury and fatalities not only are devastating to those involved and their families but represent a huge financial burden on the federal government, estimated to be $1.7 million per fatality and $406,000 per serious injury. The commencement of trials with black boxes will also assist businesses in monitoring logistics as they will provide data that can be used to streamline routes and enhance productivity in this important industry. Other components of the package include bridge-strengthening projects and upgrades to linkages between existing AusLink freight routes, enabling access to those roads and making heavy vehicles more productive. There will be a significant increase in road freight in the future, and this legislation aims to reform existing legislation whilst providing a positive assistance package for the industry that it will most affect. Currently, heavy vehicle charges are based on the pay-as-you-go principle of cost recovery, which has been the status quo since 1992. This is a measure by which heavy vehicles pay for a share of the recovery of road spending. Over the years, costs allocated to heavy vehicles were set by determinations made by the National Transport Commission. The determinations were tied to the consumer price index, which failed to accommodate increases in government road expenditure greater than the cost of general inflation. The adjustment was also based on changes in road expenditure, reflecting an assumption about the level of heavy vehicle fleet growth. On top of the fact that the current legislation is obviously due for reconsideration, there have also been significant changes to the dynamics of this important industry. For example, in 2000 the charges for B-double trailers were capped. At the time, B-doubles were a new class of vehicle and their numbers on Australian roads were quite small. Their charges were capped to prevent substitution by less safe road trains. Since 2000, there has been a 220 per cent increase in the number of B-doubles on Australia’s roads to 8,339 vehicles. B-doubles are increasingly used on urban arterial roads and into ports, whilst road trains operate the long-haul routes in remote and outback areas. The acceptance of B-doubles onto metropolitan and regional freight routes and having road trains keep to remote areas means that substitution of road trains for B-doubles is no longer a significant risk. Therefore, due to the maintenance of the 2000 rate cap, B-doubles and heavy vehicles are heavily subsidised by carriers operating smaller vehicles. There is a clear argument here for providing funding for safety and productivity purposes and for reforming a growth industry that is inhibited by the lack of recent reform to keep pace with that growth. This legislation is a culmination of a number of initiatives and determinations by both industry and government over the past few years. Successive governments at Commonwealth, state and territory levels have supported the principle of cost recovery from the heavy vehicle industry for its fair share of road construction and maintenance costs incurred by government through the collection of heavy vehicle charges. The Australian Transport Council rejected the third determination and requested a review into heavy vehicle charges because it was perceived it would overcollect $170 million from the industry. In October 2006, the National Transport Commission was directed by the Australian Transport Council to develop a new heavy vehicle charges determination. Subsequently, the Council of Australian Governments meeting in April 2007 endorsed the need for a new charges determination. At their meeting on 10 February 2006, the Council of Australian Governments requested the Productivity Commission to develop proposals for the efficient pricing of road and rail freight infrastructure through consistent and competitively-neutral pricing regimes. The report was to be conducted in a manner that maximised net benefits to the community, in particular rural, regional and remote Australia. The Productivity Commission report concluded that the estimates of the National Transport Commission of heavy vehicle costs were conservative by international standards and at the lower end of various attribution methodologies. In effect, the report found the industry was not paying its way. In response to the outcome of the Productivity Commission report, the Council of Australian Governments required the Australian Transport Council to devise a new charges determination for implementation on 1 July 2008. The new determination was framed to fully recover infrastructure costs from the heavy vehicle industry, to end cross-subsidisation between heavy vehicle classes and to index charges to ensure costs continued to be recovered. The level of proposed recovery is $1.95 billion, which is an increase on the currently recovered $1.78 billion but still a shortfall of around $170 million. The determination of the Australian Transport Council was unanimously agreed to by the transport ministers at their meeting in February 2008 for implementation on 1 July 2008. The revised heavy vehicle registration rates have already been implemented by all states, with the Northern Territory currently introducing the new national charges into their parliament. The Commonwealth, however, is yet to introduce new registration charges for Federal Interstate Registration Scheme vehicles. In March the Senate rejected bills to implement the new charges in the ACT and for Federal Interstate Registration Scheme vehicles. The failure of the Senate to pass these important pieces of legislation means inconsistencies remain in charges between the states and territories. The heavy vehicles registered in the ACT under the Federal Interstate Registration Scheme represent just three per cent of the heavy vehicles in Australia, and the registration revenue from those vehicles is returned to the states and territories in full. The new charges were implemented by all states on 1 July 2008 and will ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of the costs of providing the road network and for the damage that they cause to those roads, and the Australian Transport Council endorses the principle of cost recovery. The new charges will result in a decrease in the registration charges of one-quarter of the fleet. For 69 per cent of the fleet there will be an increase of no greater than 10 per cent and there will be significant increases for the remaining six per cent of the heavy vehicle fleet. However, the majority of these vehicles are heavy truck trailers and multicombination vehicles that are currently subsidised by smaller vehicles. As you can see, this has resulted in a rebalancing of heavy vehicle charges, with some registration costs falling and others increasing. Throughout the development of this legislation, there was extensive consultation with key industry stakeholders. The National Transport Commission conducted discussions with industry representative groups such as the Australian Trucking Association and the National Farmers Federation. After amendments were made, key industry stakeholders were further consulted about subsequent changes. Australia’s freight transport industry needs more cooperation, leadership and a sense of urgency to maximise Australia’s international economic competitiveness. For the sake of playing politics, the opposition is withholding this important piece of road transport reform legislation from three per cent of the industry, as these policies have already been adopted by all of the states. Legislation needs to be passed in the spring sitting to allow the new rate of the road user charge to come into effect on 1 January 2009, as agreed to by all Australian transport ministers at their February 2008 meeting. This government is committed to providing the industry with support during the changeover period, with an investment of $70 million in crucial road transport infrastructure. It is in the best interests of the industry and all of the governments of Australia that we have a fair, balanced system of recovering the costs of maintaining the national road system from the industries that are causing the most damage to it. In the past, some sectors within the industry have benefited from other sectors, and that is being rectified by these important legislative changes. There are some important aspects that the opposition will need to consider when this legislation goes back to the Senate, such as that the ongoing under-recovery of heavy vehicle charges provides a strong disincentive for states and territories to allow wider access to their road networks for high-productivity vehicles. The effect will be that any further expansion of high-mass-limit networks will be put at risk, as will the ability of the heavy vehicle industry to innovate and develop new, safer and more productive vehicles to take advantage of these networks. This is important legislation that is providing better infrastructure and improved services to the road transport industry and the opposition is simply playing politics by attempting to block it. This legislation is designed to make better use of the nation’s infrastructure and to readdress the balance between pay as you go and removing cross-subsidies between different classes of vehicles. The Rudd government’s plans to raise productivity, fight inflation and maintain economic growth is dependent on legislation such as this. I commend the bills to the House. 9905 13:42:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —This is important legislation, and the opposition has good grounds to oppose certain aspects of it. It is about time that the government ceased justifying bad legislation by the simple act of accusing somebody else of taking a political position. Overall, the fundamental of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 and the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 is that all truck owners will pay an additional 1.36c a litre in what is actually an excise, otherwise known as a road user charge. They of course will, if they are able, pass that on to the consumers who reside in my electorate as well as to consumers in the bulk of the area of Western Australia, where in fact there is no rail service. It is very notable in Western Australia that there has been a very proactive approach to the trucking industry in terms of truck configurations because the government in that state, be it Liberal or Labor, has had no reason to protect an inefficient, union dominated rail system, which of course is most evident in New South Wales, where they are still trying to make railway lines work where they will not. I note now that the unions have just convinced the new Premier to hand back the ferries. I bet being run entirely by the government will make them work on time! Personally, I have never been able to understand why governments who quite properly wish to provide services to the community have to own the shop to deliver the service, when in fact they can contract it out to the private sector, guarantee better service and of course reduce the cost to the taxpayer—whom I always thought was our prime responsibility in this place, not some union heavy who is getting worried about his superannuation. The reality is it is people for whom we have a responsibility and it is people who will pay. Working families, as we were once reminded, will pay this 1.36c. Some of the other legislation is of a routine nature. For instance, it harmonises the type of registration fee—that is, the licence fee that the average motorist knows and understands—that is levied against transport vehicles in the states and is revenue that the states retain. Not all of them bother to spend it on roads, I might add. But the circumstances of the ‘road user’ charge, which was a Howard government initiative, involved a decision to try and identify the contribution that the trucking industry should pay for roads. Roads are typically built for motorists because they have got more votes than truckies. And it is a reality that some of the huge expense incurred by governments today is in accommodating the clutter that occurs in our capital cities because of motor cars, with the odd truck interposed. So the first issue therefore is: how should trucks pay? The railways are constantly complaining that they provide their own ‘road’, but often that is not the case anymore. We have hedge companies and investment funds these days that buy the railway line as such and then rent it out to various other companies, such as Pacific National, just to think of one name, and Queensland Rail in Western Australia which operates the rolling stock. So that complaint is often not substantiated. But, to return to the pure economics of this, they put the argument that truckies do not pay enough and that is why they are so competitive. Of course, that competition flows through to the consumer. The reality is that a figure, of around 18.5c a litre, was arrived at as a significant and properly calculated charge on the trucking industry for every litre of fuel they use—and the bigger the truck the more fuel they use, so that is quite a sensible approach—for their share of use of the roads. The proposal that is coming forward today in this legislation is that that road user charge should be increased. I might add that the mechanism by which this charge was levied was to say to the truckies: ‘You pay full tote, including full excise’—36c a litre, or thereabouts—‘when you purchase your fuel. You then write in at the end of each month and submit a claim for a rebate of that amount less the 18.5c.’ That is going to be increased and they will get a lesser rebate. That will cause quite significant difficulties when you consider that there are trucks on the road that burn a litre of fuel in a couple of minutes. The question we have is whether this charge should be levied when the government have indicated they want the money for a specific purpose: they intend to hypothecate it to the construction of road stops. The shadow minister for transport pointed out what these so-called road stops are for. They are not service stations; they are a clearing on the side of the road, sometimes with a few basic amenities, where a truck driver can stop his vehicle primarily to meet his rest requirements. Truckies are no longer considered to be able to drive until they drop. In fact, the law provides that they should have adequate rest periods. There is nothing wrong with that idea. But the fact of life is that east of the Western Australia-South Australia-Northern Territory border, proof of how they take those stops is kept in a logbook. Western Australian authorities have always understood that that is a joke because there is no proper surveillance. Nobody sits on your shoulder while you fill in your logbook, and there are special signals transferred between truckies to let you know that down the road there is a checking point, so you stop your truck and fill in your details—and it is always pure and perfect. But it is a waste of time because it is not an adequate means of surveillance. As a truck owner I used to get new trucks installed with a speedo—it was not all that expensive—that recorded what the truck was actually doing. They were quite a simple device. They had little circular graphs in them that could tell you whether the truck was stationary, whether—from my perspective—the bloke had stopped and kept the engine running to keep the air conditioner on, whether he had ripped off with the prime mover to meet his girlfriend. I could find out all that from those little circular graphs, and how far the driver drove before he took a compulsory rest. That was done mechanically. But we do not have that; we have these logbooks and we employ an army of policemen to stop people and fine them. I have had within my family a personal experience that gave me some embarrassment in this place because my son drove across the South Australian border, as many truckies do, without a logbook because they do not have them in WA. You cannot buy them in WA. There is no sign on the road as you cross the Nullarbor saying ‘You are entering logbook territory’ and he did not know. But I tell you what: because he was making a one-off trip and was inexperienced in long-term driving—something that I knew better—I insisted he take a co-driver. And if that is not the best way to manage being tired or going to sleep, they were also driving two on, two off. But that did not matter to the South Australian police; they just wanted the money. When I complained about it I got covered all around Australia as ‘getting my son off a speeding fine’. I would not let him off a speeding fine. A certain person said to me, ‘My son got caught for drunk driving and I didn’t help him.’ And I said, ‘My son has never got caught for drunk driving.’ There is a difference. Nevertheless, evidence was brought forward by the shadow minister. Another farmer who was known to me got fined $1,000 inside South Australia because the truck he was driving with a number of kids’ polo-crosse ponies on board happened to have the extension tray behind the axle longer than is approved in South Australia. But of course the vehicle had been licensed and properly measured and checked in Western Australia. It cost him $1,000 taking some kids to a polocrosse meeting. That is just revenue-raising and for no good reason. This is what this legislation is supposed to be about, but it is not. The shadow minister gave example after example of the differential from state to state in how many hours you can drive. You are either fatigued or you are not. How can fatigue be different in New South Wales? How can fatigue be an issue driving around the city of Sydney, where you get plenty of rests because you are in traffic jams engineered by one Neville Wran when he sold off all the freeway reserves in that city? I am waiting for Paint Your Wagon evidence when all of Sydney collapses in on its tunnels. Why? Because Neville Wran sold off all the freeway reserves that previous forward-thinking members of parliament on both sides had accumulated—just as Don Dunstan sold off all the reserves that previous governments had put together for water reservoirs. What is the problem in South Australia today? They cannot find a drink. These are the sorts of circumstances that this legislation should be addressing. In my representations to the committee, I put the point, which is not part of the conditions that will apply, that the government should only get the 1.36c, which they are going to pass on to the consumers, after they have cleaned up the mess. This is another no-blame game. I love the no-blame game. What it has materialised as is: the states do not blame Kevin Rudd and he does not blame them. But we are not achieving anything. We would concede the 1.36c in this House if we knew that those costs could be saved by truckies by the simple act of a more efficient and understandable service through legislation. But it is still a dog’s breakfast and we are constantly told, particularly by New South Wales, that they, as the lowest common denominator, should set the rules. The member for Oxley had a shot at me. In the education legislation debate the other day, I complained that we are now overtrained and that someone who drove a truck in my electorate for three months a year lost his licence because he was not a regular truck driver. It so happened that he had other seasonal work that fitted with his lifestyle and his need to make a living. He lost his licence, and it was going to cost him $2,000. He had been driving for about 30 years. As I said, the next thing is that we will be licensing people to ride a push bike and taking their licence if they have not ridden one for two or three months. You do not forget those skills. The member for Oxley said, ‘It’s more complex now.’ When I was driving trucks, there were no automatic transmissions. Some of these trucks today drive like cars. Yes, they are typically longer, and I want to talk about that. Again, we have this mishmash of regulation, with a significant constriction on vehicle configuration in New South Wales, which is arguably supposed to save the community from being run over or something. But the reality is that in Western Australia over the years—and I was fortunate to be involved in achieving the upgrade of standards—we have had two trailer configurations driving around the city. I well remember the debate. We used to have to stop 30 kilometres out of town to break up our truck in case we ran over someone. That added $100 to the cost of your trip. Interestingly, when it was brought in after a trial, I heard a woman on the radio saying, ‘This is a scam; there has been no trial.’ What she was really saying was that she had not noticed any of those bigger rigs that now run around Perth. But let us look at safety on the road. A three-trailer truck can be speed limited to 80 kilometres an hour and make a profit. Take one trailer off, and it has to do 100 kilometres an hour to make a profit. I put to you the difficulties for a motorist in making the passing manoeuvre in those two circumstances. So it is silly to argue that bigger truck configurations have any problems—other than that they save people money. This legislation does not do anything about getting the states to deliver on configurations. It does not deliver anything about where these truck stops should be. They are a good idea, but the fact of life is that they are not a good idea when they are at different spacings and, of course, nonexistent for a long time yet. But, again, the log book process is a joke as a means of controlling when people take these rest breaks. It should be scrubbed out everywhere and replaced, if it is deemed necessary, with another type of equipment. The member for Corangamite said that this is all about politics, but I do not know if he has ever been in the cab of a truck. The member for Oxley said that you have to relearn. I think it was four or five years before I got back into a truck. It happened to be an eight-wheel Volvo with a full semitrailer and a dog trailer, and I loaded it up with super and drove it for a couple of hundred miles. I got over some pretty significant hills and never missed a gear change. Do not tell me that people from hardworking families should be put out of work because they do not drive a truck every day of the week. That is stupid. But that is where we are—and let me admit: we brought in that silly arrangement. We conspired with the National Transport Commission that I would sack tomorrow, because all they want to do is to raise more money against the people I represent—and, I might add, some on the other side of this House also have constituents who do not have a railway service. Of course it is the trucks that keep the railway services honest. All of those matters have to be considered, and the opposition has every practical right to bring the government to account again. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. Government members—No! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It is allowable under the standing orders. 9909 Ministerial Arrangements 9909 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —We look forward to that with the usual levels of anticipation, excitement and joy. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —If you listen, you’ll learn something! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —He is, Mr Speaker, in every respect unique. Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government will leave question time early today— Opposition members—No! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Where’s ‘Hockey Joe’?—as he will be addressing the 9th World Congress of Metropolis and the Global Cities Conference in Sydney. Subsequent to his departure from the chamber, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. 9909 Miscellaneous 9909 14:01:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, earlier today the House of Representatives, by an absolute majority, carried a motion requiring the Leader of the Opposition to immediately apologise and retract his reckless and irresponsible attack in question time yesterday on the Secretary of the Treasury. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Can I first hear this submission from— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, under what standing order— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am trying to listen to what the Leader of the House has to say, and then I will give you the call. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —At the time, the Leader of the Opposition was not present in the chamber. He is present in the chamber now and perhaps he can take the opportunity to respond to the House’s resolution and, at the same time, he can distance himself from Senator Abetz’s outrageous comments in the Senate earlier today. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I understand it, the motion allowed for a course of action; it did not mandate that course of action. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The House will come to order! 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Whilst the motion allowed a course of action and did not mandate it, I would submit to you that it is incumbent on you to at least put to the Leader of the Opposition the resolution of the House to give him the opportunity to respond to it. That is allowing him, but not mandating him. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Banks will resume his seat. The member for Sturt will resume his seat. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Get on with question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson will sit quietly! I would simply say to the member for Banks that the motion, as agreed to by the House, is fairly open-ended in that it did not refer at any time to a time to which this motion was to apply. Usually a suspension of standing orders would talk about something immediately. This motion does not, and that is the difficulty that the chair has with the motion. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is precisely for that reason that we would just ask if the Leader of the Opposition is going to comply with the resolution or not—yes or no. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Leader of the House has made his point. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —What a fool! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will withdraw. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 9910 14:04:00 Questions Without Notice 9910 14:04:00 9910 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Has the Reserve Bank governor advised in respect of the deposit guarantee scheme ‘not only must there be a cap, but the lower the better’? 9910 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —It is remarkable that, given the opportunity to defend one of the institutions of the Commonwealth, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia declines that opportunity and leaves on the record his attack on the Secretary of the Treasury yesterday. It follows of course a series of statements by those opposite as they have sought to pick away at the institutions of this country in recent times, including the Reserve Bank. The Leader of the Opposition asks about the bank guarantee. As I indicated to the House yesterday, the government took its decision the weekend before last at a time when there was a complete meltdown in stock markets around the world and where confidence had been assaulted. The government, in taking that decision, did so based on the advice provided to us by the Secretary of the Treasury—an office which we defend and a person whom we defend. He did so having consulted with the Reserve Bank and the other economic regulators. The government stands by the decision. It has helped to restore and maintain confidence in our banking and financial system. It was the early and decisive action which was necessary, and I would have thought that the alternative government of Australia, at a time of global financial crisis, would have supported it as well. 9911 9911 14:06:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 Mr CHEESEMAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline to the House the need for coordinated international action to help respond to the global financial crisis? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Is this the blueprint for the world? 9911 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The acting Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Sturt, says: ‘Is this the blueprint for the world?’ I would remind the honourable member of this: in terms of restoring confidence to global financial markets, what we do in Australia is important and what is done around the rest of the world is doubly important, because we are in a global economy with a global financial system where everything is related to everything else. That is why the government has been acting domestically and internationally since the onslaught of this crisis. Australia believes strongly that coordinated global action is required to address this crisis. We welcome recent initiatives by the G7 and the G20 to bring countries together to find common solutions. At their recent meeting in Washington, finance ministers from the G7 announced a plan to address the global financial crisis. In that plan there were five core elements: (1) preventing the failure of systemically important financial institutions, (2) improving access to liquidity and funding, (3) re-establishing confidence in financial institutions, (4) guarantees for depositors, and (5) restarting the secondary markets for mortgages and other securitised assets. At a subsequent meeting of the G20, finance ministers committed to use all economic and financial tools available to them to ensure the stability and continued proper functioning of financial markets. Their agenda endorsed the G7 plan and also extended it to the use of macroeconomic policy and other measures necessary to restore stability. G20 leaders went on to say that they were committed to using all the economic and financial tools available to them to ensure stable and well-functioning financial markets. The Treasurer attended these meetings on Australia’s behalf. In his remarks he highlighted the importance of the G20 at a time when the global financial crisis is spilling over from developed to developing economies. That is of deep concern and relevance to this economy, Australia, given the critical importance of major developing economies in our own region for our own future growth, most particularly China. The Treasurer also called for the reform of global financial architecture so that we do not repeat the failure to reform post the Asian financial crisis. The G20 meeting was also attended by President Bush, who outlined the need for collective action to deal with the crisis. More recently, the President, together with the President of the French Republic, President Sarkozy, and the President of the European Commission, Mr Barroso, have been providing important leadership in this area by calling for appropriate, coordinated international action. Australia has consistently called for international action to be coordinated in response to the global financial crisis through the agency of the G20. In my own address to the UN General Assembly in September I spoke of the importance of the G20 in addressing this crisis. At that time I also outlined a framework from Australia’s part about how the G20 could work together with the International Monetary Fund and the Financial Stability Forum to reform global financial markets. In recent days I have written to all G20 heads of government requesting further coordinated action on their part, given that we are all in this together. Coordination is required in two important areas: one is the reform of global financial regulation, but the second part looms as being equally important and progressively more important—and that is a coordinated global economic stimulus in the face of slowing economic growth. The G20 is a critical forum for the future to deal with the current global financial crisis. First of all, the G20, of course, has a record of achieving real results borne of hard experience. It was born out of the Asian financial crisis. The G20 was the key force in improving IMF governance in 2006-07 by increasing the quota and voice of emerging market economies in the deliberations of the IMF. Second, the G20 of itself represents across its combined membership the following core facts: 85 per cent of the world’s financial system, 95 per cent of global stock market capitalisation; 80 per cent of global trade, and two-thirds of the world’s population. This is an important institution because of its representative characteristics. On top of that, by bringing together a limited group of countries in a structured way, it has demonstrated an ability to forge consensus across developed and developing economies, and extending the remit for coordinated action on regulatory reform to financial markets and for global economic stimulus into a representative body which brings together critical developed and developing economies. Australia is working hard with Brazil and other G20 members to ensure that the G20 continues to provide leadership and coordinated action to address this crisis. At their meeting in early November the G20 should engage with the Financial Stability Forum to agree a clear timetable for implementing the Financial Stability Forum’s recommendations. The Treasurer will again be representing Australia at that important meeting. International cooperation is essential in a time of global crisis. We have argued consistently, as Australia, that an appropriate mechanism, an appropriate institution, for advancing coordinated global action on both the fiscal policy front and on the regulatory reform front is the G20, an institution in which Australia is represented. Further action is necessary domestically; further action is necessary internationally. Unless this is coordinated through a mechanism such as the G20 our concern in Australia is that, once we see our way through this particular storm, if fundamental institutional reform questions are not dealt with, then in turn we face a repeat of this storm in the future. This government will leave no stone unturned through the mechanism of the G20 to ensure that we have a properly coordinated agenda of action for the future. It is a proper mechanism for doing so. It has a major role to play in the future and Australia stands ready to act and act decisively within its framework. 9912 Distinguished Visitors 9912 14:13:00 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 Special Committee of the Proposed Act on Hospitals of the Parliament of the Republic of Indonesia. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to the members. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 9912 Questions Without Notice 9912 9912 14:13:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer to the proposal being canvassed by the government to withdraw the free guarantee for deposits over $1 million. How will the government’s change of heart on this issue affect a depositor who has made an investment relying on the government’s announced guarantee and locked their money in for a 12-month term deposit with an institution with whom they would not otherwise have invested? Will their deposit remain guaranteed free of this charge for its term or will the free guarantee they relied upon in good faith be withdrawn? 9913 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the shadow Treasurer for her question. The government makes no apology whatsoever for putting in place a comprehensive guarantee on deposits and also a comprehensive guarantee for term funding. This comprehensive guarantee is not supported by those opposite. Let us be very clear: those opposite want a scheme which cuts out at $100,000, leaving 40 per cent of all deposits without a guarantee. They want that because they do not understand the magnitude of the challenge that flows from the global financial crisis. They do not understand the reasons why this was put in place. They certainly do not understand why the Reserve Bank supported the putting in place of this guarantee and why the Treasury supported it. They have been repudiated comprehensively in Senate estimates. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This was a very specific question about a proposal to withdraw a guarantee that was free of charge. It is a very specific question and the Treasurer has failed to answer it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer is responding to the question and I will listen carefully to his answer. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The Leader of the Opposition is in a bit of strife today. It started last Sunday when he went on the Insiders program and said that the global financial crisis had been hyped up. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer’s subsequent remarks have nothing whatsoever to do with the question and I ask you to bring him back to the question that was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will respond to the question. I am listening carefully to him. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Yesterday he made a monumental gaffe in this parliament where he suggested the Secretary of the Treasury should be sacked. That is what he said. What was that all about? That was all about the Treasury secretary supporting a comprehensive guarantee for bank deposits. But, of course, it does not agree with what the Leader of the Opposition wants to do, so he is out there bagging the Treasury secretary. That is what he is doing—and he has not been man enough to come into the House and to apologise—because the Treasury secretary has supported a comprehensive guarantee which the opposition leader does not support. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Treasurer was asked a very specific question which depositors want to know the answer to. This has nothing to do with the Secretary of the Treasury. The fact that he is refusing to answer indicates that he does not know the answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. He is not permitted to debate a point of order. I will listen carefully to the Treasurer. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Of course, this morning in the Senate Senator Abetz again questioned the honesty of the Treasury secretary. This is just reckless and irresponsible behaviour at a time of a global financial crisis. I will come to the detail of the question. I made it very clear— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How can this answer possibly be relevant to the very specific issue raised? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I simply say that, according to tradition, specificity is of course in the eyes of the questioner. The answer is relevant to the extent that it is talking about the policy area that is the substance of the question. The Treasurer will respond to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I made it very clear in the House last Wednesday in the second reading speech that we would be putting in place arrangements that reflected the fact that there needed to be a threshold above which a fee would be paid. Let me say that this finetuning that I forecast here is what the Treasury officials and the Reserve Bank have been talking about, and it is precisely the question on which the Leader of the Opposition has been repudiated by the Treasury secretary. Why are we doing that? We are doing that because there have been representations made to the government, to the Treasury secretary and to the Reserve Bank of Australia about the impact of this measure. Because the government believes in a comprehensive guarantee for everyone, we are going to put in place a charge above a threshold. That charge or that fee above a threshold will be for deposits above $1 million. Those details are being worked out. They will be published. The pricing will be out there for everybody to see in an open and transparent way. What this is really about is their embarrassment that they have crab-walked away from support for a comprehensive guarantee for all Australians with money in banks. I tell you what: they should be severely embarrassed about that because what has occurred since we put in place this guarantee is that markets have stabilised and interest rates have come down. The banks that have taken those decisions have cited the government’s decision. So, in effect, in opposing this comprehensive guarantee they are opposing lower interest rates. That is what they are doing. All of this is about hiding their embarrassment at us putting in place a comprehensive guarantee that has stabilised the Australian financial system. 9914 9914 14:20:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is also to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the consumer price index data released today and what it means for the government’s economic policy approach? 9914 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The September quarter CPI data were published today, and as expected it hit a high of five per cent. Of course, this reflects very substantial price pressures that Australian households have been bearing for a considerable period of time. As we are aware, inflation hit a new 16-year high in October, November and December last year. In the September quarter it has gone even higher. Underlying inflation is now 4.7 per cent. It reflects the build-up of prices over the last couple of years, and in particular the impact of housing prices and fuel prices. But the good news is that it is expected to abate over the next year. We will be publishing our forecast for the future of inflation in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, which will be due within the next month. But this figure in no way reduces the government’s commitment to put in place a range of policies which will enhance capacity in the Australian economy and mean that we can grow strongly with low inflation. 9914 9914 14:23:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. Treasurer, in the interests of giving depositors and banks clear information on the proposal being canvassed by the government to now charge a fee for guaranteeing deposits over $1 million, I ask: will this fee be compulsory? Will a depositor with, say, the Commonwealth Bank, who has no concern about the safety of their deposit, be obliged to pay the fee, or will a bank that does not wish to have its deposits over $1 million guaranteed by the government be obliged to pay this fee? 9915 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —The very simple answer is that the fee will be paid by all depositors in the deposit-taking institutions that are regulated by APRA, and the fee will be paid either by the depositor or by the bank. 9915 9915 14:24:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 Ms COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What regulatory reforms does the government believe should be considered in response to the global financial crisis? What substantive contributions have been made to the emerging debate on this issue? 9915 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Franklin for her question. The international financial crisis has already sparked a great deal of debate both in Australia and overseas with respect to the future regulation of the financial sector. The government of course has taken decisive immediate action to deal with the early consequences—the early issues—emerging from the international financial crisis. In particular, of course, I refer to the guarantees provided to the banking and financial institutions in Australia and our $10 billion Economic Security Strategy: the package of stimulus—the package of spending—to flow into economic activity and continue growth and employment at reasonable levels. We are also, at the same time, turning our attention to wider regulatory issues. There has been considerable debate about what lessons can be learnt, particularly internationally but also for Australia specifically, as a result of the international financial crisis. It is worth noting that the Australian regulatory regime, under governments of both persuasions, is strong, has been strong and will be strong in the future. It is robust. In fact, nations overseas have regarded our regime as something of an exemplar that they can look to for inspiration and guidance as they tackle these issues. Although we should never lose vigilance in considering our own options on the domestic front—and there will always be room for reconsideration of regulatory arrangements—the real issues that emerge from the financial crisis are international, particularly in the United States. The Prime Minister has already set out, in his speech to the United Nations General Assembly, five principles which we seek to insert into the international debate on these issues with respect to regulatory reform: stronger regulation of non-bank financial institutions, stronger capital adequacy requirements, tackling the culture of institutionalised greed and excessive executive salaries, stricter accounting rules and a greater role for the International Monetary Fund in analysing the global spread of risk. Inevitably, some of these themes are already being debated. I specifically commend to honourable members work by an Australian who works for the OECD, Adrian Blundell-Wignall, who has highlighted the role, at least from his perspective, that the Basel II capital adequacy rules have played in contributing to the emergence of a mortgage based bubble in both the United States and the UK, with the fall of Northern Rock. I look forward to the debate about these regulatory issues broadening and deepening. In particular, I look forward to a contribution from the opposition on these issues. We know that the opposition suggests that the Leader of the Opposition, given that he has a background in some of these things—he is a former investment banker, of course—has something to bring to the table on these questions. There is personal experience and personal expertise involved here, and no doubt he will have a lot to contribute, which makes it even more puzzling that we have heard very little from the opposition or the opposition leader about the third item on the Prime Minister’s list of reform issues: the question of excessive salaries for executives in the financial sector. There is no doubt that in this instance the opposition leader does have significant personal experience to draw upon. Perhaps the opposition leader could explain to the Australian people why it is necessary that people leading these organisations need to have salaries in the vicinity of $10 million to incentivise them to work really hard and to put their best into the job. Why is that necessary? And perhaps he might explain to us how he manages to turn up to work as opposition leader on a humble couple of hundred grand. I look forward to the contribution from the Leader of the Opposition on these questions. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my left will come to order. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation has the call. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —It is pretty easy to get them agitated on this question, Mr Speaker. It is pretty easy to get them agitated on this. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my left! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I think in future I will just stand up and say, ‘Executive salaries,’ and that will be enough. Thus far all we have from the opposition on this issue is silence. Silence! We know who the opposition represent. We know where they stand on these issues, but we have heard nothing but silence. It is long overdue, if they seek to play a major role in the fundamental issues that are in play internationally in the medium term as a result of the international financial crisis, that we hear something about the issue. What do they say about reining in excessive executive salaries? 9916 9916 14:29:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware that much of Australia’s finance for farmers and small business is provided by institutions which, despite their size and creditworthiness, are not benefiting from the government guarantee and, as a consequence, are only able to refinance a very small proportion of their funding requirements? What does the Prime Minister have to say to farmers and small businesses that will, as a consequence of his unlimited deposit guarantee, be unable to secure the leasing and other business finance they need to keep Australia working? 9916 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As the honourable member would know, the government’s guarantee extends to APRA regulated deposit-taking institutions, and that is the responsible course of action. It is also the course of action which was the subject of advice to us by the Secretary of the Treasury, whose advice we take seriously, whereas the Leader of the Opposition chooses to castigate, attack and demean him at any opportunity. We knew that the Leader of the Opposition overstepped yesterday when the member for Higgins, who has been recently engaged in an animated way in the debate in this chamber, suddenly buried his head in his books when the Leader of the Opposition went from being out of touch to being out of control. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: we know the Prime Minister likes to flick the switch to vaudeville, but this is a very important question for farmers and small businesses. They do not want a distraction about the member for Higgins; they want answers. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. When seeking the call for the point of order, come to the point of order. The member for Sturt’s elevated status over the next couple of days, no matter how temporary, does not allow him that sort of behaviour. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The guarantee which was provided by the government in its statement on the weekend before last was taken on the basis of the advice that we received and was necessary to provide and maintain stability in the Australian financial system, which is of relevance to all Australians, including  those in rural Australia. The second point is this: the consequences of the government’s action flow through to the financial system more broadly. If you have continued stability in the Australian financial system, frankly it benefits over time all users of credit in the economy. Obviously those who are immediately covered by the deposit guarantee will obtain that benefit in the immediate term, but more broadly that, together with the critical provisions by the government to provide a guarantee for the wholesale term funding arrangements of the banks, helps to bring and maintain stability for the entire system. My third point in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question is this: if you look at the cost of finance out there for all Australians, look carefully at what has happened in the period since the government made this announcement on Sunday a week ago. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Turmoil! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The member for Curtin says, ‘Turmoil!’ The turmoil was along these lines: the ANZ reduced its interest rates by 25 basis points, the National Australia Bank by 20 basis points, the Commonwealth Bank by 21 basis points and Westpac by 20 basis points—all of that being of no consequence. But I had forgotten that the alternative Prime Minister regards a 25-basis-point move as irrelevant. Remember that he said that after seven interest rate increases on the part of those opposite. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: the question related to institutions that are not covered by the guarantee. The Prime Minister is talking about institutions that are. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I assume, therefore, that the alternative Prime Minister is now announcing new policy on the run as well. We know what one policy is at present: to have a depositors guarantee that excludes 40 per cent of all deposits around the country. That is where their $100,000 policy goes. If anyone thinks that that is not their policy, Senator Brandis, a member of the shadow cabinet, reconfirmed on national radio today that that is their policy. Those opposite, in answering questions from their constituents, need to answer this question: what of the 40 per cent of depositors which are not covered by their $100,000 cap? That is something which they need to answer—not just to those depositors but also to the roll-on implications for the stability of the entire system. There is a further set of consequences which have flowed of course from the government’s decisive action a week or so ago, and that is that over the past days we have seen spreads narrow, especially in Australia, and the cost of borrowing for banks fall. The key measure of liquidity in the Australian dollar interbank market, the spread between the 90-day bank bill and the three-month overnight index swap, the OIS, has fallen from 93 basis points at the close of business on 10 October to 63 basis points at COB on 21 October. We have a long way to go in order to maintain continued stability in the Australian financial system but, because of the action that the government took the weekend before last, we have seen movements in interest rates by banks head in the right direction from the point of view of the general economy. We have also seen spreads narrow in terms of the interbank lending rate. This is good news for the general economy and for those who draw upon these financial institutions for loans which they need to get on with the business of expanding their activities out there in the economy, maintaining their business operations or lending for mortgage purposes. One of the key motivating factors this government had in mind in providing this unprecedented guarantee for wholesale term funding for the APRA regulated banking institutions was this: to ensure that in the future we have our banks in a position to provide loans for businesses and small businesses across Australia. You could have sat there, as those opposite presumably are arguing, twiddled your thumbs and done nothing or you could have acted decisively. This government, acting on the interests of small business across the country, in rural areas and in non-rural areas, took the necessary decisive action. What has flowed in terms of recent moves in spreads and in interest rate actions by the banks is now on the documentary record. That is real action and real results as opposed to short-term politics, in which the alternative Prime Minister of Australia has now become a first-class honours degree holder. 9918 9918 14:36:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the economic circumstances facing Australia’s farmers and why strong representation is so important in regional Australia? 9918 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Ballarat for her question. The member for Ballarat represents one of the premier grain-growing districts in Victoria. I met today with the VFF about the bleak outcomes of this year’s winter crops throughout much of Victoria. In response to a question earlier in the week, I mentioned that a meeting took place with the major rural financial institutions on Friday of last week. I add that, at that meeting, confidence was expressed in the government’s Economic Security Strategy and in the capacity of all of them to continue to service Australia’s farmers. It was expressed not only by the major Australian banks and Rabobank but also by Landmark—Landmark being a non APRA regulated financial institution. We were sitting around the table with the banks, who expressed full confidence in the government’s Economic Security Strategy and in their capacity to be able to serve Australia’s farmers. Today we have had further announcements, with the Westpac-NFF Commodity Index coming out. It was reported today that global farm prices—that is, the farm-gate prices around the world—have fallen by nine per cent amid the fallout from the global financial crisis. However, in Australian dollar terms, that fall has been limited to 1.7 per cent, as the lower Australian dollar, which was trading at around 69c earlier in the week, took the sting out of much of the decline in the commodity prices. Westpac agribusiness economist Andrew Hanlon said, ‘The Australian dollar can play a cushioning role during such volatile times.’ It is also the case that the inflation rate information that was released today has been well and truly felt in many ways by Australia’s farmers. We have seen the global prices of fertiliser increase in extraordinary ways over the last 12 months, in some cases going as far as tripling and beyond. The Australian prices and increases have increased somewhat less than that, once again cushioned by the Australian dollar. The question also asked why they need strong representation similar to the strong representation that the member for Ballarat has always provided farmers in that part of the country. I should also acknowledge while I am talking about strong representation for regional areas that this afternoon the new member for Lyne will be making his first speech to this place. We all wish him well. Members on both sides understand the importance of strong representation in that part of New South Wales. Indeed, the member for Hume, I understand, has a very good understanding of the need for strong representation for Port Macquarie. Senator Heffernan also has a good understanding of the need for strong representation for Port Macquarie. I notice this is not a view shared by the Leader of the New South Wales Nationals, Andrew Stoner, who today, quite horribly, said of the member for Hume: If I had my way, I’d march him out at dawn, put a blindfold on him and shoot him. At a time when it came to looking for confidence, when it was a clear choice in the region of Port Macquarie between choosing a member of the National Party and choosing a country Independent, the people of Port Macquarie chose a country Independent; indeed, many members of the Liberal Party made that choice too. 9919 9919 14:41:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is it the Prime Minister’s contention, based on his remarks yesterday and today, that, as at 12 October, none of the Treasury, the Reserve Bank, APRA or ASIC had advised the government that an unlimited deposit guarantee carried with it the risk of causing a flight of capital from non-guaranteed funds and institutions to those institutions benefiting from the government’s unlimited guarantee? 9919 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As I have said in response to questions by the honourable member before, the government took decisive action on the weekend in question based on the advice provided to us by the Secretary of the Treasury following his own consultations with the regulatory authorities, including the Reserve Bank. That is the basis of the government’s action. The government stands by that action. It was necessary in order to maintain stability in the financial system. If the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister, were out consulting with business at the moment and asking the business communities and the finance communities what their response to the government’s guarantee is at both levels, it would not reflect the tonality of his contribution to this debate. They have welcomed a statement of confidence and action by the government, as opposed to those opposite, who are engaging again in short-term politics. Again, I go to the clear contrast between the policy of those opposite and that of the government. On the $100,000 guarantee which those opposite have put forward, let us be very precise: that leaves marooned 40 per cent of total deposits. That leaves marooned, according to Treasury advice, 750,000 deposit accounts in the country. In other words, the Liberal policy, the opposition policy, the alternative government policy, as reiterated again today by Senator Brandis, a member of the shadow cabinet, is to leave out there without any guarantee whatsoever 750,000—that is, three-quarters of a million—deposit accounts. That is what Mr Turnbull stands for. Our alternative is to provide a guarantee for all deposits. Those deposits which are in excess of $1 million represent 0.5 per cent of deposit accounts. Under government policy, all deposits are covered. For the 0.5 per cent of all deposit accounts with more than $1 million, the regulators are discussing what insurance premium should apply to them. By contrast, the policy being advocated by the alternative government is to leave out there without any protection or any guarantee whatsoever 40 per cent of this nation’s deposits—750,000 deposit accounts. That is the difference between a government which has taken decisive action on behalf of the stability of the entire financial system and which is mindful of the interests of all depositors and those opposite who would cut loose three-quarters of a million depositors across the country. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: there is a difference between providing early, firm and decisive action in support of the financial system and in support of the long-term growth of this economy and the short-term, populist politics in which the Leader of the Opposition now specialises. 9920 9920 14:44:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. How is the government’s Economic Security Strategy helping older Australians who are facing increased pressure due to the rising costs of living? 9920 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Robertson for her question. I know what a strong interest she has in supporting our older Australians. The government are continuing to deliver for our older Australians, because we understand how tough they are doing it. This government has taken very swift and decisive action in its Economic Security Strategy. This is about helping older Australians facing the rising costs of living. Last week our $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy included assistance for four million pensioners, carers and seniors. It is an immediate $4.8 billion down payment on long-term pension reform, with the one-off tax-free payments of a lump sum of $1,400 for a single age pensioner or $2,100 for a couple. People who are receiving carer allowance will also receive $1,000 for each eligible person being cared for. All payments will be made in the fortnight beginning 8 December. This builds on the $7.5 billion in additional support for pensioners and carers that the government provided for in our first budget. The budget provided a whole range of measures for older Australians, including increasing the utilities allowance, the seniors bonus, the telephone allowance and also national transport concessions. We are committed to long-term pension reform through a very thorough, comprehensive review. The decisive action shown in the Economic Security Strategy builds on providing for older Australians in other areas, particularly the $41.5 billion being provided over the next four years to aged and community care. This means an average of $41,500 a resident a year. Indeed, no government in Australian history has provided more when it comes to aged care. When we look at the ageing of our population, we see that we have the world’s second longest life expectancy. We have currently got nearly 3,000 Australians aged 100 and over and by the year 2055 we are going to have 78,000 Australians aged 100 and over. We are also supporting older Australians and their carers who want to stay in their homes for as long as possible. On Monday I announced $12 million in national grants to improve respite services for carers. This is part of our $194 million National Respite for Carers Program. Carers are the unsung heroes of our nation, and I pay tribute to them. We are a government meeting the challenges of the 21st century, and we are very proud to be providing for our older Australians. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I ask that the minister table the answer that she read, please. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the member for Canning asking whether the minister will table a document she was reading from? PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Was the minister quoting from a document? Is the document confidential? DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Yes. 9921 9921 14:48:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to the deposits tax announced by the Treasurer a moment ago, which he said will apply to all banks’ deposits over $1 million whether the banks or the depositors want it or not. Why is this deposit guarantee compulsory and will this deposit tax be the same regardless of the bank’s credit rating? 9921 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —It is not a deposit tax. It is a fee to reflect a commercial reality, which will reflect the fact that there is a government guarantee—and I did not say necessarily a million dollars; I said a million dollars or above. That is what I said. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked and it is being responded to. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —These commercial arrangements are being worked through by the RBA and by the Treasury. They will be published in good time. We are going through consultation with industry and it will reflect commercial reality. It reflects the fact that the government has a determination to provide a comprehensive guarantee. What those opposite simply do not understand is how the world has changed so much in the last three weeks. When we moved to put in place this comprehensive guarantee, with the full support of the Reserve Bank, with the full support of the Treasury, the opposition said that they were going to give us their full support. Now, today, they have walked away from it altogether. Indeed, they have got another policy. It is a policy by the hour. They are now suggesting in this House that there ought to be a guarantee on non-deposit investments. They want to walk into this House and talk about the potential liability of our guarantee. Our guarantee is responsible. It was put in place because of what was going on internationally. Governments elsewhere in the world were making very substantial guarantees to their banks and if we had not acted there would have been severe consequences for the Australian banking system. But those opposite are so utterly irresponsible, they want to come into this House and trash the guarantee. Well, they can do that, but this government stands for good policy. We stand for protecting the Australian banking system. We stand for ensuring that its stability can mean over time that households and businesses receive lower interest rates, and they are starting to see the benefit. I guess that is what really rubs up against the Leader of the Opposition. He only sees this as a personal opportunity. He does not see this as a chance to strengthen the national interest. This government will defend the national interest all of the time. 9921 9921 14:51:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 Mr GIBBONS —I have a question for the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on how the government is assisting with the cost-of-living pressures for Australian pensioners and also advise the House of any responses? 9921 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Bendigo for his question. He certainly does understand that these are hard economic times for many Australians, and that particularly includes almost 29,000 pensioners in Bendigo. Those pensioners in Bendigo, like pensioners in other parts of Australia, are finding it difficult to make ends meet, with the costs of groceries and the costs of other bills continuing to go up. As he knows and pensioners know, it certainly has been very difficult to manage the household budget. We have certainly made some modest steps to help our pensioners meet those increased costs of living with the Economic Security Strategy. The $4.8 billion that is going into lump-sum payments for pensioners will certainly help. These payments are certainly needed to help pensioners cope with cost-of-living pressures, especially after the 12 years of neglect by the former government. Last night the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development released a report card on poverty, revealing the former government’s shameful record on older Australians. It reveals that Australia had the fourth highest rate in income poverty of the elderly, and during the time of the Liberal government there was an increase of 4.6 percentage points in income poverty of the elderly. Under the Liberals, for singles over 65 the poverty rate in Australia was a staggering 50 per cent. A staggering 50 per cent of people over the age of 65 were in a very serious state of poverty, the third highest level in the OECD. This of course is a searing indictment of the opposition’s record in government on older Australians. We know, thanks to Mal Brough, that when they were in the cabinet they ignored the needs of older Australians and rejected a proposal to increase the pension. Even though there is this damning report on the efforts of those opposite for older Australians, just today we learned that the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate is saying—and I am sure the Prime Minister will be interested in this—that he has never agreed with the Economic Security Strategy. In other words, that must mean that he wants to take the lump-sum payments off all pensioners. Unlike the Liberals, of course, we intend to make sure the lump-sum payments happen. We know that the Leader of the Opposition said that he was not going to quibble, he was not going to argue with the government’s Economic Security Strategy. Obviously the quibbling is well and truly underway by the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate—well and truly quibbling out there. A correspondent from the Sydney Morning Herald, Annabel Crabb, really nailed it yesterday with a headline: ‘They don’t call me the Vicar of Quibbly for nothing’. That is certainly the advice from the Sydney Morning Herald. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —The Leader of the Opposition seems to think that this is just funny. In case the Leader of the Opposition thinks that people are complimenting him on his quibbling with the government’s economic strategy, I would actually refer him to some remarks from individuals who have been corresponding on a news website. This is from Garth, who really seems to understand exactly where the Leader of the Opposition is. This is from Garth, writing on a news website, and I am sure people will agree with this: Maybe Malcolm is having another each-way bet. Make up your mind, Malcolm— Garth says— You’re either with the rest of the world in dealing with the financial crisis or you’re against it. Another person says: It’s hardly surprising that the merchant banker is firing from the lip. And so they go on—all of them recognising that the Leader of the Opposition just quibbles with the government’s efforts to make sure that pensioners and others who are doing it tough get the support that they need. 9922 9922 14:57:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Macquarie Dictionary that a tax is ‘a compulsory’— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my right will come to order. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Does the Prime Minister agree with the Macquarie Dictionary that a tax is ‘a compulsory monetary contribution demanded by a government for its support’? Does he also agree, therefore, that a compulsory fee levied on bank deposits over $1 million in return for a government guarantee is not a commercial arrangement and is in truth nothing more than a new tax? 9923 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am always gladdened when the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of the country, resorts to his high school debating tactics. There is nothing like pulling out the old dictionary and saying, ‘Do you know that the meaning of X in the 17th century OED is Y and the Shorter Oxford says the following and the Macquarie says this and the Collins says that?’ This is actually about serious questions of national economic leadership. What I would say to the Leader of the Opposition is: what is required of leadership is that, at a time of global financial crisis, you stand by the Secretary of the Treasury rather than attack him, stand by the Reserve Bank of Australia rather than attack that institution— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, a point of order that goes to relevance: the Prime Minister was asked a very specific question about the government’s new deposits tax. It had nothing whatsoever to do with the Secretary of the Treasury and he should return to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question. I will listen to him carefully—if less interjection allows me. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What we have had on display from the alternative Prime Minister in recent days is quite remarkable. He first of all said the global financial crisis is a ‘hype’. Despite the concerns of 10 million people with superannuation policies, the response of the Leader of the Opposition is that that is all hype. For people concerned about interest rate increases when there was an interest rate increase of 25 basis points, he said that was overdramatised. How out of touch can you get! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the primary school debating, but my point of order is relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Being out of touch on the global financial crisis and being out of touch on interest rates is one thing, but yesterday in this parliament being right out of control in his attack on the Secretary of the Treasury places the Leader of the Opposition in an entirely new league. This country requires strong economic leadership at a time of global financial crisis and getting behind the institutions of government as is necessary; and, on the measures which the government have enacted in relation to this guarantee, we have done so on the basis of advice from the Treasury and, through them, the regulators. I stand by everything the Treasurer has said. 9923 9923 15:01:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. What is the government doing to ensure long-term economic growth by addressing the nation’s infrastructure backlog in the area of education, and what are the barriers to this reform? 9923 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 Moreton for his question. I know he is deeply interested in the education futures of the people in his electorate. The Rudd Labor government is committed— An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There are many things that come to mind based on that intervention, but I will let them go. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As I was saying, the Rudd Labor government is committed to nation building. That is why in the May budget we created three nation-building funds, including the Education Investment Fund, and we committed at that time to providing a round of $304 million in funding in 2009 to assist universities with their capital expenditure. This was to be a transitional round from the old Higher Education Endowment Fund to the new $11 billion Education Investment Fund. As the Prime Minister has said, in the face of the global financial crisis and its flow-through into the real economy, the government has taken decisive action and is also looking at fast-tracking infrastructure. In the spirit of fast-tracking, the government has been working with Mr Phillip Clark AM, who leads the Higher Education Endowment Fund advisory board and is leading the transition to the new Education Investment Fund, on processing the current applications from universities for this $304 million which is available. Today I am pleased to announce that Senator Carr and I are inviting 14 universities to bring forward full applications for the 2009 funding, based on the recommendations of the advisory board headed by Phil Clark. This round focuses on strengthening research in Australian universities, and there is a wide variety of proposals that are in the 14 that are to be brought forward for full applications. The 14 proposals being brought forward for further consideration are worth nearly $700 million. The successful expressions of interest, for which universities will be asked to submit a full application, include a proposal from Macquarie University for a hearing hub, a proposal from Murdoch University for a new education facility, a proposal from the University of Ballarat for an innovation and enterprise centre, a proposal from the University of Canberra for an international microsimulation centre, a proposal from the University of Melbourne for an institute for infection and immunity, a proposal from the University of Queensland for a world-class veterinary science facility, a proposal from the University of Sydney for a centre for obesity, diabetes and cardiovascular disease, and a proposal from the University of Wollongong for a smart infrastructure facility. Each of the 14 proposals will shortly receive correspondence asking them to bring forward a full application for round 2. This additional investment comes on top of the half a billion dollars already made available to universities through the Better Universities Renewal Fund. I am asked about any barriers or impediments to this new investment in Australian universities, and I regret to advise the House that we still do not know what the view of the opposition really is in relation to the government’s nation-building agenda, including the Education Investment Fund. On one day they are opposed to it, on another day they appear to be in support of it, but we have no reliable statements whether or not it is the intention of the Liberal opposition to block legislation setting up the Education Investment Fund, amongst others. When it comes to delivering an education revolution, and that is what the government is committed to delivering, we are calling on the Liberal Party to get out of the way and allow the government to make a difference for Australian universities. We know that they are bearing a legacy of neglect after 12 long years where universities were treated with contempt by the Howard government. We are standing ready to make new investments in our universities. The one question we cannot answer is whether the Liberal Party will continue to treat Australian universities with the kind of contempt it treated them with for more than a decade. 9925 9925 15:07:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Treasurer. Would a small or medium business with a million dollars or more in its chequing account at Westpac to cover wages and working capital be obliged to pay the new deposits tax? 9925 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the shadow Treasurer for her question. All deposits over a threshold level would attract the fee—let’s be very clear. Why is this the case? Because it just ensures that banks do not get a free kick for the guarantee, and it also addresses the concerns that those opposite said they had about the impact on the short-term money market. This does give very considerable benefit to the banks. The commercial reality is that this fee will reflect funding costs, and it is there to be charged to provide some competitive neutrality out there and ensure that funds have a choice about where they go. But we have a comprehensive guarantee. Those opposite now oppose it. It is clear for all to see. They propose a situation where 40 per cent of deposits would no longer be covered by their support. They deserve to be absolutely condemned, and now they have come up with the extraordinary proposition that the banks get a huge free kick. Not from this government. 9925 9925 15:09:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on any new findings on alcohol and on the progress of the government’s National Binge Drinking Strategy community grants? 9925 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. His community, particularly in Cairns, has been taking very active action in tackling alcohol abuse in the community, including the Just Think campaign. Of course as a national government we are determined to tackle the problems that exist in our community associated with alcohol abuse. Interestingly, figures that were released yesterday by the Salvation Army, based on a Roy Morgan poll which they had organised, found that more than one Australian in every eight have experience of children in their family being frightened or embarrassed by relatives’ drinking habits. It goes up to one in five Australians who know of verbal arguments or threats within their family due to alcohol, and sadly for 11 per cent those confrontations have been physical. Members would be aware that there are plenty of other shocking statistics that show trends that we must be worried about in this parliament. On alcohol consumption in any given week, approximately one in 10 12- to 17-year-olds is binge drinking or drinking at a risky level. Binge drinking leads to violence. Last year more than three-quarters of a million Australians were physically abused by persons under the influence of alcohol. Members would be aware that on this side of the House we have acted to close the tax loophole created by those opposite on alcopops. We have also announced that $53 million is being targeted to an immediate binge drinking strategy. As yet we have not had any indication from those opposite about whether they support our binge drinking strategy. Members would also be aware that at the end of June the Rudd government opened applications for community groups to apply for funds to develop effective and sustainable partnerships to combat binge drinking. We believe governments have a role to play and we believe communities have a role to play. We would like the Liberal Party to tell us whether they are going to support these sorts of community level initiatives. A sum of $7.2 million has been made available for these community level initiatives for organisations such as sporting clubs, youth groups, church organisations and others. It is possible to obtain up to $150,000 for individual groups or $250,000 for groups in partnerships, who are able to bid for this money for innovative projects aimed at preventing or reducing binge drinking, particularly for young people. People might be interested to know in this House that 293 organisations have applied for funding at the time that applications closed. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt interjecting— 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —It is clear that yet again the member for Flinders is not interested in community level initiatives to oppose binge drinking in his community—yet again determined not to be part of the solution. 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: I take offence at that statement from somebody who closed a hospital on Phillip Island. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will continue. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I am pleased to hear that from the member for Flinders, although the rest of the Liberal Party have not yet indicated whether they will support these community level initiatives that are part of the government’s binge drinking campaign. Of course those 293 applications still need to be appropriately assessed. But what we would like to know, given that the Liberal Party have been so opposed at every step of the way to any action that we want to take to reduce harmful drinking in our community, is whether the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and member for Curtin will be supporting the six applications that have been received from her electorate. Will the member for Warringah support the five applications that have been submitted from his electorate? Perhaps the new member for Gippsland will be interested to know about and will perhaps advocate for the four applications received from his electorate. We have received five applications from the member for Murray’s electorate. In South Australia, the member for Grey will be able to tell the eight organisations in his electorate whether or not he supports these sorts of funding programs from the government. The Liberal and National parties have to indicate to their electorates and to this parliament whether they are going to do anything and take any action to tackle excessive alcohol consumption in our electorates. What role are the opposition going to play in being part of the solution to this community-wide problem? We in the government are determined to tackle this issue. We have a growing list of supporters in the community, in health services, in hospitals and in the police who are backing our action. Are the opposition going to? 9926 9926 15:15:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr CIOBO —My question is to the Treasurer. Recently the Challenger Howard Mortgage Fund announced that, following the government’s decision to implement the unlimited bank deposit guarantee, Challenger has capped redemptions from their fund. I draw the Treasurer’s attention to similar redemption caps as well as the freezing of redemption requests, and in some cases disbursements, from other affected funds. Treasurer, with many partial pensioners and self-funded retirees no longer receiving income or access to their cash, why is the government compounding their hardship by refusing to help them with income support from Centrelink? 9926 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question because it comes back to a point we were discussing earlier. The government’s guarantee applies to deposits in deposit-taking institutions which are supervised by APRA. What the member is talking about is unlisted managed investment schemes. They are market linked investments. They are not deposits. They are worthy investments, they are worthwhile investments, but they are not deposits. The government has chosen not to put a guarantee on those funds; it is very clear. This in no way reflects on the quality of those institutions. It does not reflect on their investments. But you cannot come in here and argue about more guarantees elsewhere in the system and then say you are going to go out and provide a comprehensive guarantee for every market linked investment in the country. That would be the height of economic irresponsibility. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer and the member for Moncrieff! 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Moncrieff is warned! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin interjecting— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Both the minister and the member for Moncrieff! A government member—He’s been warned. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I appreciate he may have been warned but there was an interchange across the table. It could have been done as a job lot but I decided not to! 9927 9927 15:17:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Defence. Will the minister update the House on progress in East Timor and on any changes in our commitment? 9927 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr FITZGIBBON —I thank the member for Deakin for his question. He has a not insignificant Defence Force presence in his electorate and I know, thanks to his representations, he is a great supporter of them and their work. Australia has a longstanding and deep interest in a stable, secure and prosperous East Timor. Like the member for Deakin, and I am sure all members of the House, the government is very pleased with the progress of our near neighbour. East Timor’s emergence as a new independent nation has not been a smooth one. Our troop presence there goes back to 1999, when, under the banner of INTERFET, we lead a coalition of nation states in responding to post independence referendum violence. Our current deployment was a response to a re-emergence of that violence back in May 2006. This time as the International Stabilisation Force, Australian troops partnered with New Zealand troops to restore law and order in East Timor. Their very good work of course continues today. The mission of our troops is to provide a security presence as a back-up to the United Nations police force and the police and military forces of East Timor. It has been a very successful mission. The men and women of the Australian Defence Force and the New Zealand Defence Force are entitled to be very, very proud of their efforts and their work. Our mission is by no means complete. The peace in East Timor remains fragile, as was demonstrated just in February this year when an assassination attempt was made against President Horta, and Prime Minister Gusmao’s car also came under attack. That is why the government expects to maintain a presence in East Timor for some time to come. That also is the express wish of the democratically elected government of East Timor. While I am pleased to say that the East Timor police and military forces have made great strides in their development as national institutions, they still have some way to go before the full mantle of security can be assumed by them. However, good progress has been made and as a result, and after very careful consideration, the government has decided that the time is right to reduce our total force in East Timor under Operation Astute to approximately 650 personnel from early next year. This constitutes a reduction of about 100 soldiers and reflects the situation on the ground today, our optimism about future stability in East Timor and the development of institutions there. I said the decision to draw down some of our troops was taken after very careful consideration and assessment of the security situation in East Timor. The government was very mindful of the premature decision of the former government to draw down troops in 2005, a decision which by necessity was followed by a decision to restore troops in 2006. This is partly why on this occasion our drawdown at this stage is a very modest one and a very cautious one. Following the drawdown, the International Stabilisation Force will still number 790 Australian and New Zealand personnel. But the reduction in the number of deployed Australian troops recognises the ongoing calm security environment in East Timor and Dili’s resolve towards an ability to take care of its own security. Despite the limited drawdown, the mission of the International Stabilisation Force will remain unchanged. Our troops will continue to provide security support to the government of East Timor and to the United Nations mission in East Timor. The force will also focus on community assistance and other development of East Timorese security forces. The Australian government will not leave East Timor in the lurch without adequate institutions to manage their own security. Our Defence Cooperation Program is delivering around $8.2 million worth of assistance to the East Timorese defence force to further build its capacity. Examples include the development of a specialist training wing, which I visited earlier this year, and the ongoing operation of the English language school. We will continue to work with the government of East Timor, the United Nations and our international partners to help East Timor move down the path of stability and prosperity. On behalf of all Australians and all members of the House, I pay tribute to and thank the men and women of the Australian Defence Force who have done and continue to do very good work in East Timor. 9928 9928 15:22:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr BALDWIN —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. Minister, earlier today in Senate estimates hearings on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, documents were tabled detailing your government’s cuts in pays and allowances to ADF members engaged in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan. Because the government did not think these changes through properly and, instead, backdated them to August 2007, the documents tabled today revealed that a significant number of our SAS members have now incurred debts of up to $30,000 and, due to debt recovery, these elite men and women have been left with a take-home pay of only $250 per fortnight and interest on their debts at 7.2 per cent. Minister, will you immediately intervene to overturn this abhorrent cut to the pay and allowances of our fighting men and women and, importantly, step in without delay to protect the estates of the five brave men who made the supreme sacrifice in active service in Afghanistan—namely, Trooper David Pearce, Sergeant Matthew Locke, Private Luke Worsley, Lance Corporal Jason Marks and SAS Signaller Sean McCarthy? 9928 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr FITZGIBBON —I thank the member for Paterson for his question. I am aware of the very, very serious issue he raises and can report to the House that the problem facing our special forces soldiers relates to a decision of the independent Defence Remuneration Tribunal of August 2007. I can also report that special forces headquarters has been working on this issue for some time. I can further report that Defence has agreed to stop any recovery of those, what might be deemed to be, overpayments. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —I know that all members of the House will agree and, indeed, all members of the Australian community will agree that all of our servicemen and women, but in particular in this case our special forces who are doing such important and dangerous work in Afghanistan, are due every consideration and every reward for the work they do. I can guarantee to the House that this problem will be fixed. 9929 9929 15:25:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Defence Science and Personnel. Will the minister update the House on the government’s commitment to progressively extend free basic health care to the dependants of members of the Australian Defence Force? 9929 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 Mr SNOWDON —I thank the member for Solomon for his question and acknowledge that he has a strong relationship with Defence Force personnel in his community. The member for Solomon is a good bloke who coaches the local Defence Force football team and gets on very well with the community. He has been a great advocate for the Defence Force community in Darwin whilst he has been the member. Prior to the last election, the Labor Party made a decision, based on its view that we needed to do more for Defence Force families, that what we should do is provide progressive access to basic medical and dental care to spouses and children of Australian Defence Force personnel. After the election, we reviewed our commitment, took advice from the department and from Defence Force families across Australia and made a decision that we would not proceed in the way we had originally intended. Instead, unlike the members opposite, who do not have a policy in this area, who are not committed to assisting Defence Force families—who are not committed and nor have they committed themselves to supporting a program to provide access to free basic medical and dental care to Defence Force families, even though they are critics of ours—what we have chose to do, as a result of a review of our commitment and understanding the desires of the Defence Force community for choice and flexibility, is to provide capacity for Defence Force families on a trial basis, initially in five locations— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson is warned! IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —And he does not know what he is talking about, to wit. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Paterson is warned! IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —The member for Paterson and the member for Herbert and every other critic on the other side of the chamber would be aware that in the May budget we committed to providing basic medical care services to families at Singleton, Cairns, Katherine and East Sale and in the Karratha and Pilbara regions. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie is warned! IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —We then made a decision, which I announced last week, to extend the trial to two other communities—Townsville and Darwin. The trial to the initial five will start in May of next year. The trials to Katherine and Darwin will start in the first half of the next financial year. Once these trials have been introduced, they will provide access to free basic medical services and $300 for dental services to 16,000 Defence Force dependants. That is a quarter of the total number of dependants of the Australian Defence Force. As we are informed gradually of the implementation of these trials, we will move subsequently to provide this opportunity to all people across the Defence Force. I make the point that we have made this judgement based on making sure we have proper evidence after our trials and making sure we can— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —You’ve changed it twice since coming to government! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Paterson will leave the chamber for one hour. The member for Paterson then left the chamber. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —provide this service in the most cost-efficient and effective way and, at the same time, satisfy their desire for choice and flexibility of medical practitioner. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 9930 Privilege 9930 15:30:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 0 Mr SCHULTZ —Mr Speaker, I rise on a matter of privilege. In media reports today, and I quote from the Sydney Morning Herald, articles such as ‘Schultz should be shot: Nat leader’ appeared. The article said: The NSW National Party leader, Andrew Stoner, says the federal Liberal MP Alby Schultz should be shot after he helped the independent Peter Besseling during the weekend Port Macquarie by-election campaign. “If I had my way, I’d march him out at dawn, put a blindfold on him and shoot him,” Mr Stoner said today. As statements of this nature represent a threat against my person, and therefore could be deemed an attempt to interfere with my ability to perform my duties as a member of parliament, I respectfully request, Mr Speaker, that you give precedence for this matter to be considered by the Privileges Committee. 9930 15:31:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Order! I will investigate the article that the member has referred to, and I will report back to the House accordingly with any suggestion that there should be precedence given to that matter being referred to the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. 9930 Personal Explanations 9930 15:32:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —Indeed. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hinkler may continue. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —Mr Speaker, in a personal explanation yesterday you will recall I drew attention to a misrepresentation of me in the Education Legislation Amendment Bill debate. The member for Moreton gave a very manly and decent apology to me as a result of that, which I accepted in good grace. But my government colleague, the member for Longman, decided to prolong the matter and read my quote back into the record as part of his speech. After a tortured examination of my quote, he then made the following allegation: … that only— and I stress ‘only’, Mr Speaker— by going to a non-government school will a child from a less affluent family receive a good education … Mr Speaker, I never said that. That cannot be inferred from my speech or from my conduct in support of state schools! 9931 Documents 9931 9931 15:34:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Pursuant to section 65 of the Parliamentary Services Act 1999, I present the annual report of the Department of the House of Representatives for 2007-08. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 9931 Documents Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth —Minister for Foreign Affairs) 15:34:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 9931 Ministerial Statements 9931 9931 15:35:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—Australia is deeply concerned at the situation in Burma. For many years, Burma’s regime, the State Peace and Development Council, has shown a profound disregard for the human rights and democratic aspirations of the Burmese people. Australians were rightly appalled in September last year when the regime used violence to suppress peaceful protests, led by Buddhist monks, in Rangoon and other centres. This was, unfortunately, only the most recent very public instance of the brutal treatment meted out to civil society in that country and to those seeking to make Burma a better society and a nation based on democratic norms and ideals. The ongoing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, along with that of an estimated 2,000 political prisoners, is a major impediment to political progress. Aung San Suu Kyi has been under house arrest continuously for the past five years, and for 13 of the past 19 years. The Burmese regime has also presided over the stark deterioration of the Burmese economy. Burma has become a poor and isolated country. Australia has consistently urged the Burmese regime to engage in a transparent political dialogue with opposition parties in Burma, including Aung San Suu Kyi and the National League for Democracy. The Prime Minister and I have raised Burma in discussions with our counterparts from many countries. I expressed Australia’s concerns directly to the Burmese Minister for Foreign Affairs in the margins of the ASEAN related meetings in Singapore in July. I have recently expressed Australia’s deep concerns about the further extension of Aung San Suu Kyi’s detention. Australia’s Ambassador to Burma has also made these representations, at the most senior levels of the Burmese regime, and will continue to do so. Australia strongly supports efforts by the United Nations to promote a genuine dialogue between Burma’s regime, opposition groups, and ethnic minorities. Australia welcomed very much the fact that United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon invited Australia to participate in the Secretary-General’s Group of Friends on Burma. The Group of Friends consults regularly with the secretary-general, and with his special envoy for Burma, Mr Gambari. I met Mr Gambari in New York in September, in the margins of the UN General Assembly. Together with the international community, Australia will continue to work for progress in Burma. For many years now, since 1988, Australia has had in place visa restrictions against senior members of the Burmese regime and their associates and supporters. In 1991 Australia introduced a ban on defence exports to Burma. Financial sanctions were introduced in October 2007. The current financial sanctions have been in place now for 12 months. It is the government’s very strong view that sanctions need to be kept current and focused for maximum impact. To ensure this, the Australian government has renewed the list of individuals subject to Australian financial sanctions. The updated sanctions list, which comes into effect and which I announce today, reflects personnel movements in the regime during the last year, as well as information obtained since October 2007. The revised list names 463 individuals, including members of the ruling State Peace and Development Council, ministers, senior military officers, prominent business associates of the regime, and immediate family members of these individuals. The list previously named 418 individuals. These sanctions will maintain pressure on the Burmese regime, but are not aimed at the Burmese people themselves. Australia remains committed to providing humanitarian assistance for the Burmese people. Australia has provided $55 million in humanitarian aid to assist relief and recovery efforts following the devastation of Cyclone Nargis. Through United Nations agencies and non-government organisations on the ground, Australia is also supporting health, basic education and the protection of vulnerable groups. Australia is contributing approximately $16 million in such assistance during 2008-09. The initial response of Burma’s regime to Cyclone Nargis was very disappointing. While there remains scope for improved cooperation, I am pleased that the Burmese regime is now working with the United Nations and ASEAN relief efforts. Australia particularly welcomes ASEAN’s collaboration in assessment work and emergency assistance after Cyclone Nargis. Australia responded to ASEAN’s involvement by adding, last July, $30 million in humanitarian assistance to the $25 million Australia had already provided. It was a matter of great regret that, amid the disaster of Cyclone Nargis, the Burmese regime pushed ahead with a constitutional referendum. This was the fourth step in the regime’s so-called ‘Roadmap to Democracy’. Neither the referendum process nor its ultimate outcome signalled any intention by the Burmese regime to actually listen to the will of the Burmese people on their future. The referendum process itself was a sham. Australia will continue to press Burma’s regime for meaningful political progress towards democracy. The government’s announcement today on further financial sanctions is a demonstration of the Australian government’s firm resolve and commitment to this. I thank the House. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Goldstein to speak for a period not exceeding six minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Robb speaking for a period not exceeding six minutes. Question agreed to. 9932 15:41:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —I rise in response to the ministerial statement on Burma. I have long had a personal concern with the oppressive regime in Burma. During my time in business I had many commercial interests in Thailand and gained an appreciation of the totally unacceptable conditions that applied across the border. I visited many of the border regions on business and in conversations over meals at night would be told of the horrific incidents that were taking place within that country. As Parliamentary Secretary for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs responsible for the settlement of refugees I had firsthand exposure to the refugee camps and the horrendous experience of many people throughout their lifetime being exposed to a life in a refugee camp and all that goes with it. Earlier this year I attended a meeting of the ASEAN Inter-Parliamentary Assembly and had a one-hour private meeting with a group of exiled Burmese politicians. Again, many of my views of the regime were reinforced. There is an urgency about dealing with the situation in Burma. The coalition welcomes any well targeted measures that extend Australia’s deep concerns relating to the violation of human rights and the suppression of democratic ambitions in the state of Burma. Burma’s regime, the so-called State Peace Development Council, has overseen economic decay and social disintegration since 1988. The regime has ensured that Burma is now the cot case of South-East Asia. The events of September last year briefly brought the plight of the Burmese people to the world’s attention, but in no way have the problems which have led to such protests subsided. The ongoing detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the General Secretary of the National League for Democracy, has become the symbol of the brutal nature of this regime. Her release is paramount to reaching a peaceful solution and settlement. The Australian government must persist, as the previous government did, in making formal representations at the highest levels of government in urging the Burmese regime to address human rights and the release of all political prisoners. This must be done in cooperation with our regional neighbours, including China and Thailand, who are among Burma’s leading trade partners. It is also critical that ASEAN be front and centre of such efforts. The further sanctions announced today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs follow on from the previous sanctions implemented in October last year by the former government. These financial sanctions announced by the former Minister for Foreign Affairs, Alexander Downer, were well targeted against 418 individuals, including members of the State Peace and Development Council, cabinet ministers and senior military figures. This coincided with $14 million in humanitarian assistance to the Burmese people, who are the innocent victims of this regime. These funds were directed through a number of organisations and supported basic health, water and sanitation for vulnerable people among the south-east and northern border regions of Burma. I note the statement by the minister that the initial response of the Burmese regime to Cyclone Nargis was very disappointing—and indeed it was very disappointing and caused great hardship to many hundreds of thousands, in fact millions, of Burmese. However, I also must note that the initial $3 million response from the Australian government was also very disappointing—it was a pittance. The death toll from the cyclone was of 2004 tsunami proportions. It is estimated that over 200,000 Burmese died as a result of the cyclone. As was the case with the tsunami in late 2004, Australia should have been taking a strong and immediate lead in responding to this tragedy. An AusAID team should have been made available immediately and Australia should have indicated that we were prepared to spend tens of millions of dollars, as we did with the tsunami, in assistance to this country in such difficult circumstances. This is our region. We are a successful, developed country with leadership responsibility to respond effectively to emergencies in our region, and especially to emergencies which relate to a country which is in such a dire situation and where the people are so oppressed. Australia was well placed to respond to the situation in Burma due to the investment by the Howard government in Australia’s ability to respond to regional crises. In the final two budgets of the Howard government, over $100 million was set aside to improve Australia’s response to emergencies in the region. I do acknowledge the final contribution by the Australian federal government to this crisis. I would also like to warmly acknowledge the work of Australian aid bodies, including World Vision and Care Australia. I have met previously with those bodies and was very impressed by the work they had undertaken. As these organisations told me, the effects of the cyclone were comparable to those of the 2004 tsunami yet there was much less media coverage given and consequently private donations were much fewer than they were in 2004. We are a generous country, and I am sure most would be surprised to hear that World Vision received only $5 million in private donations for cyclone relief compared to over $100 million following the 2004 tsunami. (Time expired) 9934 Matters of Public Importance 9934 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Curtin proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s flawed and hasty introduction of an unlimited deposits guarantee which has created unnecessary risk to the financial security of small businesses, self-funded retirees, farmers and households across Australia 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— 9934 15:48:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —I thank the Minister for Finance and Deregulation for supporting this matter of public importance today. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer demonstrated today their callous disregard for Australians—those self-funded retirees, families, small businesses and households across Australia—whose cash and savings are held in cash management trusts, in property trusts, in certificates of deposit, in debentures and in deposits in entities across this country. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer seemed not to know or care what turmoil and confusion the government has created in the deposit market. Today, on top of the confusion, the turmoil and the chaos that has been caused by the government’s hasty, ill-informed and misjudged announcement of an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits, the Treasurer added to the confusion by announcing in question time a new tax. The government are introducing a new deposit tax on deposits of around $1 million—they are not quite sure whether it is going to be just over $1 million or right on $1 million. They are going to introduce a new tax on deposits. The Treasurer said that this new tax will be compulsory—it is not just a commercial arrangement; it will be compulsory—and he agreed that it will be on deposits, to be paid by depositors and by the banks holding the deposits whether or not the depositors wish to have the unlimited guarantee and whether or not the bank wishes to avail itself of the unlimited guarantee. That is a new tax. This raises so many questions in the minds of the Australian public. The people listening to question time will have been totally dumbfounded to find that this announcement the government made 10 days ago about an unlimited bank guarantee, apparently designed to ensure stability in the financial markets, has now created enormous uncertainty in the financial markets within Australia. The government’s own actions have caused greater instability in the Australian financial markets than any event that has occurred overseas. What the Treasurer announced today was a new tax on deposits. Yet he was unable to answer even the most basic questions about this tax. He was asked whether or not a small- or medium-sized business with $1 million in its cheque account, put there to cover wages and working capital, would be obliged to pay the new deposit tax. The Treasurer had no answer for that question. What if the small business had $1 million in the cheque account one month, which would attract the new tax, but then the next month it fell below $1 million? What if the funds in the cheque account fluctuated week by week and month by month? How is the government going to calculate a tax on the fluctuating amounts in a deposit that is held for working capital or wages? The Treasurer had no answer on that. What if, under the government’s new tax, an investor with, say, the Commonwealth Bank has a $1 million deposit and has to pay this tax, and another investor decides to put their deposit in two separate accounts, with $500,000 in one and $500,000 in another? Will the depositor who put in $1 million—or whatever threshold figure the government eventually comes up with—be treated differently from the other investor? The announcement by the Treasurer today was obviously news to the Secretary of the Treasury. In Senate estimates today the Secretary of the Treasury was asked about this new tax. To be fair to the Secretary of the Treasury, he had no idea what the opposition was asking him. So obviously this is not one of those things where you can hide behind the regulators. The government will not be able to come into the House and say, ‘No, this is advice we received from the Secretary of the Treasury,’ or from Treasury, the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, the Reserve Bank or anybody else. No, this was a decision and an announcement by the Treasurer. This was a new tax announced by the Treasurer without advice from Treasury. The government will not be able to hide behind public servants this time. They will not be able to hold up public servants as a human shield to cover their mistakes—their bumbling of the introduction of this new unlimited guarantee for bank deposits. The government’s flawed and hasty introduction of the unlimited deposits guarantee has in fact created a high level of domestic financial crisis. This morning, however, on ABC Radio National, the Treasurer stated: The government always recognised there would be consequences of the decision to introduce an unlimited deposit guarantee. The Treasurer said today that the government always knew there would be these consequences. So the flight of deposits from non-guaranteed institutions into guaranteed institutions was a consequence that the government always knew would occur. And the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, who is sitting at the table, also said on ABC radio in Melbourne that the government ‘always acknowledged that there was always going to be a need for finetuning of these propositions’. He went on to say: At some point you get to a grey area—and that’s the issue we’re currently grappling with—to define precisely where the line ought to be drawn. And of course that involves getting detailed advice from people like the Reserve Bank. This was always intended. Well, Minister for Finance and Deregulation, you are damned by your own words. The minister for finance was a member of the cabinet committee that was sitting in Canberra on that Sunday when a decision was made—one of the most significant monetary policy decisions made in the last 30 years, at least. The minister— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Monetary policy is about interest rates. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —I beg your pardon? The minister for finance just said that this is not a monetary policy. The unlimited bank guarantee is monetary policy. It is not fiscal policy; it is not regulatory policy; it is monetary policy. And that is why the Reserve Bank’s advice should have been sought. You ought to speak to the Reserve Bank about this, Minister for Finance and Deregulation. This is monetary policy. The minister for finance was sitting around that cabinet committee table and, according to the Prime Minister, when a decision was made by the collective genius of the minister for finance, the Minister for Education, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—on the phone from New York—to have an unlimited bank guarantee for some institutions in Australia and exclude others, the Prime Minister turned to the Secretary of the Treasury and said, ‘Is this the advice of the Reserve Bank?’ or words to that effect, and the Secretary of the Treasury said, ‘Yes.’ And not one person around that table asked: ‘What, is there no downside to this? Is there no risk? Are there no consequences for the segment of the market that will be excluded from this unlimited guarantee?’ Not one person sitting around that table said, ‘Hey, perhaps we’d better pick up the phone and speak to the Governor of the Reserve Bank to hear from the man in charge of monetary policy in this country’—the man who has responsibility for the systemic stability of the financial system in Australia. No-one said, ‘Perhaps we should ask his advice as to whether or not there’s any downside, any risk or any consequence to the financial markets in Australia.’ I challenge the minister for finance to name one occasion when a cabinet of this country, in, let’s say, the last 15 or 16 years, has made a significant decision on monetary policy and not sought the advice of the Reserve Bank governor and had him either physically in the cabinet room or on the line— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane —Or waiting outside 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —or waiting outside to answer questions. Name one occasion when a cabinet would make such a momentous decision about monetary policy and not seek the direct advice of the Reserve Bank governor. I find it inconceivable that people who hold themselves out to be economic managers of this country did not make a phone call or seek the physical attendance of the Governor of the Reserve Bank when they were announcing an unlimited guarantee and excluding a segment of the market. What also happened, it seems, is that nobody asked APRA. Nobody bothered to ring the head of APRA, John Laker, or contact anybody from APRA and say, ‘APRA, there are institutions that are prudentially regulated by APRA. They are authorised deposit-taking institutions but they are to be excluded from this guarantee.’ Take, for example, the foreign bank branches. ‘We are going to exclude authorised deposit-taking institutions that are regulated by APRA. I wonder what the consequence will be to their market. I wonder what the consequences will be to those institutions that are excluded from this unlimited guarantee.’ Did nobody in cabinet think to contact either APRA or the Reserve Bank to find out the impact—the consequences—for the banks? These are banks under APRA’s responsibility and jurisdiction. They are banks that are authorised deposit-taking institutions. Nobody asked, ‘What is the impact on those banks of excluding them from the unlimited bank guarantee?’ Take, for example, the foreign bank branches. They have about $100 billion in certificates of deposit. They are excluded from the unlimited bank guarantee, and yet not one person sitting around the cabinet table had the nous to ask APRA or the Reserve Bank whether there would be an impact on this market. It is inconceivable that the Prime Minister’s version of events in fact occurred. The Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation seem to be claiming that they act on the advice of the regulators, including the Reserve Bank, that they knew what the consequences would be—because the finance minister and the Treasurer said on radio this morning that it was always intended and recognised that there would be consequences—but that they do not ask the Reserve Bank or APRA to express any view about those consequences. It is unconvincing at the least. Following the announcement of the unlimited deposit guarantee, the government—including the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the finance minister and the Assistant Treasurer—participated in numerous media interviews. Not once in those interviews did they raise the issues we are discussing today. Not once did they say, ‘We know there will be consequences from the unlimited bank guarantee; we know there will be an impact on the market.’ Not once was that raised in the numerous media interviews that numerous government ministers gave on 12 October or, indeed, 13 October. Not once did the government raise the question of a fee. They did not raise it on the 12th, the 13th or the 14th, and the Treasurer did not raise it in his second reading speech on 15 October. The Treasurer has been holding up his second reading speech as if it contained all of the information that we are learning about only for the first time this week. It does not. The Treasurer’s second reading speech, in fact, refers to a cap. The Treasurer said last night on The 7.30 Report: ‘Oh, no, the government is not considering a cap. No, the Reserve Bank have not given us advice on a cap.’ In his own second reading speech, the only issue that the Treasurer referred to was a cap that they propose to put in in three years time, so it is government policy and the government have been thinking about a cap. The Treasurer raised it in his second reading speech. But what he did not raise was the fact that this unlimited bank guarantee would now attract a fee that is compulsory in return for the guarantee—therefore it is a tax. This will impact on depositors who on 13 October, learning that the government was giving an unlimited guarantee to certain institutions, moved their funds from cash management trusts or property trusts—maybe even sold shares in the stock market—into the banks listed by the government as receiving the government’s unlimited guarantee. Are those depositors, who moved their money in good faith, now to be subjected to a tax if their deposit is over the threshold that the government eventually determines? Is this going to be a retrospective tax that is imposed on depositors who, in good faith, took the government on trust and believed that the Prime Minister was seeking to ensure stability in the financial markets? Will those people now be slugged with a new tax? What if they put their money into, say, the Commonwealth Bank and the Commonwealth Bank says: ‘We’re not going to pay a fee to the government. We’re the Commonwealth Bank. It’s safe with us; we’re not going to pay a fee to the government’? The Treasurer said today that the tax will be compulsory. So that means that the depositor who put their funds in the Commonwealth Bank on the basis that it would be guaranteed by the government now finds that the Commonwealth Bank will not pay the fee and therefore is not covered by the government’s guarantee. This is a confused mess. (Time expired) 9938 16:03:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, I have spent a long time, far too long, in opposition in this place and over that time I prosecuted a few arguments in things like MPIs and censure motions on the waterfront scandal, the Dubai exercise, Peter Reith’s telecard, the travel rorts, the CASA board scandal—a variety of things. I have seen others prosecute similar arguments, but rarely have I seen so much noise, so much dishonesty and so much misrepresentation with so little merit in an argument being prosecuted by an opposition through the substantive mechanisms of this chamber. In fact, it is amazing that the member for Curtin even has the gall to turn up today after her complete evisceration by Tony Jones on these issues on Lateline last night, because in response to the question, ‘What evidence do you have to demonstrate that the Secretary of the Treasury failed to convey to the cabinet concerns that the RBA, the Reserve Bank of Australia, held with respect to the government’s proposed guarantee of bank deposits and what evidence do you have that the Reserve Bank was expressing serious concerns with respect to those guarantees to the government before the announcement on 12 October?’ over and over again she was unable to provide any evidence, and she kept resorting to a word she used a couple of times again today—‘inconceivable.’ So, from her point of view, it is inconceivable that it did not happen and therefore it did happen. It is inconceivable that the Reserve Bank did not make these statements to the government; therefore, by definition, that is evidence that it did occur. Off the back of zero evidence, off the back of literally no substantive evidence whatsoever, the member for Curtin and the Leader of the Opposition, and by implication all the people who are in the chamber on the other side today, are happy to slander and impugn the reputation of one of Australia’s outstanding public servants, who gave good, loyal, high-quality service to governments of both persuasions over an extended period of time. They are happy to suggest that he lied to the government of Australia and to the cabinet subcommittee that was dealing with these situations in a highly charged environment. They are happy to imply that and to include that within a question. Today, even more disgracefully, Senator Abetz—who is usually up to this kind of thing—said in response to answers by the Secretary of the Treasury in Senate estimates hearings that the secretary’s answer ‘does not sound to have the ring of truth about it’. Not content with accusing him of lying in question time yesterday, the opposition are accusing him of lying to the Senate today. I learned in opposition that, whatever the temptations of pursuing issues in question time may be, you do not ask a question unless the implication behind the question is backed up by some evidence. You do not ask a question that has a serious implication to it and that casts aspersions on ministers, other members, members of the public or public servants unless you have some substantive evidence to back that up. What the opposition did yesterday was completely disgraceful. It showed total contempt for the democratic process, total contempt for the parliament and particularly total contempt for the good public servants who have served this government, the previous government and the one before that loyally and diligently and done their job—in this case somebody who is right at the top of the list of those good public servants. It is perhaps a slightly smaller matter, but, of course, the Treasury secretary is not the only person who has been the subject of dishonesty and misrepresentation by the opposition. I copped a little bit of it yesterday myself. The suggestion was made by the member for North Sydney that on television I had stated that when I was acting Treasurer I did not know about any of these things, I did not understand them and I had no role to play in these decisions. This was allegedly on the basis of statements I had made on the Agenda program on Sky TV. In fact, it is very clear when you read the transcript that the statements that I had made with respect to not knowing about specific matters were about matters happening now, because they are not in my portfolio. Yes, I could be expected to have some knowledge of them were I dealing specifically with them as either the minister or the acting minister. Deliberately misrepresenting my comments again and exercising complete dishonesty in the debate, the member for North Sydney yet again sought to mislead and completely muddy the waters on these issues. For the benefit of the House, I would just like to give an explanation of the issues that have been involved here for the government in dealing with these questions about bank guarantees. I notice that in her contribution today the shadow Treasurer, the member for Curtin, was yet again doing the same thing—a little bit of slippery misrepresentation to suggest that comments that I had made on Melbourne radio this morning meant something quite different from what they actually did mean. I will get to that in a second. If I give a bank $100, that is a deposit. If I give the bank $100 million, that starts to take on the categorisation of some kind of wholesale loan. There are two obvious differences here, and you will note that the government has proposed two different regimes of bank guarantees for these two things. Between those two obvious and stark examples, there is a plethora of different circumstances—1,001 different products and a variety of situations. There is a question about at what point a deposit moves into a different category. These are the kinds of issues on the cusp between those two things that the government has been dealing with. Those were the issues that my comments related to: the grey area where clarity and finetuning was required. The government has always made it absolutely plain that these issues would need to be dealt with by the regulators and by the government. Notwithstanding all of the suggestions of grand conspiracies, of lying public servants and all of the other suggestions that the opposition have made, it is perfectly reasonable and proper that these issues be dealt with. I note that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition is now claiming that the government’s approach on the question of guarantees of bank deposits and borrowing is ‘flawed and hasty’. That is extraordinarily different from the position that was taken by the Leader of the Opposition on the same decisions little more than a week ago. When they were announced—we gave him a briefing prior to the announcement—he went into his best statesmanlike, Churchillian bipartisan mode. He was on the verge of proposing a war cabinet, with him as Prime Minister, but he probably did not think it was going to get any traction. He did not quite get to that stage, but he was pretty close. We had 24 hours—maybe 48 hours—of love, cuddles and bipartisanship coming out of the opposition. Then the sniping started. Then the undermining started. Then the attacks started. And, gradually, bit by bit they walked away. Where are we at now? It has been confirmed by Senator Brandis today that the opposition’s previous policy stands—in other words, bank guarantees for deposits up to $100,000 only. We have also had the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, Senator Joyce, state in response to Senator Cameron that he does not support the government’s Economic Security Strategy. In other words, all those pensioners, carers and families out there that are going to get significant one-off payments to help stimulate economic activity had better have a chat to the opposition and ask them what their real position is: ‘Do you support this stimulus package? Do you support the Economic Security Strategy? Yes or no? Because the Leader of the National Party in the Senate has said today that he does not support it.’ The Deputy Leader of the Opposition made some reference to particular matters in regard to the boundaries of these bank guarantee issues—and I will get to those in a minute. I would like to conclude on the question of the allegations with respect to the Reserve Bank’s advice to the government and the alleged lying on the part of the Secretary to the Treasury. I would like to walk you through the sequence of events. On the weekend of 11 and 12 October, the strategic policy and budget committees were meeting extensively—myself included as a member—and the Secretary to the Treasury advised the government at that meeting that the proposals being put to it to had the support of the other regulators, including the Reserve Bank. I would remind the House that the Secretary to the Treasury is a member of the board of the Reserve Bank, so there is a reasonable chance that he might actually know what the Reserve Bank’s position is. On 12 October, when these were announced, the media release put out by the Prime Minister said, ‘details will be finalised in the next few days’. The opposition seems to have missed this point. There was an explicit statement at the time this was announced saying ‘details remain to be dealt with’ and acknowledging that these issues needed to be resolved. On 15 October—a few days later—the Treasurer introduced legislation and made reference to the fact that finetuning of the detail was underway and that there was still some finetuning required. Indeed, on 17 October—still within what I consider to be a few days—the Reserve Bank wrote to the government outlining some of its views on some of the issues involved in that finetuning. Then, on 21 October, some of this material appeared in a newspaper report, suggesting this meant the Reserve Bank was contradicting the government’s position. Then the opposition took off into the stratosphere—suggesting this meant that the government had acted contrary to the Reserve Bank’s advice, that the Treasury secretary had lied and that it was all a giant conspiracy—beating the whole issue up to a level of hysteria that I have rarely seen in this chamber; that is a big statement, I can tell you. Then, on the same day—October 21st—the Governor of the Reserve Bank made a statement saying that the Reserve Bank supported the government’s position on the deposit guarantee, therefore revealing how totally bankrupt and how totally threadbare the claims on the part of the opposition actually are. I will turn to the question of non-ADI institutions—non-approved deposit-taking institutions—and the questions that were raised by the opposition during the course of question time today and indeed during the contribution by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. The important point is that we are dealing here with organisations that are not regulated by APRA, that are not approved deposit-taking institutions, and the issues are indeed complex and varied. So it is difficult to be absolutely specific about particular institutions without detailed knowledge of their circumstances. There is no question that, in some of these cases, the turmoil in international markets and indeed the Australian stock market in recent times has had a significant effect on their circumstances. Of course, some of these institutions, well before the government’s guarantee was put in place, have had significant problems and we know of several high-profile difficulties that occurred during the earlier part of this year amongst institutions of this kind. So there have been other factors involved in issues that are currently afoot in this sector of the market. But there is an underlying implication that is a question for the opposition. They clearly support at least some guarantee of deposits. It appears that it is up to $100,000; that appears not to be in doubt. They now appear to be suggesting that this guarantee should be extended to organisations that are not regulated by APRA, that are not approved deposit-taking institutions. That takes this matter to a whole new and different level, because, where you have got organisations that are strictly regulated by the prudential regulator, the prospect that the government has of ensuring that moral hazard does not run amok is genuine; it is substantial. But, where you have a situation where organisations that are not within the purview of the primary regulator and therefore, by definition, are much further removed from the capacity of the government to scrutinise their activities and their risk taking, inevitably you have a very different situation. A government guarantee that is given willy-nilly, across the board, to a wide variety of these organisations raises a whole lot of questions about what risk-taking activity they would then potentially engage in or some of them would potentially engage in—and indeed what marketing activity—knowing that they were backed by a government guarantee. There are complex issues involved here; there is no question about that. The government, as I said, whether in this area or the other areas, is proceeding to deal with these questions. I would suggest that it would be a good idea for the opposition to cease hyperventilating. I do not think it does you any great benefit. If you took a step back and looked at these issues seriously, you would see that there are really major issues that any government in the circumstances of the past couple of weeks would have had to have come to terms with and that we have been clear and open about our position as a government all the way through. We indicated in the statement that was put out by the Prime Minister on Sunday, 12 October that there were detailed issues that still needed to be resolved and that they would be resolved in the ensuing days. In conclusion, I think what we have here is an explanation for the behaviour of the opposition. They are desperate to insert themselves into the story. They are shackled by their initial bipartisanship and they are desperate to break away from that and to attack the government and to attack every element of the government’s strategy while pretending to support it. We are not going to be diverted by this nonsense. We are going to govern responsibly. (Time expired) 9941 16:18:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —I rise in the House this afternoon to speak to this very important matter of public importance. It is in times like these that the Australian people need a government that is in control and a government that, above everything else, can instil confidence—confidence in our country and confidence in our financial system going forward. Australians need that confidence because they themselves need confidence in their own future. They need confidence so that they can make their everyday life decisions. They need confidence so they can invest in themselves and their families and their businesses, if they happen to own and operate a business, for their long term. So being a government, particularly an Australian government, is a great responsibility. Instead of us having the fortune of having a government that is instilling confidence across our economy, we have instead Kevin Rudd, the Prime Minister, and Labor overall working as hard as they can in every way possible to undermine that confidence across our entire country. They have undermined that confidence through a series of different things that have been done in recent days. The first is that they have undermined that confidence by, if you like, undermining themselves and our key economic regulators, such as the Reserve Bank of Australia. They have undermined the RBA, they have undermined the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and they have undermined the Australian Securities and Investments Commission by not consulting directly with those regulators. Instead they have led the Australian people down the path to a perception that they are walking hand in glove with those regulators, when in fact in the House yesterday we learnt from the Prime Minister the revelation that he has not been talking to those regulators directly. They have also undermined that confidence by undermining key officials within the Treasury department—none other than the Secretary of the Treasury. He has been hung out to dry big time by Kevin Rudd. And, of course, they have undermined confidence in our country by ignoring the parliament and ignoring the parliamentary process through their contemptuous and pernicious attitude to debate and transparency in this very important democratic institution of parliament. The issues of confidence and certainty, as I am sure you would appreciate, Madam Deputy Speaker, are critical matters. They are critical because we need confidence and certainty in order for the stability of our financial system to go forward. I want to very briefly cite a couple of examples in the media today and yesterday that go to this area of the undermining by the government of confidence and certainty. In the Australian today, Dennis Shanahan says: At a time of need for the utmost confidence and certainty, a decision of fundamental importance to Australian financial and economic stability was rushed without due consideration. An article in the Financial Review today indicates how this government has undermined confidence and certainty in the market: The country’s largest mortgage fund, the $2.9 billion Challenger Howard Mortgage Fund, and the— associated— $40 million Challenger Mortgage Plus Trust stopped daily withdrawals yesterday after the AFR reported … a hefty increase in full redemption as nervous investors flocked to the safety of big banks. ‘Nervous investors’. Why are they nervous? They are nervous because this government is undermining the confidence and the certainty in our markets. An article in the Age today says that there has been a run on the Macquarie Cash Management Trust. And yesterday a respected economic and business journalist, Terry McCrann, said in the Daily Telegraph: He— that is, Kevin Rudd— trashed the fundamental framework for managing the economy that has prevailed over the past 12 to 15 years. There you have four examples of how this government is going about undermining the confidence and certainty in our financial system. What should be happening is that the government should be going about its business in a steady, reliable and confidence-building manner. But of course we have nothing more—and this has been demonstrated very much in this place over the last couple of days—than what could only be described, in the kindest possible way, as an erratic, panic-stricken and clearly befuddled government that is making policy on the run. Let’s just look at the most recent backflips that we have got from Kevin 747— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member will refer to ministers by their appropriate titles. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker. He said that there would be a cap of $20,000 on bank deposits, and at the time that was the right policy. One week ago he said that there would be no cap and that there would be an unlimited guarantee on bank deposits, and of course one week ago that was the right policy. Yesterday and today he said that there may be a cap and that there is going to be a new deposit tax, and—you have guessed it—that is the right policy. So we have got three policies on the same issue in the space of two weeks and, on top of that, we got an announcement in question time today of a new tax. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, as you know: if it looks like a tax and it walks like a tax and it smells like a tax, it is a new tax. So there were three policy positions on the same issue in two weeks, and they have all been the right policy. I presume that is what the Prime Minister meant when he swanned around the country before the last election saying that there would be new leadership. That is certainly new leadership: three policy positions on the same issue in two weeks. That is the sort of leadership that we have not seen in the parliament of this country since Gough Whitlam, and that, I presume, is supposed to be new leadership. Some time ago, Kevin Rudd said ‘it takes a long time to turn around the ship of state’. To be fair to the Prime Minister, I think we can say that he has veered the ship in a new direction. The trouble is that, because of his leadership, the ship is being veered in a new direction and, guess what, it has crashed straight into an iceberg and a pretty substantial iceberg at that. What has become clear in this House over the last couple of days is this: it is clear that Kevin Rudd did not seek the advice of the Reserve Bank of Australia; it is clear that Kevin Rudd has misled the people of Australia by implying that he was personally engaging directly with the regulators; it is clear that a bill introduced in this House only seven days ago is now defunct; it is clear that Kevin Rudd and Labor are making policy on the run; and what is clear and very concerning is that, if this all goes wrong, it is the Australian people who will be left to foot the bill. I know that Kevin Rudd wanted to be Prime Minister of Australia— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Aston will use the appropriate titles for members. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr PEARCE —I know that the member for Griffith wanted to be the Prime Minister of Australia, but it has become clear in recent times that he is very interested in running for the position of Secretary-General of the United Nations. I realise that the last couple of weeks have not gone well in terms of his job application. What he really needs to do urgently in order to get his application back on track to be secretary-general is jump into the 747, leave Australia quickly again and roam the globe, swan around the globe again, so he can get his application back on track and pretend he is the leader of the free world. It has often been said that the Australian economy is like a finely-tuned racing car, and the driver needs to be highly skilled. But the Prime Minister and, of course, the Treasurer have ignored the pit crew. They have careered right over the chicanes, they have swerved all over the track, they have ignored the warning flags along the way, and here we are, on the final stretch home and, guess what, we are running on empty. Clearly the drivers—that is, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer—are still on their L-plates. We know that the Labor Party have quite often been on their L-plates over the years, but I think it is important to remind the House that these are not homemade go-karts that are being driven. The economy is a finely-tuned car and, of course, it needs a highly skilled driver, and it is time Australia got the driver it deserves. (Time expired) 9944 16:28:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —I am once again surprised by the dross that gets presented as matters of public importance. Those opposite usually bring forward a matter that looks like an all-purpose resolution from a Young Liberals conference. It is usually a life support system for a sound bite and not much more than that, but today it is simply extraordinary. I have been around politics and public policy for long enough to remember some incidents of importance: mortgage brokers in Western Australia, people who went broke, taking with them families, seniors, investors—decent people, many of them in my electorate. The shadow Treasurer’s political party did nothing to support them, nothing to back them, nothing even to rein in the minister, her friend, who at the time was responsible for mortgage brokers. After that, we walked into HIH. I come to the conclusion that, when those members opposite stand up and talk about prudential regulation and the matters that are so important to managing the current global financial crisis, those listening to our broadcast should not listen to them. Why shouldn’t they listen to them? Because when it came to HIH and even to appointments to the Reserve Bank—the most significant of the prudential advisory bodies to any Australian government—both HIH and the Reserve Bank had one common thread for those opposite: they were full of donors to the Liberal Party. What do we mean by that? We mean those opposite appointed Liberal Party donors to the Reserve Bank, believing somehow they were attending to the prudential affairs of the Liberal Party, not to our nation. It was a disgrace, and those opposite know that it was a disgrace. It brought our nation into disrepute and it framed those opposite, as they should be framed, as low-rent seekers of nothing more than pockets full of votes who were filling their own pockets with donations from grubby individuals seeking nothing more than their own personal advancement. Those opposite have worked very hard to create as much instability and uncertainty as they can in our financial and banking systems. What do you think that other nation states around the world have done as they have grappled to understand the current financial crisis? What do you think the oppositions have done in countries around the world that are trying to deal with this issue? They have not acted as those opposite have—not even in the US, where this problem started, where the cost is measured in the tens of billions or even the trillions, where families find themselves out of jobs, where communities are finding themselves in pain and where there is currently a presidential election. Not even in the United States has anyone acted to undermine the banking system like those opposite attempt to do here today, did last week and did the week before that. It is not simply disgraceful. It is not simply shameful. It is, regretfully, acting true to form. When this crisis began to unfold in Australia, we got the first offers of bipartisan support. Then we got undermined. As always, we see the Leader of the Opposition using the banking system merely as a life support system for sound bites and TV grabs. Why work to create as much instability as possible in our banking system? It is about political expediency. It is about political opportunity. It is about seeking to do as much as you can to damage the government; to damage the surplus, which you have been working at for the last four months now; to create uncertainty in the community—to create uncertainty amongst our retired community, amongst our age pensioners, amongst our retired services veterans, amongst small business and amongst self-funded retirees. And, as if farmers did not have it hard enough, your matter of public importance here today specifically references farmers. It is not just a disgrace; it is an embarrassment. The Leader of the Opposition and shadow Treasurer are lawyers. They are used to mastering a brief without engaging in morality, ethics or propriety. They are lawyers; they prosecute their brief. They turned up in this place on the first day, I have no doubt, thinking they had all the integrity of Atticus Finch. No, they do not. They are just grubby politicians seeking a vote under whatever rock they can find it under by creating whatever nervousness and instability they can create in our banking system. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —A Labor politician talks about grubby politicians? You guys are the ultimate grubs! 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Order! The parliamentary secretary will be heard in silence. As much as it would pain me, I will remove you if you keep it up. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr GRAY —I notice those opposite reserve for this parliament the same lack of courtesy that they do for senior public servants—the same lack of regard that they reserved for our significant prudential institutions like the Reserve Bank when they lined up to appoint their own donors as members. It is why they turn around and attack the Secretary to the Treasury this week. It is why they turn around and attack the Reserve Bank itself. It is why those opposite impugn the integrity of public servants and prudential regulators, most of whom they appointed. It is why they feel no twinge of conscience as they set about doing damage, because the damage to our banking system will, those members opposite hope, deliver a vote dividend. It will lift their profile. Damage the banks, win votes is the equation. Who cares about the damage? Damage to whom? To the very people those opposite would seek to represent. They also seek to damage the very character of the Secretary to the Treasury. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition call upon the government to sack the Secretary to the Treasury for doing his job. This is the very same Secretary to the Treasury who has served multiple federal governments. He served the Hawke government and the Keating government. He served the Howard government with great distinction. One might wonder why they so hate the Secretary to the Treasury. I wondered that myself. Could it be his work ethic—he has one; they don’t? Could it be his ethics—he has them; they don’t? Could it be his character—he has one; they don’t? Could it be that he understands that they do not understand the issues that they drag around our parliament and community like a dead rat? I found the answer to my question by going back through newspaper clippings. I found why the Leader of the Opposition, who has not fronted in this debate at all, dislikes the Secretary to the Treasury so much. I will put it on the public record again today. Those opposite will remember that parliamentary secretary Turnbull, as he then was, had responsibility for water policy. I will read from a story published in the Australian last year: ON Friday, November 3, John Howard gathered a small group of bureaucrats and advisers in his parliamentary suite. I wonder why he would have done that. The key federal departments, including Treasury, Finance and Environment, had been cut out of a process to determine whether or not $10 billion would be spent on the Murray-Darling system. It is fascinating because the key figure in the room at the time was Malcolm Turnbull. As these newspaper articles, which I am happy to table, demonstrate, what happened subsequently was that the details were kept secret. Senior public servants found the lack of scrutiny, the lack of diligence, the lack of documentation, the lack of consideration, the lack of discussion and the lack of process deeply alarming, so they rang a bell. The Secretary to the Treasury made clear that Treasury had not been consulted in the matter of the $10 billion water policy. For that reason the hatred of those opposite has festered since. (Time expired) 9946 16:38:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —Consumer confidence and business confidence in this country have collapsed. Businesses are reporting plummeting sales. Households fear for their future. At such times Australians look to their leaders to make the tough decisions. At such times Australians look to their Prime Minister to get it right. They expect their Prime Minister to call on the very best expertise available. But what happened on 12 October? On 12 October this year the Prime Minister and his government’s economic team made a decision to give an unlimited guarantee to one part of the financial system with little or no idea of how it could cause massive disruption to the rest of the financial system. This disruption is now occurring in finance companies, in mortgage funds, in cash management trusts, in debenture-issuing institutions, in residential mortgage backed securities and with regard to short-term money market instruments. There is disruption in the financial markets. The current crisis is not playing out on the set of The Hollowmen and it is not a re-run of an episode from Yes, Minister. We have a crisis affecting the nation, affecting small business, affecting farmers, affecting retirees and affecting every household in the country. Yet this Prime Minister on 12 October failed this nation. He failed to pick up the phone and consult the Reserve Bank, APRA or ASIC on possibly the most important decision he will make in his term as Prime Minister. Why would a responsible Prime Minister not speak directly to those organisations? Why would he not pick up the phone? What excuse could he give? Did he do it because he feared that his decision was flawed? Perhaps he feared he would miss the news cycle, so he had to cut them out of the loop in order to get to the news cycle. Perhaps he feared they would not tell him what he wanted to hear. We can only speculate on why our Prime Minister did not consult the very best advice before making that decision. He was negligent, he was reckless, he was irresponsible and the institutions who fell outside the guarantee are now paying the price. His super is safe, but the savings of many retirees hang in the balance because of the Prime Minister’s hasty ‘Hollowmen’ fix, a simple political fix. On 12 October we had a grievous error by this Prime Minister, and now we endure the cover-up. In question time in this House we saw the Prime Minister ducking, weaving and avoiding the questions asked on behalf of the people of Australia. We saw Dr Henry in estimates today failing to give answers rightfully asked by the Senate. We also had the confirmation by the Treasurer in question time today that there would be a new deposits tax, a new scheme to tax banks and depositors. But in estimates today Dr Henry was quite clearly unaware of that tax. He had no idea of the policy on the run that was formulated between two and 3.30 in the House today. If ever there was an example of policy on the run, that was it. Will this policy on the run take account of the needs of retirees? Will this policy on the run take account of the needs of those institutions that are currently outside the guarantee regime? I looked at a report in the Telegraph today that was quite interesting. It said that 63 per cent of people are concerned or very concerned about the economic outlook, 44 per cent fear for their job security, almost half believe they are doing worse than a year ago, two-thirds believe New South Wales will fare worse than the rest of Australia, 42 per cent plan to put away spare cash towards debt because of their fears for the future and 25 per cent of Australians do not think the Prime Minister is doing enough. But 100 per cent of Australians want to have truth from this Prime Minister, and 100 per cent want the Prime Minister to level with the Australian people as he promised. The Prime Minister has been covering up his lack of consultation on this matter and he should be ashamed. 9947 16:43:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —Here is an opposition in search of a narrative. Here is an opposition who does not know what it is on about. Those opposite are out there grappling around for a story. They were out there grappling around for an issue, they got the front of the Australian and for the last two days they have been running with that. They are running with what was a headline in the Australian. There is no more substance than that. It was a headline in the Australian. There is actually no substance or backing to it, but that has become their narrative. Now they are onto something. They have a story and they are running with it. They are running very fast with it but they are running nowhere. They are running on the spot to stand still. At the same time they are reading all the newspapers. The member for Cowper has just quoted from a newspaper. I am not condemning the newspapers, but if you want to find a story then go and find your information, go and find some corroborating evidence for your story. They were hoping it was going to happen in Senate estimates today—and aren’t they so disappointed? I have sat through a lot of Senate estimates in opposition and I have been very happy on occasion when it has become the story of the day. But they have been very disappointed today that Senate Estimates has not thrown up the information and the story they want. It did not corroborate the front of the Australian yesterday. They say we have created panic in the markets. Instead, it is the opposition that has created panic in the market. The global financial crisis is too important to play with. It is too important to take cheap political shots at. The global financial crisis will inevitably have effects on the Australian economy. In some respects we could have weathered this because we are outside of the subprime crisis. But we are not outside the global world. We live within a global financial market. Two key themes stressed by the IMF at the G20 in respect of the global crisis were the need for early and decisive action and for countries to work together in a coordinated fashion to tackle this crisis. That is what the government has done, yet we now stand condemned for it. We have given confidence. We have taken decisive action. At the time the opposition were calling for deposits to be guaranteed. They were the ones out there saying: ‘Go on, go on. Do it.’ And when we did it they said, ‘Terrific.’ But then there was silence because they thought: ‘What do we do now? Who do we bag now that we have agreed with it?’ So now they are going to bag it after having agreed with it. Governments around the world have been moving to strengthen their banking systems. In lots of respects Australia did not have to because we have got one of the strongest banking systems in the world. Our financial regulations are some of the strongest in the world. I sat through hours and hours of the Wallis inquiry in my previous existence with the Finance Sector Union. I even drafted submissions to the Wallis inquiry and I am pretty au fait with how APRA now works. I am on the record in this place on numerous occasions praising APRA. Not many people talk about APRA or know APRA. But as the member for Boothby will attest, having been on a committee with me, I have been a fan of APRA because they do good things. What they do is protect your money, because our banks already have fiduciary responsibilities about deposits that they must keep under protection. They already had that; we already had strict banking regulations. So we did not need to be as strident as other sectors because our markets are already so regulated. The opposition has been struggling today. Instead of getting the story they wanted out of Senate estimates, what did they get from Ken Henry? He said: ‘In respect of the advice that was tendered to the government and that supported the decision that it took on Sunday, 12 October, Mr Stevens and I were of one mind.’ ‘I tendered the advice to the government, and the governor and I were of one mind in respect of that advice.’ ‘I know there has been considerable public interest in this matter, following a rather unfortunate and fallacious story that appeared on the front page of yesterday’s Australian newspaper.’ ‘We, the Treasury, the RBA and APRA came to the view that it was time to act and act decisively and that was our collective view and we informed the government of that.’ ‘We noted there would be matters of detail to be sorted out in the implementation of the package; we did not express reservations.’ So instead of the opposition finding hope out of Senate estimates today, Ken Henry, the man they abused and said we should sack, has come forward and said, ‘We were of one mind and we supported the decisive action.’ The action the government has taken has shored up our financial systems and should ensure the strength of our markets. We cannot underwrite everything. That would be irresponsible. People moving their money around at the moment are looking for such things as surety. One of the sureties is to move things into cash, and that has nothing to do with bank deposits. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time allotted for the discussion has well and truly concluded. 9948 Bills R3081 Cognate bill: 9948 Bills R3082 9948 Debate resumed. Mr PRICE (Chifley) 16:49:00 —by leave—I move: That standing order 76 be suspended for the duration of the first speech by the Member for Lyne on the second reading debate on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before I call the member for Lyne, I remind honourable members that this is his first speech. I therefore ask that the usual courtesies be extended to him. 9948 16:50:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 1 Mr OAKESHOTT —‘Jum-mada-gai’ are three Aboriginal words from my home that mean ‘Come, you’re welcome.’ I start with this standing invitation to all who are listening that you are welcome to my place, called the mid-north coast of New South Wales, and in particular those who have the power to help on the many issues that I will be raising tonight and over the coming years. And I also start with these words as an act of respect—an act of respect now done by all three councils within the Lyne electorate, an act of respect now done by the New South Wales parliament and an act of respect that I am therefore both surprised and disappointed this parliament is yet to adopt as part of its daily practice. Member for Scullin, Mr Speaker, I acknowledge the traditional owners past and present, the Ngunawal people, and I also acknowledge those visiting from the Biripai and Dhunghutti communities of my home region, and I ask you to revisit this question of a daily acknowledgement within this chamber for traditional owners, a simple, symbolic but respectful act that will assist in building a better Australia. Colleagues, like all in this chamber I am sure, I love my home. While I am not here to be a postcard nor a historian of life on the mid-north coast, it would be remiss of me not to put on record in this first speech a snapshot of life in my electorate. My home is strong in natural beauty. We have beaches that most Australians have at some time surfed or swum at, rivers that most Australians should at some point travel on or drop a line into and surrounding bush that is in so many ways the hidden jewellery of living within our area. It is, for many of us, one of Australia’s great natural playgrounds. I also live in a place with an understated but incredibly rich history, a place where we start to see the term ‘Australia’ first used, as was first recorded in the diaries of Matthew Flinders off my home, Tacking Point. It is a place where Australia’s first mass sea rescue was performed by local Aboriginals because no white man would go into the rough water and a place that has recently been revealed as home to two iconic pieces of surf lifesaving equipment—the surf ski and the surfboat, both of which are now used world wide. Politically it is a place that has had some great local MPs, people like John Kenny Sr from the Kendall area and Bruce Cowan from the Manning area, from both sides of the political fence. It is a place that 109 years ago was home to a state MP for Hastings-Macleay who, despite some sins, was still courageous enough to help encourage the concept of a Commonwealth and then, through good luck and some good management, went on to become celebrated as Australia’s first Prime Minister. Somewhat ironically one of Barton’s mentioned sins was to resist the efforts of another man in his ambition to become Australia’s first Prime Minister, that other man being Sir William Lyne, of whom the federal seat is now currently named. Colleagues, on 6 September the communities of the mid-north coast of New South Wales chose to enter a new era of representation—an era that places local people and local issues very much front and centre of representation, an era that already relies heavily on an ongoing dialogue between 90,000 electors and their local MP about the many issues of the day. Through this ongoing commitment to the process of dialogue and community engagement, we can now have the combined shoulders to the wheel, we can now have combined investment in each other and we now have a greater chance of getting outcomes on local and national issues to work for us as a region. It is, simply put, a new era of representation that puts local people before political parties and that puts community interests before vested interests. For us, this is a new era of place based thinking, an alliance shaped entirely around the common care for our place and the common wealth of our country. Colleagues, it would be folly to write this off as mere local parish pump parochialism. Rather, our community has so much else going on. Having learnt my trade of representation after 12 years in public life in another place, I consider representation to be the difficult and challenging balancing act between a range of interests—some local, some national and, increasingly, some international. On the international front, I enter this parliament at a time of great global financial uncertainty—an uncertainty that has a clear national impact, with last week’s spend of $10.4 billion, and an uncertainty that is rippling through to have local impacts, with three local mortgage funds entering voluntary administration within the past six months and one local council exposed to up to $25 million of their investments from certain CDO purchases as just two recent examples. This global uncertainty and the responses at both a national and local level re-emphasise the obligations and duties we have as representatives in this place. We do have a role of participating in debate about the global village that we now, like it or not, are living in, where the sovereignty of nations such as ours is increasingly secondary to this very loose, very fluid and very informal anarchical society of world affairs. We are obliged to participate because if we do not then anarchy across borders reigns. On the flip side, like Tennyson’s prophetic words in Locksley Hall about the parliament of man, if we do participate in international debate, we then fulfil our obligation to our electors to care and protect and build a better place, and that should be a commitment to electors that is a borderless commitment. And this is not something to be feared but something to be embraced. I am a long-term believer in global citizenry and see it as a challenge that this island nation needs to overcome in the way we play our ‘cringe politics’ whenever we engage with the world. I think the United Nations, for example, is an important and valued institution and our involvement at the highest levels should be encouraged, as should our participation, understanding and commitment to various international treaties, agreements and obligations. These are good, positive exercises, not negative ones, and the benefits to us through global participation far outweigh the alternative of isolation of thought and isolation of actions. In a similar vein, the concept of international human rights has been given some rough trade within Australian politics in recent times and, again, I am an advocate for this most basic, most fundamental of concepts. After all, it is a concept about the liberties and freedoms of my fellow man, and there is surely no higher calling for any of us in this business of human relationships called politics. And I am also an advocate for an increased commitment to Millennium Development Goals by the Australian government and for the work of population development groups within this and other parliaments throughout the country. Colleagues, combined with these international considerations when plying our trade of representation is the secondary role involving deep consideration of national interests. In the tradition of the writings of Edmund Burke and others, we, as representatives, owe nothing other than our good judgement to the people who elected us. Indeed, if we betray our good judgement on national issues to achieve populist local outcomes, then we ultimately have done an act of betrayal to those who elected us. I am happy to say I will work with government where I believe their legislative program is in the best interests of my community and my country, and I will work against them where I do not. That, I believe, is my role and my obligation. I will also try and get a range of issues on the national agenda, whether it be a revisit of charities legislation, a revisit of labelling laws to assist consumers as to what exactly is Australian made and produced or a visit of a plain English program within government so that policy and direction from government is as accessible to as many as possible. This is to name just three. And I do see my role to participate in the two most important aspects of our national parliament—the economy and the Constitution. On the economy, I am a strong advocate for the independence of the Reserve Bank and am confident we have seen this nervousness before in 1987, Y2K and the tech bubble burst in 2004. I am on the side of being confident that we will come through this. Having said that, what I will be asking of government is to focus not only on the immediate future through their economic security package but, importantly, on a review of the recent past, particularly within the public sector. Colleagues, public sector governance principles that have allowed the exposure of many taxpayer and ratepayer investments in particular in many local councils throughout Australia need the scrutiny of this place in order to minimise such exposure occurring again in the future. The losses over the past year alone of ratepayers’ and taxpayers’ money are in the hundreds of millions. This raises a lot of public sector governance questions, and if we are to minimise such occurrences into the future, I seek the support of the government to review the past. Another national consideration is the Constitution itself. On the town green of Port Macquarie sits a bronze statue of a state MP who went on to become Australia’s first Prime Minister. I often wonder what he, the Andrew Ingliss Clarks and the Samuel Griffiths would say if alive today. And while it is always dangerous territory to verbal the dead, I am of the school that believes that the spirit of the Constitution’s writers would not be wedded to their words in ink, but would look at Australia today as a case of unfinished business. Colleagues, we are yet to reach the point of being a Commonwealth, nor for the common wealth. I say to all colleagues sitting here, and I say to the executive in particular, the states versus Commonwealth Work Choices High Court case of 2006 is sitting there waiting for us to pick up and answer the as yet legally unanswerable questions that have now emerged. In particular, we do need to clarify, through this parliament, many of the section 51 and section 52 questions, and we do need to, without the fear of trampling on the graves of our forefathers, work on these so as to truly create the Commonwealth that I hope we all desire. On a related topic, it is my view that we are not technically a monarchy of one people under one crown. We are legally a heptarchy of seven crowns. Somewhat absurdly, each individual is represented in Australia by two crowns—one state and one federal—and it is only by convention that they happen to be the same person. For every state to have its own monarch might be okay if it were mere symbolic overkill, but it has practical implications that are not in the greater good, such as the ability for legal action to be taken between these two bodies supposedly working together. Again, I go back to the forefathers. In the 1890s and in 1901 it was a process that was supposed to unify, so much so that the words in the Constitution of Australia explicitly state this unification. We have, as yet, failed as public officials to deliver on this vision of unity. Colleagues, alongside the international and national roles of a good representative, it is without doubt the key part of the trade of being a good representative to be unashamedly local. To be a delegate or ambassador for a local region and to really thump the tub on local issues is the bread and butter, meat and potatoes work of a good local MP. You will hear me many times firing up on local issues that may sometimes have you, as parliamentary colleagues, wondering about their national significance. But I ask you to back my judgement as a local representative, just as I will back yours, as they are all part of the tapestry that is the national interest. Individual constituent issues and local issues do matter, and they do have a place on the national agenda as much as any other issue that we see present itself within this place. The stand-out local issue of the mid-north coast of New South Wales is the pressure on our health services from our rapidly expanding population and our ageing population. I sincerely thank the Minister for Health and Ageing for being the first minister to visit the region since I was elected MP for a commitment of $6 million to the health education centre at Taree and for taking the time to listen to and engage with the local division of GPs. Following this visit, I am now pleased to see two new GPs for the Camden-Haven region approved, along with one other new district of workforce shortage approval received last week, making for three new GP positions so far. These are all critical first steps in expanding community based health and preventative health, and I look forward to this cooperative arrangement continuing into the future. As well, the communities of the mid-north coast note the $10 billion nation building fund, including the Health and Hospital Fund. All four hospitals on the mid-north coast need attention and resourcing, but in particular the No. 1 capital works project from the North Coast Area Health Service is an expanded emergency department at the Port Macquarie Base Hospital. I am also looking forward to a continued working relationship with ministers and members on the critical need for improvements to general standards of education throughout our region. So far we have had one good meeting to start the process of improving skills based training opportunities within Port Macquarie, and I look forward to similar progress regarding proposals being developed for a Taree trade training facility. I look forward to assistance in lifting retention rates within the region, encouraging post secondary education within our region, increasing flexible and experiential learning opportunities within the region and increasing opportunities for international curriculum engagement. I look forward to driving the motto home with everyone here that the future of the mid-north coast, and the future for most young people in Australia today, is based on the motto ‘study for a job, study for a job, study for a job’. I look forward to working with members and ministers on the complexities within our region involving our often forgotten—too often forgotten by government—but surprisingly large, proud and active coastal Indigenous populations in areas such as Taree and Kempsey, as well as the full range of disadvantage that is faced by many families in a region that has an average individual family or household income level, whichever way you want to look at it, entrenched at some of the lowest comparative levels throughout Australia. These income levels are key benchmark figures that we as a region will be assessing our own performance against over time, and one that I am committed to seeing lift. I also make particular note of working with ministers and members on the particular issue of domestic violence and child protection throughout both the mid-north coast and Australia. Statistics can mean many things on topics like this. They can mean we have a problem or they can mean we are leading in reporting, but, either way, domestic violence and child protection issues are real and prevalent throughout my region. In one town the statistics are unusually high. As a statistic, a woman living in one particular location identified as a Vinson hot spot is twice as likely as any other woman in the rest of Australia to be abused. An Aboriginal woman in the same location is six times more likely to be abused, and an Aboriginal woman who is abused in this place is 28 times more likely to be hospitalised than any other woman abused throughout Australia. We need to lift the veil on some of this behaviour, both on the coast and throughout the country. We need a combined effort from all throughout this country, but, from my point of view, particularly the men of Australia need to remember and enforce on all friends the fundamental golden rule of being an Australian male: you do not lift a hand in anger against a woman, no matter what the circumstances. At the same time, I flag the excellent work being done by local programs such as LOVE BiTES—a NAPCAN project that is a local antidomestic violence program that is now starting to roll out nationwide with minimal support from government. I will be encouraging all MPs in this place to learn more about that and to endorse and support similar programs where possible. I also look forward to working with ministers and members to complete our Pacific Highway, improving North Coast rail links and delivering on the much anticipated infrastructure agenda for projects like an $80 million backlog of works on local roads within the Greater Taree City Council area and the development of a regional development program that is bigger and better than anything we have seen before. I look forward to working with the minister and members on communications. It is reprehensible that I visited a year 9 school student from Camden Haven High School during the election campaign, living in a relatively urbanised location, who was still on dial-up, technology that is 15 years off the pace; or the farmer five minutes from the centre of Taree who not only had to dial up but had to dial up over 50 times to download just four pages due to dropouts. I acknowledge that there are options to upgrade, but they are currently offered at a cost that is out of the range of an area whose income levels are so low. This is as much an issue of financial disadvantage as it is one of technology disadvantage. This disadvantage combination is lethal in locking out large groups within the community from services that people in metropolitan areas simply take for granted. Indeed, as I reflect on the importance of lifting education standards within our region and I reflect on the importance of our region starting to engage more heavily than ever before with the rest of Australia and the world, this is the single most important project the government can deliver to allow us to assist ourselves. I also look forward to working with members and ministers on water quality, catchment management, natural resource management and renewable energy issues throughout the mid-north Coast. I am appalled to find water quality in several locations throughout the electorate at the level that it is, such as one location where arsenic and heavy metals are now being identified as leaching into the Macleay River or where stagnant water at Killick Creek is killing the world-famous tourist mecca of Crescent Head. On a positive, we as a region are really well geared to address these and other local issues if we can get some offset returns through the emissions trading scheme. We are, for example, leading the way on the ground in many areas. We have a local business chamber of commerce that is conducting renewable energy forums, and that is a great example of our place based model at work. From these we look to be preferring a mix of gas for baseload, solar thermal for peaking, and efficiency messages for residents such as smart metering and residential solar as the desired options for the future. On this last point, communities like the four villages of Hallidays Point and the Camden Haven region are all pushing hard, to their credit, for more residential solar and for feed-in tariffs. I think we, and the executive, in particular, should be supporting this as much as possible. Finally, on the stand-out local issues, I look forward to working hard with the members and ministers in promoting the interests of my small business community. Ninety-five per cent of people who wake up and go to work on the mid-north coast of New South Wales go into a business with less than five employees, and this is a voice I am very keen to make sure is heard. We desperately need to broaden our base of economic activity, and that is where it is critically important government assists mid-north coast companies wherever possible. Colleagues, within the Australian small business context, I not only represent Joe the plumber, but on the mid-north coast, I also represent Dean the electrician and I will do all I can to help him survive and succeed, and hopefully, employ more people. With your indulgence, colleagues, I have some thankyous. I am the richest man alive when it comes to the love of the people around me. In 1996 in my first speech to the state house as a 26-year-old, I thanked a young 20-year-old woman for being my best friend. Twelve years later, I am pleased and relieved to report that Sara-Jane and I are still best friends, now married, and have the two most beautiful girls in Sophie and Olivia and we are all hopeful for a new arrival within the month. To Sara-Jane, you are absolutely priceless. I thank you so very, very much. I also thank my parents, parents-in-law, and my extended family. All value their independence of thought, all place a great value on service, and all are achieving incredible things. My immediate family has professors and doctors with Australian honours, nurses, AusAid workers in Mindanao, journalists, company secretaries, executive search managers, ACCC solicitors, tax lawyers, political consultants, returned navy personnel from the Iraq war, naval fitness instructors, painters, and very busy mothers of three. Politically, we have family members who worked for Lionel Murphy and other family members who worked for John Howard. It is an understatement to say we are an eclectic bunch, who sharpen our saws on each other at Christmas lunch and who love each other dearly. And our family is long on form on the concept of service and on the concept that the only life worth living is a life of service—whether it be my great grandfather, George Oakeshott, in his work to help build a capital city called Canberra, as well as his architectural work on Sydney buildings such as Customs House and the Intercontinental Hotel; or whether it be my wife’s extended Yow Yeh mob, an Australian story that started in the most marginalised of ways through the slave trading of North Queensland and the various xenophobic actions that followed. It is a story full of struggle and inspiration, where the family patriarch earned his break in Jimmy Sharman’s boxing tents, and from there, bought a house and encouraged all seven daughters and two sons to place a value on education, and now this significant network of very proud South Sea Islanders are running many aspects of community life in Australia. For me, that is exactly the way it should be. Or whether it be my late grandfather Sir Angus Murray, a former president of the Australian Medical Association, and one of the rare men to serve in both World War I and World War II. Or whether it be my other late grandfather, Captain John Oakeshott, who, despite options to escape, chose to stay with his men until the end of one of Australia’s greatest war atrocities at the Sandakan death marches, being callously murdered two weeks after the so-called declaration of peace of mid-August 1945, along with approximately 15 other Australians. Only now, 63 years later, is the last camp of Sandakan being revealed, and I look forward to working with the appropriate minister in protecting this site at Ranau, Malaysia—a very important site for our family and for Australia. Colleagues, many people help all of us get to this place, and I am no different. I thank my staff in both the former state office and in the new federal office for their great support—in particular throughout the past three months of moving from the state to the federal parliament. Thank you all very, very much. Can I give a special mention to the new New South Wales member-elect for Port Macquarie, Mr Peter Besseling MP, who has joined us in the gallery this evening. I thank you for all your great support over the years. Best of luck in your new career; I am confident you will be a great success for our community. I also thank many members of my campaign team: campaign manager Rob Turner and the formidable crew of 700—thanks for a challenging, fascinating, and at times incredibly funny past three months. In conclusion, to be a good tradesman’s representative, it is important to acknowledge the interconnectedness between international, national, and of course local considerations, and then even more important to strike the balance on each of these. That is the challenge for all of us, and it is this balance that is the ballast to keep our political ships afloat. The ‘ships’ political philosopher Michael Oakeshott referred to it when he said: … in political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting point nor appointed destiny. It is, colleagues, an exercise for all of us to just stay afloat. For me, therefore, the litmus test for reflection at the end of my political career will be how these factors—international, national and local, sometimes connected, sometimes competing—have been managed. It will be the answer to the question we all face at the end of this Greek tragedy of political life, that simple but daunting question of, ‘Have I done good by the people who elected me?’ From this first speech forward, I will certainly be doing all I can to satisfy myself and my communities that my answer to this question is a resounding yes. So, colleagues: jum-mada-gai. Come and visit, come and help, and let us make a better place together. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —I congratulate the member for Lyne on his first speech. I know he will make a great contribution in this House. Debate (on motion by Mr Byrne) adjourned. 9955 Business 9955 Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister) 17:15:00 —I move: That order of the day No. 2, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. 9956 Bills R3072 Cognate bill: 9956 Bills R3073 9956 Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 9956 17:16:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —I begin my remarks this afternoon by congratulating the new member for Lyne on his maiden speech in the federal parliament. I wish him well throughout his parliamentary career here. The Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 strive to achieve two broad outcomes: less money lost in the superannuation system and a lowering of compliance and administration costs for superannuation providers. There will be two primary functions of these bills: firstly, transferring funds from the superannuation provider to the ATO and, secondly, providing the capacity for funds to be retrieved from the ATO through the existing departing Australia superannuation payment, otherwise known as the DASP. I go firstly to the transferral of funds to the ATO. Once these bills become law, superannuation funds will be required to transfer the balances of former temporary residents’ accounts to the ATO within six months of such persons departing Australia. Under the proposed arrangements, the ATO will notify superannuation providers that a former temporary resident with a superannuation interest has departed Australia after six continuous months have elapsed. Superannuation funds will then pay the ATO the starting amount of the account balance minus payments already made to the former temporary resident. In the area of retrieval of funds from the ATO, once the account balances have been paid to the ATO, former temporary residents will be entitled to claim their superannuation from the ATO. Such persons will be able to retrieve their superannuation entitlements from the Australian Tax Office without a time limit being imposed. Amounts which have been paid to the ATO can be paid to former temporary residents subject to any withholding tax which may apply under the law. Once persons have been identified by the ATO, amounts can be paid to the person, their legal representative or a fund if the person is identified as an Australian or New Zealand citizen or is a holder of a permanent visa. I will make a few remarks on the legislative context of these bills. These proposed laws are largely the previous coalition government’s policy, which was announced in the Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook 2007-08. We instituted this policy at the time because many former temporary residents do not take their superannuation with them as they do not lodge DASP applications. Therefore, unclaimed superannuation balances often become lost moneys in the system. Inactive accounts in the superannuation system currently represent approximately $12 billion in assets. By-products of inactive accounts are unnecessary compliance and, of course, operational costs associated with those accounts. Despite the claim that has been made by some on the opposite side—in particular, by the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Law in his media release dated 8 August 2008—these bills do not represent significant changes to the measures that we announced in relation to these matters when we were in government. Under the measures announced by the previous coalition government, unclaimed balances of superannuation accounts belonging to former temporary residents would be paid to the ATO, with the capacity for the former temporary resident to claim back the lost balances. The bills currently before the House represent the same outcomes, which are lower compliance costs and less money lost in the system. So the minister’s claim that this is Labor policy is simply false. Let me make some remarks regarding consultation. As is consistent with the Liberal Party philosophy of consulting widely with relevant interest groups, we have determined that there are some very significant concerns from industry on these matters. Industry have raised with me three prime concerns which they have with these new bills. They consider the timing and cost of implementation is the key problem facing superannuation companies. Industry have stated that three versions of reporting requirements will be required during the transition period and, further, that new administrative costs will be incurred by superannuation providers. Industry have argued that the new costs will be centred on registry and systems management issues. A further issue has been identified by industry—that is, that there are liquidity concerns for some funds which could be forced to liquidate assets in a short time frame because they have a large number of former temporary residents as members. If this were to occur, any such hasty sale of assets may adversely impact on the value of the remaining members’ accounts. Industry have also raised the problem of some former temporary residents who may have had their superannuation arrangements based on the current laws. Industry argue that such individuals would have been confident in the knowledge that their superannuation accounts would remain lodged with their superannuation provider indefinitely, but these would be subject to additional taxation under the proposed arrangements. The opposition notes these concerns raised by industry; they are significant concerns. We encourage the government to take these concerns into account when implementing these measures. In summary, while I note that compliance cost concerns have been raised during our consultation period, these proposed laws should reduce the number of superannuation accounts containing unclaimed amounts, and all employee superannuation payments will now occur under the same DASP procedure. Both outcomes should result in a lowering of costs for government and for superannuation providers. Providing that there are, of course, no adverse findings from the inquiry into these matters by the Senate Standing Committee on Economics, the opposition supports the passage of these bills. 9957 17:23:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I rise to support the government’s Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. The Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 implements the government’s measure to help reduce the number of lost accounts and unclaimed money in the superannuation system which can arise when temporary residents depart Australia without taking their superannuation with them. The Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 forms part of the government’s temporary residents superannuation measure. Under this arrangement, temporary residents leaving Australia will be able to claim their superannuation benefits through existing avenues before it becomes unclaimed. This allows for a more consistent approach and for a better service to temporary residents compared to that of other countries. The departing Australia superannuation withholding tax currently applies to amounts claimed by departed temporary residents. The tax aims to ensure that tax concessions provided to superannuation are appropriately aimed at those who wish to retire in Australia. The amendments make a small increase to the departing Australia superannuation withholding tax rate of some five per cent. As Councillor Paul Bell AM, President of the Local Government Association of Queensland, said: … Queensland is attracting an increasing number of skilled migrants from across Australia and the world. Many migrants are now settling in regional and rural communities. …            …            … Over the last decade Queensland has witnessed sustained economic growth and has received increasing numbers of migrants from interstate and overseas. Queensland continues to attract the most overseas migrants after Victoria and NSW … This increase in overall migration to Queensland has included increased skilled migration to rural and regional Queensland. The main conduit for migration to regional and rural areas has been the state specific and regional migration incentives implemented by the federal government. Since 1995, when the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme was first introduced, there have been a plethora of initiatives and visa categories to encourage migrants to live and work in rural and regional areas of Australia—particularly Central Queensland, due to the resource boom the area is currently experiencing. Regional migration programs aim to address the skills shortages faced by a number of rural and regional areas and to encourage the economic and demographic growth of rural and regional Australia. It is widely acknowledged that both permanent and temporary skilled migration deliver significant economic benefits to the host country. These economic benefits are particularly critical in rural and regional areas, whether they are undergoing population decline or mining booms. The key theme in Australia’s recent migration policies has been the economic benefits of migration and skilled migration in particular. The focus on the economic benefits of skilled migration has been shaped by a number of realities facing developed nations such as Australia, including ageing populations, globalisation of labour markets and skills shortages. There have been a number of programs run by various organisations in my electorate of Flynn to encourage temporary residents to the area, especially in Longreach and Gladstone. Much of the good work in Longreach has been led by the Remote Area Planning and Development Board, which has sought funding to develop a number of projects to assist the members of communities of its regional council members to work together to attract and support new arrivals. RAPAD has set up a regional marketing plan and, to better understand the experiences of new migrants to the area, a migrant reference group. The group will shed light on what worked for them when they arrived and what could be improved, including: raising an understanding and awareness of the challenges for new migrants in rural and remote areas; establishing an information migrant network within the region to provide guidance and information that will support skilled migration and settlement activities; raising an understanding and awareness of the benefits of skilled migration; and providing resources and information about improving the attractiveness of the region to potential migrants. The Longreach Regional Council engages with the cultural diversity of the local area. Employers in Longreach are actively engaged in supporting new arrivals. This support starts from the time they contact the prospective employee overseas and follows through their arrival and settlement in the community. Longreach council itself employs skilled migrants and is very supportive in providing employment and settlement support to its community. Another such program is managed by Gladstone Area Promotion and Development Ltd. The charter of GAPDL is to promote the Gladstone region as a great place to live in, invest in and visit—and so it is. It is our business to ensure we promote strong growth and development within the region. A shortage of skills has long been perceived as one of the most serious issues currently facing the Gladstone region’s business and industry. A lack of available personnel with the right skills may threaten the economic viability and growth of our region. Whilst this is also a state and national issue, the shortage of skills may particularly affect this region due to its high concentration of industry and remoteness from a capital city. In a climate of strong industrial growth the service dollar leaks out of the region due to a shortage of tradesmen and professionals, and small to medium businesses have difficulty recruiting people with the skills they require. For example, a skills survey launched by GAPDL recently confirmed what many of us living in the electorate have been aware of for some time: we definitely do have a skills shortage which is impacting in particular on the small to medium business sector. Seventy-four per cent of local businesses reported having difficulty attracting skilled employees, and nearly half of them found it nearly impossible to do so. The Make the Move strategy is an initiative of GAPDL to attract investment and skills to the Gladstone region that will benefit businesses, community organisations and the broader community in general. The strategy’s core focus is to promote the region to potential new residents and employees through a range of publications and services that will make the move to the Gladstone region a positive experience for work and play. This approach works on the premise that initiatives relating to both raising the skills of our existing workforce, especially young people, and attracting skilled people from outside the region as employees or business operators are likely to be of benefit in increasing our region’s skills base, supporting our youth and building our economy and, consequently, our nation. While temporary residents, including thousands who have worked in Central Queensland, depart Australia, they are able to take their superannuation with them as a departing Australia superannuation payment, but many do not do so. This contributes to the total amount of lost moneys in the system. Individuals who hold an eligible temporary resident visa are currently able to access their superannuation benefits early, prior to reaching preservation age, if their visa has been cancelled or has expired and they have departed Australia, by applying for a departing Australia superannuation payment. The DASP is subject to a final withholding tax to recoup the tax concessions provided to the superannuation of temporary residents. Despite having the ability to claim their superannuation, many temporary residents do not do so and leave amounts of small and lost balances in the superannuation system, thereby contributing to the total amount of lost moneys in the system. Currently, the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act requires superannuation providers to report and pay the superannuation of a member to the Commissioner of Taxation as unclaimed money where certain conditions relating to the member are met. Broadly speaking, unclaimed money is money which the superannuation provider holds in respect of members who have reached the eligibility age of 65 or died and the provider is unable to contact the person entitled to receive it. The government is concerned by the growing amount of superannuation which has been identified as lost over the past decade. The tax office’s 2006-07 annual report shows that the number of superannuation accounts reported on the lost members register grew from 5.7 million to 6.1 million in that income year. These inactive accounts total approximately $12 billion in assets. The amendments contained in this bill seek to address the lost account problem by requiring superannuation funds to pay the unclaimed superannuation of departed temporary residents to the tax office. The government has consulted on the measure by releasing a discussion paper in May of this year and engaging in consultation with key stakeholders on the draft legislation. The government’s final policy reflects many of the suggestions made during the consultation process. The amendments provide that the superannuation of a temporary resident will effectively become unclaimed and payable to the tax office after the individual has ceased to be the holder of a temporary visa—that is to say, their temporary visa has been cancelled or has expired—and they have departed Australia and at least six months has passed and they have not claimed their superannuation. Departed temporary residents will retain the ability to claim their superannuation benefits through the existing departing Australia superannuation payment process before it becomes unclaimed. Departed temporary residents who have not claimed their superannuation and have unclaimed superannuation paid to the tax office can claim their money back at any time. The individual can apply to the Taxation Office for the amount to be paid to them or to be transferred to a super fund in certain circumstances. This provides consistent or better treatment of temporary residents compared to that in many other countries, where temporary residents may be unable to access or are limited in accessing compulsory social security contributions. Generally, the amount that is claimed back from the tax office will be subject to the departing Australia superannuation payment withholding tax. This is consistent with existing arrangements, as the withholding tax already applies when a temporary resident claims their superannuation after departing Australia. This measure will be administered by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Taxation Office. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship will provide the tax office with information to assist the tax office in identifying departed temporary residents who have left unclaimed superannuation behind. The tax office will then issue notices to super funds identifying departed temporary residents. Funds which receive such notices will be required to report and pay any unclaimed superannuation they hold for a departed temporary resident to the tax office by a certain day. The first notices are proposed to be issued in March 2009, requesting payments from funds by April 2009. In the future, it is proposed that the tax office will issue notices at least twice a year. The tax office will also have the ability to revoke a notice it has sent to a fund where it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so—for instance, if the individual returned to Australia on a new temporary visa prior to the six months elapsing. The superannuation of Australian and New Zealand citizens, current holders of permanent or temporary visas and those applying for permanent residency will not be paid to the tax office. Instead, their superannuation will remain in a super fund. Certain types of temporary visas can also be prescribed in the regulations to be excluded from the measure if it is appropriate in the circumstances to do so and to cater appropriately to any specific visa classes. For instance, retirement visa holders will be excluded from the measure so that their superannuation will remain in the fund and not be paid to the tax office. At this stage, state and territory public sector funds will not be captured by the measure, although the Commonwealth will enter into discussions with state and territory governments to examine the scope to include such schemes in the future. The tax office will have the ability to refund overpayments that have been wrongly made by super funds. Individuals will also have review rights. This measure will commence from a date to be fixed by proclamation. This will occur in sufficient time for the tax office to send the first notices out to funds in March 2009 and to receive payments of unclaimed superannuation from funds in April 2009. I do congratulate the Rudd Labor government for its leadership on this issue and I commend these bills to the House. 9961 17:39:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to lend support to the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 as they seek to put into effect the policy announced by the former coalition government in the 2007-08 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. They reflect how super is now part of the backbone of the Australian retirement financial system. Prior to the super guarantee legislation, the old superannuation system that prevailed in the late 1980s and early 1990s was predominately a defined benefit system restricted to public sector employees and managerial employees of the private sector. By way of history, the proportion of employees covered by super under the old scheme was relatively low, especially for part-time workers. In 1974 only 32 per cent of workers were covered by super—24 per cent in the private sector and 58 per cent in the public sector. In 1983 the reform of the taxation of super really began. I actually will commend the Labor government, especially under the leadership of the Rt Hon. Bob Hawke, for reforming super in 1983. It is noted that in 1984 the CBUSS, one of the first industry super funds, commenced. In 1987 there was $41.1 billion in super funds according to the ISC annual report 1988-89. The super revolution within Australia had certainly begun. Legislation was passed in 1987 and 1988 which included the Occupational Super Standards Act 1987 and the Hawke government statement titled Reform of the taxation of super. By 1988, 58 per cent of full-time employees, 19 per cent of part-time workers and only two per cent of persons not employed were covered by superannuation schemes and the number was clearly growing. By 1989 super funds under management had grown to $119 billion, growing to $123 billion in 1990 with 64 per cent of employees covered. By 1 July 1992 the superannuation guarantee commenced at three per cent, rising to nine per cent by 2002. By 1993 super assets had reached $169 billion and 80 per cent of people were covered. It was a fine start to the super revolution. From $169 billion through the 11½ years of the Howard-Costello government super assets reached a staggering $546 billion by 2003, with 90 per cent of Australians covered, and last year super assets were $1.153 trillion, 119 per cent of GDP. Through the Hawke-Keating and Howard governments, a superannuation revolution ensured that well over 90 per cent of Australians were covered by superannuation and an impressive $1.1 trillion had been gathered. Whilst acknowledging the fine start that the Labor government of 1983 gave to the super revolution, I will also acknowledge the fine start that the Howard-Costello years gave, especially in removing any penalties for those over 60 to withdraw their superannuation funds. The superannuation guarantee scheme was first conceived in 1986 and again I acknowledge the Labor Party and indeed the Australian Council of Trade Unions. Led by Keating and the ACTU secretary, Bill Kelty, a superannuation guarantee of three per cent was allegedly first proposed, though it appears the government’s preferred position may have been for a total of 12 per cent comprising an ultimate nine per cent of salary and a three per cent contribution by employees. Regardless, the superannuation guarantee has become a natural part of the fabric of the Australian way of life and three successive governments have ensured that Australians are becoming well and truly covered by super. The key issue though, is that the superannuation guarantee was introduced to boost retirement savings, especially for those on lower incomes. It has also served the national interest, that of strengthening Australia’s national saving performance. As part of the great super revolution these bills recognise that, within the super regime, there are people who simply do not claim their super. Indeed, as at May 2007, the ATO revealed that around $9.7 billion in unclaimed super resides in Australian superannuation funds. As at last month the member for Flynn reports the number could well indeed be above $12 billion. Considering the member for Flynn and I are old boys of the same school, Rockhampton Grammar School, how could I possibly disagree with the good member as to the current rate of unclaimed super? Part of that amount of unclaimed super was accrued by workers who were in Australia on temporary visas of some sort. Despite having the ability to claim their superannuation, many temporary residents have failed to do so—and I am sure they will continue to fail to do so—for a range of reasons, including a hasty departure or, frankly, not giving the issue much thought at all. These bills are making amendments so that the unclaimed superannuation of previous temporary visa holders will be returned to the Commonwealth after at least six months have passed since the temporary visa ceased to be in effect and they have departed Australia. The person who accrued that super will still be able to claim the super, provided certain conditions are met, although the super being held by the Commonwealth will not accrue interest. The measures are seeking to reduce the number of lost accounts and the unclaimed money in the super system that can arise when temporary visa holders leave Australia without taking their benefits with them. It is noted that these measures have the general support of industry. Although superannuation providers have raised concerns regarding compliance costs during the consultation period, it is unlikely that these measures will impose any undue compliance burden. It is also noted that the administrative costs of implementing the system will be borne by the ATO and DIAC. These measures move on what the coalition proposed in the 2007-08 Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. They are sound in their implementation and they are sound in their design. They certainly enjoy my support. 9962 17:45:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —I congratulate the member for Fadden on a fine speech on the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. It is rare that we hear him say nice words about a Labor government, so it is a good day. Superannuation certainly is the lasting legacy of the Hawke Labor government. As I told the House in my maiden speech, I think it is Labor’s greatest postwar economic and social achievement. Superannuation is the mechanism to deliver one of the great objectives of a social democracy—that is, the dignity of older Australians. It ensures that in retirement every Australian can live with greater independence, financial security and dignity. Importantly, it also increases our national savings. Having that pool of national savings is terribly important in this world at a time when we are all too aware that capital is fickle and mobile. But the system is not perfect. It does need periodic adjustment to make sure that it is efficient, effective and fair. The bills before the House today represent one such adjustment. A problem in our system across the board is that too many people have too many accounts and that all too often money gets lost or forgotten and ends up being eaten up by fees. The problem of lost accounts particularly affects people who have worked in Australia on temporary resident visas. These bills reform the laws regulating how departed temporary residents can access their superannuation accounts and how they are taxed. Under these measures, departed temporary residents—and there were over 240,000 of them in the last financial year—will retain the ability to claim their superannuation benefits through the existing payment process before those superannuation payments are designated as unclaimed. These provisions simply introduce a reasonable time limit before the accounts are reclaimed by the government to ensure that the money is not lost over time to account fees and charges and is instead put to good use. It is expected that such a change will result in $250 million in new revenue that would otherwise sit for years in unclaimed accounts. That is a very considerable sum of money. That amount will rise in 2009-10 to some $378 million and later down the track it will get back down to around $250 million. That is money that can be put to good use in our schools and hospitals, for our roads and for employing public servants and others to do good works for the Australian people. The provisions reflect a political consensus on the issue, as the previous government proposed substantially similar changes late last year. It is good to see an outbreak of bipartisanship in this House. These rules provide for consistent and better treatment of temporary residents when compared to that which applies in many other countries where often they are unable to access superannuation contributions upon departure. The Australian system is fair to these people, but these bills make sure that the money is not lost. The changes will operate through cooperation between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship and the Australian Taxation Office. DIAC will provide information to the ATO to assist the ATO to identify departed temporary residents who have left unclaimed superannuation in our system. This is a simple, straightforward and fair change so that, if departed residents snooze on their super, the whole community will not lose. This makes sure that if those people do not take care of their superannuation then the government can put it to good use. These bills will also amend the departing Australia superannuation withholding tax, which currently applies to amounts of super claimed by departed temporary residents. The purpose of the tax is to ensure that our superannuation system and tax concessions on it are targeted to support people who retire in Australia. Those tax concessions should not be extended to those who work in Australia and then go home to foreign countries. The amendments contained in these bills increase by five per cent the departing tax and recoup the taxation concessions provided as part of our superannuation system. Importantly, departed temporary residents will be able to claim indefinitely their superannuation benefits less this departing tax back from the ATO. The bills are sensible and fair. They ensure that our superannuation system is geared to supporting Australians. They give temporary residents who work in our country some opportunity to benefit as well. They ensure that this money does not just disappear and go to waste on account fees. They ensure that those who contribute to our world-leading superannuation system have access to their contributions. I commend the bills to the House. 9964 17:52:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I would like to congratulate the member for Wakefield on his speech and for recognising the member for Fadden. He has probably given you an early Christmas present! I rise today to support the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. Everyone in this House understands the importance of superannuation, particularly those who arrived pre 2004 and, even more importantly, those like me who arrived post 2004. The Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Bill amends the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The amendments in the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Bill are related to the proposed amendments to the Superannuation (Unclaimed Money and Lost Members) Act 1999 through the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill. It is first important to consider the context in which these bills are being implemented. The proposed laws are based on the Howard government’s 2007-08 mid-year economic outlook. Every year Australia grants immigration to many people who want to come here to work. In the last financial year, 239,152 temporary visas with work rights were granted and over 87,300 business long-stay 457 visas were issued. In WA the number of successful applications for business long-stay 457 visas by primary applicants increased by 70 per cent between 2007-08 and 2008-09. I am consistently reminded by organisations in my electorate of the difficulties associated with the labour shortage in our country. Small businesses all across Swan are struggling to find people to work for them. This has led to inflationary wage increases and, ultimately, higher interest rates for the Western Australian people. It is not just small businesses that are suffering. I recently met with Mr Graham Francis, the CEO of the SwanCare Group, part of Australia’s aged-care industry. SwanCare is a not-for-profit organisation that provides retirement accommodation for seniors, often at a subsidised rate. The group operates Bentley Park retirement village in my electorate of Swan, which is home to approximately 1,100 residents. Mr Francis explained to me the significant impact the labour shortage is having on the aged-care industry. Western Australians are ageing: in WA in 2007 people aged 65 years and over made up 12 per cent of Western Australia’s population, and this is projected to increase to about 22 per cent in 2056. The demand on the services SwanCare provides is therefore steadily increasing. At the same time, SwanCare is finding it increasingly difficult to attract and retain workers in the aged-care sector. One the reasons for this is their inability to pay competitive wages on account of the shortfall between their rising costs—partially attributable to the inflationary pressures I mentioned before—and increases in their index-linked government funding. However, an equally important aspect of this is the labour shortage. Immigration inquiries represent by far the greatest number of inquiries that my office receives. We do our best to help all the people who come to our office in East Victoria Park. From Chinese welders to UK dermatologists, we see in our office the clear importance of migrant workers to the local community in Swan. Therefore, from the outset, it is important that this bill recognises the importance of workers coming to Australia and protects these people. I am pleased to see that this bill represents the best interests of these people and the community. Many of these workers return to their countries of origin after their time in Australia having earned significant amounts of superannuation in accordance with Australian law. Upon leaving Australia, these people are eligible to apply for a proportion of the money in their superannuation account. This is called the departing Australia superannuation payment, or DASP, and comprises the value of superannuation minus tax, which is 30 per cent for the taxed element and 40 per cent for the untaxed element. Under the provisions of the current law, the superannuation of a departed temporary visa holder who does not take a DASP upon departure remains in the fund until it is claimed or becomes payable to the Commissioner of Taxation as unclaimed money—for example, if the departed visa holder has reached the age of 65 but no contact or contributions have been received. The departed temporary visa holder can later claim the amount back from the tax commissioner. It is worth mentioning at this juncture that generous superannuation is one of the many incentives for people to come and work in Australia. Whilst many people take advantage of this generous policy, countless people fail to claim their superannuation. Superannuation funds are required to report ‘lost’ details to the ATO and these details are recorded on the Lost Members Register to assist individuals in locating their accounts. According to the Australian Taxation Office’s 2006-07 annual report, there are over six million ‘lost’ superannuation accounts on the Lost Members Register maintained by the ATO, with an aggregate value of an astonishing $12 billion.  It was in this context that the Howard government became concerned with the growing amount of superannuation identified as ‘lost’ over the last decade and concerned with the operational costs incurred by the ATO and the superannuation funds managing these accounts. It was in this context that the Howard government initiated the policy which we are debating today. Given this, I want to turn my attention to the key elements of the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. I will outline why I support these key elements but also suggest some concerns with the bill which I ask the government to consider when progressing with the legislation. It is important to note that the bill will operate retrospectively with regard to the ‘lost’ funds previously mentioned. As the member for Aston mentioned in his speech, these bills have two primary functions. The first function of this bill is to ensure the transfer of unclaimed superannuation funds to the ATO. The proposed legislation will mean that the amount of superannuation earned by a temporary resident will be deemed unclaimed six months after the person has left Australia. At this point the superannuation payment will be transferred to the ATO. The payment will comprise the starting amount of the account minus the payments already made to the former temporary resident. This will of course require effective cooperation between the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and the ATO. The second function of the bill relates to the retrieval of funds from the ATO. When the six months have elapsed and the superannuation funds have been paid to the ATO, the temporary resident will still be able to access the fund. There will be no time limit imposed. All payments at whatever stage of the process will be paid at a new tax rate; however, this will be in accordance with the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Act component of the bill. Items 4 and 5 amend section 5 of the act to increase tax amounts for DASPs to 35 per cent for the element taxed in the fund of the taxable component, currently 30 per cent, and 45 per cent for the element untaxed in the fund of the taxable component, currently 45 per cent. The rationale for this increase in the tax rate is the first benefit of this bill I would like to discuss. The increase in the tax rate ensures the recovery of some of the superannuation tax concessions provided to departed temporary visa residents and fits in with the general ethos of the bill of ensuring that superannuation tax concessions are well targeted at people who will retire in Australia and not those who have departed Australia. As I suggested earlier, the Australian superannuation system is an advantage to workers coming to Australia that needs to be retained if we want to solve our labour crisis. However, it is right that those temporary workers that choose to leave Australia pay a degree of tax. The small tax rise associated with these bills will provide an additional incentive for temporary workers to continue to contribute to the nation and ease the labour shortage. I agree with the general principal that our superannuation system rewards those who choose to make Australia their permanent home. The second benefit of this legislation is financial. These bills are predicted to have a positive impact on government revenue. Although there is likely to be no net change in the 2007-08 financial year, in 2008-09 the government is expected to gain an additional $251 million in revenue. This will climb to $378 million in 2009-10. Given this, it is important that this money is spent wisely. We need to know from the government exactly how this extra revenue is going to be spent. I suggest that it be spent on addressing some of the concerns—and qualifications for my support—I am about to outline. Firstly, we need to ensure that people departing Australia are properly informed about the effect of this policy. It is important, for example, that we have the information available to distribute to the many people who approach my electorate office. In particular we need to take note of the concern of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia that temporary residents who have already made their superannuation arrangements based on the current laws may be uncertain as to whether their superannuation accounts will remain lodged with their superannuation provider indefinitely. This requires clarification and ultimately money to be spent on an information campaign. Secondly, I believe the money should be directed towards assisting organisations such as SwanCare, led by its CEO, Mr Graham Francis, to employ and retain skilled workers to ensure that vital industries, such as the aged-care industry, do not collapse. The final benefit of this bill I would like to discuss is administrative. The bill is likely to reduce the operational costs of both superannuation providers and the ATO, which is a welcome reduction of red tape. I restate, though, that there needs to be effective cooperation between all parties. This includes the DIAC, the ATO and the superannuation funds. I would like to urge the government to take into account a further concern of the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia—that is, given the legislation will also operate retrospectively, funds with a large number of former residents would be forced to liquidate their assets quickly. This may lead to an adverse impact on the value of the remaining member’s accounts. The government must ensure that people’s superannuation is protected against this eventuality with a phased and sensible introduction of the legislation. I want to spend the last few minutes of this speech considering the importance of a strong superannuation system given the current financial crisis. I want to focus in particular on self-funded retirees, of which there are a significant number within my electorate. Self-funded retirees take responsibility for their own finances. The financial crisis has therefore placed a significant burden of worry on these people. The predicted ramifications of the financial crisis are changing daily, which makes it very difficult to make specific points. However, at this point in time it is important that self-funded retirees receive good advice from the government of the day. The coalition government worked hard to provide incentives for Australians to boost their retirement savings, introducing one of the biggest reforms to superannuation ever. The Howard government simplified superannuation, making superannuation benefits tax free for most Australians over 60 and allowing the self-employed to claim a 100 per cent deduction for all contributions. The superannuation co-contribution scheme, whereby superannuation contributions are matched by the government, was introduced in July 2003 as a means of assisting lower income workers to save for their retirement. In the first three years of this scheme over 2.9 million co-contribution payments worth $2.2 billion have been paid to the superannuation funds of lower income Australians. The coalition also introduced a tax rebate to encourage individuals to make superannuation contributions on behalf of low-income spouses; gave employees the right to choose which super fund their employer pays into, injecting competition into the marketplace; and introduced a new trustee licensing regime to better safeguard members’ benefits, while strengthening preservation arrangements to help people accumulate larger superannuation benefits for retirement. I hope the Rudd government will continue this positive superannuation legacy, and in particular support self-funded retirees through this difficult time. In conclusion, I support the two bills before the House today. They ensure that the benefits of superannuation are enjoyed by those that choose to retire in Australia, they generate revenue and they save on operational costs. However, the government must ensure that this extra revenue is spent wisely, on providing information to the temporary workers affected by this legislation, including many people in my electorate, and also helping to solve the labour crisis. I urge the government through this financial crisis to appropriately protect self-funded retirees and indeed all holders of superannuation in Australia. I commend these bills to the House. 9967 18:05:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I too rise to speak in support of the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. In short, these bills will ensure that superannuation funds held in super fund accounts for temporary residents who have left Australia without claiming their superannuation entitlements are transferred to the Australian Taxation Office. Temporary residents for whom those super funds were paid will still be able to claim those funds at a later time. In summary, the new arrangements will significantly reduce the compliance costs for the industry; will allow for the insurance cover of temporary residents, as they will continue to fund members while they reside in Australia; will best address the lost member issue; will provide the same superannuation payment arrangements to all employees in a workplace; will allow for the full payment of superannuation to all former temporary residents at any time following their departure from Australia; and will, importantly, still allow Australia to attract foreign skilled workers to assist us to address skill shortages that currently exist. These bills simplify the whole process currently in place with respect to payment and withdrawal of superannuation contributions made on behalf of temporary residents—a process that has been extremely burdensome for many employers, I might add. As the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Assistant Treasurer has pointed out, some $12.9 billion representing some 6.4 million lost super accounts is currently held by the Australian government. Much of this money comes from temporary residents who work whilst they are in Australia and then leave without claiming their superannuation entitlements. The administration of six million lost super accounts is, in itself, an administrative workload for employers, the fund managers and the government. Equally, funds are being held in people’s names who probably are not aware that funds had been paid on their behalf and are being held for them. In a global economy we are going to see an increasing number of people moving from one country to another for temporary employment reasons. We will see people come to Australia from overseas and we will see Australians travel overseas for the same purpose. We are already seeing it happen, with many Australians travelling to the Middle East for short-term infrastructure and construction projects where Australian expertise is in demand. I could refer to many other professions where similar examples are occurring and where Australians fulfil short-term employment contracts in overseas countries. Likewise, Australian industries and employers recruit skilled or professional workers from overseas for short-term purposes. In my own state and, Mr Deputy Speaker, in your state of South Australia, I am aware of many such examples. One particular example which I want to refer to is the defence industry sector. South Australia, and Adelaide in particular, has established itself as a major defence industry hub in recent years. The Defence Science and Technology Organisation has had a presence at the Royal Australian Air Force base at Edinburgh for decades. In more recent years, firstly with the Australian contract for the construction of the Collins class submarines being won by South Australia and, more recently, with the contract to construct Australia’s three air warfare destroyers, the defence sector has become even stronger and has developed into a major economic driver and employment sector in South Australia. I am aware, however, that because of the specialist skills often required by companies such BAE Systems, Tenix Defence and SAAB Systems—to name just three—the need to recruit or relocate qualified workers from overseas for a temporary period is common for them. Simplifying the employment process for those companies and reducing the red tape associated with the superannuation payments will undoubtedly be very welcome. In turn, such industries are likely to expand their operations or remain in Australia if the government makes administration of their businesses easier. I just want to highlight the point I make here. It was not that long ago that I was talking to the CEO of one of those companies. Their concern was simply this: if they are not able, on a short-term basis, to recruit suitably qualified staff from overseas it jeopardises their ability to fulfil contracts here in Australia, and therefore jeopardises the security of them remaining in Australia as an industry and as employers. So the need to allow companies like that, at the times they require, to have suitably qualified, skilled staff come into the country for short-term purposes is going to continue to grow. Let us understand that many of these companies are responding not only to contractual needs of the Australian people and the Australian government but quite often to the contracts they have won in overseas countries. The work is being carried out here, but the final product will be delivered overseas. But, again, those companies may well be reliant on recruiting from overseas. What is even more interesting is that many of these companies are, in fact, global companies and, as such, for short-term purposes will often transfer or second to Australia someone from one of their operations in another country. Again, they will have to continue to pay them. I understand that quite often where those kinds of transfers happen the payment system may still relate back to the country from where the person comes. But that is not always the case and for short-term purposes they sometimes have to get involved in paying superannuation for those employees whilst they are here in Australia. The other sector that I want to refer to—and I notice that a number of speakers have already quite rightly done so—is the agricultural and horticultural sectors within Australia. I can assure you, from my discussions with many people in those industries, I have found that anything the government can do to simplify their bookkeeping processes will be very much welcomed and appreciated by them. Since being elected to this parliament I have been contacted by numerous people urging my support for easing Australia’s temporary visa system to allow seasonal workers into the country. I am pleased to see that the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has now announced that a trial, of some 2,500 seasonal workers from three overseas countries, will be allowed to assist farmers, particularly in their harvesting seasons. Most farmers or vegetable or fruit growers are not skilled bookkeepers. They have enough to do trying to make their farms viable and simply working their farms without having to worry about complicated bookkeeping systems. As I said earlier, any proposal which makes their lives a little easier would certainly be welcome. The kinds of people that they are asking to be brought into this country are quite often people who will only be here for short-term purposes. As I said earlier, perhaps they will come for harvesting purposes only, and then they will go back to their country. Many of these people, as we all know, will perhaps not even be aware that the employer might be paying superannuation into an account for them, and they may leave without ever being aware that those funds have been held for them. Perhaps that is something that needs to be properly addressed at the time that they are brought into this country to ensure that they are fully aware of their rights and fully aware that, perhaps as part of their employment contract whilst they are over here, there will be a number of benefits that they can access, and they should not leave without at least being aware of what they are entitled to. I notice that some of the opposition members have raised some concerns that, in turn, have been raised by the superannuation fund industry, and I think the issues that they have raised are quite legitimate—nothing that I would disagree with. Certainly the transfer of these funds very quickly from superannuation funds into the Australian Taxation Office could have an effect on their cash liquidity and also the income that is generated on behalf of their fund members. I also noted that in the last year super fund schemes raised some $75 million in fees from funds held in accounts that had not been transferred to eligible rollover funds and another $170 million in fees from funds held in eligible rollover funds. These fees are not insignificant. These are substantial fees that, without question, would affect the income stream of the super fund holders, so I raise that point. I also suspect that, perhaps, some of the funds’ concerns relate to the fact that they will not be able to access these fees from the $12 billion-plus that is sitting in accounts with them. On that point, I raise this issue: the question of fees when it comes to superannuation accounts is one that has concerned me and, I am sure, others for some time. It is not unusual for someone who has a small amount of money in superannuation to see that money dwindle away through the fees being charged by the managers of those schemes. As part of the minister’s review of superannuation schemes in this country, I ask that he also consider the question of the fees that are being charged and include that in any review process. I said at the outset that this proposed legislation will do a number of things which I believe will benefit a whole range of people. Yes, it represents only a technical amendment. I believe it was the member for Aston who said that this measure is pretty much in line with a proposal by the previous Howard government to improve the current super scheme. I therefore support the bills and commend them to the House. 9970 18:17:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a great pleasure to be speaking tonight on the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. I will start my contribution by briefly talking about the importance of superannuation and how important it has been not only to individuals in this country but to the country as a whole. I do not think anyone doubts today the seriousness and importance of the superannuation policy first put forward by the Hawke and Keating governments and the substantial changes that we made to superannuation through guarantees to make sure that in tough times we provided security for people’s retirement incomes. I want to begin with that because I think any debate and any legislation on superannuation should acknowledge the great contribution that Labor governments throughout history have made in this sense. Those superannuation and retirement savings have been instrumental in providing the platform by which the Australian economy has managed so well over many years. We see that particularly today when we look at the global financial crisis and see the position that people are in. Luckily, there are more people today who have decent national superannuation savings than there would have been under any other scheme, particularly under anything that the opposition or a conservative government would have provided. It is always a pleasure to be speaking on these issues. While we are on that matter, I will talk about just how significant Australia’s national savings are. They are around $1 trillion. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce —One point one. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —$1.1 trillion, I am now informed. This must have changed overnight. It is good to see that, even during a global financial crisis, people’s retirement savings are not only safe but growing. It is important to acknowledge that these are difficult times for people. Superannuation itself will this year be a very difficult and concerning subject for many people who are about to retire or will retire in the next 18 months or two years, because they would have seen either negative returns or significantly reduced returns in their retirement savings. I know how concerned they would be. It has affected my family as much as anybody else’s family around the country, with my own parents and parents-in-law affected, although I will not get into the detail of their circumstances. Certainly it has meant that things will be a lot tougher this year. But they can at least rest assured of a number of things. One is that they have a good government right now in the Rudd Labor government. We are taking every necessary step to ensure that we maintain a strong economy, that we protect the surplus and that, where we do spend the surplus, we spend it on them and make sure that they have a government that will keep the economy strong. They can also rest assured that it was we in the first place who put the mechanisms in place to make sure they had that. I know and understand, as do many people—although it may be hard to acknowledge when things go south a little bit—that the previous years around the world have been pretty good for superannuation and retirement savings, and people have seen massive increases in the value of their holdings. So, while it is very regrettable, I know that in Australia we will do everything we can to manage that and ensure that people’s savings are protected, as we have done through a range of mechanisms. They should have confidence that we will be there for them. The bills before us make some very specific changes to the way we treat people’s superannuation savings when they are temporary residents in Australia. It is quite a common occurrence that people who work here for a period of time, because of the superannuation guarantee, have employer contributions and perhaps their own contributions—although I very much doubt that if they understand the system—go into an account. When they depart and go back home, there are systems in place whereby they can then retrieve the amount of super that was placed in their account. They are not permanent residents of Australia—they are not going to live here or enjoy their retirement here—so there is no need as such for their superannuation to be kept here in Australia. I think that, for a lot of people, superannuation is a case of out of sight, out of mind. For people who are young and mobile, whether it is Australians or temporary residents who are here on a particular work assignment, it probably is not such an issue. We are moving to take care of what is a growing problem in Australia. The Australian Tax Office has said in its annual report that the number of superannuation accounts reported on the lost members register grew from 5.7 million to 6.1 million in that income year. That is not a dollar amount; that is the actual number of accounts. It is a massive number. You have to look at it twice to fully grasp that we are not talking about dollars. It actually represents a much larger amount in dollars. I have got to say, I had to read this one not twice but three times to be sure that it was the right amount. There is $12 billion sitting in lost superannuation accounts. Potentially, a significant slice of that $12 billion belongs to people who are no longer in Australia or to temporary residents who worked here. It is their entitlement and they can claim it under our scheme at any time, if they have not already done so. We are putting into place specific changes to deal with some of that. It also means that we have a lot of work to do. We have been doing a lot of work trying to reconnect working Australians with their lost superannuation, because that is important to do. It is about their retirement savings and it is about trying to give them some efficiency by collecting in one place their superannuation dollars, their money, to make sure they have the best possible growth and the best possible access to that money in future years. But it poses a conundrum for government. That is a bit of a bottom line. When you have $12 billion of money sitting in lost accounts, you have a bit of a problem that needs to be dealt with. The measures that we are implementing will transfer to the Commonwealth under the unclaimed money arrangements the superannuation of those temporary residents where this money has not been claimed. Where that money from temporary residents has not been claimed, there will be a transfer across. We need to put it in a specific place and that is what we are doing. The superannuation will be transferred six months after the relevant visa has expired and the temporary resident has left Australia. It is important to note that temporary residents will continue to be able to claim—and I mentioned this before, but I think it is important to repeat it—their superannuation when they leave Australia by paying the relevant withholding tax. It is important that they understand that they can claim it, but they need to pay their withholding tax. Former temporary residents who have had their superannuation transferred to the Commonwealth under these new arrangements will also be able to claim back the money at any time, and the same rules will apply. The idea is not to steal this money or forgo it but to make sure that it is properly collected, administered and arranged in a manner which means that people still have access to it. I am certain, given the number of unclaimed accounts—we are talking about around six million of those accounts and $12 billion worth of assets—that we are not going to be successful in this in its entirety. These measures are designed to assist with slowing the rapid growth in the number of lost accounts. For government this is an administrative nightmare. This is a massive, inordinate amount of accounts. We need to take every step available to us to minimise that number. Many of those are in respect of former temporary residents in Australia. I do not know that my words will reach them, either here tonight or in the Hansard—unless some good media person decides that my speech tonight deserves to be on the front page of the newspaper. I doubt that very much, but perhaps they could find it in their hearts just to send out the signal—not for my self-gratification but for the people who have lost accounts—that those people ought to claim their accounts, wherever they live in Australia. And, if they got that message, it would ease the burden on government of trying to administer these many lost accounts. That would be consistent with the way we treat Australian citizens. We are doing this in a properly considered manner. We ought to treat those people who make a contribution to our country by coming here temporarily to add value to our economy in the same way that we expect Australian citizens to be treated. They do that by working here. They have obviously been invited here to work and we should support them in that because of what they have done for us. We expect that Australian citizens working overseas would enjoy similar benefits and standards and be accorded the same sorts of comforts. There will always be our New Zealand friends, colleagues and comrades over here in Australia, and I just want to let them know that they, along with Australian citizens and retirement visa holders, are excluded from these new arrangements. In addition, the DASP rates are being increased by five percentage points to recover the tax concessions that were provided to support the retirement of Australian citizens in this country. This is another good solid measure which not only deals with the significant administrative issue that we face as a government—properly dealing with the issues that superannuants face as temporary residents when they leave—but also gives back to Australian citizens and properly recompenses them for the efforts they make in their own retirement savings. This measure, as you would expect, has had political consensus since the policy was first announced. There are some slight differences between what was first announced and what is in place now, but I believe the consensus remains—unless there are voices that say that is not correct. No, there are no voices that say that is not correct. There is a consensus. This is noncontroversial. This is good policy. This legislation is another strong example of good government and good governance. It is a good, strong example of the Rudd Labor government actually doing what it was elected to do. We are the builders of national savings and retirement savings through superannuation. We have always believed that it is a key platform that we deliver not only to individual workers but to families, to the economy, to the nation. We will continue to build on that, to maintain that and to ensure its integrity in coming years. This is good legislation. As I said, I believe this legislation is supported with great consensus right across this chamber and across the community. I commend the bills to the House. 9973 18:30:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. This legislation will have an impact on my local electorate, whether on backpackers who work in the horticultural industry in the Lockyer Valley, doctors and nurses who work in the health system in Ipswich or meatworkers who work at the Dinmore meatworks, currently run by Swift Australia. This legislation will require that superannuation funds of departed temporary residents who do not take their superannuation with them upon departing Australia be paid to the Australian government via the Australian Taxation Office. Of course, that does not mean that we are taking the money by theft; if they wish to claim it back they can do so. This is a good amendment. It will ensure the integrity of our superannuation industry. It is a good amendment insofar as it allows better administration of our superannuation industry. It will mean that the superannuation money of a person who departs this country, their temporary visa having ceased to be in effect for more than six months, can come into the coffers of the Australian Taxation Office. It will ensure that those many, many superannuation funds that are currently in existence without anyone ever making use of them or even knowing about them will be able to be consolidated and used for the benefit of the taxpayers of Australia. To cover the taxation concessions and the costs, we are raising withholding tax by five percentage points to 35 per cent in most cases. This measure has the bipartisan support of the opposition and we welcome that. It is a good measure which is consistent with what Labor governments have done in the past. My parents and my grandparents before them have not had the benefit of superannuation. I daresay there are many people in this House whose parents are in similar circumstances. It is the case today that Australian citizens expect that superannuation will be paid as an incidence of employment, that both those who have permanent residency and those who have temporary residency will gain the benefit of superannuation. It is quite sad that for quite some time there was significant opposition to the introduction of superannuation into this country. In the past, some decades ago, employer groups opposed superannuation. I acknowledge that today employers and employees now accept, like they accepted Medicare, that superannuation is an integral aspect of the Australian way of life. I want to pay tribute to the Hawke and Keating governments, which did so much for this country. It was the Hawke and Keating governments which floated the dollar, internationalised our economy, reduced the tariff barriers, ensured that consumers in this country paid fair amounts for consumer goods and ensured that our country became internationally competitive. It was the Hawke and Keating governments which opened up the banking system in a way that has enabled it today to cope with the international crises that are currently confronting so many countries, Western and other, around the world. It is the greatest achievement of the Hawke and Keating governments that the superannuation industry in this country is so prosperous, with in excess of $1 trillion being accumulated in the superannuation industry. There are so many people these days who have a stake in the Australian economy—and its wealth and prosperity—and in our economic future because they have superannuation. Many people have shares these days, and many have shares through superannuation funds. We have hundreds of thousands of self-managed funds in this country and we have hundreds of thousands of people in this country—indeed, millions of people in this country—who have superannuation as employees. They therefore have a stake in our economic development. Superannuation equals security. Historically, retirement for most people on low and middle incomes meant periods of uncertainty, worry and anxiety. That was common where I grew up in Ipswich, with railway workers, coalminers, meatworkers, butter factory workers and many people I know who, through injury, had early retirement or reached certain ages and therefore had to retire and faced a great deal of worry, anxiety and concern about what would happen in the future for themselves, their partners and their families. Many of those people were in circumstances where they had dependants and had to deal with putting their children through school and university, still without the kind of financial support in terms of their income which would allow them to achieve what they wanted to achieve for themselves and their families. I know there are many people, me included, who have found in the last 12 months that the level of their superannuation is not what they would have hoped. But it is true that historically superannuation funds have done well in this country. The superannuation industry has allowed us to invest in all kinds of industry in this country, in manufacturing, agriculture and biotechnology. Compared with overseas countries, our country is stronger economically, we are wealthier and we are a more fair and just society, by reason of superannuation. It is the case that many people these days retire on a combination of superannuation and a pension. Many people who have contacted my electorate office in Blair in Queensland have expressed to me that they will be increasingly dependent on a pension. It is in that context that the Economic Security Strategy of the Rudd Labor government is so welcome to the people in my electorate. In fact, the $10.4 billion which will be afforded in this package will benefit 43,701 households in my electorate, with many payments to carers and pensioners, single and partnered. This is crucial in terms of providing these people with a decent living and allowing them to be able to feed and clothe themselves and afford adequate housing and proper health care. The superannuation industry is vital in that regard, as is the Economic Security Strategy of the Rudd Labor government. Superannuation is a tremendous thing for this country. It has been an instrument of wealth creation and wealth distribution and it gives the kinds of people that I represent the kinds of lifestyles they deserve. It gives them a decent living and proper access to the kinds of things that wealthy people in this country take for granted. It is a great Labor achievement. I accept and acknowledge that during the Howard years the opposition also supported the superannuation industry, and I welcome their continued support of it and the type of legislation that is before the House today. If we get bipartisan support in relation to the superannuation industry and the economic development of this country then the people of this country will have faith and confidence in us. Since my election in November last year, I have seen and experienced many things which I did not think I was going to, but I have learnt that there are people of goodwill, respect, commitment and hard work who think the best of this country and want the best for it. Superannuation is an area which affords the people in my electorate the kind of life that they need but which is earned, not given to them gratis. People get superannuation through their employment. Australians—certainly the people in my electorate—accept that superannuation is something which they receive as part of the decency of the Australian way of life. I commend all the people in this House who have voted for superannuation in the past. I personally thank the Hawke and Keating governments, who allowed so many of the people that I know in my electorate to have a life of respect and adequacy in their retirement as a result of the superannuation industry and the reforms of those governments. When I leave this place and look back, whether it is at the next election or in many years to come, I will say this: I would not have been in this place but for Labor governments; this country would not be what it is today without Labor governments; and the superannuation industry would not have been created without Labor governments. Accordingly, I commend these bills to the House. 9975 18:41:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I also rise to speak in favour of the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008. It is very important that a culture such as Australia recognises the valuable input of our overseas guests, whether they are temporary or resident. I really appreciate the words that the member for Blair said about the history of the Hawke and Keating governments and their achievements. It is a proud tradition that enables us to say, ‘Yes, we are looking after the elderly in our society. We have long-term plans. And how good is the recent $10.4 billion package which has given $1,400 to single pensioners and $2,100 to couples. Yes, we are looking after people in their retirement.’ I think that is very important. This is about people who come here. I did a bit of research through the Parliamentary Library. A lot of people come from Europe, especially the UK. It interested me, and quite surprised me, to see that the second highest number of temporary residents in Australia come from Korea. A lot of people come from there. With these bills we do the right thing. It is the Australian way. It is being fair and reasonable by saying, ‘Look, if you’ve left our shores for six months, you have a right to put in a claim to the Australian Taxation Office to get your money back.’ That is fair and reasonable. We live in a global society where new technology enables this to happen a lot easier over the internet and claims can be processed very speedily. Just as a bit of background, the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 contain certain amendments to legislation that require the unclaimed superannuation of departed temporary residents to be paid by their superannuation funds to the Commonwealth government through the ATO. The superannuation of a temporary resident will only become unclaimed superannuation and payable to the ATO if at least six months has passed since their temporary visa ceases to be in effect and they have departed Australia without claiming that superannuation. Currently, temporary residents are able to take their superannuation with them upon departing Australia by requesting a departing Australia superannuation payment, otherwise known as DASP. However, despite having this ability to claim their superannuation, many temporary residents do not do so and leave small, lost balances in the superannuation system when they depart, thereby contributing to the total amount of lost moneys in the system. This measure seeks to reduce the number of lost accounts and amount of unclaimed moneys in the superannuation system which can arise when temporary residents depart Australia without taking their superannuation benefits with them. The government has consulted very widely on this. The measure was discussed, and in May of this year a discussion paper was produced to engage key stakeholders in consultation on the draft legislation. The government’s final policy reflects many of the suggestions made during the consultation process. The ability for departed temporary residents to claim their superannuation through the DASP will continue to be available under this measure. This provides treatment to temporary residents that is consistent with or better than that in many other countries around the world, where temporary residents may be unable to or very limited in their ability to access compulsory social security contributions. The measure will operate by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship providing information to the ATO to assist the ATO in identifying departed temporary residents who have left unclaimed superannuation in the system. The ATO will send notices out to superannuation funds which it believes are holding unclaimed superannuation for the departed temporary residents, and funds that receive a notice will be required to report and pay any unclaimed superannuation that they hold to the ATO by a certain date. The superannuation of Australian and New Zealand citizens, current holders of permanent or temporary visas and those who are applying for permanent residency will not be paid to the ATO. These groups of people will have their superannuation remain in a fund, and certain visa class holders can also be prescribed in the regulations to be excluded from the measure where the circumstances make it appropriate to do so. For instance, retirement visa holders—subclasses 405 and 410—will be excluded from the measure so that their superannuation will remain in the fund and not be paid to the tax office. Departed temporary residents will be able to claim from the ATO their unclaimed superannuation, subject to the existing DASP withholding tax. That withholding tax will be raised by five per cent, to 35 per cent, in most cases. That is to further recoup these tax concessions. At this stage, state and territory public sector funds will not be captured by the measure due to constitutional reasons but the Commonwealth will be entering into negotiations with the state and territory governments about the potential to include these schemes in the future. Initial discussions with state and territory officials indicated a willingness for state and territory schemes to be included in the measure at a much later stage. This addresses something which obviously requires some housekeeping here. It is a fair, right and reasonable thing to do. We are enabling people to access their accumulated superannuation at least six months after they have left these shores and their temporary visas have expired. I believe it is a fair and reasonable thing. We get a lot of backpackers coming through the seat of Dawson. The temporary work they do in the area, particularly fruit picking in Bowen, is invaluable. They really do add value to our economy, so they are a very important part of it. If we want these people to come back and experience again the benefits and beauty of working in tropical Queensland, where I come from, the way we treat people after they have left our country will engage them to come back again. They will think it is great that they can come to Australia and do some temporary work. Six months after they have been here, earned some money and travelled around, nine times out of 10 that money will have been spent back into the economy. The money goes round. But isn’t it good that, when these temporary residents go back to whichever country they came from, they can then access that superannuation which has been accumulated. I daresay they would use a very Australian colloquialism and say, ‘That’s a real fair go.’ They would want to come back and add value to our society again. For the backpacker community, particularly the one-year temporary holiday visa holders and working visa holders, this is very important. I think it will stand Australia in good stead internationally and encourage that backpacker market to come over. It is the right thing to do in this international, global community. I commend these bills to the House. 9977 18:51:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —I thank all the members who contributed to this debate: the members for Aston, Fadden, Swan, Flynn, Wakefield, Makin, Oxley, Dawson and Blair. To briefly sum up: the Temporary Residents’ Superannuation Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 will make changes to the superannuation unclaimed money legislation to help address the growing number of lost superannuation accounts in the system. In the tax office’s 2006-07 annual report, over six million lost accounts have been reported on the lost members register, rising from 5.7 million in that income year alone, representing a total value of some $12 billion. A temporary resident who departs Australia without taking their superannuation with them can add to the lost accounts problem. Temporary residents are currently able to withdraw their superannuation by applying for a departing Australia superannuation payment. However, many do not do so. This bill will help reduce the number of lost super accounts by using the mechanism currently in place to deal with unclaimed superannuation money. The amendments will require superannuation funds to report and pay the unclaimed superannuation of departed temporary residents to the tax office by a due date. The superannuation of a temporary resident will only become unclaimed after the individual has departed Australia and ceased to be the holder of a visa and at least six months have passed and the individual has not claimed their superannuation. Departed temporary residents will continue to have the opportunity to claim their superannuation and thereby avoid having unclaimed superannuation by applying for a departing Australia superannuation payment. I note that the bill will not affect the superannuation of temporary residents while they continue to hold a visa. Their super will not be paid to the Australian Taxation Office but will remain in a fund. As well, the superannuation of Australian citizens, New Zealand citizens, permanent visa holders and holders of retirement visa 405 or 410 will not be affected. In addition, departed temporary residents who have not claimed their superannuation are entitled to claim back at any time the unclaimed superannuation that has been paid to the tax office. This provides a consistent or better treatment to temporary residents in Australia compared to many other countries, where temporary residents may be unable or limited in their ability to access their compulsory social security contributions. Finally, the Superannuation (Departing Australia Superannuation Payments Tax) Amendment Bill 2008 contains an amendment which will make a small increase to the withholding tax rates that currently apply to departing Australia superannuation payments. The tax is aimed at ensuring that the tax concessions for superannuation are appropriately targeted to those who retire in Australia. The tax rates will rise by five percentage points, to further recoup the tax concessions provided to the departing temporary residents. I commend these bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 9978 Mr GRAY (Brand —Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) 18:55:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 9978 Bills R3073 9978 Debate resumed from 25 September, on the motion by Mr Bowen. That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 9978 Mr GRAY (Brand —Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia) 18:56:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 9978 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 9978 9978 18:56:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP 1 Mr SNOWDON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The minister may proceed. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —When I referred to the expansion of the Defence Force health care program, I said I announced last week that the trial would be extended to two other communities; I should have said three. Those are Puckapunyal, Townsville and Darwin. The trials to Townsville, Darwin and Puckapunyal will start in the first half of the next financial year. 9979 Bills R3074 9979 Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 9979 18:57:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008 introduces a 50 per cent refundable tax offset for eligible education expenses up to a maximum of $750 for children undertaking primary studies and $1,500 for children undertaking secondary studies. The coalition supports this measure by the government to provide some relief to parents in meeting some education expenses. However, the coalition has significant concerns about the extremely limited scope of this bill. The coalition believe that choice is fundamental in a quality education and that education is fundamental to a prosperous economy. When the coalition were in government it was our express aim that Australia should have a world-class, high-quality education system. The Labor government’s education policy is a slogan: the ‘education revolution’. But what the Labor government is delivering up under this slogan is not what is needed in our education system. Rhetoric and empty promises do not achieve the quality education that parents want their children to have access to in this country. Quality in education is the coalition’s main concern. Throwing money indiscriminately into computers under the cover of a slogan will not improve quality. It is through values based reform measures that quality in education will be achieved. This bill refunds parents for only a limited amount of expenditure on information technology related goods. It does not address in any way the underlying financial issues faced by parents when choosing how and where their children will be educated. The real day-to-day costs of schooling, as any parent knows, extend far beyond simply providing a computer at home. Parents are faced with costs for uniforms, fees, textbooks, excursions and extracurricular activities; the list goes on. This bill does nothing to assist parents to meet the costs of these school education related expenses. Additionally, the bill does not cover the entire costs of a computer, meaning that parents will still be faced with expenses in providing a computer for their child’s use at home. The bill limits eligible education expenses to laptops, home computers and associated costs, computer related equipment such as printers and disability aids, home internet connection computer software, school textbooks and other paper based school learning materials and tools of trade as prescribed by the course. But the point is it covers only a small proportion of the costs of a computer. It does nothing to address the basics of a good education. It does nothing to support families with the day-to-day costs of schooling. It does not encourage any choice. It ignores the fact that parents pay fees to independent schools and Catholic schools. It ignores the contributions that parents make to local state government schools. It ignores the costs of uniforms. It ignores the extra tuition that many children need in core subjects or the additional classes that children undertake to develop their abilities. It ignores the realities of buying a computer, such as the real cost and the unlikelihood of buying a new computer every year. And it is a concern that it does not cover all families and children. Specifically, the bill fails to cover all families and children because entitlement to the education refund is dependent upon fulfilling a series of requirements, meaning that some families and children are not going to benefit from this refund. The requirements are that they are entitled to a family tax benefit part A payment for a child, in receipt of certain other prescribed payments for the child that would otherwise preclude them from receiving family tax benefit part A payments for that child, or the student is entitled to certain prescribed payments and is assessed as independent for the purposes of the payment and the student is enrolled. Families and children who do not satisfy the above requirements are not entitled to this government rebate. In contrast, the coalition policy we took to the last election was to provide a rebate which supported all families with children at school. In fact, that coalition’s policy was called ‘Helping families to provide more education opportunities for their children’. It proposed to introduce a new refundable tax rebate of 40 per cent for education expenses including school fees for every student from preschool—or kindergarten, as it is called in some states—until the end of secondary school. The coalition’s policy recognised that enabling parents to choose the best education for their children often requires them to juggle not only their priorities but also the costs associated with educating their children. The policy explicitly listed the following items as being included in such a rebate scheme: government and non-government school fees; preschool fees and expenses; school uniforms; textbooks, stationery and calculators; camps and excursions; laptops, broadband and software; and extracurricular school activities such as sports, music, dance and drama. Under the coalition’s policy, the rebate for secondary school was up to $800 annually for each student; for primary school and preschool, up to $400 annually for each student. And that was without the limitations that are being imposed by the government’s policy in relation to entitlement to family tax benefit A payments and the like. In looking at the contrast between the policy contained in this bill and the coalition’s policy, it is worth remembering the coalition’s investment in schools when in government. It was at record levels, and made possible by the coalition’s record of economic and financial management which saw sustained economic growth, falling unemployment, the paying off of $96 billion of government debt inherited from the previous Labor government, and successive budget surpluses. How the Prime Minister must thank the day that he became Prime Minister with the economy in the condition he inherited, given what is happening in global financial circles. It was this record of economic and financial management which allowed the coalition to increase investment in schools by 172 per cent. That was a record level of funding. Under this Labor government, forecasts in the budget already show slower economic growth, slower employment growth and increased unemployment. How does the government expect to maintain the record level of funding for schools achieved by the coalition if it is not able to manage the economy effectively, if there is slower economic growth, slower employment growth and increased unemployment? Just as the Labor government are attempting to rewrite the economic history of this country to hide their failures and seeking to ignore the successes of the coalition government, they are trying to rewrite the educational history of Australia as well. In a recent speech, on 11 September, the Treasurer stated: Education reform—especially school reform—has been proposed in this country for a decade. Half-hearted attempts have been made, but they have not been backed up with the leadership and conviction needed to deliver structural change. Our predecessors never succeeded in navigating Australia’s future—and there is no better example of this than the former Treasurer’s failure to invest in the education of our children. This was a blatant misrepresentation of the truth. The record funding by the federal coalition government to all schools is a case in point. Some of the coalition’s more fundamental and important reforms came about by taking unprecedented steps of attaching conditions to the increased funding that was provided to state governments. This had not occurred before. Whilst the Labor government at a national level seeks to ignore the efforts of the state Labor governments around the country in education, it is worth reminding the House of what we were able to achieve against the objection of those state Labor governments and the education unions. We were able to ensure that plain English report cards were provided to assist parents to know how their child was progressing at school. We sought greater consistency in educational outcomes across the states. We insisted that principals of schools have more say in what happened within their schools. We required the explicit teaching of values. We introduced measures to reduce bullying at school and we introduced compulsory physical education in every school. The coalition when in government also made it a condition of funding that schools publish a range of information such as the percentage of students achieving national benchmarks in literacy and numeracy, average year-12 results, school leaver destinations, staff and student retention and absentee rates, teacher qualifications and value added measures of student performance. It was in this way that the coalition government was able to increase transparency and help parents to access better information about school performance. I cannot let a bill on education pass without mentioning the coalition government’s Investing in Our Schools Program. This made over $1 billion—almost $1.2 billion—available between 2005 and 2008 to all schools, not just to those teaching years 9 to 12, as the government’s education revolution focuses upon. The Investing in Our Schools Program was for all schools, primary and secondary, and for a range of purposes, not just for computers. Under the Investing in Our Schools Program, schools received funding for computers. They received funding for information and communication technology related purposes such as upgrading the power supply. Others received it for a range of priorities, whether it be musical instruments, science laboratory equipment or sporting equipment. The coalition’s record compares favourably with Labor’s promise to pay for a lot of new computers, because Labor has had no regard for the additional costs that it will now impose on the actual needs of each school under this digital education revolution. What the federal Labor government is doing is sending a direction from ALP central to schools telling them that they must order their priorities in the way that the Labor government wants them to. It is not up to the schools to tell the government what their priorities are and seek funding, as they did under Investing in Our Schools. Under the digital education revolution, the government dictates to the schools what their priorities and needs are. The government introduced this digital education revolution without any analysis of the costs of the program to the state governments or to the schools. The promise of a computer for every year 9 to 12 student was unachievable for the budget, and we now know that it is not for every student in years 9 to 12. The educational value of the scheme was highly questionable. The OECD report relied upon by the Labor Party during the election pointed out that this sort of program which just relies on more computers and nothing else will not improve academic performance, will not improve teacher quality and, indeed, could even harm it. This view was supported by other research, including research commissioned by our own Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. The government made a lot of noise about this education revolution in the lead-up to the election and has also made a lot of noise about it since it was elected, but today in Senate estimates the education revolution has been disclosed as a sham. In the additional budget estimates today, the government was asked about total costings of their computers in schools election promise. The government refused to provide the estimates committee with these estimates on the grounds that their estimates are ‘in the nature of advice to the government’. So before the election the Labor Party was prepared to announce a $1.2 billion package that promised a computer on the desk of every child between years 9 and 12, and because of the reports about the gross budget overruns in order to supply such a program the government is now refusing to release additional costings. Clearly, if a department has provided an advice to the government it does not follow that the advice is in any way immune from disclosure, and costings of government programs are certainly not top-secret national security information. So the failure of the government to provide answers to questions on the total cost of the education revolution package is just hypocrisy beyond belief. It is apparent that the government has grossly underbudgeted its education revolution. We know that the government budgeted $1.2 billion for the program. However, we also know that the state and territory governments estimate that it will cost far in excess of that and that the independent schools and the private sector estimates point to the fact that the true cost of this government policy is in fact $2.5 billion. The $2.5 billion figure is based on the universally accepted ratio that the cost of the actual computer is only about 20 per cent of the total cost, with the other 80 per cent going towards installing and maintaining the computer over its four-year life span. So the government’s policy to put a computer on the desk of every student—or of every other student, depending upon which day it is—in years 9 to 12 was in fact just to deliver a computer in a box to the school. There were no other costings budgeted for. So, if a computer costs $500, all the other one-off and ongoing costs will add up to $2,000—a total of $2,500 per computer. So the Rudd government’s proposal is only for the cost of the computer. It plans to provide for one million computers, the number of students to whom it has promised a computer, and the total for the program is $2.5 billion. That is how it adds up. Therefore, $1.3 billion is missing from the government’s analysis. It has underbudgeted by $1.3 billion or it is going to have to find $1.3 billion in the budget or it is going to pass on the costs to the state governments, to the independent and Catholic schools or to the parents. This is a major embarrassment for the government. This flagship election promise, this much overhyped education revolution, will cost more than twice as much as the government budgeted for. This is an absolute farce. The government was out there telling the parents of Australia that its education revolution would deliver a computer for every child or for every other child in years 9 to 12 at a cost of $1.2 billion. We find that on state government and independent and private sector estimates it is $1.3 billion short. I ask the government: who is going to pay the shortfall? This bill reveals the government’s true colours, because it takes away choice from parents. It is dictating to parents what they must spend their money on. It is dictating to parents the government’s view of the world. This is Labor Party belief, philosophy. This is typical Labor Party. The government knows best. The Labor government believes that the best way to spend money on a child’s education is only on computers and that the government’s view is superior to the view of the parents. The government’s view is superior to the view of the schools. As we can see from the botched digital education revolution rollout, with a $1.3 billion black hole in the funding analysis, this budget overrun, this black hole, is imposing costs that will presumably have to be picked up by schools and parents. Somebody will have to make up the difference between the $1.2 billion budgeted for and the extra $1.3 billion that it will cost. Somebody will have to make up the difference between the costs of the program and what the government budgeted for. This gives us no faith at all in this government’s ability to implement any significant program. If it cannot properly cost and implement a program to put a computer on the desk of every student or every other student in years 9, 10, 11 and 12, how on earth will this government ever be able to implement an emissions trading scheme? How will this government ever be able to implement an unlimited bank guarantee for deposits? 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been given a very wide licence by the chair on this bill, and I would ask her to come back to the bill before the parliament. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms JULIE BISHOP —I will end there. 9983 19:16:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —It is a pleasure to rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (Education Refund) Bill 2008. When addressing an education bill, I cannot avoid the chance to remind the House that in February 2007 the then Prime Minister, John Howard, issued a press release indicating that the Investing in Our Schools Program was not to continue after 2007. This landmark bill is part of the $55 billion working families package contained in the Rudd Labor government’s first budget—a package aimed at not only easing the squeeze on working families in very difficult economic times, but also allowing working families to build on the skills and the education of their children that will enable them to make the most of their future. This package involved almost $47 billion of tax relief over the next four years. It involved increasing the childcare tax rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent, and paying it quarterly at a time when working families need the money, at a cost of $1.6 billion. It included a $2.2 billion package to start to address for the first time, from this parliament’s perspective, the housing affordability crisis that had been building for several years. It involved a Teen Dental Plan at the cost of almost half a billion dollars. It involved tax relief for working families through a fairer Medicare levy surcharge threshold—tax relief opposed by the opposition in the other place. But for these purposes, it particularly involved the introduction of an education tax refund to help parents with the costs of educating their kids at a cost of $4.4 billion over the next four years. Contrary to the contribution by the previous speaker, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, it does not mandate that parents spend their money on computers. It states quite clearly in the bill that parents can spend money on a range of materials used in their education—computers and related materials such as internet connections, printers, paper, educational software, but also school textbook materials, prescribed trade tools, a range of educational tools not related, in my experience, to computers needed by children today to make the most of their schooling. This working families package has only become more timely given the economic circumstances confronting Australian families now. This bill is where the two virtuous circles of the education revolution and the working families tax package overlap, and that is the particular beauty of this bill. This not only delivers tax relief to working families but helps working families start to build on meaningful education for their children. This is part of an education revolution. I note there has been some debate about that recently. This is an education revolution. In 11 months this government, from a national government’s point of view, has delivered more by way of educational reform than the previous government did in 11 years. We will be rolling out a universal preschool entitlement for four-year-olds across Australia. In South Australia we have been lucky enough for many, many years to have a universal preschool entitlement—15 hours paid by the state government per week—for all four-year-olds, but I know that in many states, including the home state of the member for Bonner—Queensland—there has not been such an entitlement. For many years now we have also seen the research that demonstrates that the first five years of a child’s life are the most important years in brain development. Our government, the Rudd Labor government, is the first government to exercise the responsibilities of a national government in making sure that the sorts of benefits that we have had in South Australia for many years apply across the continent. For the first time, we are implementing a national program to equip Australian students with the skills that they need for the future. For the first time there will be a National Curriculum Board ensuring that students in South Australia study the same maths and history and language and science and other curricula that are studied in New South Wales. It makes no sense to Australian parents—and to Australian employers for that matter—why students in one state or territory are studying different curricula to those in another state or territory. This is something which the previous government either was not particularly interested in or was not able to achieve progress on. We are particularly making an attempt to improve maths and science education. I know that in a number of schools in my electorate the maths and science education has slipped, not only because of the range of other subjects that are on offer that are perhaps considered more attractive by students today but also because teachers are finding it difficult to keep up with the advances. This is true of teachers of the sciences in particular. Teachers who might have been trained to deliver physics and chemistry curricula find it difficult to get up to speed with the demands of nanotechnology, biotechnology and a range of other sciences that are really the cutting edge nowadays. We have trades training centres in schools and, in response to a question I asked of the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday, I was pleased to see the announcement of a trades training centre in Seaton High School in my electorate. In visiting a number of trades training centres while a candidate for and now as a member of this parliament—it is some time since I have been in a ‘tech study centre’, as we used to call them—I saw that they had not changed in the 20 years since I was at school. The same lathes and other equipment have been there since the mid-1960s. So the work we are doing to update the trades training centres in schools is critical. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition spent a good deal of her time in this debate talking about the digital education revolution. We obviously have a difference of opinion about this because we see this as the centre of the education revolution. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —What does the member for Fowler think about it? HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —I encourage the member for Sturt to be patient and wait for the contributions of other members, if he is interested in them. I am glad the member for Sturt is here for my contribution on the education debate because I note the member for Sturt still has to correct the public record after having told listeners to ABC radio in South Australia that I attended Pulteney Grammar—a besmirchment of my character! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I never said such thing. HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —You did so! I have the transcript, but I corrected the record. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —You must be thinking about somebody else. HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —We will talk about it later. Returning to the topic at hand, I have had the privilege of attending a number of schools which are going to benefit very shortly from the digital education revolution and receive a very good number of new computers. In spite of the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s contribution, I note that those schools are without computers of a functional nature, in some of the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas of South Australia. To the extent they have computers, many of them do not have USB portals and there simply are not enough computers to deal with even the year 12s, let alone other years. I have been to Ocean View College, to Findon High School and next week I will be attending the Islamic College in my electorate. All of those principals and teachers are terribly grateful for the computer packages they are going to receive through the digital education revolution. This bill, as I said, constitutes the overlap of the two virtuous circles—the education revolution and the working families tax package. We must equip schools, and some of the things I have talked about already tonight—the digital education revolution and the trades training centres—are about equipping schools. It is only part of the equation because families in my electorate, no matter how much they are going to benefit from the sorts of school reforms we have talked about, also need help equipping their students at home so as to continue their education doing homework. The most obvious example of that is the computers that are catered for under this bill. There are many more education related expenses which families incur, which will be covered by these refunds—laptops, home computers and associated costs, a home internet connection, printers and paper, educational software, school textbooks, materials and prescribed trade tools. Those are the sorts of items which will continue to equip school students of the 21st century for the sorts of jobs they will be seeking after they finish school. It is well known, for those who have read this bill, that the amounts envisaged in the bill are around $375 per child in the pocket for parents of a primary school student and $750 in the pocket for parents of a high school or secondary student. Even assuming that these amounts are fixed for the next 12 years, a typical working family with two children about to start school, over the course of those two children’s schooling, will benefit to the tune of $14,250. That is assuming that those amounts are not increased at some time—we hope they will be—over the next 12 years. The procedures for obtaining these refunds are straightforward. Working families will obviously be required to keep receipts, but it will be a relatively straightforward matter to make a claim in the 2008-09 tax return. If the parents in question are not required to submit a tax return, then there will be a very simple form available from the Australian Taxation Office which can be completed for the return to be paid to the parents. Where families have shared care arrangements for the children, there will be an arrangement very similar to those applying to the family tax benefit part A to ensure that the refund is shared in the same way between the parents who are subject to the shared care arrangement. In conclusion, the rollout of this policy demonstrates the benefits of a very early and open disclosure of election policies. The response by the community of Port Adelaide to this policy has been incredibly enthusiastic. After being elected on 24 November 2007, it was one of the most common inquiries we received over the summer period as parents prepared their children for the 2008 school year. The detailed advice that was available from the minister was a credit to her and a credit to her office. As early as December 2007— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —You Lefties all stick together. HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —You bet we do, as you do in South Australia—we were able to provide very detailed advice to the constituents of Port Adelaide about what they should do when expending money on their children for the 2008 school year. I commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. 9986 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 9986 9986 19:30:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —Australia’s finest are somewhat concerned by statements and actions, or should I say a lack of action, by the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, since he was sworn in last year. First it was the charade and feigned concern over the acquisition of the Super Hornets, where he went from supporting the acquisition in opposition as shadow minister for defence to wanting to cancel the acquisition upon being sworn in as the minister and then to proclaiming the Super Hornet to be the best thing since sliced bread. He knew the true capability of the aircraft before he called his review; all he did was waste taxpayers’ money on a charade of a review to which he already knew the answers—all the time making cheap political points at the expense of our Australian Defence Force personnel. I say that because it is those skilled professionals in the Defence Force who do the due diligence on capability and make the recommendation to the government of the day on the preferred acquisition. Minister, it was on the recommendation of the Defence Force experts that the Super Hornets were acquired. And then there is the ongoing charade and chest thumping on whether we should be in the JSF program or not—one minute the minister denounces the JSF then just a couple of weeks later he claims it is the best option available. When the member for Tangney questioned the performance of the Joint Strike Fighter—claiming it had a low aerodynamic performance, did not climb well and was slow—the minister claimed that the JSF performed badly during a recent US exercise and claimed it could be outflown by Russian and Chinese competitors, citing a report that came from recent exercises. It has been put to the minister that if the JSF is so bad then we should buy the Sukhoi fighters. In the same article on 24 September by Nick Butterly from the West Australian he was: Asked if he believed the JSF would be the best aircraft for Australia, he said: “Yes, it is the only fifth-generation aircraft likely to be available.” I cannot begin to tell you the effect that all this indecision has on Australia’s defence industry. Failure to support platform acquisitions is one thing; but failure to support our men and women on the ground in harm’s way is another. It only gets worse. At a time when his ministerial colleagues are using the poll-driven focus group wording about being clearly ‘decisive’, it is absolutely disappointing to find that, when it comes to supporting our troops engaged in the war against terrorism in Afghanistan, the defence minister does not have a rock-solid opinion. One moment the opinion of the Minister for Defence is that ‘the war against the Taliban is unwinnable’. The minister said so on 7 October when he supported comments by Brigadier Carleton-Smith, commander of the British forces in Afghanistan, who stated that a military victory over the Taliban is ‘neither feasible nor supportable’. Well, that is what he told Mark Dodd of the Australian in an interview. Then on 11 October the defence minister changed his mind again when, in an article by Greg Sheridan in the Australian, he said, ‘If the NATO partners properly resource and coordinate the civil, military and political effort then a relatively stable Afghanistan is achievable.’ The minister is all over the place. On 15 October at the National Press Club the Prime Minister said:  … there’s no point being engaged in a military action unless you have a view within government that that action is winnable. On 16 October, in an article by Ian McPhedran in the Herald Sun, according to the PM the war in Afghanistan is: … “winnable” otherwise Australian soldiers would not be there fighting the Taliban … On 15 and 16 October the PM said he thought the war was ‘winnable’. Then, finally, after 14 days of absolute indecision on his position, the Minister for Defence, Joel Fitzgibbon, on 21 October—in response to a dorothy dixer from the member for Robertson, who was requesting an update on Afghanistan and the ‘recent successes achieved by the Australian troops’—said: While I certainly share Brigadier Carlton-Smith’s frustration, I do not and the government does not share his level of pessimism. So the minister has been all over the shop on this issue—from believing it is all a total loss and failure, to mild support, to ‘who would ever know what his position will be tomorrow’. This is the defence minister who single-handedly creates a crisis in confidence wherever he goes. Our defence forces need decisive action—action that supports them and what they do for our nation at the request of the government of the day. Our nation needs strong, decisive leaders. Minister, the least you can do is believe in our ADF personnel and what they are doing. 9987 9987 19:34:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —Children often know better than adults, and they know one thing very early on in their lives—that is, riding a bike is one of the greatest things you will ever do. They absolutely love it and they love it for many years, sometimes until they become adults. Unfortunately, then they forget; there seems to be a strange metamorphosis that takes place. Children understand it but adults forget—well, not all adults. In our capital cities most trips involve stop-start driving or short trips, with around 50 per cent of trips being less than five kilometres. Some 300 grams of greenhouse gas emissions is saved per kilometre for every vehicle that is taken off our roads. Potentially this totals an average of more than four tonnes of emissions per vehicle every year. In Australia it is estimated that, in a single year, air pollution from motor vehicles causes between 900 and 2,000 early deaths and between 900 and 4½ thousand cases of bronchitis and cardiovascular and respiratory disease, costing between $1.5 billion and $3.8 billion. Riding to work is a great way of getting fitter, having fun, reducing traffic congestion and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. How do I know this? Firstly, because I have done a bit of research and, secondly, because I am an enthusiastic cyclist. I have been ever since I was a child—and some might say that I still am a child, but either way I am very proud to be a cyclist. For many years I actually did follow completely some of my philosophies in terms of riding to work and not using a car at all. I did that for a number of years and it was one of the greatest things I ever did. It gave me time to think. It often meant that I was riding past a whole heap of traffic sitting in the city on some of our arterial roads that are completely clogged. I actually beat them to work. In the 30-odd kilometres that I had to ride from my home to the city I would actually beat most of the traffic in over the same distance. Fortunately, I had the luxury of having a shower at my workplace and so I could leave some clothes there or take them in a backpack. There are many other reasons to promote cycling and I want to list four examples simply to demonstrate the long-term impacts of cycling and what it can do. Firstly, as Australia’s population ages there will be increasing pressure on our already stretched healthcare system. Much of that pressure will come from the diseases, such as diabetes, associated with a sedentary lifestyle. Around 70 per cent of Australians over the age of 15 are said to be living sedentary lifestyles. Regular cycling represents one of the most effective and practical ways of tackling these preventable diseases. Secondly, cycling has been shown to reduce stress and improve general wellbeing. Having fun is definitely the best medicine. Thirdly, statistics show that nearly one-third of commuters in major cities spend more time stuck in traffic than they do with their own children. Cycling will reduce congestion and its related cost and maybe give people a little bit of time on the weekends to do something with their kids that they all really enjoy. Finally, if we could convert just a few journeys in our working week into bike journeys we could make a significant dent in our individual emissions footprints. That is why I applaud the policies, the projects and the initiatives that deliver increased options for active transport. Active transport is defined as a physical activity undertaken as a means of transport and not purely as a form of recreation. Active transport generally refers to walking and cycling for travel to and from a destination but may also include other activities such as skateboarding or use of public transport. Many people find that choosing active transport options is an effective way to build physical activity into their daily routines and busy schedules. Active transport has the added benefit to communities and the environment of reduced traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. And no-one could argue with the fact that for every biker on the road that is one less car. And there is plenty of evidence and pictures to demonstrate how significant that is. Local councils are doing a great job on the cycling infrastructure front. Millions of dollars, in fact, are being committed to innovative projects such as the brand new King George Square cycling centre in Brisbane City. I note the member for Ryan is in the chamber. He is from Brisbane and I am sure that he has had a look at the centre or at least knows where it is. It is a great facility and it makes a real difference. The states are doing their bit. I think councils are starting to do their bit and I want the federal government to do a little bit as well. There is at the moment a submission to Infrastructure Australia for a more efficient and sustainable national transport network, looking at the efficiency of Australia’s transport system and the quality of life in our cities through the development and improvement of cycling networks, which I think are as important as any other transport network in this country. It has been demonstrated overseas what the benefits and effects can be. It is incredible what cycling can produce, including a healthy lifestyle that benefits individual people. I encourage every member of the House to get active in cycling. Every Wednesday morning at 6.30 in front of the House of Representatives there is always somebody to go for a ride with you if you want to come along. (Time expired) 9989 9989 19:39:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —My purpose in speaking tonight is to bring to the attention of the House inappropriate advertising in the media. On this occasion I will speak specifically on the problems of sexual advertising on the radio, and the problems that these advertisements bring to our society. I am unashamedly a regular church-going man, attending the Warwick Church of Christ, but tonight I speak only from the perspective I have as a father of young children. I worry about the safety of children and I worry about the sexualisation of children caused by exposure to inappropriate advertising. The points I make tonight are about radio advertisements aired during the day. To begin, some months ago, whilst listening to a commercial radio station in Perth during the day, I heard one of those now all-too-familiar advertisements about nasal delivery systems to help male sexual problems. The advertisement was graphic and verging on explicit. As a result of hearing, over several months, from others who were also offended by the content, I commenced a petition, primarily addressing the issue of radio advertising. I have hundreds of names so far and will shortly bring the petition before the parliament. As reprehensible as this advertising is, I will now inform the House of a horrendous breach of the Australian Association of National Advertisers code of ethics. On the last Thursday of the recent school holidays in Perth, at around 1.30 pm, I heard another one of these advertisements on a popular mainstream commercial radio station in Perth. I emphasise that it was school holidays and that it was when children would hear the content of the ad. As a result of that incident I went to see the general manager of the station to complain. I informed her that the AANA code, section 2.3, talks about treating sex with sensitivity—that was a fail—and with sensitivity to the relevant time zone—again a big fail. Now, the general manager told me that they only air those advertisements after 9 am and before 3 pm, thereby making sure children do not hear them because those children are at school. Bad luck, of course, if mum is taking little Emily to the dentist or your four-year-old happens to be in the car with you. There is no protection for them. I call this outrageous. I call it morally wrong, as well, and say that if the advertisers do not heed their own standards, and if the radio stations do not address these matters themselves, then the Advertising Standards Bureau should take up the issue and ban these advertisements, lock, stock and barrel, during all normal hours. I mentioned that the general manager of the radio station in Perth said that they only air those advertisements after 9 am and before 3 pm, thereby implying that they made an error in running it in that timeslot during the school holidays. Maybe you can accept that excuse—that it was just a simple error—yet what was the very next advertisement? It was an ad telling children how to get free entry to the Perth Royal Show. That is the reason I have no tolerance for this sort of advertising. They have really gone too far. I know that I do not want to have to explain to my 10- and five-year-old children what that last advertisement was all about. I already have made my choice and have adopted the safe option in order to protect my children from these advertisements. I will only have a safe radio station playing in my car now, and I thank Barry Grosser and his team at Sonshine FM, the Christian radio station in Perth, for offering that safe alternative for parents. I also thank Barry for supporting me in this crusade. I finally just want to clearly define what this is all about. This issue is about the terrible exposure of children to media that makes them aware of sexuality and adult issues before they are mature enough to comprehend what it is all about. It is a complicated world for children and young people, and our responsibility as parents, and in fact adults, is to ensure they are able to cope with the information that they receive every day. By ‘information’ I do not mean to legitimise inappropriate material in any way, but I struggle to convey my meaning without using that word. That information includes what is delivered by radio, television and, worst of all, the internet. An exposure to messages of sound or sight that promotes or furthers sexualisation of children is simply wrong. While the option exists for parents and children to turn off these forms of media, the fact remains that inadvertent exposure is just as bad and just as dangerous as a conscious decision to seek that information. Enough is enough. I look forward to the government’s response when I finalise the petition and submit it. 9990 9990 19:44:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —I take this opportunity in parliament this evening to pay tribute to the carers in my community and across Australia and to acknowledge the enormous personal and financial sacrifices they make. The theme for this year’s Carers Week, ‘… because I care’, is a fitting description of the selfless service that carers give every day. Official data from an ABS survey indicates that there are about 2.6 million carers in Australia who provide informal care to a relative or a friend; that nearly half a million of these are primary carers and, not surprisingly, 75 per cent of them are women; that most primary carers are under 65 and potentially workforce participants; and, perhaps more surprisingly, that 60 per cent of carers aged 15 and over have cared for five years or more, one-third have cared for over 10 years and some have been in this position for as long as 30 years. Carers in my community are unsung heroes. Carers Week each year provides the opportunity for politicians either to be engaged in activities to celebrate carers in their own electorates or, as tonight in parliament, to place on the public record our acknowledgement of the work that carers do. This week has coincided with some positive announcements that have been made by the government to further assist our caring community. As part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy, people on carer payment will receive $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples, while carer allowance recipients will get $1,000 for each eligible person being cared for. These increases build on the $822 million package provided in our first Labor budget to support and recognise carers. As I have said on previous occasions, caring for people with disabilities, chronic conditions, mental illness or frailty is one of the most essential but, regrettably, inadequately recognised and under-rewarded tasks undertaken by many of our fellow citizens. As we all know, the physical and emotional support provided by our carers is priceless. Back in 2005, Access Economics estimated that informal carers provided 1.2 billion hours of care. The replacement value to all levels of government if this care were not provided has been estimated to be in the order of $30.5 billion annually, but providing that care comes at a cost to carers in terms of their wellbeing, quality of life, financial security and opportunity to be in paid work. We all know of tales of carers who have often had to leave work or reduce their hours of workforce participation because of their caring responsibilities. The majority of carers who are of workforce age report great difficulties in balancing their caring responsibilities with workforce participation. It is not surprising, therefore, that one-third of primary carers have household incomes which place them in the poorest fifth of households in Australia and that, for 55 per cent of primary carers, their main source of income is government support. I was interested to note this week that the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, that very authoritative body, released further research findings which show that Australia’s more than two million female unpaid workers earn much less and are in much poorer health than women without caring responsibilities. For example, they point out that mothers caring for a child with a disability are likely to earn over their lifetime between a quarter and half the income of similar women who are not carers. In that regard, I was delighted to read that the Prime Minister has acknowledged the difficulties facing carers in contributions to their retirement incomes. He has promised that our government will explore the idea of contributing funds towards their superannuation savings. The NATSEM research found that female carers are likely to have accumulated less than $25,000 in superannuation by the time they reach the age of 65. I want to take this opportunity to commend the announcement made by the Minister for Ageing this week when she announced a $12 million national grants program to improve respite services for carers. Our carers must have ready and affordable access to quality support services such as respite and counselling, and this is an issue that many politicians deal with at the local level. I am sure that in many communities the services provided by the Carelink officers are well accessed and well known to carers who contact our officers. I want to conclude with a statement made by the Prime Minister this week; I think he says it all. He states: … we must provide greater financial support and assist carers to build retirement income. Second, we must assist carers to participate in the paid workforce. And third, we must work harder to help carers themselves stay in good health. (Time expired) 9991 9991 19:49:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I would like to take the opportunity this evening to highlight some of the difficulties faced by students in rural areas trying to access tertiary education. For many this means making some of the great decisions of life, such as: leaving home for the first time; having to engineer a new social group without their family’s support; probably having to juggle work and study, and in many cases to juggle ridiculous work hours to support themselves; meeting the cost of accommodation in the city; having difficulty in assessing youth allowance regarding the income and assets tests, particularly with some of those things affecting farming families; and dealing with the transport problems, not only around the city but in being able to get back to their family on a regular basis when in many of our rural areas adequate public transport systems do not exist. School leavers in rural areas have very similar aspirations to those in urban areas. There was a survey in 1999 on school students’ intentions that showed that on average 50 per cent of rural students intended or desired to attend a university in the next year, compared to 54 per cent of city based students. In fact, when it came to delivering the goods on these ambitions, the gap was that about 26.6 per cent of city students, just 18.8 per cent of non-metropolitan students and as few as 15.8 per cent of students in regional, rural and remote areas ended up attending university. It is not that these kids are dumb or that they do not want to go to university; it is just that it is too hard. The detriment of losing these people from our rural communities, losing the possibility of education in rural communities, closing down rural communities and shifting populations leads to a lot of extra costs in our community that we do not always readily identify. If we move more people into the cities, that means we have to build more hospitals, schools and transport infrastructure to cater for them. The abandonment of rural communities is not just a loss to those communities but, in fact, a cost to the city communities, and we should take that into account when we work out what we need to keep rural Australia properly populated. Rural communities cannot survive without the support of educated leaders. Owing to the great difficulties we have enticing the uninitiated to come and live with us in the country, it is very important that those leaders come from within our own ranks. Why is this too hard? Why is it so hard for rural students to access tertiary education? Generally speaking, it is financial impediment. There are costs of around $13,000 a year for boarding in the city, blowing out to around $15,000 by the time they meet daily cost-of-living expenses. Shared rental is about the same. The total cost of keeping a student in the city is around $20,000 a year. It would seem to me that it is difficult enough if you qualify for youth allowance; it is almost impossible if you do not. Students do not qualify for youth allowance if they have assets exceeding $535,000 or their household income exceeds $31,400—you can imagine the difficulty in finding $15,000 or $20,000 to support a student if you were on $31,000 a year! If you have no youth allowance, you have no rent assistance. If you have no rent assistance, you have no access to government scholarships. In fact, you become self-and family-supporting only. To qualify for independent youth allowance—except in extenuating circumstances, such as refugee status, state care, having children, living as a couple et cetera—you have to earn 75 per cent of the maximum rate of pay under wage level A of the Australian pay and classification scale, which is around $18,000 in 18 months. After 18 months away from uni, it can be very difficult to entice students back. I could suggest a raft of solutions, but one of the most important things we could do is introduce a living away from home allowance which is not means tested. This living away from home allowance should be available to all those who, by geographical consideration, are required to leave home to attend tertiary education. It would be a way of evening up the field. It is a fact that, if you live in the city, you can access this stuff easily; if you live in the country, you cannot. (Time expired) 9992 9992 19:54:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I totally agree with the member for Grey. I commend him for his comments, and I refer him to the Hansard; I have spoken on this several times since 1998. I have had children going through exactly the same situation. Only this year, in his fifth year of university, my son qualified for what he called the ‘Kevin Rudd’. I totally agree with you. I will do everything I can to do it. But, quite frankly, I wish the mob on your side had done something about it over the last 12 years. Today the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned in question time the Salvation Army’s research on alcohol awareness which was released today. I would like to refer to that tonight, because what I have to offer you is a survey on binge drinking that I carried out in my electorate. I gave a promise that I would bring the results of this survey, warts and all, to the parliament, and I will do that. First of all, what is binge drinking? Binge drinking, according to the Salvation Army report, is also known as ‘getting smashed’ or ‘off your face’ and can be defined in two ways: firstly, as having six or more drinks in a row; and, secondly, as drinking large amounts every now and then and losing control. There are two kinds of binge drinking according to the report: drinking a lot over a few hours or drinking over several days or weeks. The second type is more harmful to the body and is often a repeated behaviour. Binge drinking can lead to death, permanent brain damage, alcohol poisoning, violence, sexual assault, and road and other accidents, such as drowning. Although binge drinking affects people of all ages, studies clearly indicate that binge drinking is on the increase amongst young people, with one in six young people having more than 20 drinks a day at least once a month. I refer you to the report. Have a look at it. You can get it on the web. I did a survey of 5,500 young people aged 18 to 25 in my electorate. I got 405 that actually responded to me in writing, which was terrific. I would like to share with you some of the results. The majority—that is, 75 per cent—agreed that binge drinking is a problem for young Australians,  yet the majority also agreed that the binge-drinking problem is not worse now than it was in the past. How do they know? I do not know. Anyway, that is what they said. Fifty-eight per cent of respondents told us they were well educated during high school about the risks associated with alcohol consumption. Sixty-nine per cent of respondents said they definitely do not feel pressured to binge drink when they are out with their friends. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents believed they were well educated by their parents about the risks associated with alcohol consumption. Almost one-quarter of the respondents had no opinion on whether the Rudd government was or was not doing a good job of tackling binge drinking. Sixty-four per cent thought we were not doing a good job at all—fair enough. I asked the question; I got the result. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents did not consider themselves to be binge drinkers. Only 16 per cent considered themselves binge drinkers, yet 45 per cent of respondents admitted to drinking alcohol most weekends—let’s keep in mind the definition of binge drinking in the Salvation Army report, which was done through the survey by Roy Morgan Research. Forty-five per cent of my respondents reported drinking between two and five drinks each sitting, whilst 10 per cent reported consuming more than 10 drinks per sitting. That is a lot of drinks. The most popular drink amongst those surveyed was vodka—I am not doing an advertisement; I am just giving you the results. Thirty per cent reported this as their preferred drink, with beer at 29 per cent and alcopops at 23 per cent. That is considerable. The majority of respondents said a stronger education campaign in schools is the best way to tackle binge drinking. Many respondents said this campaign needed to start from primary school and be teamed with graphic advertising in the media—I like the ads that are running at the moment—like those used with the antismoking campaigns. Twenty-five per cent of respondents believed lifting the alcopop tax was ineffective, while a further 12.9 per cent believed it could not be stopped anyway. I am not surprised by those results. The respondents were very open and honest with me in their responses and I am going to make sure that the Minister for Health and Ageing receives a copy of this. I hope that it can be used to enlighten young people, older people and people in the industry about some of the thoughts of young people in my electorate with regard to binge drinking, particularly in terms of the alcopop tax. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 8 pm, the debate is interrupted. 9994 20:00:00 House adjourned at 8.00 pm 9994 Notices The following notices were given: 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr Swan to present a bill for an act to establish the COAG Reform Fund, and for other purposes. (COAG Reform Fund Bill 2008) YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner to present a bill for an act about the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund, and for other purposes. (Nation-building Funds Bill 2008) YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner to present a bill for an act to deal with consequential matters arising from the enactment of the Nation-building Funds Act 2008, and for other purposes. (Nation-building Funds (Consequential Amend-ments) Bill 2008) 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard to present a bill for an act to establish the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, and for related purposes. (Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008) YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr Combet 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 Super Hornet Facilities Project, RAAF Base Amberley, QLD. 2008-10-22 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 9995 Constituency Statements 9995 9995 09:30:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to present a petition on behalf of one of my constituents, Maureen Ralston. The petition has been considered by the Standing Committee on Petitions and is certified as being in accordance with standing orders. Mrs Ralston currently lives in East Bunbury, in the south-west of Western Australia. She and many others like her are struggling to make ends meet, with the constant rises in their daily costs of living—in fuel, food and rent. She is very concerned that in Bunbury the inflation of rental accommodation is making it increasingly difficult for those in the unfortunate position of having to rely on support payments from Centrelink to be able to pay their rent. The petition calls on the government to revise the legislation governing rent assistance to allow a greater amount to be paid to assist in paying for the accommodation of those in this position and, as a consequence, help reduce homelessness in Australia. Rent is rising above the CPI. The CPI is currently 4.1 per cent and rent is 7.1 per cent, and rent in my area can be at least 50 per cent of people’s social security or Newstart payments. I know of people in my electorate who are paying 65 per cent of their Newstart payments in rent. Paying 30 per cent of income in rent is considered ‘rental stress’. A WA Business News survey from August 2008 found that demand for WA rental properties was amongst the highest nationally, with 36 per cent of property managers stating there was a shortfall of more than 10 per cent in total stock. WA also had the highest proportion of managers reporting rent increases during the past six months, with one-fifth of those surveyed raising rents by more than 21 per cent. Most respondents said that rents were likely to increase by up to 10 per cent over the next six months, which makes Mrs Ralston’s petition even more relevant to those on fixed incomes. Local Bunbury real estate agent LJ Hooker advised that rental demand is currently a lot higher than five years ago, that rental prices for $200,000 properties have increased to $300 a week and that rentals of $250 to $300 per week are extremely hard to find. Potential renters call in every day looking for rental properties, but these are snapped up, usually on a weekly basis. We have seen a large influx of workers to the area, attracted by the large expansion projects particularly in the mining sector. These workers are paying premium rental prices, much higher than the locals can afford and certainly much higher than those on Newstart can afford. I thank Mrs Ralston for recognising this problem within the community, for being prepared to try to do something about it and for making time to put this petition together, spending many hours securing the signatures that go with it. It is always very easy to know that there is a problem but far more difficult to be prepared to be part of the answer. Mrs Ralston is trying to be part of this answer. I present the petition. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This is the petition of certain citizens of Australia Draws to the attention of the House: The inflation of rental accommodation is making it increasingly difficult for those in the unfortunate position of having to rely on an income support payment from Centrelink to be able to afford to pay their rent. We therefore ask the House to: Revise the legislation governing Rent Assistance to allow a greater amount to be paid to assist in paying for the accommodation of those in this position and as a consequence help reduce homelessness in Australia from 483 citizens Petition received. 9996 9996 09:33:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —The wonderful organisation Barnardos operates the only after-school and vacation care program for 25 children in the suburb of Warrawong in my electorate. That area is classified as highly disadvantaged, servicing the postcode areas of 2502 and 2505 in the Throsby electorate. Warrawong appears on the New South Wales list of highly disadvantaged areas, which was produced by the Jesuits in their recent research study. The OOSH service at Warrawong has been in operation since 1994. It has been at the point of closure each year that I have represented the electorate. As it is a highly disadvantaged area, the program currently receives block funding and not CCB, as the block funding has become a more financially viable option. Regrettably, other local services provided by Barnardos South Coast have been forced to close because of financial viability problems. For example, the Berkeley OOSH service, which was CCB funded, closed in 2006. Barnardos have struggled to maintain the after-school and vacation care program at Warrawong, committing around $145,000 of their own funds this year to remain viable. This commitment has been the situation for a decade and is now beyond the resources of the organisation. These financial problems have seen 141 childcare places handed back since 2004 in this very disadvantaged area. Every time Barnardos South Coast have marginally raised fees parents have withdrawn children from the service. Currently the fees are $9 per session for after school care and $13.50 for vacation care. Even with these modest fees, the vacancy rate is around 30 per cent. On budgetary projections, Barnardos estimate that they would require recurrent funding in the order of $260,000 per year, with a contribution from both federal and state governments to remain viable. I have raised this issue with the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services because I believe that the forced closure of this service on financial grounds would be totally at odds with Labor’s commitment to a social inclusion agenda. The parliamentary secretary recently visited Barnados at Warrawong and I think he knows of the wonderful commitment of the staff in providing early intervention and support for children in need. 9996 9996 09:35:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —This weekend I have the honour of going to French Island to attend the annual general meeting of the French Island Community Association. I have the role of election monitor for the election of the committee. This is the second such honour I have had in my life. The first was as Australia’s chief electoral observer in Cambodia. I fully expect that the French Island elections will be less controversial and somewhat more friendly. However, what I want to do on French Island in paying respect to the hopes, aspirations and sense of community, which comes from the 70 permanent residents and the 100 part-time residents, is to work with them on a French Island sustainability vision. I think that the vision needs three elements. These are the elements on which I want to work with the islanders. Firstly, we need to have a long-term invasive species plan to ensure that we have protection against animals such as foxes to make sure that the quarantine situation on the island is maintained. The islanders have played a fantastic role. They have kept French Island a pristine environment. We need to make sure on the plant-life side that Phytophthora continues to be kept off the island. We have a fine native species arrangement on French Island. It is a constant plan and we need to ensure that French Island Landcare is properly and adequately funded. They do a great job, they need the support and we need the 30-year invasive species plan. Secondly, we need to ensure that the French Island marine environment is maintained. In particular, Western Port has a seagrass loss issue. We need a Western Port and a French Island seagrass recovery plan. I have offered to work with the Dolphin Research Institute, with the Mornington Peninsula and the Western Port Biosphere Reserve and also with the French Island Community Association to that end. Thirdly, we need to have a community development plan. That means to ensure, whether it is the Perseverance Primary School, the French Island CFA, the craft group or the book club, that we have in place long-term community support. I will work with both the islanders and the Victorian government to make sure that there is adequate funding. It is a unique environment and a wonderful island. It has been maintained as a sanctuary both culturally in terms of community harmony and environmentally, but we need a 30-year vision for French Island’s sustainability. (Time expired) 9997 9997 09:39:00 McKew, Maxine, MP BP4 Bennelong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare 1 0 Ms McKEW —In any given week in this building there are numerous presentations and events that are designed to focus the attention of all members. I have to say that one of the most arresting events I have attended this year was yesterday’s launch of a national Report card on the wellbeing of Australia’s children. The Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth tracks the physical and behavioural wellbeing of our children. Their data shows a very mixed picture. While Australia can take pride in the country’s immunisation rate, when we look at other indicators the red light is certainly flashing. As Professor Fiona Stanley said yesterday, ‘If this were the Olympics, we wouldn’t be bringing home any medals.’ She went on to point out some of the report card’s main findings. When it comes to infant mortality, Australia is in the bottom third of OECD countries and the rate for Indigenous Australians is more than double the non-Indigenous rate. Low birth weight figures are much higher than the best international data and, again, as Professor Stanley pointed out, birth weight is one of the most important predictors of healthy infant development. The rate of Indigenous teen pregnancies, again, is five times the national average. To be blunt: this means that babies are having babies. It means that young girls are having their education interrupted at a critical time in their young lives. These are awful statistics but not a surprise to many of us who work on policies for young children. I was particularly taken by the comments of one of the alliance’s directors, Tim Goodwin, who said, ‘It’s time we modelled success, not failure.’ I want to endorse that. I was recently in the Northern Territory and I spent some time with the Pirlangimpi community on the Tiwi Islands. I was accompanied by the Territory’s education minister, Marion Scrymgour. Really, it is a visit I will never forget. I met many beautiful, lively children, concerned parents and hardworking teachers. Classrooms from preschool through to primary were lovely, inviting places, and the students were clothed in smart uniforms and just sitting there ready to learn. Small things are making a difference. There is carpet on the floors of the classrooms. Of course, this is helping to alleviate harsh noise and it is aiding auditory response with Indigenous children. But alongside that picture there are the depressing facts that only 12 per cent of these lovely children are reaching the benchmarks for literacy and numeracy. It means that those children at Pirlangimpi will not have the same choices as children in my electorate of Bennelong—to go to TAFE, to go to university, to take their place in a diverse 21st century world. This for me is at the heart of the education revolution. Those who diminish this notion I do not think understand or perhaps have bothered to inform themselves of the wide range of policies the Rudd government are committed to. Our entire policy focus I think is revolutionary because it starts with very young children. Long before a child hits preschool— (Time expired) 9998 9998 09:42:00 Farmer, Patrick, MP 00AMO Macarthur LP 0 0 Mr FARMER —Today I want to speak about a vision, a vision I have had for a number of years and since I have come into this place. People in Western Sydney, in particular at Badgerys Creek, are inhibited from realising their full potential. The people out at Badgerys Creek have had their lives on hold for over 30 years because of planning laws associated with a proposed airport being built there or not being built there. From time to time they have put in proposals to do extensions so they can have a second family in their homes—so their children can live in their homes—realise the value of their homes, sell their homes and maybe buy an education for their kids at university or do something else. But, unlike many other Australians in this country, they are unable to do this. They are unable to do this because of simple planning laws that have been put in place by both the federal and state governments and the local councils. As a consequence, their lives are on hold. They live in a house that they can do nothing with and they live on property they can do nothing with. My vision, which I put forward to the government before the last election and have been harping on about for a long time, is that we actually allow them to do something with their properties. We are either going to or not going to build an airport there. If we are not going to build an airport there then we need this to be translated through to local council and the state government so that they can change their planning laws and these people can get on with their lives. I suggested that the second airport be at either Williamstown airport in Newcastle or in Canberra—with the Canberra airport becoming a truly international airport—linked by a very fast train. The money to pay for this infrastructure would come from the sale of the Badgerys Creek property. As a result of that, benefits would go to not only the people of Sydney, by there being a second Sydney airport, but also the people of either Canberra or Williamstown. I know these things have been flagged in the past and many people have spoken about them, but the bottom line is that there has been absolutely no action on this issue—no action by past governments and no action by this government on this issue. I have relayed this message to the transport minister before this date on numerous occasions and still we see no action. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you and I plead with the people of this House to please understand the case of the people living on these properties. Please let us see some action on these vital infrastructure programs so that we can see some growth in Western Sydney, a reversal of the traffic trends heading from Western Sydney into Sydney and some realisation of the potential of the people and the properties in Western Sydney. Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to please help me, work with me and work with your colleagues to try and push this issue forward so that the people in those areas, the people of Western Sydney, can realise the true potential that this place has to offer for them. (Time expired) 9999 9999 09:45:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I want to take this opportunity in the Main Committee to talk about something I have been doing in my electorate for the last 10 years. It is interesting that the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport is here as well. Each year in my electorate we have conducted an SRC meeting, where we invite high school students from the secondary schools within my electorate to come and meet with me. Traditionally it is the SRC representatives. We invite the students to come and talk with other students from different schools about the issues that are of concern to them. It is always very useful for me to hear the things that are uppermost in young people’s minds. When I was first elected—at the same time as Deputy Speaker Burke—I was at the younger end of the spectrum of MPs but nevertheless even at that time I was already twice the age of these years 11 and 12 students. Over my 10 years of being in parliament of course that gap has increased. But the issues that the students persistently raise are very interesting, and those that change have been interesting too, and that is what I want to draw to the attention of the House. Every year the students have been incredibly focused on education, in particular on the cost of education and on their view that living in the western suburbs of Melbourne and attending schools where there is a great variety of family incomes puts them very much under pressure about the costs of going on to further education. That has always—every year and without doubt—been the top priority. Certainly, it is a reminder of how many bright young people there are, of how inquisitive they are, of the sorts of ideas that they have for the future and of how, despite being a little bit worried about education opportunities, they have a real sense of optimism that they will be able to contribute significantly. What was interesting to me this year was that students were focused on street violence, an issue that has had increased attention in our media but in the local community has been highlighted particularly after the very brutal bashing of a highly respected doctor known to many of us here, Dr Mukesh Haikerwal. They were not as concerned as they have been in past years about illicit drug use in schools. They were concerned about binge drinking and safety on the trains. They had lots of suggestions about local transport issues. I found it very useful to see these issues from their perspective. Their concern about safety was as acute as their parents’ concerns. Our determination to do something about binge drinking but also many other issues was supported by them. I want to thank the students for coming and reporting their views. This year the forum was represented by students from Williamstown High School, Bayside Secondary College, Mount St Joseph’s Girls College, Braybrook College and Gilmore Girls College. Each year I find it very useful to record their views. (Time expired) 10000 10000 09:48:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to highlight the need for increased investment in regional infrastructure to assist economic development and help withstand the job losses that are predicted to flow from the global financial crisis. I take the opportunity while the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport is in the room to highlight a project in the Wellington Shire with which she is familiar. The Wellington Shire Council is well advanced on a plan to relocate outdoor netball courts and establish a multisports venue in Sale. During the Gippsland by-election campaign a community rally was attended by several hundred people, and I am aware of a petition being prepared with the simple message: ‘give us five’. The community is clearly saying, ‘Give us $5 million and help us get on with the job of building better facilities.’ The project is well advanced and it has the financial backing of state and local governments. All it needs is a commitment from the federal government in the future. The Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport visited Gippsland during the by-election campaign. She appears to be a passionate advocate for the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, particularly for young people. I urge the minister to put in a good word for the people of Gippsland and help to make the case for $5 million to develop this outstanding project in the Sale community. At a time when the unemployment rate is trending in the wrong direction, many Gippslanders are concerned about the economic outlook. The small business and tourism sectors, which are such critical elements of the Gippsland economy, are facing uncertain times. It is against this backdrop that I have supported the $10.4 billion economic stimulus package from the Rudd government in the belief that it will help to kick-start the regional economy. The job is by no means complete. The one-off bonuses do buy some time but there still need to be permanent increases in these support payments. The job is still not done in terms of investing in improved regional infrastructure. I read with interest in the Australian this week that the government was planning to fast-track up to $600 million of spending on small infrastructure projects. I agree with the basic premise of the plan that the short lead times for smaller regional projects mean the work can begin almost immediately, but $600 million will not be enough. Since the current government abolished the Regional Partnerships program, there has been a vacuum in regional areas in terms of opportunities to access major project funding. I am not seeking a debate about the merits of the previous program other than to say there were many excellent projects completed in the Gippsland electorate. I strongly urge the government to move quickly and consult with local government, which is best placed, I believe, to deliver these projects in the future. In my electorate, the Wellington Shire, the East Gippsland Shire and Latrobe City each have a range of projects that could come online immediately. I close my comments with a quote from the President of the Australian Local Government Association, Mr Paul Bell: In many cases, this is spending we have had to continually defer, so this money could hit the ground very, very quickly. It would boost local economies and replace and maintain the kind of infrastructure that really provides the glue for these communities. Investing in regional infrastructure will help local communities to withstand the worst of the global financial crisis and I encourage the government to act quickly in this regard. 10001 10001 09:51:00 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 0 Ms KATE ELLIS —I rise today to speak about Catherine House, an organisation located in my electorate that provides accommodation and, in turn, comfort and support for women in crisis in South Australia. It is important to recognise the services and work of such an organisation as it addresses challenges in our society that some would rather turn a blind eye to. Established in 1988 by the Sisters of Mercy, Catherine House helps over 700 women every year and refers an average of 56 women to their emergency accommodation program every month. Catherine House provides the only supported accommodation service in South Australia for women over 21 who do not have children and have become homeless for reasons other than domestic violence. On 8 October this year, I was honoured to be invited to share in the 20th birthday celebrations of Catherine House. These celebrations represent a time to pay tribute to all that Catherine House has achieved in its 20 years of service to South Australian women—work that has made a difference to the lives of thousands of women, often at the time of their absolute greatest need. Clients of Catherine House include women with a range of what are both complex and, at times, overlapping issues. These range from domestic violence to mental illness and also include relationship breakdown, family breakdown and substance abuse. The services Catherine House provides for these women are indispensable. They include 16 houses, one emergency house and 15 transitional houses, located in Adelaide’s inner city, that house up to 48 clients per night. Their emergency supported accommodation program houses and works with up to 16 clients at a time. Some of these clients will stay in the program for up to a month, while those within the transitional supported accommodation program may stay for approximately 6½ months. Particular commendation should be made of the 40 staff members and more than 80 volunteers who make Catherine House’s work possible. I particularly pay tribute to Madge McGuire, the director at Catherine House, and to all of the truly amazing and truly unsung heroes of our community who support the work there. Their dedication, hard work and generosity of spirit make an enormous difference in the lives of the people they serve and they continue to make a significant contribution to the Adelaide community. I would like to acknowledge all those involved with Catherine House, from their dedicated staff and volunteers to the ordinary Australian families who support their fundraising efforts. This is a truly remarkable South Australian organisation, and I commend its achievements to the parliament and wish it happy 20th birthday celebrations. 10001 10001 09:54:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —I want to speak about the shortage of doctors in the electorate of Boothby. First of all I would like to say that my wife and I were very happy to go to the Pink Ribbon Ball on Saturday, 11 October. This is a fundraiser that is held specifically to assist breast cancer research at Flinders Medical Centre, the major public hospital in my electorate. It started originally as the Lyn Wrigley Ball. Lyn sadly died too young when her life was taken by breast cancer. Her family continued with the Lyn Wrigley Foundation to raise money to support the cause of breast cancer research. The Pink Ribbon Ball raised over $200,000 and this will go towards building the Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, which will be a very important facility at Flinders Medical Centre. But the issue that I rise to speak on today is the shortage of general practitioners in particular in my electorate of Boothby. My electorate is classified as being between inner metropolitan and outer suburban—parts are inner metropolitan and parts are outer suburban. In my electorate, which has a very high proportion of elderly Australians—of seniors—we have a very high workload for our general practitioners. I am aware of several practices in the suburbs in the western part of my electorate, where they do have a very high caseload, that are unable to find anyone to join them. One of the issues is that these suburbs are not classified by the department as areas of need. Where once the shortages were in regional Australia, now we are seeing shortages in outer suburban areas—something we have seen growing over the last 12 years. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! There being no quorum, I will resume the chair at 10 am. Sitting suspended from 9.56 am to 10.00 am (Quorum formed) A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 10.02 am to 10.20 am 10002 10002 10:20:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —This week is Carers Week, and it is time to recognise the vital role our carers play in our community and to acknowledge the enormous personal and financial sacrifices carers make. Carers provide unpaid care to support family members and friends who have disabilities, mental illnesses, chronic conditions and terminal illnesses or who are frail. In fact, more than one in eight Australians provide care of this kind. Carers Week was established to promote and raise awareness of the valuable role that carers play in our society. It also provides the opportunity for carers to come together, support one another and share ideas and information. Carers Week has continued to grow each year, which is a reflection of the increased recognition of the role that carers play throughout our community. Carers are the unsung heroes, and the government recognises and values their incredible devotion, service, sacrifice and hard work. Carers across Australia will receive immediate financial relief as part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy. This will come in the form of a one-off payment to carer payment and carer allowance recipients. The government’s package will deliver these one-off payments to 130,000 carer payment recipients and 470,000 carer allowance recipients right across this country. Singles on carer payments will receive $1,400 and couples will receive $2,100, while carer allowance recipients will get $1,000 for each eligible person being cared for. In my electorate of Werriwa alone, this will provide financial relief to 594 singles receiving carer payments, 1,161 couples receiving carer payments, 1,334 single carer allowance recipients and 2,979 couple carer allowance recipients. We must support the people who need it most. This belief is based not only on a sense of social responsibility but also on the understanding that the work that carers do in our community quite frankly is good and essential work. In the limited time I have left I would like to mention Vicki Meadows, who works for me. Her daughter, Melissa, is severely autistic, and I know firsthand what Vicki experiences as a carer. I am very fortunate to have Vicki working in my office. Unfortunately, in the south-west of Sydney we have a disproportionate number of people with a disability. One of the things that Vicki brings in working in my office is to show that we actually do care. We do not fob people off; we actually try to work with the Commonwealth, state and local government authorities to ensure that people with disabilities and their carers are assisted wherever possible. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 10003 Bills R3087 Cognate bill: 10003 Bills R3086 10003 Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Ms Plibersek: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Morrison moved by way of amendment: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “while not declining to give this bill a second reading, the House calls on the Government to make such amendments to the National Rental Affordability Scheme as would: provide for incentives to be given on a sliding scale to take account of the different development and land costs in different locations; provide for successful applicants to transfer their tax offsets on a once only basis to project financiers in return for a lower cost of funds, including providing such tax offsets to not for profit entities for this purpose; require that State and Territory governments match the incentives provided by the Commonwealth under the Scheme; extend project eligibility criteria to include conversions to affordable housing from existing residential stock, particularly where such projects involve substantial redevelopment to provide for specific needs groups such as aged or disabled accommodation; extend the upper level income limits for tenant income eligibility criteria by 30 per cent in each band to ensure greater access for key workers and those seeking to save to buy their first homes; provide ‘as of right’ eligibility for the Federal Government’s solar panel rebate and solar hot water rebate schemes; and extend the establishment phase criteria that approximately 20 per cent of incentives be available for projects of not less than 20 dwellings, to the entire Scheme”. 10003 10:24:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I rise to speak in support of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I well recall that, in the lead-up to the 2007 election, housing was a key issue. That was not surprising given that there had been 10 interest rate rises in a row, inflation was running at something like a 16-year all-time high, the costs of living were increasing month by month and housing itself, over the period between 1984 and 2006, had increased by almost 500 per cent, according to Real Estate Institute of Australia data. So it was clearly the case that owning their own home was becoming more and more difficult for more and more people. An interesting observation in all of that was the age at which home buyers were buying their first own home. About 25 years ago the average age was 27 years. At the turn of the century and the years that followed, the average age crept up to 32 years, and I suspect it is still rising. This is not because people want to buy their own homes when they get older but simply because homeownership has become so difficult for them. The National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 is in fact another key Rudd government housing policy initiative. It is one of a number of initiatives that include special tax benefits for people who set money aside for their homes and money to assist with infrastructure costs in local communities. This bill also provides funds directly to those people who want to invest in homes that will then be provided to the community at rental prices 20 per cent below the market price. The intent is to create an additional 50,000 new rental properties across Australia over the next four years, and 50,000 new homes across Australia will make a significant difference in meeting Australia’s housing needs and will certainly make a significant difference to the lives of those people who are struggling to put a roof over their head. According to a BIS Shrapnel assessment, as of 30 June Australia was some 56,500 homes short of what it needs to house our population. According to other estimates, there are over 100,000 people who are homeless and 170,000 people on public housing waiting lists. Some of those people will probably never get into public housing because, by the time they move up the queue, they are likely to have made other arrangements. Under this bill, the intent is to provide $6,000 of Commonwealth funds, complemented by $2,000 of state and territory governments funds or the equivalent in value, to investors who rent out houses to low- and moderate-income households at, as I said earlier, 20 per cent below market rates. The $6,000 incentive will be provided each year for a 10-year period and will be indexed in line with the rental component of the CPI and will be provided in the form of a refundable tax credit or grant. It is estimated that about 1.1 million households are experiencing housing stress, and 700,000 of these are in rental accommodation. One of the reasons so many people are renting is simply that they cannot afford to buy their own home. That, in turn, drives up the rental market, with rental vacancies in most capital cities now at two per cent or below. In turn, that enables landlords to increase their rent. It becomes a vicious circle because, as the rents increase, the ability of tenants to save the necessary deposit for their own home diminishes. Industry estimates are that about 60 per cent of young people will never be able to own their own home. Creating an additional 50,000 homes will therefore have the flow-on benefit of housing people who presently do not have a roof over their head. It will make rental prices more affordable, for those who need to rent, by easing the demand for rental homes. Lower rental prices will, in turn, allow hopeful potential homeowners to save more money so that they can ultimately buy their own home. For those people who are on low or moderate incomes, it will of course mean that, firstly, they will benefit from a lowering of the rental price across the market and, secondly, because the rent will be 20 per cent less than the market price, the net reduction in rental price is therefore likely to be greater than 20 per cent. If you have downward pressure on home rental prices, that brings down the average rental price. If you then deduct a further 20 per cent from that, it means that the net benefit is certainly worth while to those people who will be renting. Of course, the announcement last week that the Rudd government will increase the first home owners grant from $7,000 to $14,000 and to $21,000 for newly constructed homes will boost the construction of new homes and that in turn will place downward pressure on rental charges, therefore indirectly bringing down home rental costs even further. Coupled with the reductions we have seen in bank interest rates the increase in the first home owners grant now means that home ownership is possible for so many Australians who were beginning to think that their aspirations of owning their own homes might never be achieved. These bills are part of a $2.2 billion housing package announced by the Rudd Labor government. It is a package announced because we on this side of the House understand the importance of people owning their own homes. As I said in a previous debate on housing, when people own their own homes it creates community spirit because people settle down, they become part of their local community and they contribute to their local community. It creates stability not only for their own households but for the community in which they live in a general sense. That in turn leads to a stable home life for the children of the parents who live in those homes. The measures that the Rudd government announced as part of the $2.2 billion package have been welcomed by the housing industry generally. It is important to note that the figures suggest that the industry provides something like 20 per cent of Australia’s gross domestic product and incorporates over one million housing related businesses. The housing industry sector creates jobs for tens of thousands of people directly and thousands more indirectly. Building homes is one of the most effective ways of stimulating the economy and so, in these times of economic uncertainty, the housing measures contained in these bills, combined with other measures announced by the Rudd government, could not come at a more needed time. Of course, had the Howard government not cut funds to the states under the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement many of these measures might not be needed today. Public housing numbers have declined over the last decade but the blame does not lie solely with the state governments. The federal government has a responsibility when it comes to housing, yet the previous Howard government cut public housing funding. So little importance did the Howard government place on housing that they did not even have a minister for housing in their ministry. I want to touch on one section of our community that is particularly affected when it comes to housing, and that is many of the older people within our community. In the year 2007, $1.4 billion was spent on aged-care construction in Australia, a rise of 38 per cent on the year 2006, with most of that expenditure taking place in the states of South Australia and Tasmania because they are the two fastest ageing states in Australia. Developers like Lend Lease and Stockland are positioning themselves for growth in retirement villages. Retirement villages certainly provide an opportunity for many older people in our community to move into more appropriate accommodation. Quite often, as people get older, they physically do not have the ability to maintain their own homes. Sometimes the homes that they live in are too large for their needs; their children have left home and they simply do not need the size of the house that they live in. But often the case is also that the homes that they are living in are the same homes that they have been living in for years and years, perhaps homes built in the fifties and sixties, which are in need of upgrade and renovation. The value of their homes, because of the state in which their homes are in, is not sufficient to allow them on selling their homes to move into one of the new, more modern retirement village homes that are available. It puts many old people in a very difficult situation, particularly those old people who are single because their partner has passed away. In particular, take the example of an elderly widow. Her partner has passed on and she is clearly incapable of carrying out the maintenance. The house becomes more run down and in turn loses more value. She is in a bind where she cannot afford to pay for the maintenance costs because she is probably on a pension and she cannot afford to get out of the house because it will not raise sufficient funds to allow her to move into a retirement home. We need to ensure that those people are also provided with an opportunity to move from the home that they are in to a more appropriate home for their needs. In respect of that, when I was the mayor of Salisbury before I was elected to this place, I proposed a scheme whereby there would be joint equity ownership in a housing development that was to take place in the city. The intent was that the local council, who did have some land surplus to its requirements, would make the land available, the house would be built at the expense of the new owner and then they would both share in the ownership of it under an arrangement in which both would end up making any gains out of capital increases in future years. That was specifically promoted, firstly, to assist young people who could not get into their own homes and, secondly, to assist elderly people who were trying to move out of the home they were in but simply could not afford to buy into a new retirement village home. This would give them the opportunity to put their capital—the value of their home—into another property without losing any capital increase that might accrue in the years ahead. From my last contact with the council, I understand that they are still progressing through that scheme, and I am certainly very keen to see it occur because I believe it is another option that could be looked at. Councils across Australia might wish to do something similar once the model is put in place by the City of Salisbury. The other matter I wish to speak on is the fact that some 800,000 homes around Australia are one-person households. These are sometimes the houses that I was alluding to just a moment ago: houses where single elderly people are living. I will provide some information on this very issue. There are at least 793,650 three- or more bedroom dwellings in Australia in which only one person resides, according to Australian census data for 2006. Single person households are projected to show the greatest increase and families of couples with children the least. So we are going to see an increase in the number of single person households—an increase to the tune of about 75 per cent, I understand—and households with children in them are only going to increase by about five per cent. The current major influences include population ageing, the growing incidence of family breakdown, the declining birth rate, more people remaining single and young adults staying at home for longer. Some of these factors encourage household formation and some work against it. However, overall these trends are increasing the demand for housing. According to ABS projections for the growth of households, families and population from 2001 to 2026, the highest growth in family types will be of couples without children—they will grow by about 62 per cent—with lone parent family growth estimated to be the second-highest at 42.2 per cent. Embedded in the one person per household phenomenon are serious social, economic and environmental implications. More than 40 per cent of the single person households have people between the ages of 35 years and 54 years, with 30 per cent being between the ages of 55 years and 74 years. Governments have an obligation to explore policies that can meet compelling needs such as housing and make the best use of resources. Having nearly 800,000 homes that have only one person is very wasteful from a housing stock perspective. Having done all that research, in a recent meeting with some residents in my electorate this very issue was raised with me by some elderly people. They said: ‘Look, we have a home. We are the sole occupants of this home. We would dearly love to be able to make better use of our home provided there were some incentives for us to do so, or perhaps no penalties when we do so, so that if we take in or receive any income from renting out our home our pension is not reduced.’ So there is an opportunity, if we know that we face a housing shortage, to make better use of those 800,000 homes. Certainly it will be the case that not all of the people who own those homes will want to do anything more with them than remain single occupants. But I suspect that there are many people who would welcome the opportunity with the right kind of encouragement and incentive to share their homes with some of the people that are homeless today. As I said at the outset, this bill is one of a number of measures taken by the Rudd Labor government to ensure that all Australians can ultimately own their own home. It is a bill which, I believe, makes an important contribution to both home ownership and those people who perhaps do not want to own their own home and for a whole range of reasons may not aspire to owning their own home but have to pay rent. This bill will ensure that their rent is reduced by 20 per cent. It is my estimate that the figure will be lower than 20 per cent because the combination of all of the measures implemented by this government will bring housing rental prices down. Therefore the 20 per cent bottom line will be greater than that. I commend the legislation to the House. 10007 10:41:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. Professor Julian Disney, the Director of the Social Justice Project at the University of New South Wales, said in an essay in 2008—and he was referring to affordable housing: Without it, people are impoverished, families and communities eroded, jobs lost and the economy weakened and the environment damaged. Hundreds of thousands of Australians are living in housing that they cannot afford. Julian Disney in his essay pointed out that perhaps a greater number are hidden victims of this crisis. These people can only find affordable housing by living long distances from work, family and friends, often on the urban outskirts of metropolitan areas and in neighbouring rural communities. These regions particularly lack infrastructure, ready access to health and adequate schooling facilities. In part, the geography and history of our settlement in this country have concentrated our populations around the major capital cities—particularly Sydney and Melbourne and, more lately, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide. With the exceptions of Geelong, Newcastle and the Illawarra region, my home state of Queensland, which is the most decentralised state in the country, has in South-East Queensland one in seven people living in the country. The South-East Queensland Regional Plan 2005-2026 of the Queensland state Labor government is a great document because it is about managing growth in South-East Queensland and it is a great fillip for my local community of Ipswich and its rural outskirts. It is in those areas that most of the growth in South-East Queensland will occur in the next 20 years. When people in our country cannot find affordable housing in the cities they pay a disproportionate cost for transport. They pay higher petrol prices than those who live in cities, who often use public transport which is readily available. I know that the people in my area, in particular the Lockyer Valley and the Boonah shire, readily commute to Ipswich, to Toowoomba and to Brisbane—long distances—to get to work. That puts pressure on families. In my area the supply of rental housing is not sufficient. It simply is not sufficient to cope with the growth in population. And demand is acute, as people are spilling over into Ipswich and beyond as the Sunshine Coast, the Gold Coast and Brisbane fill up. That means that the price of housing has increased for first home owners and others and that the cost of rent has risen dramatically. The lack of affordable housing in my area and nationally was aggravated by the previous Howard government’s almost ideological aversion to public housing, and it is by the area of public housing that the Howard government are most disgraced and most shamed. Privatisation was their mantra. Discussions I had with a number of people in the public housing sector in Queensland and particularly the Labor government’s housing minister, Robert Schwarten, have shown me quite clearly the great frustration they had in getting the ear of government and an adequate response in terms of funding. Perhaps the deinstitutionalisation of people with mental health problems and other disabilities further aggravated the crisis; certainly, in the area of Ipswich—the Challinor Centre there was closed—that is the case. Often for the families in my area a second job is absolutely required to afford adequate housing. It is common to find single-income and single-person dwellings in our inner cities, such as in Brisbane, but most Australians with partners and children must work longer hours to meet the cost of living, to adequately clothe their children, to pay for their schooling and to meet their health needs, and so they live a long way from their places of work and that puts enormous pressure on family life. The stress on relationships can be severe. Simply getting the children to school and to extracurricular activities is a real challenge—and I pay tribute to grandparents, who so often seem to help in that regard. If you do not believe me, have a look at any public school in my area between 3 pm and 3.30 pm every day. It is common in the federal electorate of Blair for people to have to travel about 1.5 hours to work in Brisbane each day. That is three hours of the day taken out of family life, with the consequent cost to recreation and civic and community life. And so our schools, our churches and our sporting and cultural clubs also suffer. Social inclusion suffers accordingly. Tragically, the many warnings about the developing housing crisis in this country were ignored by the Howard government. The National Rental Affordability Scheme contained in this legislation is a very cost-effective method of increasing the stock of housing. Insisting on a reduction in the rent by providers of housing will mean no inflationary impact on the rental market. In my electorate, according to the latest statistics, 8,889 households are renting and it is the case that there are 3,413 households in rental stress—paying in excess of 30 per cent of their household income on housing. That is a figure of 38.4 per cent. You can see what an impact any measure to reduce the cost of housing in terms of rent will have on my electorate. I have spoken to a number of real estate agents in my area, and there are many. They tell me that the cost of housing in my area has gone up dramatically. Despite the fact that there has been a decrease in prices in some of the major capital cities in this country, in Ipswich and the rural areas beyond somewhere between six and eight times the average weekly wage is needed to pay for a home. Typically, young couples are paying double what their parents paid in mortgage payments and rent, and that is sad. The Rudd Labor government has invested in its housing package $2.2 billion over the next four years. I warmly welcome these initiatives, most of which were contained in the budget. There was $1.2 billion mentioned in the budget to help new home buyers save for a deposit, there is $623 million to create 50,000 new rental properties through the National Rental Affordability Scheme contained in the legislation before this House and there is the $512 million Housing Affordability Fund to deliver in terms of new entry-level housing more homes more quickly and at less cost with improved supply. I am looking forward to the green loans, which will help hundreds of thousands of people and many in my area to improve the energy and water efficiency of their dwellings. An interesting thing that the Rudd government has done is allocate $30 million from the Housing Affordability Fund to fast-track the national rollout of a modern electronic development assessment system to replace the paper-based system. As someone who practised as a lawyer in his younger days and had to deal with the Registrar of Titles, various councils and other government bodies in Queensland, I assure you that using modern technology is a much improved way to do conveyancing and to establish new houses through the development process. To show just how important this sort of legislation is to my area a few facts are necessary. By 2026 the Ipswich area could have as many as 418,000 people living in it. At the moment there are 155,000 people living in Ipswich. Simply getting new homes approved is crucial. The Queensland Times, the only daily local newspaper in my area, reported on 2 July 2008: Up to 12,500 new homes need to be built over the next five years to cope with Ipswich’s growing population. Housing Industry Association (HIA) assistant director of Industry Policy Ben Phillips said based on the latest ABS demographic regional figures, between 2006-2007 Ipswich had a population growth rate of 3.55 per cent … The latest figures have shown that growth is now in excess of four per cent. That means that we simply need to approve new dwellings all the time in Ipswich. The article continues: Ipswich Mayor Paul Pisasale said the Ipswich Planning Scheme had the capacity to house about 500,000 people in designated urban areas … “Priority growth areas at present are Springfield, Redbank Plains, Bellbird Park, Raceview, Flinders View, Yamanto and Brassall … Brassall is the biggest suburb in my electorate. This all shows the need for more dwellings that people can buy and rent. In my area, on 18 September 2008, the weekly newspaper the Ipswich News reported that two new housing developments worth $1.3 billion are to add 3,400 homes to the Ipswich rental and home-purchasing market to capitalise on the city’s population boom. In the eastern part of my electorate, on School Road, there will be 1,400 new dwellings, which, when completed, will have a value of $500 million. The legislation before the House today goes hand in glove with our fight to ensure that the tragic problem of homelessness is addressed. I sincerely applaud the government’s announcement of $150 million to build 600 new homes for the homeless across the country. I have travelled around Ipswich with the Booval Community Service. The people there are hardworking and dedicated. They provide emergency relief and rental accommodation, with no-interest loans and loans of up to $800 for whitegoods for low-income earners. I recently had a meeting with the Ipswich Community Youth Service. It was a very sad meeting in many ways because I was told that the number of people availing themselves of their accommodation services and practical assistance has increased by up to three times in the last year. So you can see, in my area of Ipswich and the Lockyer Valley in Boonah just how important this legislation is. I note that the Minister for Housing in her second reading speech on the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill said: The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package, which will increase the supply of affordable rental homes, help people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and build new homes for homeless Australians. As former House of Representatives Speaker in the US Tip O’Neill said, all politics is local. This bill will have a huge impact in my local area. I warmly welcome the legislation. I do so as I also welcome the Economic Security Strategy of the Rudd Labor government and the increase in the first home owners grant to $14,000 to purchase an established home and $21,000 to purchase a newly constructed home. This, along with the other assistance in that package, will help 43,701 households in my electorate. It shows me, and I hope it will show the people of my electorate, that the Rudd Labor government is caring for the people of South-East Queensland and for the people of Ipswich and its rural surrounds. I warmly welcome the legislation and I commend it to the chamber. 10010 10:59:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise today to speak in favour of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and cognate bill. The National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 is part of the government’s response to the housing affordability crisis which is besetting our country. Two-thirds of the private rental market are devoting more than 30 per cent of their income to housing costs and the vacancy rate in most capital cities is below two per cent. This is not a problem that is going to go away. The Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute estimate that the total number of households in the private rental market in Australia will increase by 80 per cent in the next 40 years. The number of low-income households in the private rental market is expected to increase by 120 per cent over the same period. While the Australian housing market is much better capitalised than that in the United States and arrears rates on outstanding Australian loans are much lower than in most other countries, 1.1 million Australians are suffering from mortgage stress. The problem of housing affordability is very evident in my electorate of Isaacs. Mortgage stress data from the 2006 census shows that 5,141 households in Isaacs—or 30 per cent of all households in Isaacs with a mortgage—are spending more than 30 per cent of their income on housing costs. This is double the number of households that were in mortgage stress in Isaacs in 2001, when 17 per cent of all households in the electorate with a mortgage were under mortgage stress. In terms of rental accommodation, there are 3,318 renting households in Isaacs that spend more than 30 per cent of their income on rent—that is, 36.4 per cent of all renting households in the electorate and, with vacancy rates in Melbourne of one per cent, even if you can afford to rent, it can be extremely difficult just finding a property. In southern Melbourne, which includes Carrum Downs, Carrum, Chelsea, Edithvale, Aspendale Gardens and Chelsea Heights in my electorate, rents rose by 3.2 per cent in the last quarter. Rents are higher in inner Melbourne than in my electorate but they tend to be more stable and thus registered no quarterly change in March 2008. Rents in Isaacs, by contrast, outstripped both wages and inflation. Comparatively, people in my electorate are some of the hardest hit in Victoria. The largest rises throughout Victoria have occurred in two- and three-bedroom houses, substantially increasing the pressure on young families. As of March 2008, only 3.2 per cent of available one-bedroom dwellings were classed as affordable for low-income singles, so students and single or widowed pensioners have an especially difficult time finding affordable housing. Similarly, between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of private rent, low-income households in Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide are lone-person households or one-parent families. These families are twice as likely as the general population to live in flats. The national housing affordability scheme is a direct response to these trends. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is designed to make the development of apartments more attractive so that students, single age pensioners and one-parent households can find affordable apartments without being pushed out of metropolitan areas. The scheme will also stimulate growth, providing investors with a new type of investment in low-income housing. It will guarantee a supply of affordable rental properties by providing incentives for landlords to rent to low- and moderate-income groups at 20 per cent below the market rate. Under the scheme the Commonwealth will provide $6,000 per dwelling in refundable tax offsets or a direct payment, which will be matched by a $2,000 contribution from the state and territory governments. The incentive will be paid each year for 10 years and indexed to the rental components of the CPI. It will only be provided for new dwellings or dwellings that were previously uninhabitable and have been restored. Up to 1.5 million households who are currently in the low-rent housing market will, potentially, be beneficiaries of this scheme. This initiative builds on the increased cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states since November last year, especially the work done by the Council of Australian Governments Housing Working Group directed to better integration of federal and state housing policy initiatives. It will ensure the scheme results in new properties being released onto the market and does not simply subsidise homes that are already rented to low-income earners. If market demand remains strong, as seems very likely, the scheme will include a further 50,000 dwellings to be made available over five years from July 2012. This scheme will provide real incentives to developers to invest in an often neglected part of the property market. During the inquiry of the Senate Select Committee on Housing Affordability in Australia, the Australian Council of Social Service said of this scheme: We think that it is a big breakthrough, because it provides for the first time a real incentive for people to invest in low-income housing. I know from talking to developers both within my electorate and further afield, particularly in Melbourne, that they too believe that the National Rental Affordability Scheme will provide them with incentives which are not presently there to start projects that they might not otherwise have undertaken. The interest level that has been shown since the scheme was announced, the number of developers who have expressed interest in participating in the scheme, is in a very real sense evidence that the scheme is a well-pitched one and one which is likely to achieve its objective of providing a greater stock of housing in a part of the market that is presently woefully undersupplied. The action that this government is taking to address the issue of housing affordability is particularly significant at this time of global financial crisis. In contrast, the previous government had what can only be described as an abysmal record on this issue. In 1996, when more than one in 10 families were under mortgage stress, the coalition government abolished the position of housing minister. This issue was of such little importance to the coalition that in 1997-98 it cut $92.7 million from the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement based funding and, at the same time, put pressure on state governments to increase the rent for public housing. It did this at a time when working families were struggling to find affordable housing. The $622 million in the National Rental Affordability Scheme, as well as the $1.5 billion directed at housing objectives in the Economic Security Strategy announced by the Prime Minister last week, provides a very clear distinction between the Rudd government and the 11 years of neglect of the policy area of housing and housing affordability under the Howard government. This initiative is a fulfilment of a commitment at the 2007 election but, more than that, it is a key part of the decisive action that this country needs on housing affordability. It will have a large and timely impact on housing affordability in my electorate. I commend the bills to the House. 10012 11:08:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —The National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 will provide new principal legislation relating to the Australian government’s new National Rental Affordability Scheme. One of the bills will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to enable eligible entities participating in the scheme to claim a refundable tax offset. One of the bills will also ensure that state and territory contributions to entities participating in the scheme are non-assessable and non-exempt income for taxation purposes and that there are no capital gains tax consequences from the receipt of incentives under the scheme. The fiscal cost of the National Rental Affordability Scheme package is estimated at $622.6 million over four years, including administration costs. It is important that these bills are passed without delay to enable the first and second round calls for applications for National Rental Affordability Scheme incentives to have maximum effectiveness. The aim is also to provide certainty in relation to the taxation aspects of providing incentives to build affordable rental housing under the scheme. The object of the bills is to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. There will be a positive impact felt in rural and regional areas such as mine—particularly the northern areas of the New South Wales Central Coast—where incentives under the scheme support the building of affordable rental housing. The scheme encourages large-scale investment in affordable rental housing by offering an incentive to providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. The incentive comprises a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution in the form of direct financial support or in-kind contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year. The incentive can be a refundable tax offset or payment. The incentive will be provided each year for 10 years to complying participants and will be indexed in line with the rental component of the consumer price index. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package and will increase the supply of affordable rental homes. The package will also help people save for their first home. The package has also been designed to lower house infrastructure costs and build new homes for the homeless. What a contrast this bill and the approach by the Rudd government are to the previous government. The previous speaker, in his contribution to this debate, mentioned that one of the early actions of the Howard government on coming to office was to get rid of and no longer have a housing minister. We see there the complete contrast with one of the first things that the Rudd government did in responding to the pressures that people were under in terms of the affordability of housing: to make sure that we had a housing minister, someone who could drive policy in relation to this area and to make sure that people who were doing it tough and struggling to find affordable housing would have a minister who would be in their court, fighting for them and pushing forward policies make it easier for them to find a place that they can call home, a place that they can afford to live in. On the Central Coast of New South Wales, where the electorate of Dobell is, we have seen the availability of rental properties decrease quite alarmingly. Earlier this year, the rental availability rate dropped from 2.7 per cent to 1.8 per cent, nearly a whole percentage point, in just one month. You only have to look in the classifieds of the local newspapers or online to see that there is a definite shortage of houses to rent at an affordable rate. Dobell has a high rate of unemployment compared to the rest of New South Wales—in fact, the unemployment rate is almost double the national rate; we are at over 7½ per cent. Dobell also has the lowest median income per capita in the whole state of New South Wales. So we have a lack of affordable housing, we have a high rate of unemployment, which affects people’s incomes, and those who are earning an income are getting the lowest median income in the state. So, in my electorate, it is easy to understand why a lack of affordable rental housing puts extra pressure on families and particularly on low-income earners trying to find a place to live. Key emergency accommodation agencies in the region face a constant dilemma. Some have had to turn away three out of every four people who come to them for help. This is a very disturbingly high rate. A lot of these people in need simply cannot afford rental housing and for them emergency accommodation is the only hope they have of putting a roof over their heads, albeit a short-term solution. In terms of housing through the state government, the waiting list is now over 12 years for public housing in my area—12 years if you go through that scheme. 00AMO Farmer, Patrick, MP Mr Farmer interjecting— HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —We have an interjection from a colleague from the other side, talking about the state government. Well, we simply have to look at the record of the previous government in slashing the budget in relation to this area, which put greater pressure on the state government in terms of public housing. So the former government’s contribution to this area was indeed a negative one and made it even harder for the state government to provide the sorts of services they do provide. Compare that again to where we are today with the Rudd government: taking positive steps and putting forward proposals that actually meet the needs of people in my electorate who are seeking affordable housing. On the Central Coast it is still relatively cheap to rent when compared to, say, Western Sydney and many of the Sydney suburbs. You would have to add around $100 or $150 a week to rent a three-bedroom home in many parts of Sydney compared to the suburbs of the Central Coast. Still, for many people on lower incomes, paying $250 to $300 a week for a place to live is a lot of money out of their budget, given that we have the lowest median income in New South Wales. The low rental availability rates on the Central Coast are unlikely to reach the extremes of those in Sydney, but, because we are now considered to be one of the outer-metropolitan areas of that city and because one in three people work in the city, the Central Coast region is always going to be influenced by Sydney’s housing pressures. Solutions that assist the Sydney market clearly have a flow-on effect in the Central Coast. Just last month, the Real Estate Institute of New South Wales put out a media release highlighting growing evidence of ‘rental rage’. The institute said: The rental squeeze is now so bad that real estate agents are facing abuse and even threatening behaviour from prospective tenants who are unable to secure accommodation. The institute at the same time released the latest rental vacancies data which showed, over one month, no improvement whatsoever in the number of available rental properties in Sydney. Rental vacancies for August 2008 stood at 1.2 per cent, which was unchanged from July. One in three real estate agents who participated in the survey by the Real Estate Institute said that they or their staff had been threatened or abused over the phone by potential tenants within the last month. And, in an indication of just how strong demand is for rental properties, nine out of 10, or 90 per cent, of those surveyed said they received between five and 10 applications for every rental property. The institute also highlighted the disparity between demand and supply, citing figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics which showed Sydney’s population growing at more than 1,400 people per week, almost double the number of rental properties available at the time, which was just 739. Some of the more extreme examples of rental rage reported by institute members included constant abuse from irate prospective tenants; tenants making threats and abusing real estate office staff as a result of having their applications rejected; abuse happening on a daily basis; and tenants abusing staff because of increasing rents. One client who was in arrears threatened to hang himself in a house if he was evicted, as that would ensure no-one else would want to live in it. There was a further example of a tenant harassing reception desk staff so much that police had to be called. These are symptoms of a market that clearly is causing so much stress for people who are seeking either to find a house to live in or to afford to remain in the house they are renting. The Real Estate Institute of New South Wales has drawn the conclusion that it is clear that much of the rental rage is being generated by the rental vacancy crisis which continues to grip the state. According to the institute, prospective tenants have become so desperate to secure a property that institute members have been offered bribes and have even had prospective tenants break down because they cannot compete with the number of people looking for properties. The Rudd government is committed to helping to ease the pressure on struggling families and individuals who need somewhere affordable to live. The National Rental Affordability Scheme delivers on one of the government’s key 2007 election commitments. The Council of Australian Governments agreed to implement the scheme in March 2008. As I mentioned earlier, the scheme will cost $623 million in the first four years. From this investment, though, the National Rental Affordability Scheme will create up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia. There’s little doubt that this kind of a boost in rental stocks will go a long way towards easing the pressures of affordable housing. The scheme’s offering of incentives to participants to build new dwellings for renting to low and moderate income households at 20 per cent below market rent will help make the scheme a reality. For many struggling families and individuals in areas such as mine, 20 per cent less cost for rental accommodation would be a welcome saving. The incentive is made up of a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year for 10 years and a state or territory contribution in the form of direct financial support or in-kind contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year for 10 years. The bill provides for the establishment of the National Rental Affordability Scheme by regulations. It is desirable for most of the administrative detail of the scheme to be in the regulations rather than in the bill. This provides the flexibility required to address changing circumstances and conditions in the rental market, including determining market rent, tenant eligibility criteria and acceptable periods of vacancy. The regulations are currently being drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing and an exposure draft will be made available shortly. This will assist with understanding the scope and the operation of the scheme. The associated National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 will make amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide for the refundable tax offset and to ensure that state and territory contributions to entities participating in the scheme are non-assessable and non-exempt income for taxation purposes and that there are no capital gains tax consequences from the receipt of incentives under the scheme. It is expected that market demand will remain strong, and the Australian government in that case will make a further 50,000 incentives available from July 2012 to help build another 50,000 affordable rental dwellings. This is a long-term solution, a long-term strategy, by the Rudd government to help ease the rental crisis. The scheme will be reviewed in its early years of implementation to test whether the scheme is adequately focused on those who would otherwise be in a rental stress situation. We will also need to look at any scope for simplification of the scheme and reduction in the administrative burden and at whether there are evolving issues of noncompliance that need to be addressed. The review may well indicate a need for improvements to the scheme. On a scale of five levels of need, the local government areas of Gosford and Wyong, which fall in my electorate of Dobell, are both considered in the highest need category of affordable housing in New South Wales. This goes to the facts that I spoke about earlier of the high unemployment that we have in my area, the electorate having the lowest median income levels in New South Wales and there being a lack of affordable housing there. Since 2004, demand for housing in Australia has outstripped supply. It is estimated that Australia currently has an annual housing supply deficit of up to 30,000 houses. The challenge of entering into homeownership has become more difficult and, notwithstanding the recent, most welcome interest rate cuts, interest rates and house prices have both increased in the past 10 years, as those on the opposite side well know. They presided over 10 interest rate rises in a row and only this year we saw the first cut in interest rates in seven years. Accordingly, prospective first home buyers are staying in the rental market much longer, increasing the demand for rental properties. This will probably partly explain why there are fewer rental properties available. Besides the increase in demand, there will always be a certain proportion of the population who prefer to rent rather than buy a property or who are in a situation where they will never be able to afford the deposit to enter the property market. Australia has a shortage of residential rental properties. Limited access to affordable housing is constraining the ability of businesses to attract appropriate staff in capital cities and regional areas. As at June this year, rental vacancy rates were below three per cent in all capital cities. In Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Adelaide and Darwin, they were at or below two per cent. As I referred to earlier, the drop in rental vacancies was reflected most clearly in my area, the electorate of Dobell. The rental component of the consumer price index increased by 7.1 per cent over the 12 months to March 2008, significantly higher than the general rate of inflation for the same period. The rate of rent increases is outstripping wages growth, making rental housing less affordable for Australians on low to moderate incomes. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 2006 indicates that, of all private rental households, almost one-third pay over 30 per cent of their income in housing costs, a widely accepted benchmark of rental stress. Given that rents have increased since then at a higher percentage than wages, those in private rentals are paying an even higher proportion of their pay packets for somewhere to live. As these figures indicate, there is no doubt about the need to increase the supply of rental dwellings in all major real estate markets throughout Australia. This scheme is designed to make renting more affordable in two key ways: through an overall increase in the number of rental dwellings and through the fixed term rental discount of 20 per cent. But, in order to stimulate an increase in housing stock for rental, the scheme needs to be attractive for investors. Participation in the National Rental Affordability Scheme offers a number of benefits to investors in affordable residential rental properties. First of all, there will be improved rental yields. The minimum annual $8,000 national rental incentive for each approved rental dwelling can improve rental yields over conventional residential investment properties in certain markets. The national rental incentive is income tax free, indexed to the rental component of the CPI and complemented by existing taxation arrangements, including depreciation. The scheme offers a reduced risk profile for investors. With rents set at 20 per cent below market value, and a large pool of eligible tenants, investors can expect a reduced vacancy risk. Compliance with the scheme will offer investors certainty of contributions from the Australian and state or territory governments in the form of the national rental incentive over a 10-year period. The national rental incentive will be indexed to the rental component of the CPI. As a result of the scheme, there will be a new asset class. The Australian government will allocate 50,000 incentives through the scheme over four financial years. As I said earlier, a further 50,000 incentives will be allocated from July 2012 if demand from investors and tenants remains strong, which we expect. These incentives aim to stimulate the creation of a new ongoing asset class and develop industry specialising in affordable rental housing. Potential applicants for incentives will be able to apply for allocations over forward rounds to allow for the staged rollout of affordable rental dwellings, providing certainty for successful applicants. There are also opportunities for linkages with other affordable housing initiatives. Potential investors and developers are encouraged to take full advantage of possible linkages with other affordable housing initiatives, including the Commonwealth government’s Housing Affordability Fund. Under this scheme there will be a large and diverse pool of potential tenants. Up to 1.5 million individuals and families on low and moderate incomes will be eligible to be tenants in approved dwellings under the scheme. Income eligibility levels for prospective tenants include key workers and their families, who are vital to Australia’s continuing economic prosperity. It is also an ethical investment. Investing in affordable housing through the National Rental Affordability Scheme offers investment opportunities that may meet investors’ own criteria for building ethical investment portfolios. There are clearly many positives in the National Rental Affordability Scheme, with its clear aims of increasing the supply of affordable rental dwellings and reducing rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. Rural and regional areas such as mine on the New South Wales Central Coast cannot afford any delays in the implementation of this scheme. They need to start benefiting as soon as possible from possible impacts of the scheme, including increased investments, incentives to providers of new dwellings and a boost in rental housing stocks. These bills are vital to assist those who are struggling to find a place that they can call home, struggling to put a roof over their heads and the heads of their families. These are important bills, and I commend them to the House. 10017 11:27:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I am very pleased to join with my colleagues here today in supporting the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 that goes with it. These bills are yet another example of the Rudd Labor government’s practice of acknowledging and identifying a problem and then coming up with a very practical solution to that problem—really trying to deliver better outcomes for families and households in Australia. This is a great solution, which uses the government’s resources to attract private sector investment to increase the stock of affordable rental accommodation units in the country. All you need to do to get a rough idea of the scale and extent of the problem of the lack of affordable rental accommodation in Australia is look at the speaking list for these bills. This debate has gone over two, or maybe three, sessions in the House so far, and if you look at the list today I think every single state, perhaps with the exception of the two territories, is represented. So it is very clear that this really goes across all parts of the country, whether you are talking about metropolitan areas or electorates like mine which have a regional and rural profile. There is no doubt in anyone’s mind about the need for this particular initiative. To back that up in a more formal sense, I will cite some of the research that has come out this year. For example, the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling released research that shows that 1.1 million low- to middle-income households spend more than one-third of their income on housing, and that is a figure that has increased by 220,000, or one-quarter, over the past three years. The research showed that it is young families in particular who are feeling the pinch of increased housing costs. There has been a 55 per cent increase in the number of households headed by people aged under 29 who are experiencing housing stress. If I can just take the information from the previous speaker, the member for Dobell, housing stress is defined as a household spending 30 per cent or more of their income on housing costs. Those figures cover the cost for households of both owning and renting a house. Looking specifically at the rental market: the figures—again from NATSEM—show that 685,000 low- and middle-income households are experiencing rental stress. That figure accounts for more than 20 per cent of all renting households. Coming specifically to what is happening in Queensland: the Minister for Public Works, Housing and Information and Communication Technology in Queensland, who is my state colleague in the seat of Rockhampton, has released figures showing that across Queensland the median weekly rent for a two-bedroom unit has leapt by 66 per cent in the past five years and the cost of a three-bedroom unit has jumped by 58 per cent over the past five years. The Queensland Residential Tenancies Authority says rents have increased by 35 per cent in my home city of Rockhampton over the past two years. So there is no surprise that families and low-income earners are finding it very difficult, first of all, to find rental accommodation but also, particularly, to find rental accommodation that they can afford to live in without seriously eating into their capacity to pay for other essentials. The Queensland Community Housing Coalition have done a lot of work in this area both in mapping the extent of the problem and in being very strong advocates for doing something about it. They have produced figures on vacancy rates—and, again, the member for Dobell was talking about rental vacancy rates in capital cities of around two per cent. In some regional markets, particularly those in Central Queensland, where there is such huge activity associated with the mining industry and associated industries, vacancy rates are close to zero. It can be absolutely impossible to find accommodation. It is not unusual for local people to send me photos of things like shipping containers that are being used for accommodation in some of the mining towns, and there are also stories of people having to live in their cars. They get a job in the mining towns and then find there is nowhere to live when they take up that position. It is really a very major problem in my electorate in Central Queensland. Even in the city of Rockhampton, while the problem is not quite as acute as people living in shipping containers or in the back of their utes, we have seen the affordable end of the private rental market really squeezed in recent years. We have been enjoying good times in the city as a result of all the mining and industrial activity going on around us, so there has been quite a strong lift in housing development but again it is catering to the people who are employed in those industries, so much of it has been at the upper end of the market. There is a gap in the affordable end of the market. To try to get an idea of what is affordable housing, I looked to the work done by the Queensland Community Housing Coalition, which held a summit on this question earlier in the year. They came up with the definition that affordable housing is: ‘Housing which is reasonably adequate in standard and location for a lower- or middle-income household and does not cost so much that a household is unlikely to be able to meet other basic needs on a sustainable basis.’ We are seeing in my area and probably right around the country a bigger pool of people who are struggling to find housing that would be defined as affordable housing. It is no longer simply the people who are on income support who cannot access the market; it is also the people who are on low to moderate incomes. They are not necessarily eligible for public or community housing and they cannot afford the rental stock at the higher end of the market. So we are seeing a situation where many workers on average award wages are finding themselves priced out of the rental market even if they can find appropriate accommodation. In my area we are seeing that people who work in industries such as child care and hospitality and people in part-time and casual employment are finding it difficult to afford a place to live. This is exacerbated in the mining towns, where even if you are a full-time worker such as a mechanic at the service station or a truck driver for the council—you could have a pretty decent full-time job—you may not be able to afford the rents, which are pegged to the mining industry incomes in those towns. The other group that have really come to the fore in the last year are old age pensioners who do not own their own homes and who find themselves in the private rental market. When debate has been going on about the need to lift the pension rate, most of the conversations I have had around this with callers to my electorate office have been with pensioners who are in the private rental market. They are the ones who are finding it absolutely impossible to survive with the cost of housing becoming so out of their reach. I will read to the chamber a quote by Carol Croce, who is the Executive Director of the Community Housing Federation of Australia, a quote which really sums up what we are facing in Australia at the moment: There is a crisis in the private rental market both in terms of affordability and availability of affordable properties. High rents and an insufficient number of lower cost rental properties make it particularly difficult for low and moderate income households to find a place to live that they can afford. She goes on to say: The National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) targets people struggling in this market, and is part of the solution to address this housing crisis. …            …            … The NRAS will boost the supply of housing for this population, including people who are presently unable to access public housing, but who are being hammered by ever-increasing rents in the private rental market. We could ask ourselves: if this was going on for the period of time we are talking about, why was it so comprehensively ignored by the previous government? But I am very pleased to know that the government are addressing the problem through these bills, and it is good to get the endorsement of groups such as the Community Housing Federation of Australia for the path that we are taking. These bills put into effect the government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme, which was announced during the 2007 election campaign. The object of the bills, when read together, is to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and to reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. The scheme encourages investment in affordable rental housing by offering a financial incentive to providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. This scheme will create up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia, at a cost of $623 million in the first four years. The scheme that we have devised, which was one of our commitments at the last election, has been supported by COAG and by the state governments, which I am pleased to see. It is reflected in the fact that the financial incentive consists of a $6,000 Commonwealth contribution and a $2,000 contribution from state or territory governments. The state or territory contribution can be in the form of direct financial support or an in-kind contribution to the value of $2,000. It is great to get that cooperation from the states and territories to deal with this issue, which they are as well aware of as we in the Commonwealth parliament are. The incentive, which can be in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment, will be provided each year for 10 years to complying participants and will be indexed in line with the consumer price index. This, of course, is part of a much bigger package of measures totalling $2.2 billion which we took to the last election and include not just the National Rental Affordability Scheme but also the First Home Saver Accounts scheme, both of which have already been debated in this parliament, and the scheme for helping councils and developers with infrastructure costs. A lot of the detail of the scheme will be left to regulations, and as we have heard from previous speakers this approach is being taken because we do want the scheme to be flexible and we do want it to be able to address changing circumstances and conditions in the rental market, including determining market rent, the tenant eligibility criteria and acceptable periods of vacancy. Those regulations are currently being drafted by the Office of Legislative Drafting and Publishing and an exposure draft will be made available as soon as it is prepared. This will assist with understanding the scope and operation of the scheme. We have already signalled that if market demand remains strong we can make a further 50,000 incentives available from July 2012 to give a further boost to affordable rental accommodation. We really want this scheme to work and we want it to deliver for those people who have been feeling the pressure of increasing rents in the last few years. The scheme has received broad endorsement from across the housing sector. Harley Dale, from the Housing Industry Association, said: If you talk about the next six to 12 months, then it hard to see any turnaround in tight rental conditions, and there is no doubt that is hammering the lower-income rental households the most. But if you didn’t have policies being implemented like the National Rental Affordability Scheme, then those same groups would still be being hammered in two, three, four years time … Gregor Macfie, from the Australian Council of Social Services, said: … it is not the whole solution but this is certainly a positive step and the first large-scale private institutional investment in affordable rental accommodation in this country, so it is welcomed. We agree with Gregor Macfie—together this is not the whole solution, which is why it is part of that larger $2.2 billion package. Housing was one of the areas targeted in last week’s $10.4 billion economic security package, where we saw the announcement that the first home owners grant will receive a boost. First home buyers who are buying established homes will have their grant doubled from $7,000 to 14,000 and first home buyers who purchase a newly constructed home will receive an extra $14,000 to take their grant to $21,000. An estimated 150,000 first home buyers are expected to benefit from the scheme in the months leading up to 30 June next year. We hope that the boost to the first home owners scheme will also help those people who are currently renting take that next step into purchasing a home and that we will see some positive effect from that in the rental market. I am pleased to commend these two bills to the House. The problem of inadequate supply of affordable rental properties and the subsequent rise in rents is not new. The Queensland Community Housing Coalition reports that in 2007 average rents in Queensland increased by over 10 per cent, yet by the time of the election this time last year there was still no acknowledgement of that by the previous government. In total contrast to that, Labor went to the election with a commitment to have a housing minister and with a commitment to ease the pressure on renters in Australia. These bills carry through on that promise. 10021 11:44:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —I rise to support the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, and I note that housing is such a critical issue because homes are important. They are centres of life for many Australian families and if you do not have a home you are in pretty dire circumstances. That is why in the Rudd government there is the Minister for Housing, who should be commended for the work she is doing. That is why we made housing affordability a key issue in last year’s election and a key plank of our platform. That is why housing has always been one of the top things on Labor’s agenda. That is why this legislation is before the House today. We desperately want to deliver on our election promise to increase the supply of affordable rental housing. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key part of our overall $2.2 billion affordable housing package. The package in total will increase the supply of affordable rental housing, help people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and also build new homes for the homeless. On the matter of the homeless, Adelaide is one of the few capital cities to reduce its level of homelessness over the last few years and the state government in particular is to be commended for that. The Rudd government’s economic stimulus package includes initiatives to support homeownership and to keep our property market healthy and active. I especially support the increase in the first home buyers grant for the construction of a new home to $21,000. There are many new suburbs in my electorate; it is a destination for new homeowners. Places like Blakeview, Hewett and Andrews Farm are going to have significant growth over the next couple of years, and I think that in the next 10 years there is going to be phenomenal growth both in the northern suburbs of Adelaide and also around the regional centre—it is not really a town anymore—of Gawler. I think that we are right at ground zero in terms of the provision of new housing. This legislation focuses on the rental market. There is an extraordinary amount of housing stress out there. It is particularly true in Wakefield, where some 41 per cent of people renting in the private market are suffering from stress. Most of those people are on very modest incomes and have to cut back on essentials and luxuries just to keep a roof over their head. I have been to many places where old Housing Trust places have been sold off to private owners and now the rents on those houses have risen extraordinarily. We have seen areas where there has been traditional public ownership and moderate rents catering for low-income earners, age pensioners and disability pensioners, and we have seen a shift to the private rental market and an increase in rents. They have often increased faster than people’s incomes have increased. They have risen faster and higher than the costs of living and they are increasing because there is a lack of supply of housing, particularly affordable housing. The Rudd government is tackling that issue head-on. The National Rental Affordability Scheme demonstrates the benefits of cooperation between the Commonwealth and the states in this area and encourages large-scale investment in affordable rental housing by offering incentives to the providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. The incentive comprises a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution in the form of either direct financial support or an in-kind contribution of $2,000 per dwelling per year. Obviously, this legislation provides for the Commonwealth incentives only. The objective of these incentives is to create 50,000 more rental properties across Australia over the next four years specifically catering for those on low and moderate incomes. Looking to the future, if market demand remains strong the Rudd government can commit to making a further 50,000 incentives available from July 2012 to help build more affordable rental properties, and we hope that we are around to honour that commitment. These incentives could potentially leverage up to $13 billion in private investment and they represent an excellent opportunity for government, businesses, financial institutions and community housing to work together to really solve this problem. In my discussions with people in community housing, I find they have the expertise to provide housing; they often just do not have the capital, and I think that that is one of the big issues. Another point that should be taken into account is that these families do pay their rent on time. Perhaps because they are so close to the margins of poverty they do value having a home, so generally they pay their rent on time every week. They know that they walk a tightrope. Rental stress more often affects low-income families, pensioners and young people, and as rents rise fewer young families are able to make the transition from renting to saving up a deposit to buy a house in the great Australian tradition. People increasingly cannot afford to own a house and that is putting more and more stress on the rental market. To support these families and to ensure that the support is going to those who need it, we will have an eligibility test in place. In Wakefield up to 7,000 families could be eligible under the current draft of the regulations and based on the income thresholds. Of course, many of those families already own their own homes or rent private dwellings and may not apply. For those that do, the regulations reflect good common sense. For families that come in under the income thresholds—currently proposed at $55,991 for couples with no dependent children and $69,423 for couples or sole parents with two children—there are provisions to allow for an increase in income by up to 25 per cent before families will be given a year to find other accommodation. This ensures that rental supply is being made available to those who need it but it gives some security of tenure to those people who do get it and whose circumstances change. The scheme is governed by regulation rather than by specific provisions in a bill, because it is vital that the government be able to be responsive to movements in the property and rental market and flexible regarding the specific rules related to this scheme to make sure it has maximum impact. An example of this flexibility is the important fact that the legislation and the regulations will allow for eligibility under the scheme to be recognised retrospectively from 1 July 2008. This means that incentives will be in place immediately and, hopefully, we can get the ball rolling. This scheme represents real leadership by the Rudd government on the issues that have been hurting working Australians for a long time. For too long the previous government did nothing—nothing was done to address the problem of spiralling rents and the lack of supply of low-income housing in particular. You could see this crisis coming a long way off. I remember when I was looking for a rental property in the northern suburbs about three or four years ago—I now own a place; I was renting at the time. I was on a good income but I had real trouble finding a decent rental property. That was a bit of a warning sign even then. You would see the same families going from inspection to inspection of rental properties. It was really quite extraordinary. That was a bit of a signal even four or five years ago. You could see this crisis coming. Unfortunately, the previous government did not act. It did not have a housing minister and really left it to the private market to provide these rental properties. Of course, what we have found is that the private market has not effectively catered for them. We now have direct and effective action from the government, incorporating the private sector. This plan will provide the incentives for 50,000 new, affordable rental properties for low-income earners. This legislation means that young families will be able to find safe, secure and affordable rental accommodation. This means more young people and students will be able to make the transition to living away from home. This means more pensioners and working people—cleaners, nurses and retail workers—will be able to get out of rent stress and will be able to start saving, investing or spending some of their budgets on other necessities, just getting by. With this legislation we deliver yet another piece of ambitious reform, in this case to the rental market. We deliver on our commitment to the Australian people to address this issue and the rent stress crisis. I commend these bills to the House. 10023 11:54:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —I rise to support the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and cognate bill. Throughout Australia there is an extremely poor supply of affordable rental properties. As a result, rental stress is an epidemic affecting Australians right across the nation. There are now 1.1 million Australian households experiencing housing stress and it comes as no surprise that almost 700,000 of the people in these households are renters. These people are often low- or moderate-income earners who are forced to rent in the private market when rent rises are outstripping wages growth and inflation. It will probably come as a surprise to most people in the House that only 30 per cent of the population actually have a mortgage. These problems are a significant concern to the Rudd government. The crisis is preventing thousands of Australians from renting properties on their way to buying their own homes. The realities of Australia’s rental crisis are incredibly dire. People are cutting back on vital necessities to avoid being forced into living in extremely cramped conditions or, even worse, out on the streets. Sadly, there are far too many cases where the latter eventuates and disadvantaged Australians have little choice but to confront the harsh realities of homelessness. Even in my electorate of Chisholm, which is often referred to as the leafy, green suburbs of Melbourne—and we are pretty lucky in that it is a pretty leafy, green place—one of the issues that I was quite confronted with when I first became the member for Chisholm, 10 years ago now, was the number of people who came to our office over housing issues, over homelessness. In my electorate people think that this is not an issue and that people are doing quite well and coping. But people want to stay in an area because it is where their connection is to community, church and schooling for their children. Often in situations of marriage breakdowns it becomes a huge issue because two singles cannot afford to come back into the area, so it becomes compounded by this issue. Not a week goes by without somebody walking into our office seeking somewhere to live. One of the worst occasions was on a Friday night. At about 5.30 pm a little man arrived with his worldly belongings in two milk crates and said he had nowhere to go that night. Although he was in full-time employment, he no longer could afford the rent on his property. The only thing we could do was put him on the train and send him into town to Ozanam House, which is a shelter for the homeless and people with alcohol problems. He certainly did not have those but there was nothing else going. He came back in a couple of weeks later and said he had found some crisis accommodation, but it is a fairly stark and confronting issue. There is no doubt Australians need to have more affordable rental properties built. The Rudd government made a key election commitment to do just that—increase the supply of affordable rental housing for Australians and their families. I stand before the House today to speak about legislation that will serve to tackle this issue head-on and promote a more accessible rental market. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key component of the Rudd government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package, which has just risen to a $3.7 billion package as a result of the extra measures announced for first home owners as part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy. This package will increase the supply of affordable rental houses, help people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and build new homes for the homeless. The scheme I speak of today will encourage large-scale investment and innovative delivery of affordable housing. The government will offer an incentive to participants in the scheme so as to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and to reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households to 20 per cent below market rates. Specifically, what this means is a $623 million investment aimed at creating 50,000 affordable rental properties for low- and moderate-income earners in the first four years of the scheme. There are two key elements to the National Rental Affordability Scheme that serve to assist renters amid this rental crisis. Under the government’s proposal, institutional investors and not-for-profit organisations will be offered tax incentives or grants. These will be provided on an annual basis for a maximum 10-year period, provided the dwelling is rented to low- and middle-income occupants. The incentive for investors comprises a $6,000 contribution per dwelling from the Australian government as a tax credit or grant and an additional $2,000 contribution from state or territory governments. Tenants will still be eligible for rental assistance, making it even more affordable for individuals and families. Provided the demand for rental property remains strong, as I suspect it will—indeed, I suspect it will grow—a further 50,000 affordable rental dwellings will be built from 2012 onwards. Many constituents from my electorate of Chisholm, like others around Australia, are enduring the brunt of the national rental crisis. This scheme will be welcomed with open arms by the wonderful community in Chisholm that works tirelessly with the people who are affected by the crisis and are in need of significant assistance. I have been involved with a number of these community organisations in my electorate that serve to raise awareness on the very issues at the core of the National Rental Affordability Scheme: rental assistance, homelessness, and youth and family services. These issues deeply resonate with my electorate. If it were not for the tremendous efforts extended by these community groups, many of my constituents simply would not cope. Indeed, last Friday some constituents came to visit me in my office. They are no longer living in my electorate but they are connected through schools. I have previously presented Renno with a Caroline Chisholm award for her tireless work in my community. Two weekends ago, for the first time in they cannot remember how long, she and family went on a holiday. Mum, dad and six kids went away on a fishing trip and, on the weekend, the house they were renting burnt down. They have returned home and everything is gone. The house is burnt to the ground. Trying to find a rental property when dad is a DSP recipient, mum is a cleaner at a motel and you have six kids is virtually impossible. Trying to find crisis accommodation was almost as difficult. We are still working with them now to find somewhere for them to live. People in the community are amazing. Someone from the footy club was going overseas and said they could move in for the two weeks they would be overseas. But that is coming to an end on Friday, so it looks like they will have to split up and live with various family members for the time being. We are still working on it at the moment. These people have been renting for the last 23 years. They have a phenomenal renting record but there is simply nowhere that is affordable at all. There is almost nothing going that can accommodate a family of this size. We are feeling their pain. I would like to highlight some of these community groups and draw the House’s attention to the fantastic work they are doing in my electorate—and I spoke to most of them last Friday when I had to deal with this crisis in my electorate office to assist this family. We note the great work they do. Their work does not go unnoticed, although most of the time the people in SAAP, supported housing, feel that it does go unnoticed. We appreciate it. It goes a long way to improving the livelihoods of many of the community’s most disadvantaged individuals and families. Connections UnitingCare is a community service agency that provides more than 40 programs offering support services to children, families and young people. To undertake this vital work, Connections UnitingCare receives funding from the Commonwealth, state and local governments. But it also generates much of its own funds through corporate and philanthropic support and community services. The agency delivers some key programs that tackle the issue of homelessness. The Rudd government is introducing a nationwide program to alleviate the problem of homelessness through the bill we are debating today. Starting Out is a program that has been run by Connections UnitingCare since 1992. It offers community based support for families with a parent aged 25 years or younger. Many of the families that access this program are facing some degree of homelessness or instability in their housing due to the rental crisis. The Starting Out program provides designated housing support to assist families to address their immediate housing needs, which means they can focus on other issues that have a long-term impact on health and social outcomes for parents and children and ultimately the wider community. Connections UnitingCare runs an additional program, funded through Starting Out, which is aimed at supporting homelessness in the community. Supporting Homeless Individuals and Families in Transition, or SHIFT, provides support to homeless families and single adults aged 23 to 25 with complex needs. It aims to break the often inherent cycle of homelessness. SHIFT operates on limited resources but endeavours to provide the intensive and sometimes extensive support that is required by individuals and families who have little option but to live on the streets. The work being carried out by Connections UnitingCare in tackling homelessness is extremely noble and has a genuine impact on the lives of many disadvantaged people in our community. I would like to voice my support for this wonderful organisation and thank them for the vital work they are doing in my electorate. I am proud to represent one of the most multicultural electorates in Australia. Many new migrants are welcomed into Chisholm every year, and they bring with them diverse cultures, ethnicity and experiences. Despite this, migrant refugee families face considerable disadvantage in their attempts to secure long-term affordable housing in the private rental market. Fortunately, my electorate is superbly served by community organisations that devote resources to assist newly arrived migrants and refugees to find rental accommodation. The Migrant Information Centre Eastern Melbourne and the New Hope Migrant and Refugee Centre offer intensive assistance to newly arrived families looking to secure affordable and appropriate accommodation in a highly constrained rental market. Given that many of the families now moving into the area are Sudanese and have extensive families, this is often a very great task. Many migrants and refugees are inhibited by the fact that they lack proficiency in English, have no rental history and receive Centrelink incomes. The role of these community organisations is therefore vital in supporting new arrivals. I am extremely grateful for the work they undertake in Chisholm in connection with the many great church organisations who are also supporting a lot of these families. Without them, I do not think these families would actually survive. The Migrant Information Centre and the NHMRC released a project evaluation report in September 2007 titled Migrant and refugee rental housing assistance project. This report made a number of recommendations, the first of which stated: For many newly arrived migrants and refugees, like many Australians on low incomes, renting privately is often the only housing option available. It is important that both State and Federal Governments focus attention on strategies that increase the stock of affordable housing in private, public and social housing sectors. The Rudd government has heard this recommendation and many like it from community organisations right across Australia. That is why we are introducing the National Rental Affordability Scheme as one component of our affordable housing package. The scheme provides a new opportunity for all levels of government to work together with business and not-for-profit organisations to increase the supply of affordable rental houses for Australian families. The Family Access Network, FAN, is another community organisation providing pivotal services to disadvantaged constituents in my electorate. FAN provides services right across Melbourne’s eastern metropolitan region, the area with the least affordable private rental accommodation and the least public housing in Victoria. FAN offers case managed homelessness support for young people in my electorate aged between 15 and 25 through its Private Rental Brokerage Program. These young homeless people are being forced to compete in a tight rental environment against people who might otherwise, in a more affordable market, purchase a home. The social support offered by organisations such as FAN goes a long way to assisting young people who are struggling to find affordable rental accommodation in the hostility of the current market. Many of the people supported by FAN are young mothers—and I am talking very young mothers—and without FAN’s phenomenal support, we would have not just those young individuals but their children falling through the net. These people want to stay within the social confines of my electorate because of organisations like FAN, but it is virtually impossible because of the cost of housing in the area. This is compounded by rents being so high. My electorate is also a transport hub, so people come there because it is easy to get to and get out of. Once they get there, they work out that the trains, trams and buses, and Centrelink and DHS, are all there, which makes it easy—why would they go somewhere else when the services are all there? If they move further and further out their problems compound with transport costs and the difficulty of connecting back into the services. A lot of this goes round in circles. Recently, in conjunction with the member for Deakin, I helped open a Social and Affordable Housing Summit facilitated by one of our municipalities, the City of Whitehorse. The City of Whitehorse does many innovative things and this was one of them. I want to congratulate them for running such a great forum. The summit involved identities from all three levels of government and representatives from peak housing associations, welfare groups and real estate agencies brought together to discuss ideas, concepts and initiatives relevant to the housing industry. Roundtable discussions were held to discuss the issues and provide feedback. I am currently anticipating a report from the findings from the summit’s facilitators. I would like to sincerely thank the Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, for coming down to Box Hill and addressing the summit—her presence highlighted the government’s commitment to help tackle the issues and listen to community concerns. Initiatives such as this by local government bodies should not be underestimated: they facilitate dialogue between relevant bodies and often lead to agreed priorities and targets. I commend the City of Whitehorse, in particular Paul Kearsley, for showing initiative and hosting the summit, and I look forward to analysing its collated findings. The day began with a group of very interesting speakers from Housing Sector Development in the Office of Housing talking about how small the supply of social housing is in our network but how many people are looking to come into the area. We had people from various groups. One was Reverend Graham Reynolds from the Anglican Church in Box Hill, who was helping the Sudanese community. He spoke about the issues around the Sudanese community, who are a very Christian group of people. A lot of them are Anglicans and they find one church and they stick to it, so people are coming to the Box Hill Church but they cannot find housing in the Box Hill area. So they are coming on a Sunday by bus with 12 kids from far-flung areas. The work they are doing to try and support these groups in the area is amazing. We also had talks from the Melbourne Affordable Housing Trust and the Community Housing Ltd Housing Services Manager. These are terrific projects at a local level. We are doing great things. We do not hear about them. Sometimes it might be a 31-bed dwelling; sometimes it might be one house. But there are projects going on out there and we need to know about them and support them. A lot of this is not rocket science and we could really replicate some of the great things that they are doing. Melbourne Affordable Housing is working in conjunction with the City of Whitehorse on a project looking at housing for the disability sector, which I think will be terrific if we can get it up and running. It is an issue we do not talk a lot about but, again, one of great concern in my electorate because we have so much transport and because there are so many community services there. A lot of disabled individuals come there because it is easy to get around and easy to access everything in one go, but the housing is too expensive to buy. This project, on council owned land and in conjunction with one of the local churches, would be a terrific thing. I am fully supportive of it and will be very excited if we can get it up and going. I am sincerely grateful to all the service providers in my electorate who are helping to implement measures to assist my constituents through the rental crisis and to highlight the issue to the broader community. There are organisations such as these all over Australia performing vital work in this area in the hope of getting youth off the streets, making rental accommodation affordable for the disadvantaged and shielding families from the enormous impact of this crisis. At the beginning of the year I held a roundtable discussion with most of the service providers in my electorate. Whilst I do not have a refugee service in my area, a lot of service providers are based in the electorate of Chisholm. St Vincent de Paul is there, Uniting Care is there, Anglicare is there, Community Housing is there, Wesley Mission is there—the list goes on. But it is an issue of stock and supply. It is not just about giving out more money but about actually building the houses. Build them and they will come! So I am very grateful and appreciative of the time and effort the groups put into coming to that roundtable, making submissions and letting me know of their concerns. I thank the Wesley Mission, who invited me out to see some of the support accommodation that they provide to homeless youth. It is outside but fairly close to my electorate. This is a great service that they are providing to young disadvantaged people. There are some phenomenal people working in this area, dealing with some issues that most of us would not want to confront, and I really want to congratulate them on the work they are doing. There is a pivotal role here for the Australian government to play in easing the stress in the rental market. That is why we are introducing the National Rental Affordability Scheme, in the hope of increasing the supply of affordable rental dwellings, reducing rental costs for low- to moderate-income earners and encouraging large-scale investment in and innovative delivery of affordable housing. This is a scheme that is long overdue. Nearly 700,000 Australians on low and moderate incomes are spending more than 30 per cent of their limited incomes on rent. Implementing measures to address this crisis is a major priority for the Rudd government. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a comprehensive response to the rental stress facing 1.1 million Australians across our nation. The $623 million scheme sees Labor delivering on a key election promise and providing a helping hand to those in dire need in our community. As the member for Chisholm I welcome the assistance this scheme will provide to those in my electorate who are enduring the full brunt of the rental crisis. It will ease the burden faced by the community groups in Chisholm, who witness on a daily basis the devastating consequences that a tight rental market can have on individuals and families. This scheme will bring substantial growth to the community housing sector and will see more than 1.5 million households become eligible to rent at 20 per cent below the market rate. It is pivotal that this legislation gains the support of the House, as it directly addresses one of the key concerns facing Australians today through sensible and direct measures. This scheme enjoys my full support as the member for Chisholm and it should be implemented as a matter of priority. We owe it to our fellow Australians, who are battling just to keep a roof over their heads in a market that is inaccessible for far too many people. 10029 12:13:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to support the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, which deliver on the Rudd government’s election commitment to establish a National Rental Affordability Scheme. This initiative is an important part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package. The National Rental Affordability Scheme provides incentives to participants to build new dwellings and to rent these dwellings to low- to moderate-income households at 20 per cent less than the market rate. The incentive for participants is a very generous one, with a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year for 10 years and $2,000, either through direct financial support or in-kind contribution, from states and territories. The scheme will create up to 50,000 new affordable rental properties, which are desperately needed right across Australia. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is designed to ease the pressure on millions of Australians struggling to maintain secure rental accommodation. This has been exacerbated by increasing cost-of-living pressures and a lack of supply of housing stock around Australia. This legislation is part of the Rudd government’s commitment to address the issue of affordable housing across the housing spectrum. For those who are homeless, we are acting; for those who are finding it hard to pay the rent, we are acting; for those who are trying to buy their first house, we are acting; and for those who are struggling to pay the mortgage, we are acting. The previous government had 12 years to act on the developing housing crisis in Australia. They neglected to do anything about it or to deliver any respite for the millions of Australians doing it tough. Australians were facing increasing rental payments, increasing interest rates and less affordable rental homes. Vacancy rates are at critically low levels and rent is now rising faster than everyday living costs, with many families feeling the effect of housing stress, spending in excess of 30 per cent of their weekly income on housing. Research by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found that there were over one million Australian households in economic housing stress in December 2007. Of these one million households, 700,000 Australians were paying more than 30 per cent of their limited income on rent, making it almost impossible for people to pay their rent and use rental accommodation as a stepping stone to purchasing their own home. In my electorate of Kingston in South Australia rental accommodation has been particularly hard hit, with a poor supply of affordable rental housing. I have been actively involved with the Kingston community, trying to bring attention to this incredibly important issue. I have met with many struggling families, workers, students, young people and pensioners who are finding it hard to pay their rent each week. I have also met with community groups, local and state governments, churches and schools which have been affected by the housing crisis. They are all looking at ways to try and address this very worrying development in the Australian housing market. At present, a staggering 41 per cent of renters in Kingston are under rental stress. That is 2,987 households who are struggling each week to honour their rental commitments. More than 30 per cent of these households’ income is going to housing, leaving very little for these households to pay for other expenses such as food, petrol and education for kids. A particular quote really struck home for me. Often we have a sense that homelessness is something that people who are in private rental accommodation or who have mortgages will not face. Roseanne Murphy, in an article published in the Record, made a very striking statement: Homelessness, for many, is just two pays away. It only takes a company to merge, or go into receivership, or any other of many factors for a person from being happily employed and living in a flat, to being unemployed, unable to meet financial commitments and homeless. I think this quote really summarises the situation that many households in my electorate of Kingston who are suffering from rental stress are facing. That is why this measure before us today is so important—because it increases the number of affordable rental properties available to many of these households. It is not only charities and governments that are concerned about the rental stress that households are facing. Even private landlords have observed the increases in the rental market, and I have actually met landlords who, out of concern for their tenants, have not even increased their rent to keep up with inflation. One of these examples is Graham and Marie Stevens of Aldinga Beach, who decided not to raise the rent on their four properties in line with general indexation. They observed that the strain of rising inflation and elevated rental costs could adversely affect both the financial sustainability of their tenants and the long-term profitability of their property investments. As such, I have been advised that their tenants have not faced a significant increase in rent for over 10 years. This is certainly a contrast to the majority of tenants in Australia who have faced incremental rises in their rental rate. The Stevenses contacted my office in March this year to inquire about any potential tax breaks to offset their decision to lease their rental properties at lower than the market value, and I am pleased that the passage of this bill will ensure that landlords like the Stevenses who choose to build rental properties and to provide these properties at 20 per cent lower than the market rate will benefit significantly. Many families and many households are under rental stress—I think we have heard that quite significantly throughout this debate—and often are not able to afford basic household costs such as contents insurance and health insurance and, in extreme cases, as I have mentioned, basic provisions such as clothing and food. But, when it comes to housing, the Rudd government is acting. Whereas the previous government ignored the housing affordability crisis, which would have been quite evident if they had actually been listening to people in Australia, this government is acting. I do not think anything illustrates the indifference of the previous government to housing more than the fact that they did not have a housing minister while they were in office. The housing affordability scheme also serves to consolidate many of the Rudd government’s key election goals, including to reduce homelessness, one of the key issues in Australia. There are some great community groups out there that I have met in my electorate and that the previous speaker and many other members in this debate have spoken about—the fact that these groups are well aware that there are so many people doing it tough. There are many different associations in my electorate. There is the Southern Junction’s Community Housing Association, Lutheran Community Care and the Southern Domestic Violence Service. I have been able to visit all of these services and hear first-hand about the issue of homelessness. The Southern Junction’s Community Housing Association is the type of organisation that will benefit from the measures in this bill. This organisation actively engages with key stakeholders, including the South Australian government’s Affordable Housing Innovations Unit, builders, financial institutions and other private organisations, to build houses, to make these houses rent out at less than 75 per cent of the private market rate. They do a significant amount to provide affordable rental accommodation. They have reacted like this because they have seen the huge, growing crisis that is occurring in the southern suburbs of Adelaide. It is groups such as the Southern Junction’s Community Housing Association that will further benefit from and be able to do a lot under the measures proposed in the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill that is before us today. This government’s strategy to address housing in Australia, as I mentioned, is a very comprehensive one, and the government have been very clear that we want to address both supply and demand constraints within the housing market. Addressing supply-side demand is very important. There is simply not enough housing stock available at the moment to meet the demands of Australian families, and this bill goes some way towards encouraging the increase of the supply of stock, as do a number of other measures. One of these other measures that will address the supply-side issues—and it is already being rolled out—is the Housing Affordability Fund. This fund focuses on supply-side barriers to housing developments, principally by looking at things like holding costs of developers as well as funding infrastructure costs such as water, roads, sewerage, open space and community facilities. These are all things that are primarily provided by state and local governments and often hold back some of the housing developments that could contribute to the amount of housing stock available. These costs are usually incurred by homebuyers as well. With the government subsidisation under this program, it is expected that the savings will be passed on to new homeowners, and this will act as a significant encouragement to building and ensuring that there is a new supply of affordable housing stock. The Housing Affordability Fund will invest $512 million over five years to lower the cost of building new homes. The fund will target greenfield and infill developments where high dwelling demand currently exists or is forecast. I know that in my electorate of Kingston there has been significant discussion about infill. There is concern about housing continuing to stretch out the metropolitan area. State government and a lot of councils are looking at how we might infill around transport corridors, shopping centres and services that already exist. This is a key strategy for both the state government and the local council in my local area—looking at infilling developments around where the jobs, services and transport are. This government is acting swiftly on its housing affordability initiatives. On 15 September the Prime Minister, and the Minister for Housing, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, announced the first round of expressions of interest from local, state and territory governments and private companies wishing to apply for money from the Housing Affordability Fund. I saw some of the people representing South Australian local government today in the parliament. They have already put in their applications for many projects and are feeling very excited about how these projects will assist them to plan more affordable housing around their local areas. This legislation and the Housing Affordability Fund build on many other announcements that the government has already made in its short term in office to ease the problem of housing affordability. As I mentioned previously, the Rudd government has taken the issue of homelessness very seriously. This government has commissioned a white paper about homelessness and has already committed $150 million to build hundreds of new homes for the homeless across Australia. The focus and the priority that this government has placed on homelessness has been welcomed by the many emergency accommodation places in my electorate and they have communicated that they are incredibly pleased to see that this government is putting this very important social issue on the agenda. In addition, we have also seen our First Home Saver Accounts policy introduced to help first home buyers save for a deposit. Some of those accounts are starting to be set up and to collect money. That is a really positive thing that has been welcomed by a lot of people. Before the election, I spoke to a lot of people who were very concerned about being able to save for a deposit and to a lot of parents who were very concerned about how their children were going to save for a deposit. I am very pleased that first home saver accounts have been opened and that the policy does allow for parents to make contributions. I know that that has been very much welcomed in my electorate. The most recent announcement aimed at helping first home buyers is an essential plank also of the Rudd government’s economic security package. That is the announcement to help first home owners purchase a home by the doubling of the First Home Owner Grant to $14,000 for those buying existing homes and the tripling of it for those buying newly constructed houses. In light of the severe global financial crisis, this swift action is designed to stimulate the construction sector and target those who will benefit most from the injection of money into the economy, and that is first home owners. The passing of this legislation, in conjunction with the many other reforms that we are making in the housing sector, is essential to the country and essential to many people in the area of Kingston. We as a government and as a parliament need to ensure that all Australians, regardless of their income, regardless of their previous circumstances, have access to basic accommodation. As I said previously, with over one million Australians facing rental stress, this situation could never be more urgent than it is now. Accordingly, I commend these bills to the House. 10032 12:30:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I stand to speak in support of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 before the House. The initiatives contained within the National Rental Affordability Scheme are amongst some of the most innovative that this country has seen in relation to making provision for affordable rental housing for members of communities right across this country. There are a number of design elements to this scheme that really do justify the praise that I have just lavished on this policy, and I will come back to some of those a little bit later in my contribution. But it is worth examining the anatomy of the scheme as proposed, because it has elements that are worthy of further attention. The scheme is fundamentally about attracting and delivering greater investment in affordable rental housing. One of the most attractive elements of the scheme is that there is a direct subsidy provided to institutional investors or other eligible bodies, which might include quasi-government related entities or community-housing providers. It provides a direct subsidy for the provision of the accommodation in the form of an annual payment which will be indexed and linked to the rental component of the CPI, which is important. That annual payment will involve a $6,000 contribution from the Commonwealth and $2,000, either directly or in kind or a combination of both, from the states, and it will be available for investors over a 10-year period. But the most important and, I think, the key element of this particular scheme is the requirement that in order to retain eligibility for those payments the investor or the provider must continue to make the premises available to low- or middle-income earners—importantly, at a rental 20 per cent below the market value. The significance of this particular measure is that this policy is not just about attacking the supply issue. There are some real supply issues; in my electorate in Western Sydney rental affordability is equally as significant an issue as housing affordability for home ownership. A very large proportion of the population rent, and we have seen some real pressures driving up rents in recent times. Apart from the supply issue and the obvious increase in rental prices driven by the lack of supply, we have also seen in particular over the last few years consistent and consecutive increases in interest rates, which have attacked the incomes of the providers of this housing and also increased their costs. Landlords have sought to recoup those increased costs by passing them on in the form of increased rents. That has put many families in my electorate under considerable hardship. I draw particular attention to the plight of many single age pensioners within my electorate who have been finding that the cost of meeting their accommodation needs through their weekly and fortnightly rental payments puts additional pressure on their budgets. Of course it is a matter of public record that we have taken some fairly decisive steps in recent times to make some additional assistance available to those people. But one of the issues that we always need to take into account is that where direct assistance is provided to the renter, where that assistance is made available directly to the person renting the property, there is always the danger that landlords can opportunistically see a chance of increasing rent whilst retaining the existing tenant. That is something that we always have to safeguard against and that has traditionally been one of the challenges that governments have faced with direct rental assistance. That is why it makes this policy all the more innovative and all the more effective insofar as the very essence of the assistance that is to be provided to the developer or to the institutional investor requires as a minimum that they deliver that property to someone in the rental market—a low- or middle-income earner—at 20 per cent below the market value. So we actually have a mechanism here to constrain costs rather than to inflate them. This is one of the challenges that we have in a range of areas when it comes to investing in homeownership and housing affordability, whether it be in the rental or the homeowning markets. It is worth noting that more than 1.5 million households will be eligible for assistance in this particular set of initiatives. One of the other design elements of the scheme that is worth commenting on is the fact that, because of the way in which the scheme will be structured, incentives will be made available and there will be provision for the secretary either to issue a certificate in relation to a refundable tax offset or to make a payment. The significance of this is that it is not just a question of making a tax offset available to those that pay tax. The community sector and the government sector, where income tax is not a consideration, will also get the benefit of this incentive. It will not be an incentive that is available only to those that have income tax obligations against which the payments and the tax value of those payments can be offset. That will be a very important design element that will drive greater participation from, I think, local government and, more particularly, community housing providers. I certainly recognise the great efforts of the Wentworth Area Community Housing team in my local community. They provide great assistance to many local people and have been doing so for a long period of time. I know that recently they have teamed up and joined in partnership with a number of other community housing providers under the banner of Blue CHP. Blue CHP has received $6.4 million from the state government. Its members comprise the Argyle Community Housing Association Inc., the Hume Community Housing Association Company Ltd, South Coast Community Housing, Women’s Housing Company Ltd and also Wentworth Area Community Housing, whose operations are principally based around the Penrith and Hawkesbury area. Blue CHP will seek and create appropriate house development and acquisition opportunities that are value for money and are located in response to identified need. They will finance affordable housing projects from government funding, private lending institutions and donations of cash, land and other services. I am advised that Blue CHP will be one of the organisations that will be putting themselves forward and seeking to obtain funds under this scheme. They are very excited about it. They have been doing some great work in the past but I know that their excitement as a result of this scheme really does demonstrate the enthusiasm within the community sector for the potential that this scheme does provide. On the issue of affordable housing and the cost of rental accommodation, I think that when we are looking at policies designed to address accommodation needs within a community there are various approaches that we can take in terms of classifying those needs. But, crudely, the three classifications we might wish to draw upon to assist us in this discussion are those at the homelessness end of the market, those in the homeownership market and then those in the rental market, some of who may be upwardly or downwardly mobile throughout those three classifications, depending upon their circumstances. I noted with great interest the comments of the member for Kingston in relation to the quote that she cited and the general observation that most families are only two pay packets away from homelessness—particularly those that are in rental accommodation. In commenting specifically on the housing needs within Penrith and the surrounding communities in my electorate, I recently had the opportunity to attend a very good conference—a local forum held by a number of organisations, including Wentworth Area Community Housing, Youth Accommodation Interagency Nepean and the Nepean SAP network. This conference was entitled ‘Towards ending homelessness in the Nepean’. The keynote speaker was our federal Minister for Housing, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, who really provided a clear articulation of the government’s comprehensive policies right across the spectrum when it comes to affordable housing. The minister was very well received by the organisations that were participating. I think that is largely because those who work day to day within the community sector recognise the ongoing needs within their communities and are invigorated and refreshed by the new government’s agenda in this area. Not only are we interested, and that is something that they welcome, but we have an agenda and it is an agenda in which they see opportunities for their participation into the future. On the occasion of the ‘Towards ending homelessness in the Nepean’ conference, I also had the great privilege of launching the housing help booklet produced by Wentworth Area Community Housing which provides important information on the options available to people facing accommodation difficulties. On 26 September this year, I opened the new premises of Wentworth Area Community Housing. That day was a great occasion. I think the great efforts of Wentworth Area Community Housing will continue to be built upon in their new premises and with a growing team. They are doing a great job in our local community and I certainly acknowledge their ongoing contribution to addressing the housing needs of local residents within my community. I said earlier that there are several classifications in relation to housing and accommodation needs, including homelessness. I think one of the great things initiated by the Prime Minister was putting homelessness back on the national agenda. At the request of the Prime Minister, some would say ‘directive’, I and other Labor members went out into our local communities and engaged in extensive consultation with those who provide services and shelter for the homeless. It was something I did with great relish and it gave me the opportunity to maintain a close and ongoing dialogue with those service providers. It also opened my eyes to a range of other service providers doing much good work in my local community that I was not previously aware of. In fact, I recently provided some assistance at the Penrith community kitchen, which does some great work for people who are struggling to provide their next meal. They have some great volunteers at that centre and it was a real pleasure to spend some time with them and to see what great work they are doing. Clearly, homelessness is an important part of the overall equation when considering providing for the accommodation needs of people throughout our communities. But, of course, there is the housing affordability-home ownership issue. Affordable rental is a key element of that. For many people trying to save the funds in order to move into home ownership, having access to affordable rental is necessary to free up some room in the household budget for the savings required to make that leap. I note the range of policies that this government has begun implementing in relation to affordable housing. I know the Housing Affordability Fund will go a significant way towards providing funding opportunities in those areas where infrastructure can be delivered with assistance from the Commonwealth government rather than having to directly pass on those infrastructure costs to the homebuyer. In the end that only pushes up home prices and makes housing less affordable for those trying to get into the market. Our first home saver accounts are also a very positive initiative. Those initiatives, combined with our determination to see that we better utilise existing Commonwealth surplus landholdings throughout the country, make a contribution to addressing the supply-side issues and will assist in tackling the overall housing affordability challenge that we confront. More recently, as part of the government’s economic strategy, we have seen the increase in the first home owners grant for existing dwellings from $7,000 to $14,000 and for new homes to the very significant sum of $21,000. This is significant. I have noted that in my community the real estate market—and this is probably the case more generally throughout Sydney—has been very slow in recent months and years, and I think this latest initiative will put a little bit more life back into the local real estate market. I was very pleased to see in this week’s edition of the Penrith Press that there were comments from some local real estate agents. In particular, Mr Paul Dukes of Morris Dukes Real Estate expressed his delight with what he has observed as the positive response to the federal government’s initiatives in relation to the first home owners grant. He said: It’s been phenomenal the past weekend, with Saturday being just amazing. Around 90 per cent of the inquiries have been from first-home buyers. We have seen about a 70 per cent rise in inquiries and we hope to sell about five or six properties by this week. That is significant. It is important. I am sure that it will also flow through to construction of new properties, which will contribute to the stimulus that this package was designed to inject into the national economy. I am sure that this will put a little bit of life back into the housing market in some of those areas that have not been experiencing growth in recent times, such as my local community, and ultimately that will be a good thing. I saw a statistic recently that suggested that one in 10 jobs is related to the construction industry. If that is the case—and obviously there will always be arguments about statistical measurements of that nature—then that demonstrates in no small way the very significant role the construction industry plays in generating and sustaining economic development within the country. That is why these measures, combined with the broader measures that the government have announced in bringing forward our infrastructure programs, will go a long way towards providing an injection into a sector that is very much the backbone of our economy. I conclude by saying that the National Rental Affordability Scheme is a fantastic policy. It is great not only to have been able to campaign on this during the last election but also to deliver on it by implementing the policy principles in the bills before the House now. I am very enthusiastic about it. I know many institutional investors who are enthusiastic about it. So too are community housing providers. Ultimately, I think that these proposals will deliver real and tangible benefits in the form of lower rental costs for many working families in my electorate and the many carers and pensioners also doing it tough. I am certain that that will be a great benefit to my local community and I commend the bills to the House. 10036 12:49:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise to speak in support of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, which establish the National Rental Affordability Scheme. During the 2007 election there was a great deal of focus on the cost of living for many families, and rental accommodation and affordable housing were absolutely central to that. I and the Labor Party made a commitment to the residents of my electorate that if we were elected we would work to introduce a scheme and do all we could to improve the area of housing affordability. The bills before the House deliver on that promise. The bills deliver on the commitment that we made to the people in my own electorate and across Australia to provide affordable housing to low-income Australians. This legislation establishes the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The scheme is an innovative way of easing the burden of high rents on low-income Australians and is a key component of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package. The affordable housing package is aimed at providing affordable homes at affordable rental prices. It will increase the number of homes available for rent, helping people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and build new homes for homeless people. I have stood in this parliament on a number of occasions and outlined the urgency for the federal government to act on behalf of the Australian people to assist them with rising costs of living. For a long time Australia was governed by a national government that believed ‘we had never been better off’. We were told that by the former Prime Minister. The former government insisted that they were the best friend of hard-working families. They did not have a housing minister. They did not in fact do anything to ease the issue of housing affordability for Australians, let alone Australian families. In the relatively short period of time since being elected, compared to the last 11 years of the Howard government, the Rudd government has acted very quickly in a variety of ways to provide much needed relief for families into the future. We have been proactive in implementing major reform that is in the best interests of the nation. Over recent weeks that has become even more important. We have seen a volatile world financial market, and although the RBA’s decision to reduce interest rates is welcomed, many families within my electorate continue to experience some level of uncertainty, making it difficult to budget with confidence into the future. Our international economy is facing unique challenges. The Rudd government is working with our global partners to come up with global solutions and domestically is showing leadership. The introduction of the National Rental Affordability Scheme is just one example of this government’s commitment to Australian families but also to dealing with the issue of housing affordability across the nation. It is an example of a significant reform that can provide confidence to Australian families at a time when confidence is most needed. The major contributors to housing stress in Australia are, firstly, the cost of housing and, secondly, the lack of housing supply. The National Rental Affordability Scheme aims to stimulate the construction of 50,000 additional rental dwellings over the next four years—50,000 new homes available in the private rental market for low- and moderate-income households across Australia. The scheme will ease rental affordability pressures throughout Australia by increasing the supply of new homes for those who are in grave need of affordable rental properties. This scheme will cost $623 million in the first four years. An initiative of this magnitude will be delivered with assistance from the states and territories. It is yet another example of the benefit to the Australian people of having governments at different levels working in harmony with one another. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was a major outcome from the March 2008 COAG meeting, and I commend the Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, and the Treasurer, Wayne Swan, for their hard work with the state and territory governments to get this right. Under the scheme, incentives will be provided to applicants to build new homes. And, once built, these homes will be made available to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below the market rate. The major incentive to applicants is a contribution from the Commonwealth government of $6,000 per dwelling per year for 10 years in tax incentives. This incentive is backed by the support of the state and territory governments to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year. Both Commonwealth and state and territory contributions will be indexed annually to the rental component of the CPI. This will ensure the level of incentive this scheme offers to developers today remains consistent over the 10-year period. The National Rental Affordability Scheme primarily targets large organisations, such as financial institutions, that are interested in this residential property investment option. It is also a worthy option for not-for-profit organisations experienced in property management. The scheme is not targeted at small, individual investors as such. However, it does allow interested small investors to invest in a participating investor company. Rental prices have surged at a higher rate than the consumer price index for some time now and at a higher rate than wage growth. This has seen an increasing number of Australian families finding themselves in mortgage stress. As house prices have continued to increase in recent years, so too have rental prices. It is not only home buyers finding it harder to make ends meet as a result of the housing boom. This comes on top of continual interest rate hikes that were seen under the previous government. This government will be watching closely over the coming years to make sure everything is being done to combat the current high levels of market demand for housing. That is why, if market demand remains strong over the next four years, this government will make a further 50,000 National Rental Affordability Scheme rental incentives available from July 2012. This will help build an additional 50,000 affordable rental dwellings to accommodate low- to moderate-income-earning Australians. If demand warrants these additional 50,000 properties, in total the National Rental Affordability Scheme will deliver 100,000 new affordable rental properties for our low- and moderate-income families. I am excited about the possibilities that this legislation brings for our nation. I represent an electorate where many families struggle to keep a roof over their heads. In my electorate the median income is $404 per week for an individual, $860 for a household and $1,076 for a family. These incomes are all below the national average. The median weekly rent in my electorate is $155 per week. I must admit that I do not know of many properties that are actually available at that—they must be at the lower end of the market—but they are the figures that we got from the local real estate agents. Based on these figures, weekly rent equates to more than 38 per cent of an individual’s weekly income. It leaves less than $250 per week for groceries, household expenses, transportation costs and social activities. In public housing it is deemed too expensive if 20 per cent of people’s incomes are consumed in rental—that is seen as the benchmark to take in relation to these things. So 38 per cent of an individual’s weekly income is far too high for anyone to be able to live on the rest, but unfortunately, with the tight rental market we have in my electorate and right across the country at the moment, it is the only option many people have. Even the most financially prudent of us would find it hard to make ends meet under these circumstances, and these are the median figures. Just imagine how tough it is for people in my electorate who earn below the median weekly income. When you consider all the expenses associated with day-to-day life, it is easy to see how families in my electorate who have a median income of $1,076 are finding it tough, let alone if they are at the lower end. In addition to household expenses faced by individuals, they also have added expenses such as child care and schooling, and it all adds up very quickly. Currently over 22 per cent of dwellings in my electorate are rental properties—that is over 11,000 rental properties in my electorate alone—but available rental properties are really scarce. Vacancy rates are currently below one per cent. The demand for rentals far outweighs supply, and there is absolutely no relief in sight in the immediate short term. Our real estate agents receive constant requests from people seeking available rental properties, and with such high demand we are also seeing rent increases of an average of $5 to $10 per week on new tenancies. This is relevant to the market demand for rentals in my electorate. I am confident that this legislation will be warmly welcomed by people in my district. I know the scheme will provide for additional rental properties in my electorate at 20 per cent lower than market rent, which will make a significant difference to our low- to moderate-income earners. I certainly encourage some of the larger property development and investment companies that are investing in my electorate to look very seriously at this scheme and the potential it provides for their investors to gain a substantial benefit from this particular scheme and, at the same time, to provide cheaper rental properties in my own electorate. Using the median rental price of $155 per week as an example, properties available for rent through the National Rental Affordability Scheme will be rented for 20 per cent less, potentially a reduction in rent of over $30 per week based on the median price in my own electorate, and savings like these will provide much-needed financial assistance to people in my community. The package not only provides the opportunity of lower rents but also boosts the amount of private rental stock that is available in an area. The scheme will not only benefit our renters but also help to retain a robust building industry, something that is critically important in the current economic times. As I said, I certainly hope property developers building in the Ballarat region will take advantage of the scheme, and I will certainly be out there encouraging them to do so. Affordable housing is one of the most important things to Australian families, and over one million households across Australia are now classed as being in housing stress. Housing stress puts a significant strain on the standard of living for the majority of low- and moderate-income earners, and it is the responsibility of government to try to ease that burden in a responsible manner. That is why, at a time of international financial uncertainty, we require economic responsibility from the Commonwealth government. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is just one of a number of ways the Rudd government is working to relieve the housing stress and financial burdens placed on many Australians. The government is so committed to providing affordable housing to Australians that it has appointed a Minister for Housing, whom I mentioned earlier, something the previous government did not do. The government has committed $2.2 billion towards increasing the number of affordable houses available for rent, helping people save for their first home, reducing housing infrastructure costs and constructing new homes for the homeless. The Rudd government has already called for expressions of interest for the Housing Affordability Fund, a fund established to help make building a new home more affordable through reducing infrastructure costs and streamlining the process for development approvals. It is a $512 million investment over five years and will assist people entering the housing market. On 1 October 2008 the government offered first home saver accounts to Australians to help them save for their first homes. The new accounts provide a simple, tax effective way to save a deposit for a first home through a combination of a government contribution and low taxes. Account holders will receive a cash contribution of up to $850 a year from the government to help them save for a home deposit. First home saver accounts are a terrific way of saving for a deposit for a house, and I would certainly encourage all young Australians to look at this incentive program. Present in the chamber is my sister-in-law. I have mentioned to her that she may like to tell her boys, who are now over 18 and would be eligible for such an account, to take advantage of that. Another initiative is the first home owners boost, announced last week. It is part of our Economic Security Strategy, which raises the first home owners grant from $7,000 to $14,000 for first home buyers of an existing home and from $7,000 to $21,000 for first home buyers of a new home, in addition to any contributions under the state first home owners grant programs. It is a substantial contribution to assist people either to get a deposit or to purchase a home. The incentive is available for the remainder of this financial year, and I would again encourage Australia’s first home buyers to look closely at it. It has received great local support from my electorate. On the day of the announcement I received an email from Stuart Benjamin, a director of the Elmstone Property Group in Ballarat, praising the government for introducing this initiative. He said: I just wanted to write and say thank you once again for the strong economic leadership being shown by the Government. Our Prime Minister continues to lead from the front and provide a stabilising image in these uncertain times. The impact of the first home owners grant announcement today will be profound for Ballarat. The building industry has come to a grinding halt (although no one will admit it), with tradesman starting to lay off staff and desperately seek any kind of construction work. We have been receiving 10 calls a week since August from tradespeople looking for work. These are not nice phone calls to have to manage … Our builders are screaming for work. Once again thank you for your continued hard work for our community. The National Rental Affordability Scheme will go some way to relieving the stress that families face in struggling to keep a roof over their heads. It is a pleasure to be part of a government that recognises everybody’s right to have a place they can call home, a place that feels like home. The nation deserves a government which is willing to fight for the rights of everyday Australians, and the National Rental Affordability Scheme is another measure that the Rudd government is taking to ease financial hardship. This scheme will encourage significant investment in affordable housing and, although we still have a long way to go, I am proud to say that we are taking steps in the right direction. I commend these bills to the House. Sitting suspended from 1.03 pm to 4.00 pm 10040 16:00:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —I commend the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to the House. These are difficult economic times: stock markets are volatile and currency movements have been dramatic around the world. Governments have been taking unprecedented actions to arrest the crisis. The global financial crisis has dominated the nightly news. It makes for bleak watching, with boards of prices in the red, downhill graphs that represent quantifiable losses, stockbrokers shouting into phones and others staring numbly at the screens. This is the stuff that has dominated the news. It is all immediately noticeable and it is dramatic. It is reported quickly and analysed as it is happening. Not all economic problems are like this. The crisis in rental affordability we are debating today is bad news—there is no doubt about it—but it is less immediately dramatic. It has been incremental over a number of years. Until recently it has been rarely mentioned on the nightly news. The effect of the rental affordability crisis, however, has been profound. When housing costs are the biggest slice of the family budget, any change in housing costs has an immediate effect on Australian families. I have spoken a number of times in this House about the plague of mortgage stress in my electorate. There are plenty of other households in my electorate that suffer from rental stress. More households in the electorate of Blaxland are suffering from rental stress than in almost any electorate in the country. The Australian Bureau of Statistics reports that there are 8,475 households renting in the electorate of Blaxland and 4,130 of these are suffering from what is known as rental stress, or more than 48 per cent of renting households. That means, in simple terms, that they are paying more than one-third of their income in rent. Workers on the front line, workers who help tenants with basic advice, can tell you just how serious the situation is. Mr Brij Datt of the South West Sydney Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service has seen a dramatic increase in the number of people coming to his service and asking for help. In 2004-05 the tenancy service received one or two inquiries a year from tenants who were facing eviction because the homes that they were renting were being repossessed from their landlords. They now receive one inquiry every two weeks; sometimes it is once a week. That is a big rise. That demonstrates the difficulty that everybody in the community faces when people cannot afford to pay for their homes. Two main factors have contributed to put greater pressure on tenants: first, there is an increasing shortage of rental properties and, second, landlords are finding it increasingly difficult to meet their weekly mortgage repayments, leaving many tenants having to pay ever-increasing rents. Homeowners are finding it tough. This makes the situation even tougher for renters. Brij estimates that there has been a 30 or 40 per cent increase in calls to his service for help from people facing rent increases. He has dealt with many cases where the rent has gone up every three months, sometimes by as much as 30 per cent. This means that someone who was paying $150 a week at the beginning of the year has found themselves paying as much as $270 a week at the end of the year. That is why I welcome these bills, which establish the National Rental Affordability Scheme. This is a supply-side measure. It seeks to make rental accommodation more affordable, bringing down the price by increasing the supply of available housing. It does this by offering incentives to the private sector and to community organisations to build affordable rental accommodation. The incentives will be in the form of a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution of $2,000 per dwelling per year in cash or in kind. This will be linked to the rental component of the CPI, therefore ensuring that these increases hold their value into the future. Provided that the conditions of the scheme are met, investors in affordable rental accommodation will be able to receive incentives every year for up to 10 years. The scheme will allow for up to 50,000 new rental properties to be built across Australia over the coming four years. The Minister for Housing has announced that, if demand for the scheme is still strong in 2012, the government will consider extending the scheme to another 50,000 dwellings, which is a good thing. I hope that many of those dwellings will be built in my electorate, where we need them, where demand for affordable rental accommodation is as high as it is anywhere in the country. The national vacancy rate currently stands at around two per cent, but in Bankstown, in my electorate, it is less than one per cent. I am glad to see that demand for participation in this scheme has already been strong. I understand the government has already received 244 expressions of interest in the first funding round, with the potential to build 12,770 new affordable rental dwellings. Investors are interested, obviously, in becoming involved in the scheme. The effect is that more affordable rental accommodation will be built. More affordable housing means more families that are doing it tough at the moment will be just that little bit better off. The scheme has been receiving support from all parties all across the country. Christopher Atkins, the Executive Director of the Tasmanian Master Builders Association, said: … the scheme will put new homes on the ground in a reasonable time period and provide affordable rental accommodation for families on low incomes. … the Scheme will stimulate the supply side of the residential construction market; the Scheme will be a catalyst for an increased supply of affordable land and housing. That is good news for families on low incomes and it is good news for builders. Real estate agents have also supported the scheme. I note that that the President of the Real Estate Institute of Australia, Mr Noel Dyett, said: We need this because the private market is not going to cater for lower-income earners without some government incentives. The scheme has also got the support of those who represent the interests of people that are doing it tough. The President of ACOSS, the Australian Council of Social Service, Lin Hatfield Dodds, described the scheme as: … really a significant plank in terms of housing affordability. It is a good way of energising investment. … we think this is a very important initiative. The support of these people is important and I value their opinions, but when it comes to housing there is one guy that I have a lot of confidence in. His name is Mark Newey and he has been a real estate agent in Bankstown for his whole working life. He has seen booms and he has seen busts and he knows the housing market in my local community like the back of his hand. I was talking to Mark about the scheme the other day and this is what he told me. In 2003 he usually had about 30 rental properties on his books every week. He had a regular banner ad in the Bankstown-Canterbury Torch newspaper, and each week he would advertise the best 10 properties that he had going. He told me that the weekly advertising meetings would be very colourful affairs. Each of his staff would argue for their accounts—the properties that they were trying to move—to be included in the ad. He does not have that problem anymore. Now he is lucky if he has four or five places that are available to rent. Mark tells me that things began to change at the end of 2003. As interest rates rose, asset prices began to fall. People became less willing to invest in the housing market. Changes to superannuation arrangements, although worthy, also encouraged people to move away from investments in property. The result was that construction of new rental properties began to slow about the end of 2003. Eventually it got to the point where building just about stopped. This was occurring as demand for rental properties continued to grow. You do not need to be Nostradamus to see that in a market where supply is slowing and demand is increasing the price is going to move upwards. This trend began in late 2003. There is no point in asking why no-one in government back then did anything about this emerging trend. There was not even a minister for housing. When the Rudd government were elected in November last year we promised to do all that we could to address diminishing rental affordability. We promised we would have a minister for housing, who would work hard to improve housing affordability more generally. These bills, which establish the National Rental Affordability Scheme, are an important part of keeping that promise. The scheme fits into the broader housing affordability plan that is being rolled out this year. That includes the first home saver accounts, the Housing Affordability Fund and $30 million to fast-track the national rollout of an electronic development assessment, or EDA, system. Add to this the boost in support for first home owners: the first home owners grant being increased from $7,000 to $14,000, as announced by the Prime Minister just last week, and an increase in the grant to $21,000 for those first home owners who decide to purchase a new property in one of the new areas. That has the additional benefit of supporting the construction industry at its most desperate time. It has that multiplier effect, if you will, of supporting the retail industry, the manufacturing industry and all those who contribute to the construction of new houses. These grants will allow many renters to get into the housing market for the first time. The Minister for Housing is doing a good job, but she is not developing this package on her own. Some of the credit for the shape of the National Rental Affordability Scheme needs to go to the National Summit on Housing Affordability group. The group has for the last few years helped in the development of this scheme. People like Professor Julian Disney, Adrian Pisarski, Dr Ron Silverberg, Grant Bellchamber, Carol Croce and Carrie Hamilton have all been part of making sure that this scheme makes a real difference in the affordable rental accommodation market. Rental affordability is a national issue that has serious local consequences. Members will know that in July this year I held a housing stress information night in Bankstown to give my local community the chance to have their financial questions, their issues and their concerns addressed by a panel of experts. That night was facilitated and chaired by financial and money expert Paul Clitheroe. The night was a great success; 250 people came along. I think it was such a success—that is, I think that we were able to give the sort of practical advice and the sort of useful information that people need—that I am doing it again. This time I am doing it in Cabramatta, at the other end of my electorate. On Tuesday next week I will be holding a second housing stress information forum, and I will do that at the Cabravale Leisure Centre. This time I am doing it during the day, to encourage young families to come along. I will also provide free child care to make attendance that much easier. Like the session that we held in July, this event will feature a panel of financial experts who will take questions from the audience from the floor. They will include Karen Cox, from the Consumer Credit Legal Centre; Jenny Reid, from Creating Links, a local NGO; David Bell, from Centacare; Ricci Bartels, from the Fairfield Migrant Resource Centre; and John Moratelli, from Legal Aid. The panel discussion will be led by respected financial journalist Karen Tso, previously of the Nine Network and now working as an anchor for CNBC. She is one of Australia’s most respected financial reporters, and she has very generously agreed to participate in this event to assist the people in Cabramatta who are doing it very tough. As well as talking about mortgage stress, the panel will focus on the difficulties that families in my electorate are facing with renting. I am glad that Brij Datt, from the South West Sydney Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service, will be on the panel to provide advice to people that are really struggling with rental stress. Can I take this opportunity to place on record my thanks to the local press in my area, both the Fairfield Advance and the Fairfield Champion, for the support they have shown in promoting this event and bringing it to the attention of people that need this support. I also thank the Bankstown-Canterbury Torch newspaper for the support they showed for the forum that I held earlier this year in Bankstown and for the support they are showing for this event in Cabramatta. The front page of the Bankstown-Canterbury Torch newspaper today says ‘Rent spike: forum offers specialist rental stress advice’. You cannot do these things alone. You cannot get the information that is necessary for people to take action to get practical advice without the help of the mass media. My local newspapers have been extremely helpful in that regard, and I thank them most profusely. When we find ourselves in financial difficulty, it is hard to speak up and it is hard to get help. That is why this event will also include stalls set up in the foyer to allow people one on one to get specialist help. There will be about 10 organisations that will hold stalls next week. They include Creating Links, the Wesley Mission Credit Line, the Smith Family, the Financial Services Union, the Salvation Army, the Office of Fair Trading in New South Wales, Legal Aid, the New South Wales Department of Housing, Centrelink and the South West Sydney Tenants Advice and Advocacy Service. The theme of the day is ‘Don’t wait until it’s too late to get help’. What I hear all the time when I talk to counsellors and experts in this area is that people wait until it is too late to get help. For those who have a mortgage it might be waiting until the sheriff knocks at the door or the bank forecloses. For those people who rent it might be that they wait until they get the knock at the door asking them to leave immediately. My message today and the message that will be conveyed to all who come along next Tuesday is: don’t wait until it’s too late to get help; there are plenty of people out there who can help to provide you with free and independent advice. Many of those people will be there on the day. If one local family struggling to pay the rent or the mortgage is put in contact at this event with a person or an organisation who can help them then it will be a success. That is what happened at the last housing stress information night that I held. A woman named Sophia Helene came along. She was just about to start work as a real estate agent. She came along because she wanted to learn a little bit more about the housing market and her potential clients. But, while she listened to the panellists speak that night, she realised that she could do with a little bit of help herself. At the end of the night, she went up to the Smith Family stall in the foyer and she spoke to a bloke named Gary Ingels. That night she signed up for a free budgeting course from the Smith Family. Sophia and her husband have been working with Gary since then to improve their financial situation and ease the mortgage stress that they are currently under. I ran into Sophia a couple of weeks ago in the street and she gave me a big hug. She said that she had come along to the forum not realising that she could benefit from the information that was being offered that night. But the information she received changed her life and put her financial situation back on track. She was extremely grateful. I said: ‘It wasn’t me that provided that help; it was the experts that were on the stage. The politician just provides the opportunity. By putting someone in need in touch with people who can provide that help, assistance and practical advice, I can do a good thing.’ I recommend it to all members of this House. Sophia is coming along next Tuesday. I have asked her to come along and she has been very willing to do that. She will speak as well at the forum and tell others to seek help before it is too late, before they get into deeper financial trouble. I hope people take this opportunity to seek help before it is too late. Just as the problem of rental affordability was not created overnight, it will not be solved straightaway. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a long-term solution that will, in time, address the need for affordable rental accommodation in our community. I hope it makes a difference, because no place needs it more than my electorate of Blaxland. I commend the bills to the House. 10045 16:18:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I want to congratulate the member for Blaxland for a wonderful contribution and for making sense of what is a real issue on the ground for I think all of us here in parliament and something that we ought to all be involved in trying to do something constructive about. That is really the story of what today’s bills, the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008, are about. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is about doing something practical on the ground. It is about delivering for people who are in need. I thought I might start my contribution on this particular matter with my story of how I began in the rental market and then bought a home. I think it would reflect what a lot of young people go through when they first get into the rental market. With most young people, when you get your first job you do not earn a lot of money and it is important to find a place to live that is comfortable and safe and gives you a home base as cheaply as possible. Often what really young people do when they are in that situation is rent or share with their friends or, if they are not in a position to do that, they will try to find something that is really affordable. I was in the same position, but I was clear in my mind that, when I first began working and began renting my own place, I would rent with a view to buy. The most important factor was to find somewhere that was cheap to rent—something that I could afford, something that would allow me to put a little bit of money aside not only to have a life but also to save some money to actually buy a home. I think that is the story of how most people buy their first home. It might be the story of how most young people got to be where they are today, but unfortunately that story may no longer be the same for young people, and it is pretty sad. Times have changed. Today the expectation that a young person on their own, beginning work, could even afford to rent somewhere on their own is completely alien as a concept. I do not know that many people in their first job in the first few months away from home would be in that sort of financial position, but there may be some. What that creates is a whole new generation of people that have to find different ways of doing things. They have to rely either on their friends and family or maybe on unusual or uncomfortable living arrangements. Perhaps they turn to government to give them some options as to how they might be assisted in getting not only into their first home but also into renting. That is what is so important about not only the bills we have before us today but also what we have already implemented. We face very different times today. They are different economic times, different financial times and different times in terms of people’s ability to gain accommodation, whether renting or buying. There is no question at all that we are in a global financial crisis. That has added a layer over the top of an existing problem that has actually been with us for quite some time. It is not a new problem. As the member for Blaxland said, this is a problem that has grown over a long period of time. It is a long-term problem and we will have to find long-term solutions. What really sticks out and what really is important to note in this is that this problem has built up over the past decade. It built up at a time when there was a very good financial environment for people to be able to go out and buy homes to rent or to do with what they wanted. Wages were high and there was a great sense of affordability about everything. There was one exception: the growing number of people who came under stress—housing stress, rental stress and buyer stress; those people who were in the market. Over the past 10 years we have seen an overheating not just on a global level—and that certainly did take place—but very particularly here in Australia in the housing market. Nowhere was it more overheated than in Sydney. But it was certainly overheated in other markets as well, whether it was in Perth, which was exceptionally overheated in terms of its housing market, or in other places such as Brisbane, my home town, in my state of Queensland. That did a couple of things. It drove people out of specific areas. It became unaffordable for them to live in areas they needed to live in for work reasons or family reasons or lifestyle reasons. It drove them into areas further and further out to the west, further outside the bounds of where they would normally live, work and have their friends and family around them. That in itself has created certain problems as well. It has also created a situation where the overheating of the market caused people to continually buy further and further up and where the only people who were really buying into homes at a particular point were investors. So I suppose we had a conundrum where a number of things were happening all at once. There was a global overheating of the housing market; a massive overheating of the housing market in Australia; a situation where only very serious investors could get into the housing market for rental purposes, driving up rents; and a very strong lack of supply matched by a very strong demand for housing driving all that up. The point of putting that on the record and describing what has been taking place over the last 10 years is just to make the very simple point that governments are elected to look after the best interests of the community and of the Australian people. For 12 years, but in particular for the last 10 years, during this overheating of the housing market at a global level and in Australia we saw little if any action at all taken by the previous government. I know that some opposition members are going to get all excited about what that means. They will think I am just having a go at them, but that is not the case. The fact is that Labor, in opposition, made repeated calls for the government to do something significant to assist people into the rental market and the housing market. We called on them to do something in a measured way that would have meant something to the people who needed it the most and in a way that would not have distorted the market. In recent days we have heard criticism of our first home buyers grant scheme. Our scheme doubles the grant from $7,000 to $14,000 for those who want to buy an existing dwelling and triples the grant from $7,000 to $21,000 for those who want to buy a new home. We have done that in a very calculated and strategic way. We have done it at a very specific time and for a limited period—unlike what the previous government did. When the previous government delivered their first home buyer grants of $7,000 and $14,000, it overheated the market. It stimulated the market so much that it was completely distorted. In the end, the people they were trying to help and assist were the people they hurt the most. That is the tragedy of what the previous government did. We are now left with the task of picking up the pieces. We are now left with the task of managing a housing market that has become distorted. Some of the worst distortion has been caused by the global financial crisis that is upon us. Labor’s scheme is timely and strategic and measured and calculated. It will deliver for the people who need it the most. There are many reasons why the previous government failed to deal with housing affordability, particularly in the area of rentals. You have to understand the philosophy which drove the previous government and which continues to drive the opposition today—that is, they believe this is not their job. In fact, they believe it is not the job of government. They believe in allowing the market to deal with everything. They believe in allowing market forces to deal with it. We now know very clearly what the outcome of doing that is. We now know very clearly the outcome of allowing those policies to prevail and allowing the market to go on its merry way. We have seen it on a global level with the global financial crisis. We have seen it domestically in Australia with the overheating of the housing market. Luckily, in Australia we have had the courage to maintain, over many decades, a strong financial regulatory system which has protected us in the worst of times. The housing affordability crisis, and the rental affordability situation, is a long-term problem—and we have a long-term solution. The package before us today has already been implemented and is part of a $2.2 billion package. Rhetoric might sound nice but, in the end, you have to deliver for real people. We are talking about the real economy, real people and what they need to maintain not only a decent quality of life but also a decent standard of living. For a lot of people, that has been eroded very quickly by the uncertainty we face in this economic climate. The First Home Owner Grant is directed at assisting families and young people buying their first home. It will make sure they get the assistance they need. They need it right now. That is why our package is on the table and being delivered right now. It will continue for just one year, ending on 30 June next year, because at that point the market should have stabilised. I think it is important to send a message to the market that this is not something that will go on in perpetuity. This is a measured scheme that will deliver an amount of money to assist a specific group of people at a specific time. It is a carefully thought out measure that will not overheat or distort the market. The Howard government put in place a similar scheme but without careful thought. Also, because we have a lack of housing, our policy is targeted at those who want to buy new homes. That will generate a market for housing construction. That will keep people in jobs and make sure that we keep our economy strong. To make sure people are encouraged into the new housing market, we are delivering $21,000 to them. The key thing about that amount of money is that it will be enough for people to afford a deposit and pay for their legal costs. It will make a substantial difference. It will get them into the market. So we are not only targeting rental affordability—we are doing a range of things there, and I will go to some of that detail in a moment—but we are also trying to get people into ownership of new and existing homes. Part of our strategy has always been to deal with these matters in a partnership. We believe in partnerships with the states and territories. We believe in partnerships with the community. We believe in partnerships with the industry and the housing sector. We believe in partnerships because, in the end, partnerships deliver the best outcomes and the best results. We are consulting widely. We are ensuring that our policies will actually deliver for the greatest number of people possible. We are doing that in conjunction with our other policies, including delivering on the promised tax cuts, making sure that we maintain a strong economy and making sure that we in the Rudd government maintain our roles and responsibilities. We are not just delivering in one area and forgoing others but making sure that there is a whole-of-sector approach in the work that we do. I want to emphasise the point concerning partnership with the states. If there is one thing this country desperately needs, it is strong links and strong partnerships—a new approach to harmonisation across the states. We heard a lot of rhetoric over the past five or six years about the causes of the housing affordability problems—which are also the causes of the rental affordability problems. We heard a lot of blame-shifting about who was responsible. The previous government was more than happy to lay the blame at the feet of developers, to lay the blame at the feet of construction companies, to lay the blame at the feet of the states or the territories. In fact, I recall very well that for the past 10 years they were more than happy to lay the blame for every problem that existed at everyone else’s feet except their own. That distorted their policy reaction and any further action they took. The reality is that we are all in this together. If you look at all the data, all the information and all the research, you cannot just say it is a case of the fees and charges of local or state governments. There is actually a very good report out from one of the related institutes that has looked at what those fees represent, at the percentage developers get in terms of their margin and at land costs versus construction costs. While there might be flexibility in those percentages and how much each charges, the reality is that it is all of them put together that have created this affordability problem. That is the bottom line. Following the 2007 election campaign, we followed through on our commitments that we would put in place a whole range of policies. We will work with local and state governments to reduce fees and charges, and we have schemes in place to deal with that. Through the tax system, we will provide tax incentives for developers, investors and construction companies to build new stock. If you are ever going to deal with the problem of housing affordability you have to get people into homes. We need more homes. We need to drive down the demand. But you need to be careful when you drive down demand that you do not collapse the sector, that you do not collapse the equity someone has built up in their home or their piece of land. So we are doing it strategically and we are making sure we work with the states and territories. Through the tax system, we will provide investors and developers with an $8,000 per year rebate, over a 10-year period—$6,000 provided by the federal government and $2,000 to be provided by the states—if they sign up to a very simple scheme. If they build a home, a unit, a townhouse, whatever it might be, for somebody to occupy and they rent it out at 20 per cent below market value, the federal government and the state government, through our scheme, will deliver them a massive tax incentive to do that. That will drive construction. That will return investors to that market. That will provide the houses that are needed to help people into their first home or help people into very decent, good quality, affordable rental accommodation. That is central to what we are doing. We have heard a lot of opposition criticism on these particular measures that we have put in place—they are either too much or too little or they are either too early or too late. But what the opposition do is very consistent: they are very good at criticising. In fact, it is almost like they have been returned to their natural place now that they are in opposition. They were in government for nearly 12 years, but it is like they have just been returned to where they really, truly belong, because they never seem happier than when they are in opposition. They get up on their high horses, they carry on, they love to criticise, they all speak with different voices on different issues and none of them are quite on the same page at the same time, but they seem to be having a really good time. Of course, the sad part is that they are doing that while Rome burns. We are currently facing some very serious global issues and some very serious domestic issues and it is us in government, Labor, that are prepared to stand up and take those tough decisions. That is what we have done with the National Rental Affordability Scheme and that is what we have done by injecting some life back into the construction sector to make sure that our economy does not slow and falter and to make sure that people are maintained in jobs while at the same time providing the sort of affordability that we need. In fact, some of the hype and hysteria coming from the opposition has led me to think in recent days that the opposition are really just a circus. This really dawned on me in the last couple of days after their actions and words about the surplus. We have a Leader of the Opposition who thinks he is the Australian version of Harry Houdini. He is going to create the greatest magic trick of all time: he is going to make something disappear not once but twice. That is right. He wants to take the surplus and make it disappear and then he wants to grab it again and make it disappear all over again. We have people like the member for O’Connor, Wilson Tuckey, who really is the clown of the circus. He gets up in parliament and, sure, he is entertaining, sure, he absolutely entertains me, sure, I get a laugh out of everything he does and, sure, he is funny, but in the end he is a joke. That is the reality. He comes into this place and delivers absolutely nothing at all. Then, of course, we have the great supporting act, which is the frontbench of the opposition. Picture this: they are the Keystone Cops. They are all running in different directions. They have a different view on every policy position, and they are never quite sure who— 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—Order! I think the member for Oxley should return to the subject. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I am very much on the subject. They are Keystone Cops in their inability to deal with the crisis that is before them—and that is housing affordability, the global financial crisis and every other piece of policy that we have in front of us. That is only the three-ring circus. There is always a supporting act in the three-ring circus called the sideshow, and here that is the backbench—a bunch of galahs. They squawk all over the place but, in the end, the galahs have no bite at all. It is Labor that are actually delivering the essential bits of policy. It is Labor that are doing the hard yards in making sure we can get people into good, decent, new, affordable homes and making sure that, whether it is in Brisbane, Sydney or even Perth, where the market is overheated, we provide the tools and the regulatory framework, we provide the funding assistance, we work with the states and in partnership with the sector, we maintain growth in the economy and we ensure that people’s jobs are maintained. I congratulate the minister and the leadership of the Rudd government for this excellent policy and the money they have delivered to ensure that the economy continues to grow. (Time expired) 10050 16:38:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to speak in strong support of the government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. The National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 will amend the Income Tax Assessment Act to enable eligible entities participating in the scheme to claim a refundable tax offset, to ensure that the contributions from states and territories participating in the scheme are treated as non-assessable and non-exempt income for taxation purposes, and to ensure that there is no capital gains tax consequence as a result of the receipt of the incentives under the scheme. It is important that that happens so that we attract the sector in particular to be involved. I am speaking to the two bills that are being dealt with in the cognate debate, so when I make my contribution I will stray across both of the bills. These bills are part of a comprehensive policy package in response to housing needs—to housing needs long neglected across the whole of Australian society, including my seat of Page but not just in Page. Housing is something which has been neglected at a national level and which has had a great impact at the local level. These bills represent one of the key planks of the Rudd Labor government’s housing policy. We need public housing. We need public investment in housing. Otherwise, we would just be leaving it to the market, and the market does not take care of all the housing needs of our community. That is what these bills are directed at doing. I was written to recently—I think all members would have got a letter—by Shelter WA, who highlighted again this national issue that has a local impact. They said that, particularly over the last decade, at least $3.5 billion has been taken out of the housing sector. That was money that should have been in there as public investment, but under the previous government there was a disinvestment in the housing sector, and that greatly affected the housing stock. Housing stress, as we know, has been a big issue and remains one, but it is being addressed. Some of the initiatives through these bills will take some time to kick in at the community level, so the problem will not be fixed overnight. It cannot be fixed in a short period, but these measures are a way of attempting to do what is required. In talking about these bills, it is necessary to talk about the affordable housing package in general but also to look at homelessness, an issue that has impacted my area. It is one of those things that are very difficult to quantify. Some homelessness is where people are out on the street, but some homelessness is where people are living with relatives, have to camp at friends’ places or have to live in cars. Again it comes down to—although not entirely—not having enough housing stock available at affordable prices. That really is unacceptable. It is commendable that our Prime Minister not only has made homelessness a national priority but also has stated that he wants to work towards the target of halving it in 10 years time. That is compelling. It is compelling for a number of reasons but particularly at a humanitarian level. Homelessness is an issue. My view has always been that one of the things we have to do with people who are homeless is just provide shelter for them, provide homes for them. Every citizen has the right to shelter, and as a decent society we have a responsibility to house our own, no matter what their circumstances. Sometimes people say to me ‘they drink’, ‘they do drugs’, ‘they gamble’ or whatever, and sometimes that is true. But none of us is perfect, and we have to look after the afflicted as well as the addicted. We also have to look after people with illnesses, whether psychological or physical. I have seen people who are at less than full capacity trying to organise themselves to keep a roof over their heads. Some people just cannot do it and they need help and support, particularly those who do have a mental illness. They get a place and a number of things may happen: they do not pay the rent when they should or they pay it intermittently; they wander away for a while; or they disturb the neighbours. The latter is always harder; some of the others are easier to fix. They get moved on or they get evicted or they lose their housing and then they are homeless again. And then they get back into the never-ending cycle of homelessness. It is easier just to keep people in their homes. In Lismore, one of the big centres in my seat of Page, we are looking at building a homeless shelter because we do have a housing problem there. Fortunately, we have a contribution of $200,000 from the federal government. But everybody is kicking in. The whole community is behind it, and it is being driven by local government through Lismore City Council. That is just one response to try to tackle the housing issue at a local level. When I talk about housing, it is with some background that I have in the area. I was a founding member and president of the North Coast Community Housing Company, which was first set up in about 1983. It still continues today to provide housing at affordable prices, which is what these bills are about, on the North Coast and across the Northern Rivers. It is pleasing for me to see that organisations like that still exist and try to meet that need in the community. These bills will also do that at a very strategic government level and through strategic intervention by government, ensuring that we do have some more affordable housing stock. In discussions so far, I have heard a number of people talk about regulations not being available. My information and advice is that those regulations are available. I want to put that on the record to correct a probable misperception about that particular issue. Mr Deputy Speaker, you may call me a bleeding heart, but homelessness does cause me pain—to see people who are evicted or put in a homeless situation because they cannot afford a home. It is one of those things that I am sure causes some pain to all members in this House, and we should work towards resolving it. The scheme encourages, through tax incentives, large-scale investment in affordable rental housing by offering an incentive to those who provide new dwellings on condition—and from what I understand it is clearly non-negotiable, as it should be—that the new dwellings are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. That will make housing affordable. I want to outline what the incentive is. It is both a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year in the form of direct financial support or in-kind contribution. The incentive can also be in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment. The incentive has a 10-year life span. It is payable each year for 10 years to participants who comply with the criteria. As I understand it, it will be indexed in line with the rental component of the CPI. The bills introduce a key part of the $2.2 billion affordable housing package, and this delivers on the Rudd Labor government’s 2007 election commitment. I also understand that COAG has agreed to implement the scheme as well as be involved in it, and that is good progress and good news. The National Rental Affordability Scheme will create up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia, an investment of about $622 million over four years. I, like every good local member, will be saying, ‘Of course, I want some of that investment in Page.’ That is what good local members say, but I know there is already an interest in my area, particularly from local governments. It is pleasing that I do have local governments in Page which have already shown a keen interest. They have also taken action to provide housing in the local community. In closing, I commend these bills. I also commend the Minister for Housing, Tanya Plibersek, for the good work that she does in the area of housing by bringing to the area not only technical policy expertise but also compassion, which is absolutely necessary when we are dealing with the issue of housing. 10052 16:50:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 0 Ms CAMPBELL —The Australian people were told by the previous government that they had never been better off. Well, on this side of the House we know how flagrantly untrue and out of touch that statement, delivered by the former Prime Minister, really was. That is why we made a commitment to the Australian people that we would do what we could as a national government to ease the burden and to relieve some of the pressure, particularly financial, under which so many in our community are suffering. That was a commitment that I made as I travelled around Northern Tasmania and spoke with the electors of Bass. It was a pledge that I made with confidence, and that is why I am proud to add my voice in support of the Rudd government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme. At no time, I believe it is fair to say, has it been harder for people, particularly those on low and moderate incomes, to find affordable rental accommodation. We hear a lot about the prohibitive cost of housing in and around the major cities like Sydney and Melbourne. I have no doubt that things are difficult. Let me assure everyone that across the towns and communities of Northern Tasmania too families are struggling. The most recent census figures show that 40 per cent of renting households in my electorate of Bass are under rental stress. That is to say that these households, these hardworking Australians and families, spend more than 30 per cent of their income just to pay the rent. Forty per cent of renters—I find that an absolutely frightening thought. This equates to 2,676 families who are struggling with their budgets each and every week, and this is in a climate of ever-rising rents. It is a disturbing trend, to say the least. For example, in the last year alone the rent on a two-bedroom home in Launceston has risen by 13½ per cent. It is now $210 per week. It is little wonder families are struggling. For a three-bedroom home the average rent is $240 per week and for a four-bedroom home it is well over $300 per week. Vacancy rates are at critically low levels and rents are increasing faster than other everyday living costs. It should be remembered and noted that cost-of-living expenses are also rising, adding to the pressure families are feeling. As I mentioned, it is not just Tasmania that is affected by these issues. It is nationwide and therefore demands not only a whole-of-government response but a whole-of-country response. Research by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling found that across Australia there were 1.1 million low- and moderate-income households in housing stress in December 2007. Nearly 700,000 of these families are now spending more than 30 per cent of their limited incomes just to pay the rent. It has a knock-on effect also; it means that the great Australian dream of homeownership is moving further and further out of reach of so many. Families and workers who in the past would have rented and used that as a stepping stone to buying their own home are now finding it much tougher to do that. These people are being forced to move house, live in cramped conditions and cut back on essentials just to keep a roof over their heads. This is having an enormous impact on families, workers, young people and pensioners. Rental affordability pressures are driven by a poor supply of affordable rental housing. That is why increasing the supply of affordable rental properties is a major priority for the Rudd government. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a $623 million investment by the government to create 50,000 affordable rental properties for low- and moderate-income earners in its first four years. The scheme delivers on one of the government’s key 2007 election commitments. The scheme provides incentives to participants to build new dwellings for renting to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rents. If market demand stays strong, the government will expand it to 100,000 properties over the following five years. There are two key elements to the scheme. They are an annual Australia government contribution of $6,000 for each dwelling in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment and an annual state or territory government contribution of $2,000 or more for each dwelling, which will be provided through cash payments or in-kind financial support. This represents a substantial investment in affordable housing for low- and moderate-income Australians. It demonstrates the government’s long-term commitment to affordable rental housing and also acknowledges that the issue will not be resolved overnight. The scheme is a new opportunity for all levels of government to work together with business and not-for-profit organisations to increase the supply of affordable rental housing for Australian families. It will facilitate new and creative partnerships between institutional investors, developers and community housing providers. The importance of the community housing sector to the success of the National Rental Affordability Scheme cannot be overstated. In my home state of Tasmania there are more than 2,700 people currently waiting for public housing. If this scheme relieves some of the pressure on the public housing system then the flow-on effects can only be positive. As a government we believe that the National Rental Affordability Scheme will bring substantial growth to the community housing sector, whether it is tenancy managers or owners and developers in a consortium. The incentives are intended to leverage private sector investment of up to $13 billion over the next four years, with more than 1½ million households anticipated to be eligible to rent the dwellings at, as I mentioned, a 20 per cent discount on market prices. This is perhaps the government’s most ambitious new initiative. It will also form part of the national affordable housing agreement. It will benefit key workers like entry-level police officers and teachers, carers, cleaners, retail and hospitality staff and childcare professionals. Mr Deputy Speaker, as you can doubtless imagine, the Tasmanian Council of Social Service, or TasCOSS, has welcomed the scheme. It is, according to Tom Muller, the council’s chief executive officer, a step in the right direction, particularly after a decade of funding decreases across public housing. It is estimated that over the last 10 years the amount of funding committed in this area decreased by 30 per cent in real terms. Whilst I believe there is some way to go and there will always be more work to be done, the Rudd government’s commitment on homelessness is clear. One of the first things Labor did was to appoint a Minister for Housing, something which simply did not exist during the Howard years. I am proud to say that a degree of compassion is being restored in the federal arena, and we are committed to working with the states to find solutions in relation to this. There is a crisis of affordability, and now is simply not the time to continue passing the buck between different levels of government. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a supply-side measure increasing the supply of affordable rental properties. These incentives, provided by the Australian and state governments, are valued at $8,000 each year. If there continues to be demand, the government will expand the scheme by an additional 50,000 incentives over the following five years, further growing our investment in Australia’s affordable housing stock. This demonstrates the government’s long-term commitment to affordable rental housing and also acknowledges that the issue will not be resolved overnight. This too has been acknowledged by TasCOSS. It, along with its national body, has six recommendations which it sees as solutions to the public housing shortage and housing affordability. They are: A Growth Target should be established involving an increase in the stock of public and non-profit housing by 30,000 additional dwellings by 2012. An Affordable Housing Growth Fund should be established with funding of $7.5 billion over 4 years strictly ear-marked for expanding the stock of public and non-profit housing, contributed on a proportional matching basis by the Commonwealth and the States/Territories. An Operating Subsidy Program should be established, with funding of $3.5 billion over four years provided by the Commonwealth. These funding arrangements will require approximately $5 billion above funding currently provided by the Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement (CSHA). New stock should meet standards relating to dwelling quality, disability accessibility and energy efficiency. Commonwealth Rent Assistance (CRA) should be reviewed to ensure that it best meets the needs of all low income renters. As a first step, the maximum rate of CRA should be increased by 30% … for low income households currently receiving the highest rate of CRA at a cost of $500 million per annum. This list stems from a knowledge and understanding of just how dire the situation is for many in our community. According to TasCOSS: There are at least 600,000 families and singles in the private rental market in housing stress. This represent 65% of low income private renters. Approximately 180,000 households are on public rental housing waiting lists. Eligibility is extremely limited, with access restricted to the most severely disadvantaged. The supply of public housing has declined by approximately 30,000 dwellings between 1996 and 2006 from 372,000 to 341,000 dwellings. As I mentioned earlier, Commonwealth funding for public and non-profit housing has fallen by around 30 per cent in real terms since 1996. More than 32 per cent of households receiving Commonwealth rent assistance still pay more than 30 per cent of their income on rent. There is a national shortage in the annual supply of new housing per year of more than 30,000 dwellings, and more than 105,000 people experience homelessness on any given night. I realise, as does the government, that the issues affecting the public and private housing sectors are not identical. However, I believe that if we can address issues of affordability in the private sector through schemes such as the National Rental Affordability Scheme then the potential is there to ease the burden on the public sector. Neither can or should be viewed in isolation. To boost the capacity of the not-for-profit sector to be involved in providing housing as a part of the scheme, the Australian government has set up a capacity-building strategy. This strategy will specifically target the not-for-profit community housing sector. We have committed $1.5 million over two years to the strategy. While we are working hard to ensure these ambitious housing projects and programs are implemented, picked up and used to their full advantage, I, like the Minister for Housing, will continue listening to the people who take the time to contact me regarding issues surrounding housing. Let me tell you: there are many of those in Northern Tasmania. These are the people who are directly affected by these problems and solutions. I would like, if I may, to take a moment to speak of the Rudd government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy and, specifically, the first home buyers scheme boost. This yet again demonstrates this government’s commitment to assisting people to enter the property market. In my home state of Tasmania, if history is any indication, almost 2½ thousand people will be in a position to take advantage of the boosted scheme. That means that for existing properties the grant is now $14,000, while for newly built homes the grant is $21,000. This, like many of the government’s policies, demonstrates that we understand the pressures families and working Australians are under. We appreciate how difficult it is for many people attempting to enter the housing market. The first home owners scheme boost is a decisive Rudd government initiative to stimulate housing activity and give first home buyers a better chance in the housing market. The Rudd government are making sure our economy emerges in strong shape from these tough international times so that we can provide quality jobs and security for working families into the future. To that end, I commend the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 to the House, secure in the knowledge that, as a government, we are acting across the board to assist both renters and buyers. 10055 17:03:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak in support of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I am particularly pleased to speak to this legislation, because every time the Minister for Housing introduces a bill into this House we are reminded that the opposition cared so little about housing affordability when they were in government that they never even had a housing minister. It also reminds us that the Howard-Costello government ripped millions of dollars out of the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement, leaving public housing desperately underfunded around the country and thousands of Australians homeless or in housing stress. Terms like ‘homeless’ or ‘housing stress’ flow easily from the tongue; however, having previously worked on the board of Kyabra Community Association, a community organisation in my electorate that looks after people in stress and provides community housing, I know that they are not just words and that we are talking about real lives, real misery, real limited opportunities. It is easy to condemn it in this House, but the Howard-Costello government needs to be forever condemned for what it did to the marginalised when it came to housing. I was interested to receive a letter from Shelter Western Australia, a community organisation, with the following comments from Roger Raven, the chairman: The Australian Government’s subsidies to the states and territories are important for the viability of their public and non-profit housing programs. The Howard Government stripped $3.5 billion from the CSHA. He then seeks support for a few things. It is interesting to see how the effects flowed through not just to South-East Queensland but all over the country. We can no longer live in denial. Australia is facing a housing affordability crisis and it requires a multipronged response. So I welcome the announcement last week by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer to increase the first home buyers grant to $14,000 for first home buyers of an existing home and to $21,000 for first home buyers constructing a new home. That is incredible news, which was very well received by people at my weekend street stall. At the Rocklea markets I had numerous people come up and congratulate us. A few people said they wished it had happened the week before, just before they signed a contract—but we cannot make everybody happy. This incentive will enable many young people to realise their dream of homeownership. For too long the great Australian dream of owning some bricks and mortar—your own home, although in Queensland it might not be of bricks and mortar but of timber—has slipped towards a nightmare. Now we can turn that dream back into a reality. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. The Rudd government is also investing $512 million over five years to help cut the planning and infrastructure costs of new housing developments. We have set up first home saver accounts to help young people save for their own home. At the street stall at the weekend, as I just said, and at Sunnybank Hills the month before I had numerous people come up and ask about the first home saver accounts. I had parents coming up with their children, who were in their late teens to early 20s, to ask what it was about, how they could do it and what they needed to do. Also, over the next five years the Rudd government will spend $150 million to build up to 600 new houses and units for individuals and families who would otherwise be sleeping rough. And we are implementing the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The scheme provides $623 million to help create 50,000 new affordable rental properties across Australia. Under the scheme, low- and moderate-income families will be able to rent a dwelling at 20 per cent below market rates. To fully appreciate the significance of this measure, it is good to have a clear idea of just how much rents have increased in recent years. Back in September 2003—not that long ago—the median weekly rent for a two-bedroom unit in the city of Brisbane was $270. In September 2008 it was $425, up almost 60 per cent in just five years. That is an extra $155 to be found every week. It is the same story in regional Queensland. Let us take as an example the electorate of my colleague James Bidgood, the member for Dawson. In the city of Mackay, for example, a three-bedroom house will now set you back $380 per week. Back in 2003 its rent was only $170 per week. Why didn’t I buy property in Mackay back in 2003! We are talking about an increase of more than 120 per cent in the cost of renting a three-bedroom home in five years. That is an extra $210 per week. Is it any wonder that families, pensioners and carers are struggling to meet these costs? Is it any wonder that young people are struggling to save a deposit to buy their own home? That is especially the case with country kids who come to the city looking for opportunity and perhaps cannot stay with their parents, so they are forced to go into the rental market. I do not get to the movies very often in this job but the other day I got to see a movie called Step Brothers, which is about two people staying at home who are in their 40s but act like children. Maybe that is the sort of civilisation we are developing, especially in some of our big cities, where people have to stay at home and their parents cannot get rid of them because they cannot afford to get into the rental market or, heaven forbid, the housing market. The Rudd government is aware of the pain that these rent hikes are causing many Australians, and the National Rental Affordability Scheme is about providing some relief to and reducing rental costs for low-income families. The scheme encourages investment in affordable rental housing by offering incentives to developers. The Commonwealth will provide $6,000 per year per dwelling and the states and territories will contribute $2,000 per year per dwelling. These incentives will be available for 10 years. This model has had tremendous success in Queensland on a small scale through the Brisbane Housing Company. The Brisbane Housing Company is a not-for-profit organisation set up by the Queensland Department of Housing, Brisbane City Council, local charities and community groups to provide affordable housing at below market rents to low-income families. Since the company was set up, in 2002, it has built more than 600 dwellings. As I said, charities, community groups, the state government and Brisbane City Council got together to do the right thing by people who are suffering housing stress. The legislation before the House provides the legislative framework to enable the National Rental Affordability Scheme to be implemented. It amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to enable those participating in the scheme to claim a refundable tax offset and to ensure that state and territory contributions are excluded as income or capital gains for tax purposes. The legislation also allows for the scheme to be developed by regulations. The draft was released last week. As we have seen in recent weeks, economic circumstances can change only too quickly. This legislation provides the flexibility to enable the scheme to be amended and adapted as needed, depending on the global and local economic circumstances. Market rent, tenant eligibility criteria, acceptable vacancy periods and reporting requirements will evolve through regulation as required. Public housing and rent assistance have helped millions of low-income families throughout the country; however, these measures alone can no longer meet the demand for affordable housing. This is a completely new and innovative way of boosting market supply of affordable housing and supporting low-income families. I am fortunate enough to have close connections with a couple of builders, both as friends and people in my electorate, and they are certainly very supportive of this scheme. My office has sent out information about the scheme to them and they have received it very positively. Once again, I thank the housing minister and the Treasurer for introducing this legislation and I commend it to the House. 10057 17:11:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I rise to support National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. These bills seek to address a long-emerging problem in our housing economy whereby people are increasingly stuck at the level of accommodation in which they are residing and are unable to move through the system. By this I mean—as the previous speaker outlined and as I know through direct personal experience—we have the phenomenon of adult children living for extended periods with their families because they cannot access rental accommodation or save a deposit to get into an affordable first home. The old model, of course, was that people lived at home probably until they went on to postsecondary education or a job. At that point they moved to fairly low-rent accommodation for a while—shared accommodation and so forth. They got their first job, were able to save a deposit and move into their own first, normally small, home and gradually either extended or upgraded over their lifetime. As a result of that, in this country we have a very high degree of security behind people in their retirement via the fact that they own their own home. We have seen that pattern, which has been a long-established one in our society, vastly disrupted over recent decades. In this package the government has had, I believe, the foresight to identify that there will be far-reaching consequences not only for our society and communities but also for our economy if people are unable to sustain themselves over the longer period and have their own homes by the time they are at retirement age. The legislation before us first identifies that part of the market—the rental market—where clearly barriers to access are emerging and the trap of rental stress is being created for people. Interaction in that end of the market is particularly important in the issue of homelessness, because service providers trying to move the homeless into low-rent accommodation are increasingly competing with people who are unable to move out of that level of the market. This legislation is important both in providing rent relief in our communities and in being part of the solution to the homelessness issue. I will come back to that very briefly at the end of my comments. The object of the bills before us is to increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and thereby to also reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income earners. Many speakers today have talked about the pressure on those in low-income types of accommodation. Indeed, even moderate-income earners, the people we rely on—policemen, teachers, council workers and all those service providers in our community—particularly if they are living in high-demand areas, are finding their income is increasingly stretched in providing for rental accommodation. The scheme encourages large-scale investment in affordable rental housing by offering incentives to providers of new dwellings on the condition that they are rented to low- and moderate-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. With some of the increases we have seen in the rental rates, that will barely get us back to a few years ago, but it will be a significant improvement for people under stress. The incentives comprise a Commonwealth contribution of $6,000 per dwelling per year and a state or territory contribution in the form of direct financial support or an in-kind contribution to the value of $2,000 per dwelling per year. The incentives can be in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment. The incentives will be provided each year for 10 years to complying participants and will be indexed in line with the rent component of the CPI. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a key part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package. The government’s package will increase the supply of affordable rental homes, help people save for their first home, lower housing infrastructure costs and build new homes in order to provide for the homeless. The associated National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to provide for the refundable tax offset and to ensure that state and territory contributions to entities participating in the scheme are non-assessable and non-exempt income for tax purposes and also that there are no capital gains tax consequences for receipt of incentives under the scheme. If market demand remains strong, the Commonwealth will make a further 50,000 incentives available from July 2012. And, with such wonderful policies and programs in place, I am sure we will still be in government in 2012 to see that through to its injection into the system. This will help to build another 50,000 affordable rental dwellings. The establishment of the scheme will offer the flexibility required by changing circumstances and conditions in the rental market, including determining market rent, tenant eligibility criteria and acceptable periods of vacancy. The scheme will be reviewed to test whether it is adequately focused, whether there needs to be simplification of the scheme reducing the administrative burden and whether there are issues of noncompliance that need to be addressed. I would just like to turn to the situation in my own seat of Cunningham. For those who are not familiar with it, it is basically Wollongong. It is a beautiful part of the world. It is a coastal area on a main railway line. As a result of this, it is a very popular place for people to live. Indeed, it has been under significant housing pressure because people are able to sell up in Sydney and move down to Wollongong and still access employment in Sydney. In my seat, one in four of my working constituents travel to Sydney to work. Twenty-five per cent of the working population leave every day to travel to Sydney. Beyond the broader infrastructure pressures that has provided, it has provided real pressure on housing as well. When that is combined with the fact that we have a world-class, fantastic university attracting students locally but also significantly from regional areas of the state and from overseas, you can imagine the converging pressures that we are experiencing on the regional accommodation market. In my seat, there are 3,932 rental households in rental stress. The total number of renting households in Cunningham is 9,448. If you do the quick sums—I cheated by doing it on a calculator earlier—that will tell you that 41.6 per cent of my renting households are in rental stress. That is as a direct result of the fact that we have had those converging pressures and, at the same time, it is very difficult to create new housing stock because we are placed right between the sea and the escarpment. The pressures are very significant in the rental market. Rental stress of course means that people are forced to relocate and find it increasingly difficult to relocate. Often they get into back-payment problems. They are thrown out of a particular accommodation and then they have to try and find alternative accommodation. Or, at that end of the market, an elderly couple might discover that the neighbourhood they are in is a university rental area. The lifestyle clashes that occur mean that the block of flats or whatever are not appropriate for them and they have to move again. We see a lot of that in our area. Sadly, as that pressure hits home, they start cutting back on the essentials in order to just keep a roof over their heads. That can have quite dire consequences of course in terms of their health and wellbeing as well. The Illawarra Regional Information Service’s economic report, 2008: issue 2 recently pointed out that the Wollongong statistical district is currently going through a unique period characterised by a sudden drop in rental property vacancies. As recently as June 2006 there was an average of 175 houses and 360 units listed for rent in the Saturday edition of the Illawarra Mercury. Just over two years later there has been a large-scale decline in those numbers. In the December quarter of 2007, only 87 houses and 170 units—half the earlier numbers—were available. Median rental prices have also been steadily increasing in the Wollongong, Shellharbour and Kiama local government areas. The IRIS study also points out: Contrary to conventional wisdom, Wollongong may actually be a more expensive place to rent a property than Sydney and New South Wales when the relative sizes of renter’s incomes are taken into account. I think that indicates one of the drivers behind 41.6 per cent of renters being in rental stress. The study noted that the median rent of family households in Wollongong is 26.1 per cent of household median income, which is higher than Sydney, at 23.5 per cent, and New South Wales, at 22.7 per cent. Wollongong’s and the Illawarra’s population will of course continue to increase. In some ways, I think we have underestimated the growth in population that is taking place and will take place in the future. That will place increasing pressure on the housing and rental market in our region and in my seat in particular. The increases in the first home owners grant to $14,000 and $21,000 are undoubtedly welcome. I am sure my colleague the member for Throsby, Jennie George, will see a lot of activity in her seat because most of the new housing in our region goes up there. I am sure a lot of the renters in my more cramped seat will be looking for those opportunities as well. In my final few moments, I would like to say that in December last year I talked to several of the homelessness and emergency service providers in my region. They are acutely conscious of this decreasing pool of available affordable rental accommodation. Most services aim to be an intermediary—that is, to take people in in crisis or difficulty and then move them into a more sustainable, long-term situation. That is becoming more difficult for them. I particularly want to thank Southern Youth and Family Services—Narelle Clay and her team. They offer six different services ranging from crisis refuge to medium-term accommodation, to the point where they find independent living and then provide support services. I was horrified to learn that hundreds of young people are turned away every month because they just cannot provide enough accommodation. I also went to see the accommodation St Vincent de Paul provide for homeless men. They said that people come down from Sydney on the train thinking they will go to a nice coastal area where it is more pleasant and friendly, but they find it impossible to get accommodation. I thank both of those organisations for providing me with some fairly sad but important information on the challenges facing our region. This is an important part of an overall package and it is a really innovative approach that finally a federal housing minister has been able to progress. I commend the bills to the House. 10060 17:24:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I would like to congratulate the member for Cunningham for her very well thought through contribution to today’s debate on the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 and the National Rental Affordability Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008. I know she has a very deep understanding of these issues facing her constituents. The government are delivering much-needed housing reform as a part of our election commitments which we took to the federal election last year. We are establishing a National Rental Affordability Scheme to address a chronic shortage in rental housing, which has the greatest impact, of course, on those who can least afford it. Last week we observed the Rudd government taking unprecedented action to provide for pensioners, seniors, carers, veterans, students, first home buyers and low-income families by providing a broad range of initiatives to help them with the deep and troubling economic circumstances. It is these members of our community, of course, that rely most on rental housing. The National Rental Affordability Scheme was announced on Monday, 13 August, and this is another election promise that the Labor government is delivering. As part of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package, this suite of schemes will increase the supply of affordable rental homes and build new homes for homeless Australians whilst lowering housing infrastructure costs and assisting people in saving for their first homes. According to the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, in December of last year there were 1.1 million Australian households in housing stress. As the nightly news reports on the incredible fluctuations in the Australian and international share markets and while governments around the world are going to great lengths to secure their economies, this figure of 1.1 million Australian households that are currently in housing stress must certainly be increasing. At the moment vacancy rates are at critically low levels and the rental market is being subjected to greater forces in the wider housing market, and, with housing affordability being such a critical issue, this has the effect of driving rental prices up. Out of the 1.1 million households that are currently subject to housing stress almost 700,000 are spending more than 30 per cent of their limited incomes just paying the rent. It is now harder for low-income and moderate-income earners to find affordable rental housing for themselves and their families. According to 2006 census data, in my electorate of Corangamite there are 2,494 households where rental stress is significant. There are people in communities around Australia being forced to move from house to house, attempting to find the right house at the right price, with, of course, increased overheads as they do so. The Labor government understand the nature of these concerns, and we took significant policies to the federal election last year. This is much-appreciated assistance. The National Affordable Housing Summit Group states that, whilst rental housing is becoming increasingly difficult, those that can afford it are finding it more difficult to save for their first homes. We have developed a $2.2 billion affordable housing package, and the Rudd government are now delivering on that commitment. This is progressive policy on issues that need to be dealt with now. Rental affordability is affecting so many demographics within our society, and this is having a detrimental effect on those groups. I spoke last week on the Schools Assistance Bill and the fundamental emphasis of that bill on the need to provide quality education to everyone. Most university students are at the mercy of a private rental market where rent rises are outstripping wages growth and inflation and that is putting significant pressure on their ability to complete their university education. The current rental affordability pressures are driven by a poor supply of affordable rental properties, and this is having an enormous impact on families, key workers, young people, students and pensioners. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is totally new in the Australian context. It is an innovative approach to reducing the number of Australians living in rental stress. To give an example of some of the people this scheme will benefit, I would like to draw attention to people who have recently graduated or completed training in key areas such as teaching or nursing and even entry-level police officers. Upon completion of occupation-specific training, some people choose to move quite a long distance away from where they previously lived and worked. Indeed, some are even assigned placements in areas that require physically moving away from the area in which they initially lived. Often, when they have just begun their careers and are on their initial placements, they are not in the financial position to be able to buy their own place or have flexibility in rental choice, due to the costs of training or lower starting salaries. These people play key roles in communities, and finding accommodation in various areas can be very difficult. To combat that difficulty, the National Rental Affordability Scheme will create up to 50,000 new rental properties across Australia, at a cost of $623 million in the first four years. This will be a huge boost to low- and moderate-income households who are suffering housing stress. Subject to market demand, the government will expand that to 100,000 properties over the following five years. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is designed to encourage investment in affordable housing for the purposes of renting to low- and middle-income households at 20 per cent below market rates. The scheme will achieve this by bringing together a range of participants from various government and non-government organisations by providing structured incentives to redress the shortage of rental housing. These structured incentives will take the form of cash and tax incentives to providers of rental accommodation to low- and middle-income households. These incentives comprise two main components. The Australian government is making a contribution of $6,000, in the form of a refundable tax offset or payment, for each residence that meets the criteria for the scheme. This will be joined by an annual contribution from the relevant state or territory government of $2,000 or more for each residence, which will be provided through cash payments or in-kind financial support. These two main components will act as the catalyst for a number of outcomes. It will be possible for community housing groups, equity investors, charities, church groups, developers and any other organisation that wishes to do so to provide affordable rental housing or invest in affordable rental properties with a secure stream of funding for a 10-year period. This scheme will bring substantial growth to the community housing sector. This growth will be in various forms, with the aforementioned organisations able to participate as tenancy managers and all the way up to owners and developers in consortiums. The intention of the scheme is to leverage private sector investment of up to $13 billion over the next four years by offering institutional investors and other eligible bodies annual rental incentives for 10 years—provided, of course, that the conditions of the scheme continue to be met. From an investor’s point of view this creates a fantastic new dynamic, as it opens up a new investment opportunity for investors, creating a new asset class of investment in residential property. The government expects the scheme will facilitate new and creative partnerships between institutional investors, developers and community housing providers. Involvement of both investors and the not-for-profit charitable sector is critical to such a scheme. Within the National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill we have provided for the act to be taken to have commenced from 1 July this year. By retrospectively including the commencement date we are reaffirming our commitment to providing affordable rental housing for those who need it most. The bill provides for the regulations to prescribe a scheme which deals with the approval of participants and the approval of rental dwellings, and provides incentives to an approved participant if certain conditions are satisfied. Including within the regulations of the bill the rest of the administrative detail of the scheme will provide the government with the necessary flexibility to address changing circumstances. Circumstances that may change include the process for determining market rent and tenant eligibility criteria. Other items that may be subject to reconsideration are acceptable periods of vacancy and reporting requirements of the scheme. The government will review the scheme in the early years of its implementation to ensure that it is adequately focused on those Australians in rental stress, and we may need to make improvements to the scheme before it is expanded. Within the conditions of the scheme the government has included the ability to apportion, withhold, offset or withdraw the national rental incentive as a security measure in the event that the requirements are not met. To preserve the integrity of the scheme, an incentive may be offset or recouped in the circumstances provided for by the scheme. This bill also provides that the scheme may provide for variations, transfers and revocations of allocations. In relation to receiving incentives, the bill provides for the secretary to either issue a certificate in relation to a refundable tax offset or make a payment. However, unless a participant is an endorsed charitable institution, the incentive is to be made available in the form of a refundable tax offset. We will also test whether or not there is scope for simplifying the scheme or reducing the administrative burden on providers and whether there are evolving issues of noncompliance that need to be addressed. Other measures that will maintain the integrity of the scheme include mandatory requirements covering the conditions relating to eligible rental dwellings, eligible tenants and the maximum rent that can be charged, as well as the permitted vacancy rates. We will ensure that we are providing affordable rental housing to those who need it most. This problem will not be solved overnight, and the government has shown its long-term commitment to affordable rental housing by providing a scheme which will be sustained over the next 10 years and which has the capacity to be increased if need be. The National Rental Affordability Scheme will provide incentives to encourage large-scale investment in affordable housing. This will increase the supply of affordable rental dwellings and will reduce rental costs for low- and moderate-income households. The scheme is a new opportunity for all levels of government to work together with business and not-for-profit organisations to increase the supply of affordable rental housing for Australian families. The scheme will increase the supply of rental dwellings and will reduce the costs of renting in the private market for Australians and their families earning low and moderate incomes. The big winners in this scheme are the renters of Australia. They are working families, students and people who are providing essential services; they are pensioners and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds. I commend the bills to the House. I, too, would like to congratulate the Minister for Housing for the well-thought-through contribution that she is making to the renters of Australia. Debate (on motion by Mr Butler) adjourned. Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide) 17:39:00 —by leave—I move: That further proceedings on orders of the day Nos 1 and 2, government business, be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 10063 Bills R3070 Consideration resumed from 20 October. 10063 10063 17:39:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. In addressing the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 (the bill), a bill that proposes changes to the Archives Act 1983 (the act) that will implement certain recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85: Australia’s federal record: a review of the Archives Act 1983, I would like to particularly welcome the member for Fairfax, who I understand is a member of the advisory board of the National Archives. I look forward to his contribution with respect to this particular issue. I know of the good work that he has been doing on that advisory board. A majority of the recommendations have already been implemented administratively. I guess one would say that this is a bit of a housekeeping bill in terms of catching up with some of the administrative recommendations that have been administered and implemented. The bill inserts an objects clause which confirms the role of the National Archives of Australia (the Archives) as identifying and preserving the archival resources of the Commonwealth and providing for their access by the public. The clause also acknowledges the Archives’ role in overseeing Commonwealth record-keeping by determining standards and providing advice to Commonwealth institutions. This bill recognises the fact that there can be compelling reasons why archival records should be retained by their agency of origin or in some other appropriate place. For example, records may be created or accessed through particular technologies not available at a central archives, or, similarly, specialised skills may be required to retrieve, interpret or manage data. For this reason, the bill introduces the concept that archival records can be considered to be in the care of the Archives, and therefore subject to the provisions that apply to all archival material, even when they are not in the physical custody of the Archives. Accordingly, the bill amends the definition of ‘material of the Archives’, removing references to records or other archival material being in the ‘custody of the Archives’ and replacing them with references to being ‘in the care of the Archives’. I think that that is fairly substantial, given the technologies that are discussed a bit further on. The bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements which are to be put in place where records in the care of the Archives are in the custody of others. Importantly, it provides that such records, if in the open access period, are to be available for public inspection. The arrangements must also provide for the protection and maintenance of the records, for inspection by the Archives, for access by institutions as required and for the records to be transferred to the custody of the Archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives. In the 25 years since the act was drafted, emerging technologies have dramatically changed the way in which affairs of government are transacted and information is recorded. While the act attempted to allow for the electronic creation, capture and management of records, it did so in a very format-specific way. This bill reflects technological developments and provides for further advances by substituting a new definition of a record as a document or an object in any form that has been kept for the information it contains or its connection with any event, person, circumstance or thing. The new definition also gives legislative authority to a policy direction issued by the Archives in 1995 that accorded the same status to electronic records as to paper records. As the new definition of a record includes objects, the provision within the act giving the minister responsible for the Archives the power to declare an object that is Commonwealth property to be an object of archival significance would become obsolete and will thus be removed when the changes proposed in this bill are enacted. The bill inserts a provision such that the Director-General of the Archives may determine that a record or other material is part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth. This formalises existing administrative arrangements for identifying records of archival value and complements existing provisions within the act whereby the Archives can give permissions relating to the handling of Commonwealth records. The earliest possible transfer of archival resources enables the Archives to determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate. This is particularly important in the case of electronic records so that preservation measures can be taken before changes in software and data formats render records inaccessible. The bill therefore requires that records identified as being part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth be transferred to the care of the Archives as soon as practicable after they are no longer required to be readily available for the business purposes of the relevant agency, but, in any event, within 25 years of their creation. While a key responsibility of the Archives is the identification and preservation of records of archival value, the Archives is not the most appropriate repository for all archival resources. The bill therefore provides the Archives with the power to decline to accept the care of records that are not part of the archival resources of the Commonwealth. Where such records are currently in the custody of the Archives, records may be returned to institutions or their successors only in accordance with arrangements agreed between the institution and the Archives. The changes to the Archives Act 1983 proposed by this bill, while relatively minor, are an important step towards improving government record-keeping and public access arrangements. In introducing the Archives Amendment Bill 2008, the government sets in motion a process of reviewing and modernising the Archives Act 1983 to enhance the effectiveness and efficiency of the operations of the National Archives of Australia. 10065 17:46:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 0 0 Mr SOMLYAY —It gives me great pleasure to speak on the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 today. The reason for that is that I have served on the National Archives of Australia Advisory Council for 12 years, which I think is a record for anybody serving on the advisory council. Throughout the Howard government years, I was the parliamentary representative from the House of Representatives. My counterpart from the then opposition was Senator John Faulkner, who is now the Special Minister of State, the minister who has responsibility for the Archives and for carriage of this bill. I know from serving on the advisory council with him for 11 years that he is a great advocate for the Australian National Archives. His love of things historical and his knowledge of the political history of Australia are second to none. This bill was actually drafted during the term of the previous government and, due to legislative pressures, unfortunately did not pass through both houses. I had many occasions to speak to the minister responsible at the time, Senator Rod Kemp, while endeavouring to have the bill passed by the parliament, but unfortunately the government would not give the bill precedence in the busy program it had. But I would really like to pay tribute to Senator Faulkner for bringing the bill to this place. I have a long history in the Canberra workforce. I first came here as a 17-year-old, with the intention of going to the ANU. I worked in the Commonwealth Public Service in my 20s and 30s and entered parliament in my 40s. I was here in my 50s and I am still here in my 60s, so I have a long association with Canberra. I hate to admit that! I have been part of a lot of radical changes in the workplace, from the old days of typing pools, central registries—each department had a registry—carbon copies and stencils to the evolution of photocopiers, laser printers, personal computers and emails. The role of the Archives throughout that period has changed with technological change. Technologies are vastly different now from what they were 25 years ago, and I am sure they are very different from what they will be in 25 years time. When I worked in the Commonwealth department of health, the computer used in the department filled a whole floor of a building over in Woden. Today, my mobile phone has twice the capacity of that large, cumbersome computer. Twenty-five years ago when the Archives Bill was first presented there was no provision in the drafting process to include an objects clause. This bill is now able to include an objects clause and therefore confirm the role of the National Archives of Australia. Retrieval of information is part of our busy lives. With internet technology in our lounge rooms we can google any time we want. Surfing the net is old school, and instead the many clips on YouTube or the latest news via the news agency web pages ensure we have the latest news and information at our fingertips. With the overload of information and the ability to communicate with fellow humans across the world at the press of a button it is even more important to ensure we have an avenue to ensure that our living history is in the care of the Archives. One of the major amendments in this bill, as outlined by the parliamentary secretary, is the recognition that there are times that archival records should be retained by their agency of origin or in some other appropriate place. Therefore, references to ‘in the custody of’ have been replaced in the bill with ‘in the care of’. For instance, information kept by the weather bureau would be more appropriately stored within that department. This is important, as specialist skills may be required to retrieve, interpret or manage the data. This bill also allows for new technologies, as I have said before, to ensure that the definition of ‘record’ is more open. The term ‘record’ was defined very specifically in the original act. Technology has made such a remarkable difference to our lives, and this has also impacted on the collection and storage of documents. Digital technology was outside any boundaries previously considered. Records were thought to be paper, microfiche and then magnetic tapes. It was therefore important to make the term ‘record’ able to encompass future technologies. This bill also formalises the process for identifying the archival resources of the Commonwealth, currently undertaken within the destruction and disposal provisions. It also allows the director-general to identify and determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate. This is especially important for electronic records—just ask any family that has precious family videos on beta tapes! During the term of the Howard government I was at one stage chair of the Privileges Committee, and I saw firsthand the importance of historians having access to documents about significant events in our Westminster system. One of the most important achievements during my chairmanship of that committee was the release of the Browne and Fitzpatrick papers, enabling them to be tabled in federal parliament and made available in the Archives. These papers were previously hidden from historians. The release of these papers gives us rare understanding of the reasons behind the decision by our federal parliament to jail two people found in contempt by the parliament. That information was not available to the public until it was released a number of years ago. It is important that our history be available to historians, researchers and those simply interested in the reasons behind many of the events that shape our lives. When two public servants in a department can exchange many emails in a day, when they sit at a desk next to each other, it is important our systems can be flexible enough to cope with today’s technology and make decisions as to what has to be kept and what does not. The minister noted in his tabling speech that the changes in this bill, while relatively minor, are an important step towards improving government record-keeping and public access arrangements. It is important that we have these arrangements. We need to ensure that our Archives keep up with the changing pace of new and emerging technology. I take this opportunity to congratulate the Director-General, Ross Gibbs, and his dedicated team of archivists in Canberra and capital cities across Australia and commend them for their work. Their passion and ability will be of great benefit to future generations of Australians. I would encourage my fellow members of parliament to pay attention to the work of the Archives. We often receive notification of events that are happening there, part of the contribution the Archives make to preserving the history of this country, of which we all form a part. I implore you to get involved in the activities of the Archives. To my fellow councillors on the Archives council: thank you for your passion in assisting the work of the National Archives. I commend the bill to the House. 10067 17:56:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 makes changes to the Archives Act 1983. Given the importance of national government archives, the complexity of record-keeping in the modern world and the perishability of recent formats, these changes have been a long time coming. The bill implements some of the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85, Australia’s federal record: a review of Archives Act 1983. The report was commenced in 1996 and presented to the parliament in August 1998, over 10 years ago. Many of the recommendations have been implemented administratively, but it has taken over 10 years for the legislative changes to be forthcoming. The National Archives of Australia is an incredibly important organisation. It holds the history of the government of the nation. I suspect that few Australians actually know or appreciate the role of the Archives. We all see from time to time that important papers from 30 years ago have been released, and we show some interest, but I doubt that many people understand how those documents got to be kept where they were kept and how they were made available. The answer to those questions is: via the National Archives of Australia. In its own words, the National Archives: … documents the full range of Australian Government activities since Federation in 1901, and includes significant 19th-century records dealing with activities that were transferred from the colonies to the Commonwealth. ‘Archives’ is defined in the Australian Records Management Standard as ‘those records that are appraised as having continuing value’. In traditional use, it is used to describe records no longer required for current use which have been selected for permanent preservation. Again in the Archives’ own words: Our collection comprises records of the Australian Government—over 100 years’ of records created by government agencies as they document debates, decisions, actions and interactions Commonwealth persons—papers and other records of prominent people such as governors-general, prime ministers, ministers, secretaries and High Court judges the High Court—judges’ notebooks, correspondence between High Court members, records of court judgements The functions of the National Archives of Australia include helping Australian government agencies create and manage their records; selecting the most valuable records created by Australian government agencies to become part of the national archival collection; storing, describing and preserving the national archival collection; and making records in the national archival collection that are over 30 years old publicly available. The National Archives of Australia has an extraordinary responsibility and an essential role in keeping government accountable, yet the keeping of the Australian archives has quite a patchy history. It took quite some time to find valuable records of the Australian federal government a home. They were kept in various places with various organisations, but it was only in 1942 that Australia’s participation in the Second World War prompted steps towards the creation of a more general system, with the setting up of the War Archives Committee to deal with records of the war. Following the war, the task was expanded to include the preservation of all Commonwealth archives, and a fledgling archives organisation was established. Since that time it has had several changes of name and status. The Archives Act 1983 finally provided legislative authority. About 13 years after its establishment in April 1996, the National Archives of Australia implemented a review in response to changing community views on privacy and access to information and the proliferation of electronic record-keeping. The report found that record-keeping in many Commonwealth agencies was in a parlous state and could only be overcome if the National Archive of Australia were allowed to adopt a proactive policy stance, and that there was a strong need for mandatory record-keeping standards. It was also found in that report that there was a need to recognise the predominance of electronic records and a need for the National Archives to be involved in the design of electronic record-keeping systems if there was to be any realistic hope of continuing access to records contained in those systems. The report also recommended that the NAA be an independent statutory authority, which was implemented in 2001, that there be more effective supervision by the National Archives of Australia of disposal of non-archival records, and that there be legislative direction that records more than 30 years old be made available to the public unless there are compelling reasons to withhold them. There were also recommendations that the National Archives should issue guidelines to encourage and facilitate the early release of records and that the availability of records should be expanded particularly through new technologies and public promotion of the availability of records. Again, many of those recommendations were administrative but 10 years later the legislation essentially implementing the legislative elements of that 1998 report were introduced into the Senate. The Archives Amendment Bill 2006 was introduced but lapsed when parliament was prorogued in October 2007. The current bill is similar, but not identical. The bill has the support of the stakeholders. The National Archives of Australia welcomed the introduction of the 2006 bill as the culmination of 10 years effort. The Australia Society of Archivists also appears to be broadly supportive of the bill. So let us look at what the bill does. It essentially deals with the weaknesses identified in the methods for the collection and preservation of records of archival significance as outlined in the 1998 report. Its purpose is to improve record-keeping across the Commonwealth and acknowledge both the advisory role that the archive plays in Commonwealth record-keeping and the responsibility for preserving, promoting and making publicly available the archival resources of the Commonwealth. The proposed amendments also provide for records that would be otherwise in the custody of the Archives to be kept in the custody of other persons under certain conditions. The bill describes the objects of the Archives Act as functions including identifying and preserving the archival resources of the Commonwealth and providing the public with appropriate access. It also provides for a role for the National Archives in overseeing Commonwealth record-keeping by determining standards and imposing record-keeping obligations in respect of Commonwealth records. The bill also recognises that sometimes it is not always appropriate for records to be stored by the archive; that perhaps they should be retained elsewhere, perhaps by their agency of origin or in some other place. It may be, as previous speakers have outlined, that records require specialist technology to enable access or specialist skills to interpret or manage the material. So the bill makes a simple but quite profound change in that it recognises that records might be in the care of the archive without actually being in the custody of the archive. So it amends the definition of ‘material of the archives’ to mean records in the care of the archive regardless of their place of storage. As the National Archives retains responsibility for the care of archives that are held by others, the bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements for the care of those archives. Importantly, it provides that for such records there be appropriate public access. There must also be provision for protection and maintenance of records, for inspection by the National Archives, for access by institutions as required, and for the transfer of the archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives. The bill also recognises that the nature of records—the physical forms—have changed over time. The early act of 1983 was quite specific about formats for electronic ‘documents’. It was drafted in the 1970s and passed in 1983 and it refers, for example, to storage on magnetic tape. Words such as ‘email’ and ‘compact disk’ do not exist in the act of 1983. The new definition of a record is very open, and it should withstand changes in technology. The bill substitutes a new definition of a record as ‘a document or an object, in any form, that has been kept for the information it contains or its connection with any event, person, circumstance or thing’. So it is the purpose for which the object is kept that is important, not the nature of the object itself. Because of the perishability of items, the bill also requires Commonwealth institutions to transfer their archived records to the care of the Archives as soon as they are no longer current and, in any event, within 25 years of their creation. The earliest possible transfer is particularly important for electronic records, which often require that Archives determine conservation requirements before records begin to deteriorate or before changes in software and data formats render documents inaccessible. These are important changes to the Archives Act 1983. Open government requires proper record-keeping and the management of public assets in a timely manner. The growth of the Archive’s activity has been extraordinary—and we should acknowledge here that there are many extraordinary staff working for the National Archives of Australia who are passionate about keeping records. In 1984, shortly after the act was implemented, the Australian Archives had a staff of 400, stored 367,521 shelf metres of permanent and temporary material and received 3,446 inquiries from the public. In 2007 their staffing level was relatively unchanged—it had moved from 400 to 402—and permanent and temporary storage was down by about 10,000 shelf metres to 356,149 shelf metres. But the number of inquiries they received from the public increased from 3,446 to 123,734. That is an extraordinary increase in the amount of public interaction, considering that the staff number is almost the same and the added complexity of the range of government records which are being kept. It is surprising that it has taken 10 years since the review to implement these largely technical, but important, changes. The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 will enhance the ability of the National Archives of Australia to manage the important records under their care. I commend the bill to the House. 10070 18:07:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —It is a pleasure to follow the member for Parramatta and the information she has provided to us about the Archives and the Archives Amendment Bill 2008. The bill enjoys the bipartisan support of the coalition. Opposition members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —It is nice to be in the chamber with the very famous member for Fowler, who specialises in talking about matters that her party does not want her to talk about. I congratulate her for her candid speech on the education bill. But I digress. The coalition support this bill. We brought in amendments to the legislation in 2006 and 2008. These amendments complement the Australian Law Reform Commission’s recommendations on the Archives Act 1983. This is really a technical bill but it does update the Archives Act to ensure that it reflects modern thinking and modern terms of parlance with respect to the keeping of text and data storage technologies, and it will facilitate the better and continuing high-quality storage of Australian archival history. The bill is a very slightly altered version of the Archives Amendment Bill 2006, which of course was put together by the previous government. As a consequence, it would be unusual for the coalition to oppose it. Australia is very fortunate to have a very sophisticated level of keeping of Australian archival history. We do many things very well in Australia, and this is one of the particularly good things that we do. Our keeping of historical records on aspects of Australian history, whether it is the most recent history or going back to the early parts of Federation, is the envy of most of the rest of the world. It has had something of a resurgence in recent years because of the resurgence of interest in the war records of, in particular, those who fought in the First World War and the Second World War. All members of parliament would be well acquainted with requests from constituents to help find the records of grandparents and parents who served in Korea and Vietnam and in times before so that families can learn about the history of their fathers, mothers, uncles, aunts, grandparents et cetera. We have all had experience with the tremendous and sophisticated level of archive-keeping in Australia. We hope that that will continue and this bill will facilitate that. It is nice to be able to say to a constituent that we are almost certain that we will be able to get the records of those who fought and served with the Australian armed forces going back now 107 years. There is another aspect to the archives for those in politics who are particularly obsessed with political history. We look forward to New Year’s Day every year when the 30-year rule allows for the release of cabinet documents from 30 years ago. I confess to being something of a political junkie. After 15 years in this place, one would expect nothing less. I must admit I bound out of bed on New Year’s Day to read the newspapers and see the exciting things that happened in cabinet 30 years ago. The time of the Dismissal was a particularly interesting year for all of us. Although I was eight, it is my first political memory. Without the archives, without the very sophisticated level of archive-keeping in Australia, that information would not be available. We joke about it a little but for many countries there is no archival history of the activities of their governments and their armed forces, and many countries would wish to have the amazing record-keeping we have in Australia. I commend the bill to the House. I am grateful to be able to say that on this occasion the opposition stands foursquare with the government in bringing in this bill. 10071 18:12:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I personally take a great deal of interest in history and records, having studied a degree in social science—documenting social history and development and the industrialisation of society. Well-kept records are invaluable for future years, as the previous member correctly said. It is good to note that there is some bipartisanship on the Archives Amendment Bill 2008. I hope it preserves for longer than 30 years. I do think it is important that, as technology changes over time, we have new means of recording information. Information can be recorded in any number of ways—for example, digitally on computers and mobile phones or transferred to SIM keys. This updated definition of archives is all-encompassing and that is valuable. We supposedly now have a paperless society. As we know, some laugh when we say that. But the fact is a lot of stuff is recorded digitally. Sometimes in our 24-hour news cycle, particularly for the national government the time at which a telephone call is made and recorded digitally could be very important, literally, from one hour to the next, especially in times of global crisis, whether it be financial, war or international relations. Such recording is very important for the National Archive. The extent of this goes beyond the traditional methods such as papers, books and various other audio recordings. It is essential that we treasure our archives, because in the long run future generations can learn from how decisions were made and why certain actions were taken. The history that we have can teach future generations where things might be done better or how to develop more efficient systems. Who knows in 30 years time what other technologies may be available? I left school in 1976, and new technology then was a pocket calculator. The biggest debate at that time was whether you could take a calculator into a maths exam. Kids today just laugh at that because they learn to type before they learn to write. My own children are a case in point. They could type before they could write, simply because they were surrounded by computers at home. So it is very, very important that we have a new definition of what archives are. This goes a long way to ensuring the recording of all sorts of events, whether they be of a political nature, a climatic nature or whatever. We have satellite technology as well. Satellite technology can be used for a vast range of things, whether it is mapping our continent, looking at the contours of the land, looking at the heat coming out of our land or looking at where we choose to drill, mine or fish. All these things are recorded digitally and via satellite. So new technology brings about new definitions of what archives are. The way that that information is held and redisplayed is very important. I personally have a passion for history. The way I learned history was through collecting coins and stamps, associating certain periods of kings and queens and rises and falls and new inventions with the year of a coin or looking at stamps highlighting certain themes. That is a very simplistic way of saying that different modes of archive recall certain amounts of information. Things like this are touchstones. They are symbolic. They open up a wealth of knowledge. Our Indigenous people have a continuous culture of over 60,000 years. That culture, we have to remind ourselves, is a longer continuous culture than the Chinese culture. It is longer than the cultures of Rome, Greece and Egypt. Sometimes we forget that. How did they record their history? How did they pass on their traditions? How did they form their archives? We are currently discovering, all across our land, various cave paintings and drawings which were done. That is a symbolic form of history brought back to the memory. That is how the elders and the tribespeople explained to their children the stories of their elders. Symbolism and the mode and the character of the things we hold and describe as archives take on many different meanings over tens of thousands of years. I think it is very important that we take that on board. I am very passionate about the print trade, having spent 20 years in it—I started as an apprentice in 1976. In our current society, even though the print trade has been eclipsed by the internet—another form of recording history and archive data—current contemporary history is really recorded in the newspapers of the day. That technology is still present with us and I am sure it will be around for quite a while, but it has been eclipsed by the internet, where we have literally a global library which we can access. Within government there are private internet library sites which are not open to the general public. They change over time and they need to be preserved. Any good business operator, whether it is in the commercial world or in the government world, always has a good backup system. Mr Deputy Speaker Washer, I know that you and I come from similar backgrounds of running medical practices and that you know, from a litigation point of view, that it is absolutely vital that we have backup systems because backup systems of medical records—another form of archive—are very important. You do not just have one backup tape; you have many. Every day you have tapes backing up because your system might inadvertently crash at a certain point without you knowing and you might lose certain data. It is very important to have a backup system. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson interjecting— HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —I think I have hit a nerve with the member for Dunkley. He has obviously experienced a digital crash once or twice in his life. Hopefully, it was not a midlife digital crash. We have new forms of technology, whether they come from old ancient traditions, from our industrialisation traditions or from the new digital revolution—and these digital revolutions will also be eclipsed in time because time marches on and things change; they always do—but we have to have new modes of storing these bits of information. I personally have a passion for history and I would like to see an audio, a print and a visual archive. I believe it should be placed in regional centres around Australia because capital cities around Australia in the states have the big infrastructure. The old tradition of historical museums, being very tactile places with prints explaining what is happening, may also be eclipsed by multimedia historical museums. This is a project which I personally have a passion for and am working towards. In my own seat of Dawson I have put that idea out to the regional economic development communities there, in Mackay, Proserpine and Bowen. They have traditional archives of historical information, and that is all well and good. But how can they retell stories of the generations in a new and interesting form? We have to embrace the technology of the digital revolution. Whether that is through the internet or through optic fibre or digital projection, we can add interest to the archiving of historical knowledge. This is all-encompassing, and I think it is excellent that it has bipartisan support. It was started in 2006. It is very important that we deliver this and that we go ahead and record events in many different ways. This is highly commendable. I am truly passionate about archive history and the way it has been recorded over thousands of years. We can help preserve things through new digital technology. For example, I have never actually seen the diaries of James Cook, but I have on the internet because each page is photographed and each page is available. Isn’t it amazing that anyone in the world can access that? That is how great this digital revolution is. We are going to be using all forms and all means. That is why this legislation is important. I read the Archives Act very carefully and it gives a very broad and encompassing definition of all forms of archive information, which means objects, items and, as I alluded to earlier, things such as coins and stamps—not just papers but also audio and visual and any other digital technology that may arise over time. I commend this bill to the House. 10073 18:24:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —It is with much pleasure that I rise tonight to speak about the Archives Amendment Bill 2008.  I listened to the member for Dawson and his passion for archives. It is an interesting topic and, when you dig deep into archives, there are many treasures. I will talk to my personal experiences later in this debate, but I want to outline what this amending legislation is about and what it means to the process of archiving. The Archives Amendment Bill 2008 proposes changes to the Archives Act 1983 and implements certain recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission’s report No. 85: Australia’s federal record: a review of the Archives Act 1983. A majority of the recommendations have already been implemented administratively. It has been 25 years since the introduction of the Archives Act 1983 and not much has changed since the introduction of that act. There are many points in the explanatory memorandum, and too many to go through, but I really want to home in on a couple of points. The proposed minor amendments to the act include the addition of an objects clause to part 1 of the act. The objects clause acknowledges the advisory role that the Archives play in record-keeping across the Commonwealth and acknowledges that archival resources of the Commonwealth will be preserved, promoted and made publicly available. The amendments also provide for records to remain in the care of the Archives while in the custody of persons other than the Archives. Schedule 1, item 1 of the bill confirms the role of the National Archives of Australia as identifying and preserving records comprising the archival resources of the Commonwealth and promoting their public availability. It also acknowledges the role of the National Archives of Australia as the Commonwealth’s authority on record-keeping and acknowledges its function of determining standards and providing advice to Commonwealth institutions. Item 2 provides an explanation of the meaning of a record being ‘in the care of the Archives’. This is one of the key concepts of the new amendments. A record is ‘in the care of the Archives’ whether it is in the custody of the National Archives of Australia or in the custody of a person under an arrangement made with the National Archives of Australia under section 64 of the Archives Act. This point explains that there is some archival information the National Archives may not be able to provide custody for. For example, some types of scientific data may require specialist hardware to allow the software or media in which the data is stored to be read. The National Archives of Australia may not have access to the appropriate hardware or, where it does have access, the hardware may not be in an environment which is conducive to the storage or security requirements for the data. In other cases, National Archives of Australia staff may not have sufficient knowledge or training to interpret, retrieve or manage the data. The member for Dawson gave some very good examples of that type of data. Even where arrangements are made with a person to have custody of a record, the National Archives of Australia must still be able to meet its obligations under the Archives Act—for example, to make records available to Commonwealth institutions under section 30(1) and to make records publicly available under section 31(1). This bill introduces the concept that archival records are to be considered in the care of National Archives even though they may not be in the physical custody of the Archives. Turning to item 7, on section 5(1) of the act: the National Archives of Australia was originally established by the Archives Act 1983 to sit within a department—initially the Department of Home Affairs and Environment—but in February 2001 it was established as an executive agency by order of the Governor-General, made under the Public Service Act 1999 in February 2001. The proposed amendment omits the words ‘within the department’ from section 5(1) of the Archives Act to reflect the National Archives of Australia’s status as an executive agency. In so doing, it implements advice which counselled that there was no need to amend the act prior to the establishment of an executive agency having the name National Archives of Australia but that consideration should be given to making appropriate amendments to the Archives Act should that act need to be amended for other reasons in the future. It is considered appropriate and convenient to make the amendment at this point in time. The order establishing the National Archives of Australia as an executive agency gave it the functions specified in the Archives Act, as in force from time to time. This means that the National Archives of Australia will have as its functions those functions, as amended by the proposed amendments to section 5(2). The second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister highlights further points: … the bill amends the definition of ‘material of the Archives’, removing references to records or other archival material being in the ‘custody of the Archives’ and replacing them with references to being ‘in the care of the Archives’ … The bill also deals with the nature of the arrangements which are to be put in place where records in the care of the Archives are in the custody of others. Importantly, it provides that such records, if in the open access period, are to be available for public inspection. The arrangements must also provide for the protection and maintenance of the records, for inspection by the Archives, for access by institutions as required and for the records to be transferred to the custody of the Archives if so directed by the Director-General of the Archives. Another point that the parliamentary secretary raises is the emerging and ever-changing technology. In the 25 years since the act was drafted, the changes have been extraordinary. Technology has changed the way that government affairs are executed and information is recorded. The act has on previous occasions attempted to allow for electronic creation, capture and management of records in a specific way. The new definition reflects technological developments and provides for further advances by substituting a new definition of a record as a document or an object in any form. This also gives records the same status whether in electronic or paper form. The reason I am giving that background to the act, and certainly the technical side of the act, is to lead in to my own personal experiences with archives. As we know, and as other speakers have said tonight, it is about recording our history; it is a means of protecting our history and that depth and level of understanding. Many governments around the world are envious of the fact that in this country we have such a wonderful record-keeping system. I want to give another perspective on the importance of archives, probably to an emerging group in our community. Many have heard me talk in the Main Committee and in the other chamber on many occasions about my background. In 1960 I was adopted. My mother was only 17 and unmarried and in those days there were no benefits that we see today to be able to keep a child in that condition. So I was adopted. It was a Queensland adoption, all run by the state, which was a good thing at the time in terms of their record-keeping. But the reality is of course that by 1964 it became a real issue socially and all the records and access to adoption records were closed off. So no-one had any access to information. It was supposedly to be kept secret and away from public view forever. In fact, after 1964 if you adopted a child you were given a guarantee that that information would be locked away forever. We talk about locking information away. We have the archival process of course but this was very much a regulatory regime that believed that it was in the interests of the child, mother, father and everyone else in the extended family that this information should be withheld and not released—there were a range of reasons. During the following 29 years of my life, while I had a very good understanding of my circumstances and my history, there was no way to get access to information. In fact, to go down the normal route to get birth certificates and other information was simply illegal in Queensland. I had a big involvement in the changing of the laws in Queensland to allow that access to records, particularly those held by the state. By the time these laws were changed they had been in force for some 18 years. In fact, it is only an amendment going through the Queensland parliament right now, this month, that will open up and finally put to rest some of the secrecy that surrounded adoption in Queensland. Queensland is the last state to actually open its records to the public. I was very tenacious in the way that I went about finding information but the only information I had was the fact that I was born Colin David Smith. The Christian names were fine but having a surname like Smith in the milieu of the time and with the record-keeping made it very, very difficult. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —And you were successful? HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Yes, I was successful. So the importance of record-keeping and the importance of information is the point I want to make tonight. While there was some opening up of the records, certainly a person in my situation found it very difficult. Prior to the laws being changed in Queensland I found my natural family—through six years of intensive research, a lot of luck along the way and maybe a few underground methods of finding information. But the reality was— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —Resourceful! HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Very resourceful. The reality was that the information was there. There was frustration, which is long gone now because the laws are changing. I was in my late 20s when I started my search and it was very frustrating not to be able to access any information, knowing that it was stored somewhere. The wonderful thing of course is that archives—whether state or Commonwealth, as in this bill—went a long way towards ensuring that once I had legal access I could find and understand my family history. Cutting to the chase and talking about the success of that reunion—and there are lots and lots of stories about reunions; mine was a particular focus given my circumstances—I note that I discovered that my mother was the oldest of 17 children. So you can start to do the numbers: I had many uncles and aunts younger than me and my grandmother had become a grandmother at 36—all those wonderful things. They could only have been confirmed by the fact that we had records. With regard to this particular bill, the amendments to continually enshrine the protection of and certainly the access to this information are really important. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —And thankfully Raguse would be easier to find. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Yes, and politically it is probably a good thing as well. The wonderful thing, of course, is understanding my background, understanding my family history. More importantly, it comes down to issues that affect all adoptees. Today it is not a problem because most jurisdictions around the country changed these laws some time ago, but at the time my first son was born, when I was 24 years of age, my wife was able to give her whole family medical history, and when the specialist said, ‘Well, what’s your family history?’ I had to say, ‘I don’t know.’ The doctor was outraged by that—outraged at me almost for not knowing—and I explained that it was illegal for me to have access to that information. Again, the fact that that information had been archived and had been kept and that there were ways and means to access that information is very important. Because of that I have some experience with the Commonwealth archives—and the state archives, but the Commonwealth archives particularly—but for people who have not delved into archives and do not have a lot of knowledge of that information trail, it is an overwhelming process to actually find a way through. I know that the Commonwealth archives at the time—I am talking about the late eighties—certainly were overwhelming, compared to how they are presented today. I know that because I have had more recent experience with the archives, although not for the purposes of adoption. The reality is that they are such an important resource and they need to be protected at all costs. I was able to track the family history of my adoptive family, the Raguse family. They were French-German migrants back in the 1800s and I was able to track their arrival in Queensland through records from migration, ship logs et cetera. All that information exists. As for my natural family, once I had established that I was related to them, it turned out that my natural grandmother was the matriarch of the largest family in Queensland. There are something like 150 great-grandchildren, 50 grandchildren; it just goes on and on. So, Mr Deputy Speaker, with a name like Smith as a birth name and a name like Raguse I can tell you I am probably related to everybody! 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Even the member for Dunkley! HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —I am sure, somewhere along the line! Again, getting back to the point of this legislation and these amendments, it is so important that we can continue, even in situ, to make sure such records are protected. From following the history of my natural family and my adoptive family, there are a whole range of strange circumstances, as you can imagine. My mother is in fact older than my grandmother—sorry; that would be a story! I mean my adoptive mother is a few years older than my natural grandmother. That adds some complications. So it is all very interesting when you start to look at your family history. I have talked about my adoptive mother before in this House, who at 87 years of age is still doing very well. She was in the women’s air force in World War II and, during the Battle of the Coral Sea, she was a spotter and plotter up in Townsville. She used to watch for enemy aircraft, spot them and report them. A lot of people do not know that Townsville, firstly, was bombed during the Second World War and, secondly, came to be a front line. Again, there was this gender thing where they always refused to acknowledge any women who served in those forces, unless they were nurses of course; any women who served in those women’s forces were never considered to be front-line. Because of my mother’s tenacity, I guess, if nothing else, and through archives—through my approach and my help, because I have become an expert in archives and delving through them—she finally proved through the RSL and to the Commonwealth government that Townsville was front-line. Lots and lots of other people benefited from the government’s recognition of that site as a war zone. So that is one example. If you take then my natural family’s history, my natural grandfather was a Gallipoli veteran. Now, I know a lot of people claim that they have those connections. The wonderful thing about the Archives of course is that you can prove that. Interestingly enough, while I had gained access to that information some years ago, you might remember a few weeks ago there was a display here by the Archives where they had Harold Holt’s leather case that he left on the beach the day he disappeared— IPZ Chester, Darren, MP Mr Chester —You’re not related to him? HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —No, no. I haven’t looked that far! The point I was going to make was that on that same evening the National Archives provided electronic access—and the member for Dawson spoke about electronic record-keeping—to those files. The military records of the World War I veterans are quite amazing. To all those who may have believed my story was not quite true, there was my grandfather Ronald Ross Winks’s record in the Archives. He served in Gallipoli on the second wave. He had been wounded a number of times. Of course, when they were overseas on those commitments they would go to hospital and be sent back out to the front line. They would keep recycling them. He was there for four years certainly in Gallipoli and, as a survivor, moving on to other parts of that campaign. Interestingly enough those records only exist because we have the process of archiving. If you consider when those records were collected, way back, there was already some sense and understanding of the importance that these records would have for our country. Again, that is a practical example of, and I should say a bit of a promotion and an ad for, the National Archives. All that information is available to all of us whether it is military history, migration, looking at ships’ logs and understanding what occurred—the Archives has it all. In fact, I have on many occasions, as I said, spent many hours in archives looking for specific information, but every now and again you get carried away and tend to browse. The member for Dawson talked about newspapers. When you go back to certain events that occurred in history and you start to look, you can be carried away just simply understanding and reading that history. That information exists because archives do. It is there because someone took the time and carried out the processes that we see today to continue that preservation. It is certainly bipartisan; we all agree on the importance of this legislation. As I said at the beginning of my speech, this really is a passion of mine. I hope that other generations that come after me get the same excitement and understanding. My life story has not finished yet, but if I ever have the need to find more information about my family, grandparents and great grandparents then I know that the information will be there. Other speakers mentioned the records of parliament. Being political junkies—as we must be because we are in this place—the very processes of parliament and all of the things that happen here today are archived. The fact is that everyone sitting in this room, in this chamber today, is part of history, and we will be there in some form, I am sure, in the very minutes that are kept and the very attendance in this room. In 50 years time we will be part of the Archives. So when I discover that I might have a long lost uncle or brother or someone sitting over there— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —with the name Billson, I will get on the phone and say, ‘I’ll track him down.’ Why? Not only are the Archives part of our history but they also have current references to lots and lots of information. I have so many stories to talk about but I really do need to wrap this up. Opposition members interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —The Archives are a wonderful organisation. Even the film archives, as we all know, are just a wonderful capture of our history and there it is all visually. As I said, there are so many issues around the whole concept of archive-keeping. I have given my personal experiences. Certainly, I would not be able to have the information I have today except for the fact that we have kept archives. They are essential in recording our history. Giving us access is very important, and identifying and allowing organisations to keep records in situ is a very good part of what this legislation allows us to do. I will not go through and number all my family members—there is an opportunity to do that—but, with 42 seconds, can I say for all of those reasons I commend this bill to the House. 10079 18:43:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —in reply—If you expect me to top that, you must be joking. Members have spoken about the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 and how it encapsulates one of the beauties of the National Archives and the vital role it performs in being a treasure trove and a warehouse of our nation’s history. I would like to thank the members for Sturt, Fairfax, Parramatta, Forde and Dawson for their contributions. I do not know if the member for Forde was actually putting in an application to become a member of the advisory council of the National Archives but I will take the opportunity to actually thank the council for performing the roles that they do. I would like to acknowledge in this place Mr Paul Santamaria, the chairman; Mr Peter Grant; Senator Kate Lundy; the Hon. Alex Somlyay, who obviously made a great contribution previously with respect to this legislation; Mr Ian Hancock; Mr Roland Perry; Mr Aladin Rahemtula; and also one particular individual whom I know quite well, Mr David Irvine, who will be a great addition to the advisory council. There is also Dr Dianne Snowden, Associate Professor Dr Helen Irving, Professor John Williams, Dr Mickey Dewar and Professor Mick Dodson. I think their efforts should be acknowledged. We have heard personal stories and personal vignettes. I guess it is difficult to relate the Archives Amendment Bill 2008 given the emotion that has been put forward in some of the discussion about people’s family histories and what it means to them. It must be a great task for the National Archives to try to encapsulate that, to decide what should and should not be going in there. That task is performed by the director-general in most cases. It is a living history. It was said by the previous speaker, the shadow justice minister, Christopher Pyne, that many other countries do not have this facility and this particular capacity. Even though this bill we are putting forward enjoys bipartisan support and is what would be categorised as a ‘dry bill’, we know it is a much deeper bill than that. It encapsulates our country’s history and it does that in a very safe way. We talk about what we might say to our children when they ask in 30 or 35 years time about the events of government and the great events of the day. We see those events through the prism of our daily experiences. We live them. But the Archives encapsulates them and keeps them as a record so our children and our children’s children can go back and look at decisions that have been made—and reporters can and historians can. I think that is a vital role and we should promote the National Archives. I have walked past it with Senator Faulkner on many occasions but have not been given the opportunity to go through. We will be making sure that I go into the National Archives very shortly to actually see firsthand the work that they do. As I said, in many ways this is a technical bill dealing with the definitions of such terms as ‘material of the archives’, ‘care’ and ‘record’ and inserting an objects clause. All of us here know it is an important and long overdue measure, modernising the legislative framework governing one of our most important national institutions, the National Archives of Australia. Obviously, the previous government had dealt with the issue in 2006 but because of the proroguing of parliament had not been able to proceed with it. The government administration of record-keeping has changed enormously since the Archives Act was drafted in the 1970s and passed in 1983. We heard in a number of the contributions about the idea of the paperless office. I do not know if the paperless office has lived up to its early expectations, but we keep on being reassured that it is just around the corner. If you look at what is encapsulated in this, you will start reflecting on the paperless office! Nonetheless, today’s email traffic and websites and the technology allowing the digitisation of huge volumes of information are transforming the archival world, requiring new approaches to all stages of record-keeping, from their creation, evaluation of their long-term significance and their preservation to, importantly, their long-term availability to the public. Following on from the recommendations of the Australian Law Reform Commission over a decade ago, this bill is a useful step to bring the Archives Act up to date, to modernise it and to enable Public Service agencies and the Archives to meet the challenges of our ever-changing technology. It is through the Archives that we know and understand our nation’s past. Through the Archives, future generations, our children, will be given an account of our activities and contributions. In reality, when we think about the National Archives, it is the ultimate accountability agency. With that, I thank members for their support for this bill. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House without amendment. 10080 Bills R3066 Consideration resumed from 20 October. 10080 10080 18:50:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister 1 0 Mr BYRNE —I present the explanatory memorandum and move: That this bill be now read a second time. Digital radio offers the promise of a range of new, diverse and innovative services that will further enrich the experience for radio listeners. It will operate alongside the existing analogue radio services so valued by Australians. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the legislation providing a framework for the introduction of Australia’s first digital radio services next year. The first two of these measures amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and relate to the legislated deadline for the commencement of digital radio services in the six state capitals. Commercial radio broadcasters in these markets are currently required to have commenced their digital radio services by 1 January 2009. Failure to do so could expose them to sanctions, including the cancellation of their right to broadcast in digital. It has become apparent that, due to a range of reasons, broadcasters will be unable to comply with this deadline. In this regard, I note that the commercial radio sector recently announced that the national switch-on for digital radio will take place on 1 May 2009. To facilitate this, the bill will extend by six months the deadline for the start-up. The new deadline of 1 July 2009 will give commercial broadcasters additional flexibility to resolve any further infrastructure issues relating to the rollout of transmission equipment as they prepare for the launch of the new digital services. The bill will also remove Hobart from the list of markets where broadcasters are required to commence digital radio services from the new deadline of 1 July 2009. Hobart’s commercial radio broadcasters have expressed strong concerns that they would not be in a position to commence digital radio services at the same time as services in the larger mainland state capital cities. The bill will allow digital radio services to start in Hobart at the same time as other similarly sized markets such as Newcastle, Geelong and Wollongong. The final measure in this bill amends the Radiocommunications Act 1992 and gives the community broadcasting sector an opportunity to participate in the ownership of the transmission infrastructure that will be used to broadcast their digital radio services. The government is supportive of the community broadcasters’ participation in digital radio and considers that community broadcasters play a vital role in promoting diversity, local content and grassroots participation in the media sector. However, in a tight fiscal environment, the government decided to take a more cautious approach to the introduction of digital radio by reprofiling the community sector’s funding to commence in the 2009-10 financial year. As a consequence, the community sector was unable to claim a share in the joint venture companies, formed in 2008, that own digital radio transmission infrastructure. This amendment will restore to the community broadcasting sector an opportunity to participate in the joint venture companies in line with the original intent of the legislation introduced in May 2007. The benefits of digital radio to both broadcasters and listeners are enormous, and the government looks forward to a successful launch of Australia’s first digital radio services on 1 May 2009. 10081 18:53:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I congratulate the member for Holt for introducing the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. I have some empathy with him because I had the honour of introducing the May 2007 version of the legislation into the House of Representatives and, some months earlier, road testing a demonstration of the digital technology. A lot of people were wondering what I was doing. The concept of digital radio, and the functionality that it offers, was not well grounded in the broader audience at the time we were working out what technical standard to operate, but it is pleasing that we will start to see it materialise in the near term. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, the member for Holt, said, the bill before the House will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radio Communications Act 1992. The amendments will extend the deadline for commercial broadcasters to commence digital radio services in the mainland state capital cities by six months, to 1 July. They will remove the requirement for digital radio services to commence in Hobart at the same time as in mainland capital cities by reclassifying the Hobart market as regional. The amendments will also retain an option for community radio stations to take up shares in joint venture companies managing the transmission of digital radio services. The transition to digital is arguably the most important strategic issue facing Australian radio since the introduction of FM services in the 1970s and early eighties. The coalition government introduced the legislation that facilitated this transition, the 2007 bill that was touched on earlier. It has emerged, though, that some of the time frames in that legislation are now proving to be rather challenging and problematic. The six-month delay for the capital city switch-over is very welcome and very important. Its importance is probably best understood by the licence holders, in that a failure to meet the switch-over by that deadline leaves open the possibility of sanctions against those licence holders and even the loss of their licences. So it is wise to add the extra six months to the rollout, taking it to 1 July 2009 rather than 1 January. The reason for that, as was explained to me as the former shadow minister in this area, is that the availability of the technology—the opportunity to physically put in place the multiplexes—has proved to be more of a challenge than some anticipated. There is no lack of desire among the capital city radio broadcasters to invest in that transition, but there are some obstacles to securing the required equipment and having it in place, operational and tested so that the switch-over can be as painless as possible. The six-month extension is something the opposition certainly supports. We acknowledge the need for it and welcome the government’s measure to provide it. This leads me to another area that relates to Hobart. During my visit to Tasmania and my consultation with the broadcasting sector as the shadow minister, it was evident to me that the size of the market and the investment required to make the transition were a real challenge for Hobart. I understand—and I stand corrected if my recollection is wrong—that there are only two commercial broadcasters in Hobart. That of itself is not quite the critical mass you are looking for to bring about the change. The reclassification of the Hobart market as a regional market such as those of Wollongong, Geelong, Newcastle and the Gold Coast is a smart move. It enables the government to address the fact that in some of these regional markets there is a serious case for assistance with the investment required to bring about the change. I hope this reclassification of Hobart is an acknowledgement that it will need some help. I note the commercial radio industry expects that the switch-over will take place on 1 May 2009. Hopefully in the lead-up to that time, certainly after Christmas, awareness of that change will be promoted. I extend my best wishes for a successful transition to all those in the commercial radio industry who are involved with it. The final measure in the bill, which the parliamentary secretary touched on, is an interesting one. Those outside parliament will probably wonder what it means. ‘Reprofiling’ is a concept that says you push the money out a bit further. As a result of the reprofiling, or deferral, of funding for community radio, in many cases community radio was not in a position to become a shareholder in the joint venture companies established to set up the multiplex digital transmission systems needed to broadcast into their markets. That lack of clarity about the available resourcing meant no person could make financial undertakings, because they could not be certain they could meet them. Most community broadcasters run on the smell of an oily rag—with an enormous amount of volunteer commitment, passion and enthusiasm and usually not a lot of cash. I think, on average, they have a total turnover of about $200,000 a year. That makes it hard for them to enter into a commercial relationship, such as a joint venture, and say not only, ‘Yes, we want to participate as a shareholder,’ but also, ‘We undertake to fulfil calls for capital to invest in the multiplex technologies that are required.’ So they were kind of stuck. Their hands were tied behind their backs. The reprofiling basically meant they were dealt out of that opportunity. I am not certain the case for reprofiling was particularly strong but it happened and it is history now. Events of recent weeks have shown that resources with many more digits on them than are required to facilitate the participation of the community broadcasting sector in a timely way can be made available. The third element of this bill seeks to reopen those joint venture arrangements. We needed to have those in place around May, if my memory serves me correctly. But the opportunity has passed. Those joint venture arrangements should have been finalised by now. The opportunity to apply for licensing and the right to operate these multiplex transmission systems is now behind us. This bill says, ‘Because the funding wasn’t there, we need to make sure the community sector has an opportunity to participate in these joint ventures.’ Those community broadcasters have no duty to participate; this simply re-establishes the opportunity for them to do so. Whether or not they choose to participate, the two-ninths entitlement of multiplex transmission infrastructure is still available to them. The joint venture would allow them to purchase a share of the transmission capability. If they choose not to, they will still be entitled to access the two-ninths but they will need to come to some other arrangement to finance that participation. A community broadcaster with an average turnover of $200,000 would be in quite a fragile and vulnerable financial position from which to enter into, say, a leasing arrangement with that broadcasting capability. Without funding committed to enable them to purchase a share—that is, to buy in and therefore invest in the call-up for capital to put the infrastructure in place—community broadcasters need the certainty of recurrent funding to purchase access to that broadcasting infrastructure. Either way, it is all about money. Either way, it is all about the community broadcasting sector I think rightfully wanting to know—screaming out for and demanding information from the government—just what kind of financial support they can count on to get through that transitional period. It will vary from region to region. Different community broadcasters have different capabilities to make those contributions. I again emphasise that they are overwhelmingly run on a very resourceful but not well-resourced basis—that is, with a lot of volunteer commitment and passion amongst the community and not a whole lot of cash. That is why I am hopeful and optimistic the government will be suitably accommodating of their financial requirements and assist with that transition. I hope so. In concluding the second reading debate the minister said: The government is supportive of the community broadcasters participation in digital radio, recognising the vital role the community sector plays in providing diversity, localism and grassroots participation in the Australian media. I say: hear, hear. That is absolutely right. I hope that we can count on the government carrying through on that sentiment. It is a valuable sentiment but one that needs to be backed up with cash. In politics, the term ‘leadership’ is often synonymous with the term ‘cash’. When someone is saying, ‘Show me some leadership,’ they are usually saying, ‘Show me some cash.’ In the spirit of a movie with a lead actor who is not much taller than me, I say, ‘Show me the money.’ That is what the community broadcasters are saying, and I hope that they get some joy in the coming period so they can plan with certainty. I emphasise that they need to know what the upfront cash is so that they can in good faith enter into a joint venture and therefore deliver when that joint venture company calls for cash. They need to know that those resources will be available. Alternatively, if they do not buy into multiplexing joint venture arrangements, they need to be certain that they will have the recurrent funding to buy broadcast capability on a commercial basis—hopefully with a recognition that they add considerably to the listening audience offering. And I say ‘add’ to it, because the evidence is fairly compelling. Last week the minister launched the results of the 2008 McNair community radio listener survey. The interesting thing is that a little over 4½ million people turn on and listen to a community radio station in any average week— 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —What was that? 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —Four and a half million—or should I say 4,519,000, Mr Parliamentary Secretary? That is an increase. It is about 27 per cent of the listening radio audience, up from 25 per cent. That is a lot of people. I know from my own experience on the Mornington Peninsula that 3RPP do a great job. I am sure my friend and colleague the member for Holt has been on their station; they run an outstanding show. But I remember from my work supporting 3RPP that my Rotary club had to run some business fundraising lunches to generate some money to go towards the replacement of the broadcast tower on Arthurs Seat. That sounds like a pretty reasonable proposition—the tower was, I think, also shared by the local fire authority. It is an example of how the community needed to get behind the community radio station. I have not quite yet had the phone call asking, ‘Can you help us raise some money so we can convert to digital?’ I am hopeful and optimistic there will be love and understanding and ‘leadership’ by the government and that they will help provide the resources to make that transition to digital, particularly with the physical infrastructure that is required. An opposition member—They need cash. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —They need cash. Because of their spirit and enthusiasm, you get a rich diversity of programming on 3RPP, as you do from other community broadcasters with niche programming and volunteer presenters. In our own community, Work for the Dole participants get involved with the on-air broadcast, with the preproduction and with the research to see whether a role in the media is a career opportunity for them. This is another example of what community broadcasting brings to the table. The evidence is compelling, the words are reassuring—but the action? Well, we have not peaked early in terms of the cash that is available. I am hopeful that it will come forward. But it is not just the cash. It is not just a sincere and genuine opportunity for the government to give effect to the words that were in the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech. It is also a chance to remove the confusion and uncertainty about what the future holds, a chance for the community radio sector to have their passion, enthusiasm and efforts as volunteers supported by the government and for it to give encouragement, not discouragement, to their efforts. That leads me to one other area, though. Sometimes it is not just about cash; it is not just about hardware. It is about a valuable resource the nation has that you cannot quite see—that is, the spectrum. The spectrum is very important. If we are going to see a transition in the technology of the broadcast format, that is one thing. But if there is also going to be a redistribution of spectrum, then that is another challenge. I read with great interest the concern of the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia. The article says they were: … furious about the proposal to move several community radio stations to lower powered frequencies. ACMA has a difficult job in planning for the use and availability of spectrum across our continent. I have spoken before about digital television and how it is going to be a big challenge to get the spectrum right where outer metropolitan areas are butting into regional broadcast zones and getting muddy overlap on spectrum—but that is for television; that is for another day. In radio, similar challenges are being addressed. In area planning exercises for spectrum there is a sense that maybe ACMA is not taking community radio seriously enough, that they are a soft touch and easily manoeuvrable in those spectrum hierarchies—and they are not happy about it. The Community Broadcasting Association are ‘furious’, to quote that recent media report. They point to that fury and justify it by looking at some examples involving the licence areas of Geelong, Bendigo and Colac, in the great state of Victoria, and Townsville, in Queensland, licence areas where, as I understand it, with the virtuous motive of trying to provide some continuity for the frequency that ABC services and others may have, where they have a broader national reach, the more localised community broadcasters are getting moved around. I have touched on the audience and take-up of community radio. I have touched on the challenges they face. But imagine the surprise of a listener on hearing that community radio stations have assembled the resources to make the digital conversion and then they are not actually where they thought they were on the dial. That is a challenge that community radio is facing, and the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia are very unhappy. They are very unhappy about the haste with which the consultation has been carried out. Bear in mind that these community broadcasters are not cashed up with people who can immediately swing into engaging with the regulator on important technical issues. These are people whose volunteer time is what shapes the governance of those stations and is from where they need to draw the resources to respond to proposals to revise licence area plans that have a very profound impact on their spot on the dial. The Community Broadcasting Association have outlined a few key issues, and I think there is some justification in their concern. Time is important for a not-for-profit community organisation to respond to the significant work of this kind. Again, I recognise that ACMA is inspired by the best possible motives, but the little guys are feeling like they are being pushed around, not getting a chance to respond in short time periods and also wondering what happens next. If they are forced to surrender higher powered frequency for what they believe is markedly lower powered frequency, what does that do to their listening audience? What does that do to the growing audience that is listening to community radio? If they are forced to surrender their spot and the power of their licence reach and the like, what do they do to compensate for that? Is there some assurance—and I think there should be—that when these changes take place there will be a like-for-like outcome? If there is a listening audience and a transmission power that gives you a certain reach, if you are going to be shifted around as part of a licence area planning exercise you should at least come out of it about where you were when you started. I do not think that is an unreasonable request and I hope ACMA, in recognising, and the minister, in promoting, the virtue of community radio take a similar approach to that problem. The other thing too is that if you are going to move people around, how about helping with that adjustment, that transition. The community broadcasters association have recognised that there is a cost for technical and other resources to facilitate the frequency change—a cost not instigated by them but instigated by the review—that should be covered. There is a rebranding exercise that is needed to make sure that that 27 per cent of the listening audience, the more than 4½ million listeners, can actually find the community radio station that they have grown quite close to and that they have affection for. For that task of rebranding and then communicating that to their audience, you would have thought some partnership advertising within that audience market through other media channels is something that would be part of the transition. If in the national interest there is some change to their broadcast arrangements, the national interest should facilitate a continuity of their work and an opportunity not to lose the audience that they have worked hard to secure. There is also of course a human resource cost in making sure that the station continues to operate. This is an upheaval. Again, I am not in any way doubting the merit of the need to get the licence area planning exercise done properly, and I do not have a problem with the virtue of broader national broadcasters having some seamless continuity on the frequencies that they are operating on. But I do not think that bouncing a community radio station on to a lower power frequency without fully exploring the other options, without recognising that they are genuine partners and that the relationship should be adult-to-adult and not parent-to-child—coming in decreeing to the little guy that they have to rack off and go somewhere else on a different power frequency—is the way we should be doing business with 25 per cent of the listening audience in a community broadcasting platform that is inspired by the diversity and the local interests of their community, giving them a chance to put something different out there that is clearly responding to the listeners’ interests. With those comments, I note that the opposition is supportive of these measures. The funding certainty is something that the community broadcasting sector is crying out for. We are looking for some tangible action on the seriousness with which community broadcasting is embraced by the government. In terms of these worrying examples where for the national interest a licence area process may see some unwelcome adjustments for community broadcasters, they should at least end up with a like-for-like outcome and not be pushed around recklessly. Some support to bring about that change would seem a perfectly reasonable thing to give to the committed, very dedicated, selfless volunteers who run community radio stations around our country. 10086 19:15:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I appreciate the sentiments of the previous member and certainly enjoyed the passion with which he expounded. I too have a passion for community radio, having served on Mackay’s 4CRM community radio for 10 years. The volunteers that man these stations give kids a go at being in the media. I have seen people go from school to radio and then go on to radio school and professional radio and really develop. It has really been something special to see the true benefit of a community organisation producing professional broadcasters. I am proud to have seen that in my time at 4CRM community radio in Mackay. Mackay’s 4CRM happens to broadcast on FM 107.5. Just for the amusement of members, you may be interested to know that my speciality was in punk rock from 1976 to 1980, with a particular passion for the Sex Pistols, the Stranglers, the Damned, the Clash and other ‘quiet symphonies’ such as those. There is a spirit of learning, freedom and experimentation in community radio. It brings opportunity—opportunity that normally would pass by ordinary, everyday people. It gives people an opportunity to flex their muscles or spread their wings, whichever illustration you wish to use. Radio is a great form of communication, and I truly am passionate about it. I am glad to see that the government is taking the lead here. I wish that the previous speaker was still here because I would like to put on record that the Labor Party does have a long and proud history of leadership in radio broadcasting in this country. I put on the record that Paul Keating’s government was responsible for getting the broadcasting of Triple J to the regions—regions such as Mackay, the Whitsundays, Bowen and Ayr—in the 1990s. It was under his leadership that that happened. So the people of Dawson do appreciate the history of the Labor Party in promoting community radio and state-run radio such as the ABC. That in itself has been a great experience. Some of you from the big metropolitan capital cities may be surprised to know that even a thriving city such as Mackay and regions such as the Whitsundays, Bowen and Ayr only received ABC NewsRadio in the last year. That is quite something. But I tell you what: that has empowered people to listen to democracy at work in the House of Representatives. It has been very good that people can actually hear live what is happening in the House of Representatives, particularly at question time. I have had a lot of feedback on that just recently, particularly from elderly people who are house bound. I had one call today. A man said, ‘Wow! It was so good to hear the Prime Minister deliver that $10.4 billion economic security package.’ He was particularly pleased to hear that he will receive $1,400 on 8 December. He said he just could not believe his ears when he heard it. He said he had tears in his eyes. That is direct democracy in action. A word spoken here can be heard in the regional and rural communities, particularly in Mackay and the seat of Dawson. Really, when you think about it, we should have had that radio available years ago. But I will not harp on about who was in power for the last 12 years. That might look a little bit out of order. I will not go on about that. Radio and new technology, particularly digital technology over the internet, have been great. People in London, Paris, New York and Amsterdam can hear democracy at work in Australia if they have the internet. New technologies bring new opportunities and facilitate new forms of democracy and representation. I find this exceedingly exciting. In the seat of Dawson there are many good radio services, particularly the ABC. They do a fantastic public radio service with the news every morning. It is localised and it is fantastic. They do a great job. The commercial radio stations are equally as good. Sea FM do a fantastic music show with very short, sharp news clips and grabs of what is happening nationally and internationally as well as locally. I particularly like going to meet Ange and Jay on the breakfast show. We often have a good time live on air. Then there is Hot FM. They do a great job too. Again, they appeal to a different age group. Meech and Teegs are on there. Meech has plenty of personality. There is no doubt about it. He keeps everybody bright and breezy early in the morning. Also, as I have said, we have community radio. We also have easy listening radio in Mackay on the AM band, and they do a great job as well. Radio is giving people access to knowledge, information and the democratic process. I think that is exciting. The recommendations I see before me on joint ventures and enabling better ways of doing business are very good indeed. I commend the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 to the House. 10088 19:22:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I greatly welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. Let me say at the outset that the move to digital is something I wholeheartedly support. The coalition, after all, provided the initiative for the policy and the legislation required to support it. I will, however, generally confine my comments to the effect that the government’s decisions have had on the community radio stations that broadcast in Cowan. The stations I will refer to are 98.5 Sonshine FM and 89.7 Twin Cities FM. Sonshine is the Christian station and Twin Cities broadcasts across the outer north of Perth, with the twin cities being the local governments of Joondalup and Wanneroo. A place for community radio stations was enshrined in the original coalition legislation. The plan was for the community radio industry to participate in owning the transmission infrastructure. The plan was for the community sector to participate in the joint venture companies responsible for managing transmissions. Unfortunately the community radio stations and the industry were unable to buy into these joint ventures using the money forecast in the last coalition budget. I remind the House that $10.1 million was forecast over four years by the then minister, Senator Coonan. The reason why they could not use the money is that the Rudd government in the 2008 budget took it away—or at least deferred it. I acknowledge that resources from the 2009-10 financial year have been set aside, and I hope that changes to the economic outlook will not result in community radio being left outside the digital tent for another year or more. There is very clearly a need for the Rudd government to assist the community radio sector into digital transmissions in the way the former coalition government provided for. It is my belief that community radio will only be able to enter the digital arena with federal support and will not be able to raise the money required to join in. The third measure of this bill provides for the community broadcasting sector to still participate in the ownership of the transmission infrastructure. But, as I have already said, the government needs to show up with the entry fee or community radio will not be allowed into the digital club. That brings me to two of the local community radio stations covering the suburbs of Cowan. Firstly, I will mention Twin Cities FM. I recently met with the station manager, Sandra Lubke; Michael Henderson, the chair; Allison Gentry, from the board; and Colin Radalj, board member and sponsorship manager. Twin Cities FM is a submetropolitan station serving the general geographical area of Wanneroo, or 240,000-plus people. That population will grow considerably over the next 20 years. Twin Cities FM just do not know how digital broadcasting will impact on their licence, because their understanding is that digital radio sends a signal to cover the whole metropolitan region, rather than just a portion in the north, south or east, as FM transmitters do. Their fear is that, if all current Perth commercial, community and public radio services are squeezed into one or two multiplexes, a severe shortage of funding from sponsors or advertisers will result, as technically everyone covers the same area, just with a different rate card. An increase of higher quality programs may result, competing for the listener ratings and the dollar; but that would then decrease localised services, as smaller players without all the business contacts upfront will end up falling behind. However, if selected commercial, public and metro-wide community stations gain access to the digital spectrum, and there is no clear plan or desire to facilitate the submetro stations, their role and future in their respective communities are severely under threat. At the end of the day, it does not matter what band they can broadcast in; if their broadcasting licence changes to something they cannot provide or becomes defunct, they will cease to exist. In fact, Twin Cities believes that it would take as much as five years for a community radio station to raise the funds to enter the digital spectrum. This bears out my previous points about the need for government to support community radio. It is very clear that, down at the front line of community radio stations, there is great concern about the future—concern about financial support, access to the spectrum, availability of digital radio receivers et cetera. Overall, it says something about the need for additional information out there in the community radio industry. I can say that Twin Cities FM will welcome the opportunity to enter the digital spectrum, but they must have the opportunity to do so. I congratulate Sandra Lubke and her team at Twin Cities for all the good work they do. I now will also briefly mention 98.5 Sonshine FM. Sonshine FM broadcasts across Perth and is run by general manager Barry Grosser. The motto of Sonshine FM is ‘No greed, no ridicule, no hurt’, and I congratulate them on the positive values they promote. I would also mention that their music is contemporary and appealing, yet, as their motto implies, none of the songs are nasty or negative. Sonshine FM have existed as a Christian radio station for 20 years, and on 3 November they will be moving to new premises in Como, on land provided by the South Perth Church of Christ. The building that has been built on the site was only achieved after a significant and protracted fundraising effort. I thank the people of Perth for their donations and the South Perth Church of Christ for partnering the station with the land. But returning to the bill: 98.5 Sonshine FM just want to have clarity as to where they stand. Does the government guarantee that the money will be available to support entry? If the government is not prepared to put the money in, then they will wait for 2013 and the second round that is talked about. I would again just like to note my appreciation of the great and positive work 98.5 Sonshine FM do, including leading the way in Perth on Operation Christmas Child, where shoeboxes of toys are donated by families and sent overseas to needy children in the Third World. To those team members of Sonshine FM that I have met—general manager Barry Grosser and announcers Rodney Olson and John Donoghue: well done, and keep up the good work. I want to conclude by reiterating that I look forward, as do the community radio stations, to their being able to fully participate in the digital radio future. Unfortunately, the government’s lack of commitment to guaranteeing community radio’s digital future is creating doubt and confusion. What the government has not done is ensure any level of confidence that the government truly understands the community radio sector. It is pretty simple. I ask the minister to categorically commit to community radio’s digital future and provide the necessary resources to ensure community radio can participate in that future. Create certainty, create confidence—that is what we want. Debate (on motion by Mr Raguse) adjourned. 10089 19:30:00 Main Committee adjourned at 7.30 pm 10090 Questions in Writing 10090 10090 209 10090 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 26 August 2008: What Government regulations are in place to protect Octaviar investors? 10090 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Corporations Act 2001 regulates companies operating in Australia to protect the integrity of the market, facilitate commerce and industry, and maintain investor confidence.  Australia’s corporate governance framework, including the rules on shareholder engagement and participation, is well regarded internationally. The Corporations Act 2001 contains a range of duties setting out certain minimum obligations and responsibilities that directors of Australian companies must fulfil.  Directors face penalties of $200,000 for civil contraventions of these provisions, and can be disqualified from managing corporations.  Criminal contraventions face maximum fines of $220,000, or imprisonment for 5 years, or both. Through Chapter 5C of the Corporations Act 2001 regulation is also in place to protect investors in managed investment schemes such as the Wellington Premium Income Fund (PIF) (formerly known as the Octaviar Premium Income Fund).  The PIF was required to be registered with ASIC in accordance with Part 5C.1.  To obtain registration, the PIF was required to have: a responsible entity (RE) that was a public company holding an Australian financial services licence authorising it to operate the scheme (Part 5C.2); a legally binding constitution compliant with Part 5C.3; and a compliance plan dealing with matters prescribed in Part 5C.4.  Members of the PIF have the right to: remove and replace the responsible entity; veto certain financial benefits to the RE or related parties out of scheme property; and direct the responsible entity to wind up the scheme.  Members who suffer loss or damage as a result of a contravention of the Corporations Act 2001 by the RE, or its agents, may bring a civil action against the RE. Under the terms of Part 7.9 of the Corporations Act 2001, information concerning the PIF was required to be disclosed to all investors in a product disclosure statement. 10090 10090 234 10090 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 28 August 2008: In respect of the Productivity Places Program: at what stage will the department consider capping the number of Registered Training Organisations offering specific qualifications? 10090 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Request for Organisations to Participate in the Productivity Places Program is available for Registered Training Organisations to make submissions to deliver qualifications under the program until 31 October 2008.  10090 10090 237 10090 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 28 August 2008: In respect of the (now concluded) Australian Skills Vouchers Program: in total, how many vouchers were issued to (a) existing workers, and (b) job seekers. 10090 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In respect of the (now concluded) Australian Skills Vouchers Program the expected participation for priority group was: Unskilled workers – 60% Income Support recipients – 20% Job Network Participants – 10% People not in the labour force – 10% Actual participation for each priority group was: Unskilled Workers – 35,947 (44.5%) Income Support recipients – 16,545 (20.5%) Job Network Participants – 15, 062 (18.6%) People not in the labour force – 13,226 (16.4%) 10091 10091 250 10091 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 Mr Pearce asked the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, in writing, on 1 September 2008: How many Australians does the Government forecast will lose their jobs over the next 12 months. 10091 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government does not forecast the number of Australians who will lose their jobs over the next 12 months. The Government’s employment forecast for 2008‑09 in the May 2008 Budget indicates that job losses are expected to be more than fully offset by job creation in Australia.1 I refer the honourable gentleman to the reply to a Treasury Question on Notice (bet 101) containing the Government’s forecast of the increase in the overall number of unemployed persons from the June quarter 2008 to the June quarter 2009, which is now posted on the following website: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/economics_ctte/estimates/bud_0809/Treasury/answers/bet101.pdf. ———————————— 1 2008-09 Budget, May 2008 10091 10091 347 10091 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 Mr Forrest asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 September 2008: In respect of the development of a National Men’s Health Policy: what is the overall timeline and what progress has been made on the consultation process. 10091 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The policy is expected to be finalised in 2009. The commencement of the consultation phase of the National Men’s Health Policy was announced in June 2008 with the release of the paper ‘Developing a Men’s Health Policy for Australia – setting the scene’. This paper provides background to the policy and an outline of the consultative process. Information on the policy is available on the website: www.health.gov.au/menshealthpolicy .