2008-10-23 42 1 3 REPS 0 1 2008-10-23 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 1 Business 1 1 09:00:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I present a chart showing the program of sittings for 2009. Copies of the program have been placed on the table. I ask leave of the House to move that the program be agreed to. Leave granted. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I move: That the program of sittings for 2009 be agreed to. 1 09:01:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I will not speak for long, but I think there are some points that need to be made about this program of sittings for 2009, which comes on the heels of the program for 2008. The incompetent leader of government business in the House has yet again managed to restrict the number of weeks of sitting to 18 for 2009, on my understanding—18 for this year and 18 for next year. I have been in this House much longer than most of the people in the House, and I can tell you that most of the time that I have been in this House the normal sitting period has been 20, 21 or 22 weeks of the year. This is a government which prided itself at one stage on having openness, transparency, scrutiny and accountability. The government even got the poor Governor-General in his address at the opening of the parliament to give a speech about accountability and openness and a new era of transparency; yet in 2008 it managed to limit itself to 18 weeks of sittings and in 2009 will manage to limit itself to 18 weeks of sitting. It is not an open, transparent and accountable government; it is far from it. The people of Australia expect us to serve our electorates and legislate, not to spend 18 weeks here when we should be spending 20 or 21 or 22 weeks. This is especially the case with a new government which, even in its second year in office, cannot think of enough work to do in parliament to sustain more than 18 weeks of sittings in the year. So the first point to be made is that, yet again, this government is squibbing on transparency and accountability and trying to avoid the parliament. The second point I would like to make is that the program for 2009 follows on the heels of the extraordinarily incompetent attempt at unconstitutional Friday sittings. The opposition managed to ensure that the Constitution of Australia was upheld by stopping those Friday sittings. It was an unconstitutional act on the part of this government. It was one of their earliest bungles—although not as serious as their latest bungle on the financial crisis. I am glad the Treasurer has come in to hear my speech on this matter today, because I am sure he wants to highlight the bungle of the financial crisis following hot on the heels of all the other bungles of the government over the last 12 months, starting with the unconstitutional attempt to have Friday sittings. This is the third example of the poor old hapless leader of government business in the House introducing yet another deficient schedule of 2009 sittings. Again, he has managed to schedule four occasions when there will be a one-week non-sitting period between two weeks of sittings. So members of parliament will be sitting four weeks out of five rather than a properly scheduled sitting program. There is also a seven-week break in April and May, a six-week break in July and August and a four-week break in October. Why can’t your leader of government business get it right? You have got four times when we have one week back in our electorates between two-week sitting blocks—which is the worst thing imaginable—and three major blocks of seven weeks, six weeks and four weeks when the parliament will not be sitting. There is no good reason or justification for this other than the fact that the leader of government business has his hands off the wheel when he should have both hands on the wheel focusing on what matters in this House—the schedule for 2009. The opposition cannot do anything to change this sitting program. The government manage the schedule of business, and we are prepared to let them keep on being incompetent. We will turn up. We will keep showing them up for the failures that they are. We will scrutinise them and hold them accountable right through to the next election. But I point out to honourable members opposite that you need a new leader of government business. I think even my counterpart, the Minister for Education, or even the Treasurer—although he might have a bit on his plate at the moment—would do a better job than the leader of government business in the House. So, while the opposition will not oppose this motion, we certainly place on record our dismay and disdain for the management of this House by the current leader of government business in the House. 1 09:06:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I am happy to close the debate on the 2009 program of sittings and note that the opposition are once again walking both sides of the street. They say they are supporting this; they are going to vote for this. There are no amendments to this motion, but they criticise, complain and whinge about the program of sittings that has been put forward. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —We weren’t given any notice about it. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —It was on the Notice Paper. Of course, the Manager of Opposition Business is away, and I am not sure what has happened to the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business, the member for Cowper. What has occurred is that the member for Sturt has jumped over the member for Cowper in order to make sure that the deputy could not fulfil the role he normally would have had. And, meekly, the National Party, who have the deputy’s position, have just given it up. They have just rolled over and had their tummy tickled by the member for Sturt. That is what the member for Cowper has done with his failure to take on that position. I want to address the issues of substance raised by the member for Sturt. He suggested that it was appropriate that the parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. I went back and had a look. In 1996 it sat for the 16. In 1997 it sat for 20. In 1998 it sat for 14. In 1999 it sat for 19. In 2000 it sat for 19. In 2001, 14. In 2002, 18. In 2003, 19. In 2004, 16. In 2005, 18. In 2006, 18. So not once while they were in government, in not one of the 12 years, did parliament sit for 21 or 22 weeks. But here they say that is what should happen. On behalf of the electorate and constituents of Sturt, I can understand why they would not want their member in Sturt, or why the constituents of Cowper would want their member in Cowper. The fact is they did not do it for their entire time of office. But this is typical of this opposition. It does not matter whether it is over organisational issues or whether it is issues affecting the economy, the global financial crisis and the response of this government to it, they say they are for it essentially, they do not propose any alternatives—we saw the Leader of the Opposition on the 7.30 Report last night—but they just snipe from the sidelines. The member for Sturt referred to Friday sittings. In the life of this parliament, what issue has the opposition had most speakers on? Was it about pensions? Was it about the global financial crisis? Was it about workplace relations and their defence of Work Choices? No. It was about Friday sittings. That has been their No. 1 priority as an opposition. That had a speakers list where every one of their members had a view. So parliament sat for the longest first-day sitting since Federation because of their strenuous opposition to working five days a week. That is what motivated them more than the economy, more than pensions, more than the response to climate change. That is what really got their backs up: sitting five days a week. They behaved in a way which brought disrepute to this House during that Friday sitting. Because of that, they lost their opportunity to have a day at the end of the week when they could raise issues of concern to their constituents, be they local electorate issues or responses to the economy or alternative viewpoints. Most of that is now put on Monday night in the Main Committee, because they were not prepared to have that opportunity for real parliamentary reform that was given to the opposition and was of great advantage to the opposition. We know that when it comes to work and procedures the Manager of Opposition Business does indeed have a record of which he should be very concerned. Because they have no real agenda— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: it costs $11,000 a minute to run the parliament— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will come to his point of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —so we have now wasted $66,000 of taxpayers’ money. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt is warned! And that will last for the whole day because it was an abuse of the opportunity that is given to members to raise genuine points of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —They do not understand the standing orders, which is the little book, or the House of Representatives Practice, which is the big book. There isn’t anyone on that side who has ever picked it up. They did not pick it up when they were in government. But I give them a bit of advice: they should pick it up when they are in opposition. That was the 502nd point of order moved during this year. They have interrupted you, Mr Speaker, in one of every three questions during question time because they do not have anything to say and are not prepared to engage in the real forms of the House for proper discussion. The fact is that the number of sitting days under the Rudd government is higher than the number of sitting days under the Howard government. The fact is that the number of question times under the Rudd government is higher than the average number of question times under the Howard government. The fact is that the number of questions without notice answered by the government in this House is higher per question time than the number of questions answered by the Howard government. The fact is that we have had 53 ministerial statements in this House during 2008. They had two during 2007. The fact is that during 2007 in the run-up to the election, when you would expect there to be more issues of conflict between the government and the opposition than during a post-election year, there was one dissent motion before this House. You will recall, Mr Speaker, there have been four so far this year from the opposition. In terms of censures or suspensions of standing orders to do similar actions, to disrupt question time, in the run-up to the election in 2007 there was a total of just 10—during the entire year in the lead-up to an election. So far this year the opposition has done that on 21 separate occasions. This took five hours of debate in 2007. The opposition has taken 12 hours and 40 minutes of the parliament’s time—more than double—so far this year in debating censures of the government or condemnations of the government or sometimes we are not quite sure what. ‘It’s Thursday so we’ll move a suspension.’ That is their attitude. And we await post question time today to see whether once again there is a predictable motion to suspend standing orders from the opposition—on who knows what and with no build-up whatsoever. The fact is that the former Leader of the Opposition, Dr Nelson, was served very badly indeed by his tactics and strategy committee. We all recall him fumbling at the dispatch box, not having the appropriate motions to read, not being given any assistance by the Manager of Opposition Business, not being given assistance by the Deputy Manager of Opposition Business and not being given any assistance by the member for Sturt. The former Leader of the Opposition knows that he was served very badly by his tactics and strategy committee, because it was part of the undermining of the former Leader of the Opposition. But what we are seeing in respect of the new Leader of the Opposition is service just as bad, frankly—a tactics committee that is all over the shop, an opposition that thinks that it is okay to essentially vote for things, not put up alternatives or be prepared to put up any other options. The opposition are doing it again today when it comes to the sitting schedule for 2009. They are going to vote for it. They know it is sensible. They know it is practical. The program put up raises the issue of one-week gaps in sittings. Go back and look at what occurred under them. In 2001, there were one, two, three, four, five one-week breaks. In 2002, there were one, two, three one-week breaks. In 2003, there were one, two, three, four one-week breaks. So do not listen to anything they have to say about either policy or organisation or running this parliament, because they are completely incapable. They walk both sides of the streets but somehow manage at the same time to stay in the gutter. That is where they are at—walking both sides of the street but somehow managing to stay in the gutter at the same time. I commend the sitting schedule to the parliament. Also, for the benefit of newer members, we have given more notice than the former government gave. We waited. Often the schedules were released in November or December. That was when we got the schedules. This is a government that is well organised on policy and well organised in running this parliament. Question agreed to. 3 Business 3 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 09:19:00 —I move: That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 3 Bills R3101 3 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 3 3 09:19:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Mr Speaker, the COAG Reform Fund Bill 2008 establishes the COAG Reform Fund for the purpose of disbursing funds to the states and territories. The Rudd government is pursuing significant reforms to the architecture of Commonwealth-state financial relations, to end the blame game and to modernise the Federation. The reforms are geared towards achieving two essential outcomes: increasing productivity and sustained improvements in the efficiency and quality of services for all Australians. The reforms to the Commonwealth-state relations will be the platform on which significant policy change is delivered in Australia in key areas such as education, health and infrastructure. The COAG Reform Fund forms a key part of these broader architectural reforms. Where the Building Australia Fund, the Health and Hospitals Fund or the Education Investment Fund is used to finance projects by the states, money will be channelled from the nation-building fund to the state or territory via the COAG Reform Fund. The COAG Reform Fund will also be used to disburse funding provided in future budgets to the states and territories for areas of specific reform. Payments through the COAG Reform Fund will require a written agreement between the Commonwealth and the recipient jurisdiction, setting out the terms and conditions of the payment. These terms and conditions will include payment amounts and performance benchmarks, the achievement of which, in the case of national partnership reward payments, will be assessed by the independent COAG Reform Council. Where the COAG Reform Fund is used to disburse grants from one of the nation-building funds, terms and conditions of financial assistance will be contained in written agreements made under the Nation-building Funds Act 2008. Mr Speaker, through the Council of Australian Governments the Rudd government is delivering on its promise to end the blame game and modernise the Federation, to build the productive capacity of the economy and to deliver better services to all Australians. The COAG Reform Fund will be an important tool in acting on these important commitments. Mr Speaker, full details of these measures are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. 4 Bills R3100 4 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Gillard. Bill read a first time. 4 4 09:22:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introductory remarks It gives me great pleasure to present theAustralian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority Bill 2008. This bill is yet another illustration of how this government is getting on with the job of delivering an education revolution to Australia. This government knows that a world-class education system is the foundation of a competitive economy, that it underpins a dynamic labour market and that it is central to building a stronger and fairer Australia. Over the last 12 years, under the Howard government, our education system has been allowed to fall behind. It has suffered more than a decade of neglect. In the May budget, this government committed an unprecedented $19.3 billion to an education revolution; we have started rebuilding a modern, high quality education system for all Australians. We are delivering computers to schools and new trade training centres are also on their way. Our education tax refund is available to parents for educational expenses incurred since July this year. This bill builds on this government’s achievements so far. In less than one year in government we have begun to transform the Australian education landscape. This bill, by creating a new national authority responsible for curriculum, assessment and reporting, introduces a new era of transparency and quality in Australian schools. Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority During the 2007 election we promised that a Rudd Labor government would deliver a national curriculum for Australia. We promised that a Rudd government would deliver a comprehensive and sophisticated approach to performance reporting for individual schools across Australia. Now we are delivering on what we promised. In the past, education policy in this country has been dogged by a lack of transparency. Information about what happens in schools and what difference it is making has been seriously lacking. In a world where education is central to prosperity and to social inclusion, being limited to such an opaque picture is not acceptable. We cannot afford for our educational debates to ignore the fundamental issues of quality and outcome that will determine our young people’s future life chances. But this was the reality of education policy under the Howard government. Its funding policies polarised debate and neglected the long-term needs of students. Its curriculum posturing generated more heat than light. It was all about publicity for Liberal ministers rather than what children learn. Its coordinating structures failed to bring either coherence or efficiency to the regulation of schooling or the management of essential business between governments. In contrast, this government has built the foundations of a comprehensive, long-term school reform strategy. A national education agreement will be concluded through COAG before the end of this year. This agreement will establish for the first time the shared national targets, outcomes and policy directions that we need to achieve a world-class school system serving the needs of every Australian student. The national education agreement will provide the framework for ongoing, collaborative reform. Its priorities include proposals for national partnerships to lift teacher quality, boost literacy and numeracy and raise achievement in disadvantaged school communities. Our ambition is to deliver a world-class education for every Australian student in every community. To achieve that goal, we need curriculum, assessment and reporting systems that are up to the task. A new era of transparency Earlier this year, the Prime Minister and I called for a new era of transparency in Australian schooling. We argued that to lift performance and direct new resources to where they will make most difference, we need unprecedented rigour and openness in the collection and publication of schools data. If we are to identify accurately where the greatest educational need across the Australian community is located and encourage excellence in every school, we need a basis for fair, consistent, and accurate analysis of how different schools are doing. Accurate information on how students and schools are performing tells teachers, principals, parents and governments what needs to be done. This means publishing the performance of individual schools, along with information that puts that data in its proper context. That context includes information about the range of student backgrounds served by a school and its performance when compared against other ‘like schools’ serving similar student populations. In a world-class school system curriculum, assessment and performance reporting all play a crucial role in ensuring that teaching and learning are of the highest quality. They must be carefully aligned with each other and reflect the best of what happens in Australian schools and around the world. This bill will establish a single national authority to perform that role. This bill marks a defining moment in the future of education in Australia. A defining moment that we could have only achieved by working closely with our colleagues in the states and territories to end the blame game in education. It is with pride that I acknowledge the role of the state and territory education ministers who have worked with me through the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs to achieve this reform. This is collaborative federalism at its best. The creation of this new authority gives effect to the Council of Australian Governments’ historic decision on 2 October 2008 to establish a new national education authority. The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority will bring together, for the first time, the functions of curriculum, assessment and reporting at the national level. It will be a key driver of the education revolution. It demonstrates to parents, students, teachers and the international community how committed we are to ensuring that every young Australian has the best possible start in life. It places education at the forefront of the national agenda—a place where it has not been for 12 long years. As part of our commitment, the Australian government is committing more than $37 million over the next four years to support the work of the new authority. This commitment will be matched through existing contributions made by the states and territories. Detail on provisions of bill This bill establishes the Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority as an independent statutory authority under the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997. The bill includes provisions to ensure that state and territory education ministers’ responsibility for curriculum arrangements in their own jurisdictions is recognised and respected and that non-government school systems are participants in the new national arrangements. The authority will be responsible for the management of curriculum, assessment and reporting at the national level and will report to all Australian education ministers through the ministerial council. The ministerial council will be responsible for setting the authority’s work program through a charter. The authority must perform its functions and exercise its powers in accordance with the bill and the charter. The bill provides for the authority’s core functions across the areas of curriculum, assessment and reporting as well as the ability to operate commercially with regard to educational services. The authority will be led by a 13-member expert board of directors, responsible for overseeing the functions of the authority. Membership will include a chair, a deputy chair, one nominee from the Commonwealth, one nominee each from each state and territory education minister, one nominee from the National Catholic Education Commission and one nominee from the Independent Schools Council of Australia. These appointments will be made by the ministerial council. There will also be a chief executive officer of the authority, appointed by the board, responsible for overseeing the day-to-day management of the authority. The authority will be responsible for delivering Australia’s first national curriculum and the new transparency and performance reporting agenda announced by the Prime Minister last month. National curriculum benefits In developing a single national curriculum, the authority will ensure that every young Australian has access to the highest quality education—regardless of where they live or their socioeconomic background. The national curriculum will outline the curriculum entitlement for every young Australian. This is something that I believe is 30 years overdue for a modern, talented and resource rich country, such as Australia. We must ensure that all Australian children achieve their educational potential, and that more of them complete schooling through to year 12. The new national curriculum will be future oriented and will equip our young people with the essential skills, knowledge and capabilities to compete internationally and thrive in the globalised economies of the future. It will also facilitate greater student mobility for some 340,000 Australians, including for some 80,000 school aged students who move interstate each year in pursuit of educational or employment opportunities. A national curriculum will benefit teachers by giving them a clear understanding of what needs to be covered in each subject and in each year level during each phase of schooling. It will also allow teachers the flexibility to shape their classes around the curriculum in a way that is meaningful and engaging for students. The national curriculum will also bring benefits to parents. It will give them clear and explicit agreement about what it is that young people should know and be able to do. It will be grounded in the best of the traditional disciplines and will have as its foundation specific standards of literacy and numeracy. Earlier this year, this government announced the establishment of an interim National Curriculum Board with responsibility for overseeing the challenging task of developing the national curriculum. The interim board, led by Professor Barry McGaw as chair and Mr Tony Mackay as deputy chair, have been working very hard to engage the education community in developing Australia’s first national curriculum in English, mathematics, the sciences and history. And they have been doing an excellent job. I would like to commend the interim board members for their efforts and energy in taking the work this far. The work of the National Curriculum Board will now form part of this new authority and we will work with the board to ensure that there is a considered transition strategy put in place to effect this transfer of responsibilities. As part of our election commitment, we are committed to establishing the final governance arrangements for the board by 1 January 2009. Today, we deliver on that commitment. Concluding remarks The Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority will be at the forefront of the Australian government’s commitment to provide all young Australians with better opportunities and the best start in life. It will be the engine room of reform, a key driver of our education revolution. It will be responsible for delivering some of the most significant educational reforms in Australia’s history. It heralds a new era in education across Australia. And it places education at the forefront of the national agenda where it rightfully belongs. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 6 Business 6 Mr DEBUS (Macquarie —Minister for Home Affairs) 09:36:00 —I move: That notices Nos 3 and 4, government business, be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. 6 Committees 6 6 6 09:37:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr DEBUS —I 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, Queensland. The Department of Defence proposes to undertake the Australian Super Hornet Facilities Project at RAAF Base Amberley, Queensland at an estimated outturn to costs of $117.1 million. RAAF Base Amberley is currently the home base for No. 82 Wing’s F111 aircraft fleet operated by No. 1 Squadron and No. 6 Squadron. To support the F111 aircraft fleet, there are significant existing facilities at RAAF Base Amberley. From 2010, No. 82 Wing will transition from F111 to FA18F operations. The existing facilities will in consequence require modification, extension or reconstruction to support the new FA18F platform effectively. This project will deliver the necessary facilities and infrastructure to support No. 82 Wing operations at Amberley for a minimum 10-year period from 2010. The project scope includes operations, maintenance, logistics, simulation and training facilities and associated engineering services and site works. In its report, the Public Works Committee has recommended that these works proceed. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in early 2009 for completion in late 2010. On behalf of the government I thank the committee for its support. I commend the motion to the House. 6 09:39:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I would like to add my support to this motion and in doing so pay tribute to Brigadier Bill Grice and his staff, who are responsible for preparing these extraordinarily complex programs to deliver this much needed infrastructure at RAAF Base Amberley. RAAF Base Amberley is certainly emerging as one of Australia’s super bases. That is not a bad thing. Having super bases around the country reduces posting turbulence and that in fact is welcomed by the men and women of the Australian Defence Force. I certainly support the motion before the House this morning. Question agreed to. 7 7 7 09:40:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Procedure I present the committee’s report entitled Re-opening the debate: inquiry into the arrangements for the opening day of parliament, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. E09 Owens, Julie, MP Ms OWENS —by leave—The opening of parliament is a hugely important occasion in Australia’s democracy. It is the time when the parliament comes back together following an election and it is the time when the people’s representatives are officially sworn in and take their place in the chamber. It is the time when the government, through the Governor-General, announces its agenda for the ensuing parliamentary term. The practices and procedures for the opening of parliament are, not surprisingly, largely borrowed from the British parliament at Westminster and ceremony is an integral part of the proceedings. Previous Procedure Committees have conducted specific inquiries into the opening of parliament on three separate occasions: in 1991, 1995 and 2001. Each report reflected a desire to balance tradition and modernity. This report is formulated on the same principle. The committee strongly believes that the ceremony and tradition of opening day should be maintained. This report does not attempt to make any fundamental changes to the opening day but instead makes recommendations for change within the sound existing framework. The recommendations of previous reports were not able to effect change and the committee is hopeful that this report will be more successful. The primary reason for undertaking this inquiry was to analyse the staging of the Indigenous ceremony welcome to country at the opening of this parliament. The committee was delighted with the conduct of the ceremony and feels it should be part of future openings. The committee has therefore recommended that the welcome to country ceremony become a formal part of opening day through inclusion in the standing orders. The committee is of the view that there should also be some changes to the order in which events occur and more emphasis placed on particular moments in the day. One of these moments occurs when members are sworn in. It is the committee’s view that the current arrangements do not adequately reflect the significance of this moment. Section 42 of the Constitution says that members must be sworn in before they can take their seat in the House. This section has never been interpreted literally. In fact, currently members take their seats twice before being sworn in. But the committee is suggesting that it should be interpreted literally. The committee’s proposal is that members be called to the chamber at the conclusion of the welcome to country, formalising the moment when members leave the public space and enter the chamber for the first time. All members wait at the perimeter of the chamber when entering for the first time; members would then be called forward in small groups, swear an oath of affirmation and then be invited to take their seats. The committee believes this change will add to the ceremony of the swearing-in process. Another important moment that deserves greater attention is when members leave the House for the first time as sworn members of parliament. Under current arrangements members simply disburse from the chamber at their leisure. The committee is proposing that members should instead move in a procession led by the Speaker to the Great Hall where invited members of the public wait. This will allow for some interaction between members and the people that they have been elected to represent, and the symbolic gesture would also serve to remind members of their duty to represent the interests of their constituents. It would also provide an opportunity for there to be greater interaction between the opening activities that take place in the chamber and the elements of the day for the general public that are held in the public spaces in and around Parliament House. The committee believes that the current structure of the afternoon’s proceedings is confusing and illogical. Members return to the House only to leave a few minutes later to meet the Governor-General. Members then return to the House again, only to leave yet once again to attend the Senate. The committee recommends that when members return to the House at 2.30 they instead commence business. This will include the announcement of the ministry and the opposition front bench and the election of the Speaker’s deputies. A little after 3 pm, the Black Rod would arrive to summon members to the Senate to hear the Governor-General’s speech. At the conclusion of the speech, members would return to the House to conclude a few necessary items of business and then adjourn for the day. Any other items of business would be dealt with the following day. After the adjournment of the House, the Speaker would lead a procession to the Members Hall to meet the Governor-General and this would be followed by the traditional afternoon tea. The committee believes that this new order of business would give the proceedings of the afternoon of the opening day of parliament a much more logical flow. It has been the view of previous procedure committees that an alternative venue should be used for the Governor-General’s speech, specifically the Great Hall. This committee does not share that view. The main argument for holding the speech in the Great Hall is that it would provide more equal treatment to the two houses. However it is not obvious to the committee that members feel at all inferior by attending the Senate. In fact many members may enjoy the rare opportunity they have to be present in the Senate chamber. Holding the speech in the Senate also allows the retention of the important ceremonial moment of the Black Rod knocking three times on the chamber door to summon members. This moment adds greatly to the theatre of the opening of parliament. If Australia were to become a republic at some stage in the future then this issue would obviously need to be revisited. Before closing, I would like to thank the secretariat, in particular Joanne Towner and Andrew McGowan, for their extraordinary support in preparing the report. The committee hopes that this report will spark debate among members about the nature of the first day of parliament and looks forward to hearing the views of all members on this important subject. I commend the report to the House. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Does the member for Parramatta wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Ms OWENS (Parramatta) 09:46:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 8 8 Ms OWENS (Parramatta) 09:46:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 8 8 8 09:46:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Advisory report on the Commonwealth Electoral Amendment (Political Donations and Other Measures) Bill 2008, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —by leave—The Senate asked the committee to review the bill, which proposes a number of amendments to the Commonwealth Electoral Act including: ensuring that claims for public funding are limited to verifiable electoral expenditure; reducing the disclosure threshold from more than $10,000 to $1,000; facilitating the publication of disclosure returns in a more timely manner; making it unlawful to receive foreign or anonymous donations; and strengthening associated penalties and compliance processes. The committee believes that the changes proposed by the bill will significantly improve the transparency of financial support for political parties and candidates, as well as the political expenditure and income of other participants in the electoral process. The committee has made two recommendations to amend the bill. The first is to expand the definition of ‘electoral expenditure’ to allow for reasonable administrative expenses related to campaigning. This will ensure that minor parties are not disadvantaged by the proposed changes, which are designed to ensure that ‘celebrity’ candidates cannot profiteer from public funding. The second recommendation to amend the bill relates to the proposal to ban the receiving of anonymous donations. As currently provided, the bill may create an onerous burden in minor situations such as small-scale raffles and fundraising activities. The amendment proposed by the committee is that a cap of $50 apply below which anonymous donations can be received. The committee’s choice of a $50 threshold for accepting anonymous donations was based on a suggestion by the Democratic Audit of Australia. The committee did not receive feedback from the political parties on this issue. Others have argued for the threshold to be set at a higher level. However, the committee considers that a $50 threshold provides the appropriate balance for small-scale fundraising activities to be conducted without the fundraiser needing to identify all contributors. The committee worked to achieve consensus on the report, with changes made to accommodate concerns over the definition of electoral expenditure and the unlikely situation where a donor may be subject to harassment or intimidation. The committee recommended that the existing protections for interference with political liberty in section 327 of the Commonwealth Electoral Act be supported by establishing a dedicated unit within the Australian Electoral Commission that is responsible for promoting awareness of this section of the act and maintaining a formal complaints register and which is directly contactable by a separate website and an advertised telephone hotline number. The Australian Electoral Commission told the committee that it estimated that the proposed measures were likely to lead to at least a threefold increase in its workload. It will therefore be important that the government allocates appropriate resources to the commission so that it is able to implement the proposed arrangements in a manner that minimises compliance costs on participants, reduces publication timeframes and ensures that compliance processes operate effectively. Some inquiry participants have argued that the proposals included in the bill should be deferred and considered as part of a broader review processes, including a government green paper and a separate inquiry by this committee. The committee does not share this view. The incremental reforms proposed by this bill are based on the overriding principle of openness and transparency in the financial transactions of participants in the electoral system. This principle will remain, notwithstanding any reforms which are progressed into the future. It is also important, in order to close off the disclosure loopholes that currently exist and give participants greater certainty over the arrangements that apply from 1 July 2008, that the proposed changes are not delayed. Changes to financial disclosure arrangements by the previous government—in particular the lifting of the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to more than $10,000, indexed to inflation—have allowed significant funding to be provided to political parties and candidates without being disclosed. To give an example of how the lifting of the threshold to more than $10,000 weakened transparency, figures provided by the Electoral Commission revealed that the number of donors fell from 1,442 in 2004-05, when the threshold was $1,500, to only 229 in 2006-07, when the threshold was $10,300. I add that this is in the lead-up to an election, and I think people can draw their own inferences as to what happens in the lead-up to elections regarding donations. The lengthy delay in the publication of disclosures made above the threshold has meant that up to one year and three months may elapse after a donation has been made before it is made public. These arrangements clearly do not allow information to be provided to the community in a timely manner about financial support for political parties and candidates. The committee acknowledges that the proposed changes may lead to some additional compliance costs for participants in the political process. However, the committee considers that the proposed changes achieve the appropriate balance between transparency and the freedom to participate in the political process. I would like to take this opportunity to thank my fellow committee members for their contribution to the inquiry and those who participated by making submissions or appearing at the public hearings. I would also like to thank the committee secretariat for their assistance. I commend the report to the House. 9 09:53:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —by leave—I commence my brief remarks by also giving my thanks to the Chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters, the member for Banks. Working with the chair of the committee has been a very positive process. I appreciate the very even-handed way in which he has dealt with committee members from this side of the House. I also pass on my thanks to the secretariat and to those who participated in the hearings on this matter. The opposition members of the committee have issued a dissenting report as part of this paper. We note, particularly for this reason, that there is a green paper that is being put together by the government. It is taking some time for this green paper to emerge. There are very important reforms that need to take place as part of this process, and I think members right across this chamber agree with the need for that. It highlights all the more that we should not deal with reform of campaign finance in a piecemeal fashion. We need to deal with these matters comprehensively and inclusively. Things need to be looked at system-wide and not in a piecemeal way. Once again, we have outlined in this report the need not to go off on one-off measures but to consider these matters in their totality as part of the proper green paper process. Those on the other side, particularly those outside this place, seem to have some disagreement about issues relating to the reform. We have the Premier of New South Wales very much for the reform process. We have the Premier of Victoria very much against it. We have the just-departed general secretary of the Labor Party, Tim Gartrell, who made very interesting comments on the weekend in the Sydney press. Who knows what the new general secretary’s view is? I think it is very important that the parties form very clear views about this and engage with the reform process as a matter of urgency. We look forward to receiving the green paper in due course and to engaging in that proper debate. The other point I make is that we welcome the accommodations that have been made, which the chair of the committee has referred to. In particular, I wish to thank the chair and the committee for taking up the position on increasing the protections from intimidation available to citizens who are making donations. There are provisions in the act which clearly make that sort of intimidation illegal. There are—and should be—harsh penalties for that type of behaviour in the act. If you are going to lower the threshold for disclosure then we need to make sure that people understand that there is someone they can go to if they feel they are being intimidated. Those people are available on a hotline and through a website, and the resources need to be there for the AAC to make sure that those complaints can be taken seriously. We also note in our dissenting report the issue of a compliance burden. We have to be very careful, in going through these reforms, that we do not overload what is basically a volunteer membership across political parties with compliance measures which herd them into default. With the penalties here in this bill, we are trying to ensure that negative behaviour, dangerous behaviour that comes from the culture and the politics of money, does not infect our political system. In doing that, we have to be careful not to create a compliance burden which traps the wrong people. To that end, we have argued that the anonymous donation threshold should be $250, not $50, to ensure that those penalties are not imposed on people simply making administrative errors. I thank the House for its indulgence in allowing me to make these statements and, again, I thank the chair. 10000 Washer, Dr Mal (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Dr MJ Washer)—Does the member for Banks wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr MELHAM (Banks) 09:57:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c) the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 10 10 Mr MELHAM (Banks) 09:57:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 10 10 10 09:58:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I present the report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Publications. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. Report—by leave—agreed to. 10 Bills R3081 Cognate bill: 10 Bills R3082 10 Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. 10 09:59:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise in this cognate debate to speak on the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008, the government’s second attempt at amending the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985. The coalition blocked this bill the first time around, earlier in the year, because it had significant concerns. There are also areas of concern in this second attempt. First let me outline what the bill is about and why I have taken an interest in it. The federal interstate road transport scheme began in 1987 to provide uniform charges and operating conditions for heavy vehicles engaged only in interstate work. Our former Treasurer, Peter Costello, asked the Productivity Commission to investigate the economic costs of freight infrastructure and efficient approaches to transport pricing. The Productivity Commission reported that pricing and regulatory arrangements were hampering the efficient provision and the productive use of road and rail infrastructure, identified a number of cost recovery issues and recommended a process of sequential reforms. This review was endorsed by the Council of Australian Governments in 2007. In February, Commonwealth, state and territory transport ministers agreed to update heavy vehicle registration charges at an Australian Transport Council meeting. The states and territories have already imposed these new charges on heavy vehicles under their registration system, and these amendments will permit the making of regulations to apply new registration charges to the five per cent of heavy vehicles registered under the Australian government’s Federal Interstate Registration Scheme, known as FIRS. This accounts for about 21,500 trucks. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 also updates definitions in the Interstate Road Transport Charge Act 1985 and establishes a disallowable charge-setting mechanism based on regulation that will stipulate a table of changes or an annual adjustment process. The Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 also amends the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to implement a road user charge rate of 21c per litre from January next year. This is an increase of 1.36c per litre from the current rate of 19.633c per litre. The government has proposed a four-year, $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package for construction of roadside facilities and electronic monitoring technology trials, dependent on the successful passage of these bills. Separately, the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 repeals the road transport charges—that is, the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993, which currently prevents the ACT from setting its own heavy vehicle charges. While I endorse its intention, I am not interested in the ACT component at all but rather in the effects of the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008 nationally and in my own state of WA, and specifically in my electorate of Kalgoorlie. As the House knows, my electorate covers more than two million square kilometres of Western Australia and heavy-vehicle road freight trucking is critical to the many widely dispersed communities and industries within that electorate, which, in recent years, have made a not insignificant contribution to the national economy. We rely on hardworking interstate truckies to go the distance across the Nullarbor and get all manner of products into and out of our state. We have such a reliance on them, as you can well imagine, Mr Deputy Speaker Washer. Without the trucking industry and those owner-operators and employed drivers in the trucking industry, the vast state of Western Australia, including my 2.3 million square kilometres of Western Australia, would grind to a halt. They are the absolute glue that allows us to maintain those communities. And, I might add, they earn a great deal of money for many, many businesses across the state of Western Australia. We have, of course, a great desire to eventually create an intermodal hub in the goldfields, specifically in Kalgoorlie-Boulder in Western Australia, that will allow interstate rail freight coming from east to west to be offloaded in the goldfields and to then travel via road freight north, south and west. When that happens, hopefully quickly with the $3 million that I have obtained for the seed funding for that purpose, distribution of freight in Western Australia will be a little more efficient. You can understand how crucial interstate road transport is to us in WA and indeed all of Australia. Also close to my heart is the issue of road safety, which goes hand in hand with any kind of road transport. Such is my concern for road transport that I have designed and released over a couple of years now a bumper sticker with a simple warning that says, ‘You don’t have to cause a crash to be killed in one’. The only other one I have designed most recently, by the way, says, ‘Rudd-a-dud-dud’. That is beside the point and another story. In Western Australia there are more crashes in the metropolitan region than in rural parts of the state, like my electorate of Kalgoorlie. But the number of fatalities in rural WA is consistently higher than in the metropolitan region. The figures I am referring to are total figures, not percentages. More people die on country roads and highways than city ones, and this includes most of our main interstate highway links on the Great Eastern Highway, the Coolgardie to Esperance Highway, then the Eyre Highway and, going north, the North West Coastal Highway and the Great Northern Highway. Trucks mostly use these interstate links and, because they can be on the road at all hours of the day or night, they are right in the front line when it comes to safety. We are talking about the safety of the truck drivers but this is also about the safety of other road users, and the list of examples is numerous. Holiday-makers are often unfamiliar with the experience of long drives on relatively high-speed roads, mixing it with interstate roadtrains. School buses routinely trundle along our highways and roads adjacent to our country towns. If they are suddenly confronted with wide loads, long loads and heavy loads, there can be a very dangerous interaction. When farmers are on roads moving plant and equipment from paddock to paddock and that is mixed with heavy haulage, it makes for a very dangerous situation. Heaven forbid that I would impact on the financial viability of our tourism industry, especially self-drive tourists, but it is a very, very frightening experience for the overseas self-guided tourist on our country roads to be confronted with a roadtrain travelling at a hundred kilometres an hour. I have seen some of their reactions. A roadtrain occupies a lot of road width—believe me. The most at-risk species of all is the Japanese cyclist on long, straight roads. They are more and more plentiful in Western Australia. Their survival rate is quite high, but it is an ongoing miracle. I will briefly raise some figures to illustrate how things are in WA. Anyone who has had the privilege of visiting our beautiful state will know that our roads are long and that sometimes towns and roadhouses are few and far between. In the 10 years to 2004, there were more than 720,000 vehicles recorded in all crashes. About 2.9 per cent of those vehicles were trucks. However, of those vehicles recorded in fatal crashes, 9.2 per cent were trucks. We all know how many things can contribute to vehicle crashes: speed, alcohol consumption, wildlife on the road, bad weather and the condition of the road. Some figures have indicated that fatigue is involved in about 15 per cent of fatal truck crashes and 11 per cent of those involving serious injury in WA. The number of these crashes is higher in rural areas of WA, where as many as 35 per cent of truck crashes are thought to be due to fatigue. Of course, tired drivers are less able to cope with the causes of road crashes: bad roads, weather conditions and traffic conditions. Nationally, up to 42 per cent of all heavy vehicle crashes may be linked to driver fatigue and up to 30 per cent of fatal heavy vehicle crashes. What does driver fatigue have to do with the interstate road transport charges amendment? The answer is: quite a lot. This bill is all about cost recovery—in other words, the user-pays process. But exactly what are the trucking operators we depend on so much paying for? We know it is about recovering the cost imposed on the road system by the heavy vehicle industry, but if the truckies are paying to use the road then it should be as safe as possible. The Australian Trucking Association Chairman, Trevor Martyn, said this month, ‘Every truck driver and trucking operator knows we need more rest areas because fatigue is a major cause of truck accidents.’ This is why the Trucking Association has scrutinised this bill very carefully and believes the road user charge should be linked to the provision of rest areas. The Trucking Association has asked that any future increases in this charge be linked to construction of the new heavy vehicle rest areas on the AusLink national roads network—our fundamental freight and interstate transport routes. We think it is a great idea. Australia’s states and territories have recently taken steps to introduce new fatigue management laws requiring truck drivers to take more rest stops. The problem is that there are not enough rest areas for them to stop in. We also have new national guidelines on how many rest areas our roads should have and what they should be like, but none of Australia’s major road freight routes comply with national guidelines on heavy vehicle rest areas and more than half of them have substantial deficiencies in meeting the guidelines. My own state of WA received a particularly bad report. Not only are our rest areas too far apart but less than half the rest stops we do have do not comply with recommended design and layout features. The Trucking Association believes 900 rest areas are required to meet the national guidelines, but the coalition has been informed that 500 additional rest areas would bring the road network broadly into compliance. So we are shy 400 rest areas, and the government believes that this bill will solve the problem. These national guidelines are there to save lives. We estimate 500 new heavy vehicle rest areas would cost just $300 million over 10 years. That is a small amount compared to the revenue from the road user charge, which may run to more than $2 billion over the same period. Let us compare these figures to the measly $70 million over four years that the government has offered for its heavy vehicle safety and productivity package—an offensive figure that is meanly dependent on the success of these bills I am now discussing. I dread to think how little each state and territory will benefit from this ungenerous offering. I will highlight a little why this figure is so offensive. We as a nation depend on road freight, as I have already said. In 2006-07, the road transport industry was worth $16.8 billion and employed 232,000 people. The amount of road freight is growing—historically, more than 30 per cent faster than the national economy. By 2020, road freight is expected to be 2.2 times as much as it was in the year 2000, which means at least 50,000 more trucks on the roads. How far do you think Labor’s vague $70 million package over four years will go to support a growing industry already worth $16.8 billion? It is so meagre that it is insulting. The coalition’s $300 million plan for another 500 heavy vehicle rest areas will give Australia’s truckies the rest they need and ensure the roads are safer for all Australians, both now and in the future. Money needs to be spent on making our roads safer, and we want to make darn sure it does get spent. Let me now briefly address the topic of indexation. We know that in this second attempt the government has removed a link to indexation from the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill, but we are concerned that they have left it to separate regulation to amend the Fuel Tax Act. Fuel indexation is nothing more than a tax by stealth. The coalition know it, and so does the Australian Trucking Association—and neither of us likes it. This is why the coalition have suggested that we completely remove the possibility of indexing from the Fuel Tax Act. The government wants the legislation to allow that the regulations ‘may prescribe a method for indexing the road user charge’. We do not want to prescribe it; we want to proscribe it so that the legislation should actually state that the minister must not apply a method of indexing the road user charge. The government would then need parliament to approve any increases in the road user charge. We think that is a fair and democratic process—and certainly the trucking industry does. While I am talking about fairness let me bring up the issue of the fair setting of charges. As I mentioned earlier, the road user charge is a form of cost recovery from the trucking industry. Even though this amendment increases the road user charge the truck operators have to pay, the Australian Trucking Association does not oppose the increase. But it would like to know how the new charge was worked out. The National Transport Commission did not provide adequate information or consultation to the trucking industry about the model behind the road user charge. My fellow members know that we would hate to accuse the government of a lack of transparency, but that is exactly what we are doing. We would like the government to explain itself and provide all the data, methodologies and formulae that were used to determine the road user charge. We also think any proposed rate increases should be subject to public consultation. This will make the road user charge setting process more open, honest, and transparent—and that is fair. I now come to the last point I would like to talk about today, and that is the absurd state of affairs our interstate truckies have to deal with in regard to differing transport regulations between states and territories. The differences are not just ridiculous; they are contradictory and distracting. I have made the point more than once that safety is a critical issue on our roads, both generally and in particular for the trucking industry we rely on so much. Our truckies need to be thinking about their job when they are behind the wheel, and not worrying about bizarre and frustrating red tape and the different regulations that they have to conform to when they cross borders. There is so much differentiation that it spins the head. If you were travelling, for example from Sydney to Perth, you would cross through four state jurisdictions and you would be subject to four separate regulations such as the frequency of rest stops—with regulations surrounding fatigue and the duration of stops; regulations about how often you have to stop to rest and water stock, if you were carrying stock; and regulations about whether you have to carry a log book. It is an absolute nonsense. We have all heard the Rudd government talking up its ability to work constructively with state and territory governments, but, nearly a year since this government was elected, we are still waiting for consistent and harmonious national transport regulations. This is why the coalition has flagged an amendment that would require the road user charge to be increased only if substantial harmonisation has been achieved in state and territory transport regulations, including heavy vehicle reform measures. The government has missed a significant opportunity for regulation reform, and our truckies are paying the price. In conclusion, I reiterate the coalition’s very reasonable concerns about these bills which I have expressed today regarding heavy vehicle rest areas, indexation, fair setting of charges, and the need for regulatory harmonisation between states and territories. I emphasise that the amendments we have flagged are an opportunity for the government to finally share our serious commitment to the heavy vehicle road transport industry and to making that industry safer and more efficient now and into the future. 13 10:18:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —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 will support the proposed amendments to the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008 by the shadow minister, given that I live in and represent an electorate of 21,000 square kilometres that relies very much on the heavy transport industry. It is an electorate that is based on mining, resources, agriculture, forestry, fisheries, tourism, manufacturing and retail. As we all know, over 70 per cent of domestic freight in Australia is delivered by road, and much of that in the heavy transport sector. The Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008, which will increase the road user charge from 19.633c per litre to 21.3c per litre, is one that I have concerns about. I want to talk about what these increased charges will mean to a gentleman by the name of Preston Gardiner, who owns a plantation logging transport business in my electorate of Forrest in the south-west of WA. Preston is the owner of one of the businesses that have been so badly affected by the Varanus Island gas explosion on 3 June 2008. It was an explosion which has had far-reaching economic and social consequences—a lot of them in the heavy transport sector, and many of which are continuing to be felt to this day. Full gas supplies will not be restored until at least December of this year. The WA Chamber of Commerce and Industry has modelled the costs to the WA economy at between $2.4 billion and $6.7 billion. Much of these costs will be felt in my electorate. And for Preston Gardiner, the economic consequences will be exacerbated by the increase in the road user charge contained in this bill. The Varanus Island explosion removed 30 per cent of gas supplied to Western Australia. Between 40 per cent and 45 per cent of all of the gas from Varanus Island is used in my electorate of Forrest in the south-west. And there was, and continues to be, a disproportionate effect on the south-west businesses, which were completely without gas. Many independent contractors servicing these businesses were put off immediately or in the immediate aftermath. Preston Gardiner was one of those. Preston was pretty much a local bloke. He was born, raised and educated in the Donnybrook area, growing up on an orchard and beef cattle property on Beelerup Road. Preston grew up around trucks and heavy machinery. He helped his family to transport their fruit from the orchard to markets in Perth and pulled wood from the bush for fence posts with his grandfather, who had bulldozers and earthmoving equipment. In what was a natural progression, Preston completed an apprenticeship as a mechanic, working throughout Western Australia from Port Hedland to Kalgoorlie, putting in long hours and at times driving trucks and heavy vehicles on an interstate run, as well as working as a leading-hand supervisor at a mine site at Cockatoo Island, with part of this time on a fly-in fly-out basis. He started his own mechanical contracting and did contract supervision for a number of earthmoving contractors around the state, travelling extensively. He also bought a house in Donnybrook and married his wife, Melinda. He then became involved in the plantation logging industry through the servicing of the equipment as well as running a civil earthmoving company in Newman, working on the BHP extension and throughout the Pilbara. When his daughter contracted a rare virus, Preston decided to go back to the south-west permanently to be close to his family and not have to work on a fly-in fly-out basis. Back in Donnybrook, he needed to find another venture in addition to his Gardiner Mechanical Services business. He bought a truck that had a pine haulage job contracted to a regional logging company. Preston and Melinda call this trading business Donnybrook Logging Services. Both of the Gardiners’ businesses are in the plantation pine industry—one a subcontract log haulage operation and the other a mechanical repair operation for log-harvesting and transport equipment. His truck was a 1995, 500-horsepower Western Star, a pocket road train with a flat-tow trailer. For the past 2½ years, the Gardiners employed a total of eight full-time employees. With the local council’s daylight-to-dark curfews and not being allowed on the roads with a road train until daylight, Preston was losing one trip a day. So he looked at other opportunities and efficiencies. Gardiner Mechanical Services was going well and the trucking business was quietly ticking over, but he needed to improve the efficiency of the log haulage by using fold-up, stackable trailers. Preston did his homework and researched the options for six months. He went to Tasmania to look at the logging industry there. In March 2006, Preston took delivery of a new 500-horsepower Western Star prime mover and took the truck to Tasmania to have it specially fitted with an EZ Loader type trailer system. With this combination, when the trailers are empty the dog trailer loads onto the lead trailer, reducing the length of the unit—if you can imagine that in the bush—improving manoeuvrability and access to the bush tracks. This type of stackable combination increases the weight on the prime mover’s drive wheels, which along with accurate onboard weighing systems has less impact on the environment, improves fuel efficiency, is more productive, does less damage to the haul roads and helps to manage the steep country. When the prime mover and trailer combination are working well at full capacity, Preston believes it is the best thing ever for his business. The flat-tow road train increased his turnover by 30 per cent, while costs stayed the same as operating a standard road train. Both of his log trucks were working to capacity even though operating margins were tight, particularly with constantly increasing fuel costs. The log trucks were carting between 1,000 and 1,500 tonnes of pine and blue gum a week—that is, until 3 June and the explosion at Varanus Island. Within two weeks of that explosion, he was simply told that his services were not required. There was no gas to process the timber he was carting. One of his trucks was parked in the yard, and it has not moved since. It is still sitting in the same spot. His earnings on the second truck have virtually halved. And this bill seeks to increase his road user charges. What assistance did the Western Australian state Labor government offer Preston Gardiner during or following the gas crisis? The answer is none. What assistance did the federal Labor government offer Preston Gardiner during and since this crisis? The answer is none. There has been absolutely no practical help or assistance in any way whatsoever. He has been on his own, like so many other independent contractors and small to medium businesses in the south-west of Western Australia. They have been left to their own devices during the gas crisis. These same businesses contacted me in absolute desperation because they needed help. They were utterly in the dark; they were not getting any practical assistance or information from government departments or gas suppliers during the crisis. What is the state of Preston’s business now? His driver has gone on to a job in Karratha and Preston is driving the truck himself. Where was he the day before yesterday? He was up at the crack of dawn, in the bush with his $400,000 road train, which he has to pay off, waiting to load logs to get as many trips as possible done during the daylight hours. If the harvesting contractors are not efficient and prepared for the daily operations, Preston’s business will be the first to lose. Preston himself is very angry that the new road charges will apply to him. He understands the need to pay his way, but at this time this is just another straw. He is very well aware that this is a tax increase, but he questions whether any of the additional tax will actually be spent in WA. He is also angry at the state of the roads in the south-west of WA—and, believe me, he like most other heavy truck drivers has firsthand experience of the five worst highways in Western Australia, which are in my electorate, as identified by last year’s RAC report. He also wants to know where the truck stops will be built in WA, and particularly in the south-west. Where will they be built and when? There is nothing in this bill that gives him that confidence. Where in the bill are the benchmarks? How many roadside facilities will be built, where will they be and when will they be built? How can operators like Preston Gardiner be sure they will actually get the benefits of these proposed tax increases? Where are the checks and balances? Where are the measures? Preston says WA truckies believe that they contribute enough and that right at the moment—in his words—they ‘are stretched to the max’. He also commented that, if costs increase any further, freight costs will go through the roof, and basically the transport industry will become unviable. He has constantly sought new contracts; he has not sat around and waited for something to come to him. He has been quoting on every job possible since the explosion at Varanus, hoping there will still be light at the end of the tunnel. He is a doer. The current financial crisis gives him no confidence, and margins are very tight in the transport sector, as we hear constantly. The Gardiners’ plantation contractor has advised that it does not appear that the subcontractors used to cart pine will be back to work until after January or February 2009. But he is a battler and is always hopeful that more business will come his way. To him and his family, it is a matter of survival. He needs to and is chasing every contract, which means he will have to commit more financially or exit the industry. To set up new equipment will cost between $150,000 to $200,000, with no guarantee of work. He cannot sell the business, because there is nothing to sell at the moment. Yes, he has his equipment, but he has no work for it. Preston tells me that, before the gas explosion, Gardiner Mechanical Services had $200,000 worth of work booked; after the explosion, there has been a complete downturn. Companies have said they are not carrying out maintenance and they are putting their work on hold. But Preston still has wages and overheads to pay. He still has the commitments, but the work has dried up and he has had to let workers go. Preston went to Centrelink to seek help. There was no help at Centrelink for Preston. He was told that, because he had assets and was a subcontractor, there was no help at all available for him. Where was the crisis-specific support for those affected by the Varanus explosion, particularly those in the transport sector? This bill will increase his road user charge, increasing the tax on his business. This is not the first time the government has attempted to implement this tax increase. There are other subcontractors like Preston Gardiner in my electorate, and they will be affected in the same way. As I have explained, those involved in the forestry sector in the south-west have been suffering significantly since 3 June. Adding to this is the lack of action from the Labor government on its election promises to the industry. Senator Colbeck has said that, after nearly a year in government, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has nothing to show for the country’s forestry communities. At estimates hearings two days ago, Senator Colbeck asked questions about the progress of all of the government’s election commitments to the forestry sector. Responses to questions show that none of the various forestry funding programs, nearly 12 months into the government’s term, have delivered any funding to the forestry sector. ‘Guidelines to be developed’ was the standard answer, with the ‘preparing forest industries for climate change’ $8 million commitment at draft paper stage. In Senator Colbeck’s words, ‘This can only be described as woeful progress after almost one year in the portfolio by the minister.’ And if this is not sufficient, a report in Tuesday’s West Australian newspaper showed that Perth diesel prices are up to 20c per litre more than diesel prices in the eastern states despite the wholesale price being almost 2c a litre cheaper in WA. Motor Trade Association of WA chief executive, Peter Fitzpatrick, is quoted as saying: You might expect a 5c difference between unleaded petrol and diesel prices but not 20c ... Motorists are paying too much for diesel in Perth. I would ask: is this additional cost to motorists and truck drivers in any way a result of additional diesel being used for power generation following the Varanus gas explosion? Is this an additional impost on the transport industry and on truck drivers like Preston Gardiner? If Preston were fuelling up in the south-west at the moment, he would be paying between $1.66 and $1.75 a litre for his diesel. But the Rudd Labor government still believes that a national Fuelwatch scheme will fix this problem in my electorate. Why is Fuelwatch not working for regional areas? In Western Australia we already have Fuelwatch, yet our transport industry and motorists are paying up to an extra 20c a litre for diesel. No wonder the trucking industry, particularly in Western Australia, is concerned about the way the National Transport Commission develops the road user charge. What data and model was used to develop the charge? Why is this information not available to the trucking industry? I oppose any move to reintroduce the indexation of fuel excise. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government stated that the road user charge was to be indexed annually to the same road construction formula that was to apply to registration charges. The coalition is concerned that this was an attempt by the Labor government to reintroduce the indexation of fuel excise—and, as I have said, we oppose fuel excise indexation. In fact, when we were in government in 2001, we abolished this Keating government decision. This bill removes the link to indexation and sets the road user charge at 21c a litre. I oppose any attempt by the Labor government to reintroduce indexation by stealth. When elected to office, the government said that it would fix interstate inconsistencies. Where in the transport sector are there nationally consistent transport regulations? Here is an example. You are a Western Australian truck driver making an irregular trip to the eastern states. Once you get to South Australia, you have to buy a logbook from a police station. If this happens to fall on a weekend, it can be very difficult to find an open, manned police station. The logbook costs approximately $40 and what is written in the logbook is quite ambiguous. The driver then has to work out what time zone he or she is in. Generally you work your time zone on your state of origin. However, if you leave from Queensland and you are a WA driver, how do you work out your times? A solo driver, according to the logbook, can drive for five hours but then has to take a 15-minute break—and fill his logbook out along the way. If this occurs and there are no truck stops available, there is a huge problem. Basically, the driver has to stop wherever possible or take the risk and drive to the nearest truck stop. The driver I spoke to found the best truck stops were in New South Wales and Queensland—certainly not in Western Australia. Very few truck stops are well lit and well serviced. Many are just slight pull-off areas. The total driving time allowed in the logbook is 12 hours in any 24-hour period. If you are a WA truck driver who is not a regular east-west operator, you fill out the logbook to the best of your ability. The only time you know whether this is correct or not is when you are pulled over by the police and your logbook is checked. One WA truck driver was recently pulled over twice during an interstate trip. Fortunately for him, the New South Wales policeman explained that he had to fill out not only the time he was driving but also the time he was resting over the 24 hour period. Apparently, if this is not done it can be viewed as an offence in some states. The different physical configuration of trucks can also provide challenges on interstate trips with inconsistent state regulations. For instance, an eight-wheel truck with a 10-wheel dog trailer is quite a common combination in WA. However, it is rarely used or even seen on the eastern seaboard; it is a specific combination suitable for WA. When a truck like this travels interstate, the local police are not really sure which regulation applies to this unit. That causes confusion and frustration for both the police officer and the operator. I support the shadow minister’s proposed amendments to this bill and I strongly oppose any reintroduction of charges by stealth. The bill should include a transport process and mechanism to apply the road user charge. It should also include a performance guarantee to deliver at least 50 new rest areas each year on the national road network, and I want to see when and where the rest stops will be delivered in Western Australia. The government needs to deliver on nationally consistent transport regulations. While I am talking on transport I would like to correct the record of the speech I made in the House on Tuesday, 16 September 2008, when I was speaking on the AusLink (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2008. I stated: Tim Eaton, of National Trucking, said on Lateline recently: ‘Woolies are bullies.’ On subsequent checking I have established that the program was an episode of Four Corners. Mr Eaton is General Manager, Safety and Environment, for the National Transport Commission. He did not make this statement. It was in fact said before Mr Eaton was interviewed. I apologise to Mr Eaton for any confusion caused. 16 10:38:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —In the electorate I represent, where about four per cent of Australia’s fruit and vegetable growers are on the Atherton Tableland, some 4,000 kilometres away from the markets in Sydney, we have to rely very, very strongly upon the road hauliers and road freighters of Australia. But they have been oppressed by government—and I use the word ‘oppressed’ because I think that is probably the best word to describe what has been happening here. The livestock hauliers came to a decision that they should have a stoppage. It took place, with mixed success: cars were certainly taken off the roads all over Australia because of the stoppage, with a figure of 15 per cent of the trucking operations involved, but I would put that figure in North Queensland, where I am very familiar with the operators, at more like 70 per cent. But whether it was 15 or 70 per cent, they are organising nationally now. In the 1870s and particularly the 1880s and 1890s in Australia, the working or labouring employee class had to organise themselves to confront their oppressors head-on. In those days the oppressors were the employer class. One in 32 of those who went down the mines never came back up again or died of the dreadful miners phthisis. Today, it is the self-employed class who are being driven to the same sorts of decisions that were taken by the employee class back then. But if they could not get the message to government with that national stoppage, the difference now is that they are organising. In every road trucking centre throughout Australia there will be representatives of the National Road Freighters Association. That body will be formed as a result of the pressure coming from the government. And it will be formed to achieve the same results that were achieved by the then working-class to secure the arbitration commission—if you like, a fairness tribunal—because of what is being done here. If you say to me that we have a problem with road accidents, with large road trains, B-doubles and semitrailers, firstly, the statistics do not bear that out. Secondly, if you do not carry on rail but on road, then, yes, there is a higher incidence of these sorts of problems. But let me tell you: we do not have the option of going on rail. We have been informed that in the mid-west, between Mount Isa and Townsville, there is no more capacity on the rail, so we cannot carry anything on rail even if we wanted to. In terms of all of our mineral products from the Georgetown and eastern Gulf of Carpentaria area, the port of Karumba has all but collapsed, so we cannot go that way. The railways have informed us that they will not allow us to go down the range to Cairns. And the government has pulled up the railway line to Greenvale. So the only way of getting the product out is a 40-year-old single-lane highway from Georgetown to Charters Towers. I am absolutely amazed that there have been no accidents there—it is by some miracle. Either the country is going to mine and there is going to be great danger on the road, or the country is not going to mine. In my homeland, the Cloncurry-Mount Isa area, we have eight, arguably nine, mines waiting in the wings because they simply cannot get the product out. We are faced in the road trucking industry with a massive increase in charges. Under this new agreement, for B-double configurations we are going from $8,000 for registration to $14,000. Has anyone’s cost structure been doubled in the last two years? I would hope that not many industries have had cost structures double. But in this industry their cost structures have trebled. Let me be very blunt about this. Who is to blame? The people applying registration increases from $8,000 to $14,000 are to blame. On a semitrailer configuration we are going from about $5,000 to pretty close to $10,000. We also have to pay for petrol, and petrol has trebled in price for diesel operators over the last three years. Quite frankly, at any time in their 13 years the previous government could have moved to ethanol and moved to a price in the range of 75c to 85c a litre, the same as in the United States and Brazil. But in their wisdom they chose to listen to the big oil companies and the big mining corporations who were opposed to ethanol. The net result of that is that we have suffered a 200 per cent increase on the previous charge for diesel. On another plane entirely: I once loved driving. Julia Creek was some 700 kilometres from my home town of Charters Towers, and I always used to drive home after meetings. I would drive home very late at night. I loved driving. It was a great experience. It was a freedom thing. I drove millions of kilometres, and I had no accidents whatsoever in that period of time. In fact, in the whole of my life I have had only two accidents. One was when I was very young and I was doing three kilometres an hour and the other one was when I was doing five kilometres an hour—both times someone hit me; I did not hit them. Now it is pure misery to drive. Quite frankly—and I do not know about other people—I spend my time looking for stop signs and slow-down signs and looking over my shoulder to see if police are around and trying to figure out what I am doing wrong. It is just torture to drive. When you do as much driving as I do, you get pulled up on average about once a month for a breathalyser test or something like that. I actually count the number of police cars between Ingham and Charters Towers. It is about 200 kilometres. We average 2.9. In a short ethanol tour overseas—I had never been overseas before and I probably will not go again—but in my short time touring Vancouver, Minnesota and Sao Paulo I would have seen three police cars, I suppose. We did not have random breath testing in Queensland until Bjelke-Petersen was stabbed in the back. He and I were the two opponents of it, and we were the only teetotallers in our political party. He said, ‘We don’t want to live in a state where police are pulling up people all the time and looking into their cars. That is not the sort of state we want to live in.’ We used to go fishing, camping or out on the ocean to toss in a line—we are not allowed to shoot anymore—but probably most of the recreation that we used to enjoy throughout our lives is now illegal. Government members interjecting— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —I do not know whether there is cause for humour here. I can assure you I did not mean to be humorous. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —The Nats want to shoot Alby! HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —I see. That is acceptable. No, that is not acceptable. Your interjection is acceptable. The new log books are not available in a lot of our country centres. There is the new and very complicated log book. The truckies I know can fix a very sophisticated piece of machinery. I am always awed by the truckies that I know, because I could not get remotely close to doing the things that they can do with a motor. How they can understand it all is well beyond my understanding. I find that on the whole these people have very much above average intelligence and capabilities, but they are not the sort of people who have spent a lot of time in universities. If you give them complex paperwork to do, that is just not their thing. If they were competent in paperwork, they would not be truckies, I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker Schultz. So you are asking a bird dog not to chase birds here. You are asking a person who, because of his talents and strengths, is a truck driver. He keeps one of our biggest industries in Australia going, but you are asking him to be a damned bookkeeper, you are asking him to meet capacities in filling out forms that he simply will not or cannot do. A lot of the owners, not the drivers, are telling me that, quite literally, you need a lawyer to explain to you certain aspects of the log books—that is, if we can get the log books. Even the most positive person in the transport department, state or federal, would not claim that the new log books are available in every single centre in Queensland; they are not. You can get an exemption—if you can find the local policeman who is probably out in his car picking on some poor beggar for speeding because his boss has told him to. But it is not easy to find the people in these country areas who are authorised to give you an exemption. There is some naive belief here that you can pass a law or a regulation and every single truckie in Australia will hear about it and understand it. One gentleman got hit the other day. He did not know that he could not use the old log book, that he needed an exemption. He said, ‘Everyone else told me that you could still use the old log books,’ and they said, ‘Yes, you can, but you need an exemption.’ He said, ‘Well, I didn’t know that.’ He got hit with three points and a $600 fine. Now he cannot drive because all his points are gone. He had a previous breach on the log books, an absolutely ridiculous breach that had nothing to do with safety whatsoever. Anyway, he has lost his points and now that he does not have a job he has to employ someone to take his place. He had been working a 65-hour week and now he has to pay someone to do that 65 hours a week. There is no way that he can survive financially. If you say, ‘Well, we’re making the roads secure,’ yes, but there is a little matter of male suicide rates. Australia has one of the highest suicide rates in the world of men between the ages of 25 and 50, because we are oppressing and torturing people on a continuous basis with overlegislation. For last year and the year before, the three most litigious states on earth—there is a register for this—were California, No. 1; an American Midwest state, No. 2; and Queensland, No. 3. That is a measure of overregulation, overpolicing and overrestrictions on your freedom. It is really a register of the most unfree states on earth. There are more people in jail in California than in the education system, to quote but one example. The year before last, New South Wales forged ahead of Queensland into the No. 2 spot in world. So the next time that people say to me, ‘Isn’t it wonderful to live in a free country?’ I will have to correct them on that. I cannot help but bring in an historical analogy. The father of the English-speaking people was Alfred the Great. Alfred the Great wrote down the first laws in English history. That truly wonderful man—to me the most outstanding man in human history by a long way; he was a lovely person—said of the English race, or the ‘Anglish’ race, as we then were, ‘I want to say that we’re a civilized people.’ Winston Churchill spent a lot of time on A History of the English-Speaking Peoples and on Alfred the Great, for which he made a Nobel laureate, I might add. When Alfred the Great wrote down those first laws he said, ‘I have not presumed to put down in writing many laws of my own, for I do not know what would be suitable for those that follow after me.’ That is a humble, simple statement from a humble, simple man. I wish it were tattooed on the arm of every person who walks into this parliament or every person out there in the Public Service who creates these regulations that are driving human beings to suicide. If you are about to lose your business, as this poor truckie is about to do, there is a good chance statistically that, at the same time, you will also lose your family. And, because of the laws in Australia, for seven years you will not be able to really participate economically in our society. If it is a murderer, he is put in jail for 14 years and he is eligible for parole after seven years. These poor beggars will carry that debt for the rest of their lives. They will never be free unless they take bankruptcy. You really have to be a lawyer to figure out the complexities of the fatigue laws in this bill. You have got so many hours in a two-day period, so many hours in a one day period and so many hours in a week. If you are driving long distances, there is no doubt that you do become fatigued. I would say that irresponsible drivers are not with us very long for a number of reasons; I would be the first to admit that. But anyone who puts a rig on the road with a driver who drives while feeling fatigued is nothing more than a fool and he will not be in the business for very long. It is an absolute certainty that he will not be in the business for very long. You can pass all the laws you like but there will be people who will drive while fatigued, because they were at a party on the weekend or playing football on the weekend or because they were friendly with a young lady or something of that nature. They will be fatigued. They are human beings and it will happen to them. There is nothing in these laws that go into that sort of thing. I refer to Mick Pattel who is heading up the National Road Freighters Association, a very great Australian. He and his family have contributed very greatly to this country over a very long period of time. Clare Mildren, his right-hand man, and all the other major trucking operators throughout Australia, all the big boys in the various industries—in fruit and vegetable hauling, in livestock hauling—are all strongly backing Michael Pattel. I was very surprised because the big boys do not normally take aggressive action but in this case they were coming in very strong behind him. I said to Mick’s father, because they were driving great distances, ‘How do you work with fatigue?’ Kevin Pattel said: ‘The only way that you can deal with fatigue is to pull your car up and have a sleep, a catnap. Even 20 minutes will take that edge off the fatigue. Don’t try anything else; it simply doesn’t work.’ Throughout Australia that will be the tune to which this industry marches, and all the laws in the world will not stop stupid, irresponsible people from doing stupid, irresponsible things. And all the laws in the world will not make the good people any better. That is not the way human beings work. In conclusion, I would say: Mr Government, you have increased our charges dramatically and made us non-competitive on the world market with your laws and your charges. You have passed laws that have led us not to have drivers. At my last meeting with Mick Pattel when we were have a quick lunch together, a bloke came over and said: ‘Mick, what can you do for us? I’ve got two of my three trucks stood down because I’ve got no drivers.’ (Time expired) 18 10:58:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —in reply—I thank members for participating in the debate. In order to save the time of the House, I will sum up both bills at once but I will deal with them separately. Firstly, I thank the opposition for supporting the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2008. The purpose of that bill 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. The bill also allows regulations to be made to specify heavy vehicle charges for application to FIRS vehicles. The FIRS is a registration scheme that covers only about three per cent of Australia’s trucks. The rest are covered by state and territory schemes. All of the states have imposed the new charges since this 1 July this year. It 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. The determination was agreed to by the Australian Transport Council in February 2008 and was implemented by the states on 1 July 2008. It is self-evident that it is in Australia’s economic interests for registration charges for heavy vehicles which regularly trade across state borders to be consistent. That is why earlier this year we introduced legislation along these lines. It is unfortunate that we have had a period of imbalance in the charges, but unless this legislation is carried there could potentially be a distortion whereby there is an economic incentive to register vehicles under the federal scheme rather than under the respective state and territory schemes. This is common sense. It has taken a little while to get there, but I am pleased that we have got there and I commend the bill to the House. I now make some comments on the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. The bill repeals the Road Transport Charges (Australian Capital Territory) Act 1993 as well as making heavy consequential amendments to the Road Transport Reform (Heavy Vehicle Registration) Act 1997 to remove links to the former act. This will allow the ACT government to set its own registration charges consistent with the registration charges adopted for FIRS and in all the other jurisdictions. The bill also amends the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to set the road user charge rate at 21c per litre in line with the 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination. Truck operators do not pay fuel excise in the way that other motorists do. Like all motorists, they pay 38.14c per litre at the bowser for their fuel; however, they receive a fuel tax rebate of 18.51c per litre. The balance, currently set at 19.63c per litre, represents the road user charge. The current charge was established in a determination issued in 2000 and has not changed since then. Road funding by all levels of government has increased by 33 per cent since that time. This increase is necessary to ensure that heavy vehicles pay their fair share of road construction and maintenance costs. The National Transport Commission estimates that in 2007-08 heavy vehicles underpaid their fair share of road costs by $100 million. This bill will give us cost recovery—nothing more and nothing less. It is important to emphasise that this is based upon costs that have already been incurred. So this is a cost recovery of government expenditure which has benefited heavy vehicle road users. Those in the heavy vehicle industry are very clear that they wish to pay their way. It does not index the charge. The bill’s amendments to the Fuel Tax Act establish a mechanism to allow adjustment of the road user charge by regulation. These regulations would be subject to review by the parliament in the normal manner. It is important that that be understood. I am pleased the shadow minister is nodding in agreement at that understanding of the legislation and the way that it works because there has been some confusion in this debate about these issues. The opposition’s proposed amendment redefines a range of new restrictions on how it is adjusted, including a number of provisions that they have asked for: that an average of 50 heavy vehicle rest areas be constructed each year on the AusLink national network; that Infrastructure Australia certifies that the rest area construction has or will have occurred by the time the new road user charges are due to take effect; that the transport minister releases the proposed determination package, including the calculation mechanism for a 60-day period of public consultation and has regard to the outcomes of this process; and that road expenditure used in the determination must be verified by auditors-general of the respective jurisdictions. The government does not need legislation to commit to rest stops. The government identified rest stops as an important issue for the industry and moved to act. We were asked for two changes before I went to the Australian Transport Council for determination. The requests were, firstly, a delay until 1 January 2009—the government agreed to that—and, secondly, funding for a heavy vehicle safety and productivity package. The government responded positively to that also. The government has already committed in the passage of this bill to a $70 million heavy vehicle safety and productivity package which will provide heavy vehicle rest stops to the industry over the forward estimates. We amended the AusLink bill to allow specific funding for rest stops. It has never happened before. For 12 years under the previous government it did not happen, just as, from what we can find from a survey of Hansard, transport ministers in the previous government never once mentioned rest stops in this House. We have put heavy vehicle rest stops on the political agenda of this parliament. And to proceed with our commitment we require this legislation to be carried. I have already written to industry seeking their views as to where the rest stops should be. Those submissions have been provided. All we need for this process to commence is the passage of this bill, which will facilitate their funding. However, it is bad policy to link adjustment of the charge in the future to the construction of an arbitrary number of rest stops alone. Governments expend resources on all manner of road construction and maintenance projects, not just rest stops. How do you define what a rest stop is? A rest stop can be something that costs very little money or it can be a full-scale rest stop with showers and toilet blocks and space for a large number of trucks. Whilst I do not question the need for rest stop issues to be addressed, the opposition’s amendment, in the way that it is framed, is simply impractical and I have indicated also to the Australian Trucking Association that the framing of their suggestions is impractical. It also does not understand what Infrastructure Australia is for. I call upon the opposition to consult the Infrastructure Australia legislation. Infrastructure Australia is there to deal with nationally significant infrastructure. The board of Infrastructure Australia is not there to go and examine and audit the construction of heavy vehicle rest stops. That is not what the advisory council was established for, and they should know that that is the case. IA’s purpose is to give high-level strategic advice to the government on its infrastructure agenda. It is made up of eminent business people and public sector officials with significant public policy experience. There are other bodies better placed to count rest stops; namely, the actual jurisdiction-based heavy vehicle regulators. In relation to the adjustment of the charge, the government gives a commitment that any adjustment to the charge should be preceded by a transparent process so that industry has confidence in what it is paying and how it has been calculated. What better and more transparent process for adjustment can there be than scrutiny by this parliament? The opposition leader says that he supports the principle of cost recovery but not automatic indexation. This bill delivers cost recovery and nothing more. Truck operators will continue to get a rebate, meaning they pay only 21c per litre. If the opposition is satisfied with the decision of the government not to include indexation provisions within the Interstate Road Transport Charge Amendment Bill but instead to allow adjustment to be made by regulation, what then is the issue with adjustments to the Fuel Tax Act? We listened to what the opposition argued when a different version of this instrument was put to the parliament earlier this year and we have attempted to accommodate any reasonable points that have been made. The shadow minister spoke extensively about the variations in fatigue laws, loading limits and network access regimes that exist between the state jurisdictions and described how these variations are a impediment to an efficient industry. He then claimed this bill should be used to force the states to adopt uniform laws. The Rudd government certainly agrees with the shadow minister that these variations are a problem for industry. In fact, governments have agreed with that proposition since 1991 when the National Road Transport Commission was established by the Hawke government. That is why the Rudd government is pursuing this through COAG and the ATC, which will be meeting again in two weeks time for the fourth time since February, making sure that we keep the pressure on to get this reform agenda through. A national jurisdiction for heavy vehicles so that there would be one set of laws would be a substantial improvement and should enjoy the bipartisan support of this House. But the problem is that the opposition amendment does not impact on state funding at all. It only impacts on Commonwealth funding. So there is no pressure on the states in this legislation if it is not carried. It will just mean less Commonwealth revenue and therefore less money to be able to spend on issues such as road safety and rest stops. It does not give the Commonwealth any bargaining power over the states to adopt uniform laws. The government does not support the amendments because they are unnecessary and they will not deliver the benefits to the industry that the Leader of the National Party claims that they will. These bills modernise charges for registration and road user charges applicable to the heavy vehicle industry. It is important that the House acknowledge that this is a proposition that began under the previous government. In a speech given in June 2007 entitled ‘The coalition’s transport reform agenda’, the then federal Minister for Transport and Regional Services and Leader of the Nationals 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. That was their policy when they were the government. We are implementing that, taking forward in this legislation the determination that was asked for by the Howard government. However, the new charges—our proposal—will be fairer both to those in the industry and to the wider community. Importantly, the new charges deliver the requirement of the Council of Australian Governments for full and ongoing cost recovery. The new charges will encourage state and territory governments to facilitate access to the road network for higher productivity heavy vehicles, thereby gaining a substantial benefit to the economy. This, in turn, would make better use of the nation’s infrastructure. This is a key element of the Rudd government’s plan to raise productivity, fight inflation and maintain economic growth. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 21 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 11:16:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 21 Bills R3082 21 Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 21 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 21 11:17:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —by leave—I move amendments (1) to (5): (1)    Schedule 3, item 4, page 5 (lines 15 to 25), omit the item, substitute: 4  At the end of section 43‑10 Add: Meaning of road user charge          (7)    The road user charge for taxable fuel means:               (a)    if no rate has been determined by the *Transport Minister under section 43‑15—21 cents for each litre of the fuel;               (b)    otherwise—the rate determined by the Transport Minister under section 43‑15. (2)    Schedule 3, after item 4, page 5 (after line 25), insert: 4A  After section 43.10 Insert: 43‑15  Determining the road user charge          (1)    The *Transport Minister may determine, by legislative instrument, the *road user charge.          (2)    In determining the *road user charge, the *Transport Minister must not apply a method for indexing the charge.          (3)    The *road user charge must be based on the figure (the net figure) that is the difference between:               (a)    the amount of government expenditure on construction and maintenance of public roads that is allocated to heavy vehicles; and               (b)    the amount of government revenue raised through registration of heavy vehicles and other charges imposed as a direct result of heavy vehicle use. Note:   ‘Government revenue’, ‘government expenditure’ and ‘heavy vehicle’ are defined in subsection (8).          (4)    The rate of the *road user charge must not be increased unless:               (a)    the net figure has increased since the date the existing road user charge became effective; and               (b)    an average of at least 50 additional heavy vehicle rest areas have been constructed each year on the National Land Transport Network, as defined in the AusLink (National Land Transport) Act 2005, since the date the existing road user charge became effective; and               (c)    the type of rest areas constructed, their spacing and amenities are consistent with the goal that rest areas in the National Land Transport Network will comply by 2019 with the recommendations in the National Guidelines for the Provision of Rest Area Facilities Final Report, Revised November 2005, prepared by the National Transport Commission; and               (d)    substantial harmonisation has been achieved in State and Territory transport regulations, including heavy vehicle fatigue reform measures; and               (e)    Infrastructure Australia, the body established by the Infrastructure Australia Act 2008, has advised the *Transport Minister in writing that:                     (i)    the matters referred to in paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) have occurred, or will have occurred, at the date the proposed increase in the road user charge is to become effective; and                    (ii)    the construction of heavy vehicle rest areas makes reasonably adequate provision for current and future use by high‑productivity vehicles. Note:   Infrastructure Australia’s functions include functions conferred by laws other than its enabling Act―see paragraph 5(2)(k).                (f)    the Transport Minister has released publicly, at least 60 days before making a determination under this section (the public consultation period), the net figure mentioned in subsection (3), all the expenditure figures and revenue estimates, statistics, formulas, methods, models, and inputs used to calculate the net figure and the proposed rate of the road user charge, the advice of Infrastructure Australia referred to in paragraph (d) and a statement explaining the reasons for the proposed rate increase; and               (g)    the Transport Minister has had regard to submissions received within the public consultation period.          (5)    The arterial road and other expenditure figures provided by the Commonwealth, States and Territories and released in accordance with paragraph (4)(f) must contain a statement of verification by the auditor‑general in the jurisdiction to which the figures relate.          (6)    The *Transport Minister must not make more than one determination in a financial year if the effect of the determination would be to increase the *road user charge more than once in that financial year.          (7)    A determination made under this section must not take effect earlier than the first day after the end of the period in which the determination may be disallowed under Part 5 of the Legislative Instruments Act 2003.          (8)    In this section: government expenditure means the amounts of expenditure by the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments for a financial year calculated in real terms as averages over a seven-year period using the latest:               (a)    available arterial road expenditure figures provided by each of the States and Territories; and               (b)    local road expenditure information based on Australian Bureau of Statistics figures. government revenue means the total of the amount of revenue expected to be raised by each of the Commonwealth, States, Territories and local governments in the financial year immediately following the date the determination made under this section is to commence. heavy vehicle means a vehicle with a gross vehicle mass of more than 4.5 tonnes. (3)    Schedule 3, page 5 (line 29) and page 6 (line 1), omit item 6. (4)    Schedule 3, page 6 (lines 2 to 3), omit item 7. (5)    Schedule 3, page 6 (lines 4 to 8), omit item 8. The amendments moved by the opposition will address four issues of concern to us regarding the charge-setting regime on the heavy vehicle industry. The first is indexation of charges, the second is fair charge setting, the third is heavy vehicle rest areas and the four responds to the absurdity and contradiction of state based transport regulations. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in his reply to the second reading debate has pre-empted these amendments by responding in advance, but let me put the case for them. The coalition’s approach to fuel excise indexation is well known. We oppose indexation of taxes. In 2001 the coalition government abolished Paul Keating’s fuel excise indexation in order to protect Australians from a tax grab by stealth that occurred every year. When we last discussed the road user charge in this place last March, the government proposed to index the road user charge. This charge was to be indexed on a formula based on road construction and maintenance costs and the use of the road system by heavy vehicles. Since road construction costs have risen so dramatically in recent years and the formula used by the National Transport Commission in its 2007 heavy vehicle charges determination has removed the CPI cap, the index will probably lift by at least seven per cent a year. This is a very big slug on Australia’s hardworking truckies, and it would not have been based on any current assessment of what level of change had applied and was justifiable. The government says that future road user charges can be set by regulation and that the regulations may include a method of indexation. That is what is included in the bill, and I acknowledge that the government has made that concession. The wording of the bill, though, which amends section 43-10 of the Fuel Tax Act 2006 to permit the making of a separate regulation, when defining that regulation, states in clause 4(8): The regulations may prescribe a method for indexing the road user charge. This is our problem: the option of a road user charge by indexation is still included in the legislation. This means the government may make a regulation that contains an indexing formula that defines subsequent increases in the road user charge. What follows is that the government need not make such a regulation again. Should parliament pass such a regulation, the road user charge would go up every year without the opportunity for parliament to debate or disallow such an increase and potentially also without the need for regular checks on its validity. Our amendments address this concern. Under our proposal the government would need to issue a legislative instrument every time to change the road user charge. To make this perfectly clear, our amendments incorporate a new subsection into the Fuel Tax Act, which reads: In determining the road user charge, the Transport Minister must not apply a method for indexing the charge. If the government wants to increase the charge, it needs the permission of parliament. To us that seems fair and proper. A fair charge cannot be based on an automatic formula. It should be a broad calculation of the amount spent on roads to meet the requirements of the trucking industry less the amount raised from the registration fees. The second element of our amendments is the requirement that the road user charge be set fairly. The road user charge is designed to recover the cost imposed upon Australia’s road system by the heavy vehicle industry. It is only reasonable that the sector that is being charged for such costs be consulted and its views considered. Unfortunately, the National Transport Commission did not adequately meet these requirements when it developed its recommendations. For example, the commission refused to provide the trucking industry with the model it used to determine its charges. Some of the raw data from the states and territories that went into the model was also not made available. The commission conducted a major stakeholder meeting in May 2007, where it called for votes on particular aspects of its charging model. Unfortunately, most of the stakeholders at the meeting represented the state and territory governments, not the trucking industry. In effect, the meeting was stacked by those who would benefit from the charge going up. When the commission developed the charges, it included in its assumptions that many trucks illegally carry high loads. This is in spite of the fact that it has already imposed $65 million of enforcement costs on the industry in its calculations of the financial impact on the trucking industry. (Extension of time granted) Essentially, the commission has double-billed the industry for this illegal activity. Obviously, no industry likes charges. That makes it all the more important that such charges be determined by an open and honest process. Our amendments do so by setting out the standards under which the charges must be developed. These standards will require the government to release all of the estimates, statistics, formulas, methods and inputs used to calculate the road user charge rate and will oblige the government of the day to explain the reasons for any proposed rate increase. They require public consultations for 60 days on proposed rate increases and direct the minister to have regard to the submissions received during the public consultation period. The opposition acknowledges that these are strict conditions but makes no apologies for that. An increase in a charge upon an industry already doing it tough deserves openness and transparency. I turn to the provision of rest areas. The third objective of the opposition’s amendments is to link the possibility of any future increases in the road user charge to the construction of more rest areas on the AusLink national network. The minister has said repeatedly in the debates on this issue that the government’s announced $70 million Heavy Vehicle Safety and Productivity Package is dependent on the passage of this legislation to introduce higher charges on the industry, but where are the guarantees that the money will actually be delivered to the promised rest areas? The minister suggested that the previous government had no interest in the provision of rest areas but, in reality, we were building rest areas every year. A significant number of rest areas were constructed using Commonwealth funding, and the amendments to the legislation merely clarified the powers. It did not start the process; it had already been occurring. Members may have noticed that there are more trucks parked on the side of our highways than ever before. That is because Queensland, New South Wales, Victoria and South Australia introduced new fatigue laws on 29 September. These laws reduced the number of hours that truck drivers can work before they are required to take a break. The problem is that there are not enough rest areas where truck drivers can stop. It is a problem that will get worse as the number of trucks on the highway also increases. After undertaking a study of the state of Australia’s roadside rest facilities, the National Transport Commission, in November 2005, issued its guidelines for the provision of rest area facilities. This report sets out where rest areas should be built in order to comply with the various road agency guidelines and to cater for the needs of heavy vehicle drivers. This is the answer to the minister’s questions about what sort of rest areas should be built and where the standards should be developed. That has already been done; it was agreed in November 2005. A major rest area, according to those standards, should be provided every 100 kilometres, with sufficient parking for at least 20 trucks; a minor rest area, every 50 kilometres, with parking for up to 10 trucks; and a truck parking bay, every 30 kilometres, with enough space for four or five trucks so the drivers can do their safety checks. Further, an independent government research agency, Austroads, recently audited Australia’s major highways against those guidelines. Their report, released in March this year, showed that none of the audited routes met the national guidelines and that 60 per cent of the audited routes had substantial deficiencies. There were particular problems in Queensland and the Northern Territory. A list of the highways which had particular deficiencies was identified but I will not take the time of the House to go through it in full. Only about half of the major rest areas on the Hume and Pacific highways in New South Wales met the specific requirements for the guidelines. Obviously, the lack of heavy vehicle rest areas is a safety issue. We should not have truck drivers pressing on down the highway when they are fatigued or out of hours because the rest area where they planned to stop is full and there is no alternative. In addition, the recent heavy vehicle driver laws will only increase pressure on these heavy vehicle rest areas. The law now requires them to stop, but, if there are no rest areas available, that is going to be very difficult. I also note that, in the Senate estimates hearings of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the deputy secretary, Mr Wilson, admitted that the $70 million package would not solve the problem on its own. So there does need to be a considerable investment of expenditure on these sorts of issues. (Extension of time granted) In fact, according to the trucking industry, there needs to be another 900 rest areas on the 22,500 kilometres of the AusLink national network to bring it into line with the national rest area guidelines. This estimate is based on duplicating the rest areas on both sides of the roads so that trucks never have to turn across oncoming traffic to get into a rest area. But the opposition has been informed that constructing 500 additional rest areas would bring the network broadly into compliance with staggered rest areas on the left and right sides of our highways. That is why we chose the number of 50 rather than the larger figure that was identified in the audit. This amendment would permit the government to increase the road user charge again only if, amongst other things, it had built an average of 50 rest areas on the AusLink National Network each year since the last increase in the charge. That will deliver 500 rest areas over 10 years. The amendment also requires that Infrastructure Australia audit progress and advise that the rest areas are consistent with the goal of having the national network compliant with the national guidelines by 2019. We estimate that the total cost of building these rest areas would be about $300 million over the 10 years. Some of the rest areas would cost millions of dollars, particularly on major freight routes in urban areas, but most of them would cost just a couple of hundred thousand dollars. It is a small amount compared to the revenue that the government will raise from the road user charge over the next 10 years. The government has estimated that the measure in the bill will raise $490 million over four years, starting at $40 million this year but rising to $190 million in 2011-12. Using Treasury’s figures and extrapolating from 2011-12 at a growth of seven per cent per year, the revenue raised works out at over $2.5 billion. The measures that we have introduced would reduce that figure, because the government will have to justify increases in the charge rather than watching it ratchet up every year. But the increases in the road user charge could still be expected to generate significant extra revenue. The opposition regards the lack of rest areas as a key issue facing drivers of heavy vehicles. It is a safety matter and quite clearly someone has to stand up for the ordinary truck drivers who work long hours on our highways. Our amendments would give them a guarantee that something is going to be done about providing the facilities they need. We also call upon the government to stop the tactic of threatening the future of this program on the basis of the passage of the bills. We think it is important to get on with safety measures to improve our roads, and that should happen irrespective of whether this bill is passed. Finally, I want to address the amendments which deal with the ridiculous situation in Australia regarding contradictory stated based transport regulations, and the minister is right when he says that this is an ongoing issue that neither his party nor our parties were able to resolve in previous terms in government. But we do need to make more headway. I acknowledge that this measure puts pressure on the federal government rather than the state governments. But I recall the promises made by the Rudd government regarding its capacity to work constructively with the state governments. There was a lot of talk about how there was going to be cooperative federalism. If there is that element of cooperative federalism, it is important that we actually see some delivery of results. Instead of just pious, well-meaning declarations from COAG, we want to see things happen. That is why we have included in our amendment the insertion of sections 43-15(4)(d) and (e). These clauses stipulate that the government may only raise the road user charge if substantial harmonisation has been achieved in state and territory transport regulations, including heavy vehicle fatigue reform measures, and if Infrastructure Australia is satisfied with that. We have all agreed that the issue of state based transport regulations is an enormous problem and that it is costing the industry millions of dollars, and undoubtedly putting extra pressure on the industry. If we want to charge the freight sector more, the government must make genuine progress in fixing this issue. The opposition acknowledge that the government has made improvements and that this legislation is better than the legislation that preceded it, but we think that the legislation needs more work and that our amendments will improve it. It will satisfy the industry that they are getting a fair deal for the money that they are paying and encourage a constructive attitude towards achieving uniformity and progress in national regulations. 24 11:33:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay, for outlining again some of the reasoning behind the amendments that he has moved to the Road Charges Legislation Repeal and Amendment Bill 2008. I want to point to why the government specifically opposes these amendments, and I will work in reverse order from the way that the shadow minister put them. The problem with clause 4(d) is that the road user charge does not impact on state funding; all it does is impact on Commonwealth funding, so it does not actually provide any pressure whatsoever on state governments to move towards the adoption of uniform laws. Already there has been substantial progress made between the Commonwealth and the state and territory governments through the Australian Transport Council towards that objective. That is why we will be meeting in Adelaide for the fourth time since February: to make sure that that agenda is progressed. But it is no good putting up amendments that are meant to achieve an objective that simply cannot be achieved, and that is the problem with that amendment. The problem with the amendment about Infrastructure Australia auditing the construction of heavy vehicle rest stops is that it confuses completely the role of Infrastructure Australia. That is not its role. It does not have people out there auditing whether rest stops have been built or not. The idea that Sir Rod Eddington, as the Chair of Infrastructure Australia, is going to be going around counting the number of rest stops and conducting an audit is an extraordinary distraction from what the job of Infrastructure Australia is. Rest stops are important. That is why this government has put them on the agenda. The inadequate number of rest stops for heavy vehicles is not something that has been created since 24 November 2007. It has not just arisen. In relation to the appropriate number of rest stops, the guidelines have not been adopted by the Australian Transport Council. They were never adopted under the previous government. They have not been adopted yet. This government agree that there is a need to address the issue of rest stops. That is what we have done. That is why we have said that $70 million over the forward estimates will be available for taking action on rest stops. It is of course expected that that would produce much more than $70 million worth of outcomes, because there would be negotiations and discussions with state and territory governments about that issue. I think the clauses that have been suggested and put forward by the opposition do not achieve the objective that the shadow minister has outlined. And there is the extraordinary proposition that many of these measures were not undertaken when the shadow minister was the actual minister two years ago—not undertaken by him, his predecessor or his successor. So it is a bit rich, frankly, to hear the position that has been outlined by the shadow minister. With regard to the calculation of costs to be recovered and the suggestion about road user charge future indexation (Extension of time granted) the fact is that the proposition advanced in this legislation does not conclude the discussion about what the regulations should contain for the future. That would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. So I say to the shadow minister, in good faith: this does not conclude that debate. This parliament would have to consider the nature and detail of the regulation. As the minister, and as any minister would be, I am certainly committed to ensuring there is proper consultation with industry about the nature of that regulation. So let us not have this used as an excuse to oppose this legislation, because it should not be. Essentially, I say to the shadow minister: that is a debate which is not concluded by the carriage of this legislation. All that is concluded by the carriage of this legislation is the process of increasing the road user charge in accordance with the determination begun by the former government and a political commitment arising from that, which was not there from the former government, to allocate $70 million for the safety and productivity package. I do not argue that $70 million will satisfy over the long term all of the needs of the industry for heavy vehicle rest stops. I do not argue that. I argue that this is $70 million specifically on top of the process that currently exists and existed under the former government, whereby rest stops were built into some of the AusLink funding and road funding agreements between the Commonwealth and the states. This is additional funding specifically for that purpose, and it should be supported by the opposition. I commend the bill to the House. I encourage the opposition to engage in constructive discussion to ensure that this bill is carried by both houses of parliament. 25 11:41:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I would like to respond briefly to some of the minister’s comments. Firstly, I acknowledge that Infrastructure Australia has a range of functions, but amongst its specific objectives is the auditing of infrastructure. So it will in fact be auditing roads, rail, ports and all sorts of other things that come under the definition of infrastructure. If in fact it is necessary for Sir Rod to count the number of potholes—which I am sure he will not actually be physically doing—then it ought to be equally necessary for him to count the number of rest stops. In reality, in practice, what will happen is that he will receive advice, he will check that advice and Infrastructure Australia, by in fact auditing the program in relation to roadside rest areas, will just carry out the same kinds of functions that it is doing and which are a clear part of its charter. I would also argue that a national network of roads stops is in fact an important piece of national infrastructure. Clearly, therefore, it sits squarely within the charter of Infrastructure Australia to make sure that our nation’s infrastructure is relevant and appropriate to our needs. I think it is the kind of thing that Infrastructure Australia was designed to do and therefore it is an appropriate body to undertake this kind of audit. If that is the only sticking point in the amendments, I am sure we can talk about it, but it does seem to me as though Infrastructure Australia is a body well placed to undertake an audit of that nature. The question of providing rest areas—how many have been provided in the past and how many will need to be provided in the future—is of course greatly affected by the fact that we now have, in several states and shortly in all states but one, a new fatigue management system which requires trucks to stop more often and which makes it an offence in some states to go past a truck stop, even if it is full. So the provision of rest areas has become more urgent because of the introduction of the fatigue management system. Indeed, as I have said a couple of times in this debate, I think there is actually something a bit odd in the chronology when we pass the laws first and then build the necessary rest areas afterwards. It is pretty unreasonable to ask a truckie to stop at a rest area that does not exist. The Commonwealth and the states have an obligation to do much better in that area. The next comment I would like to make is in relation to the minister’s views that this does not put pressure on the states because all the money, from both the registrations bill, which we have passed, and this one, ultimately goes to the states. I acknowledge that, but it does place some pressure on the COAG process, and particularly on the federal government to deliver on its promise that it would be able to negotiate—and deliver results—with the states. So it is appropriate that there be pressure placed on the federal government to deliver in this regard. I do not have the capacity in the parliament to move amendments that would impose requirements on the states. If I could I would, in this regard. I can only advocate measures that affect the federal parliament and the federal government, and that is what I am doing. The minister is also correct to say that the legislation does not end the debate. There will still have to be regulations coming into the House to set future registration fees and the road user charge. I acknowledge that that process is still ahead of us but this bill sets the parameters for those regulations, and it is not possible for us to allow the passage of a bill that includes parameters that we find objectionable—including the provision that indexation of the excise would be one of the things that could be considered in the regulations. That is the reason we are seeking to amend the bill to take that provision out and to insert a range of other provisions about the way in which the negotiations and the setting of the charge would be undertaken. 26 11:46:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I will address the two issues of a substantive nature that the shadow minister, the member for Wide Bay, just raised. On the issue of Infrastructure Australia, he raised an analogy with the consideration of other roads. Can I say that Infrastructure Australia will also not be doing audits of traffic lights and where they are required or audits of roundabouts and other safety provisions. That is not to say that they are not important. They are important, just as rest stops are important, but it is absolutely critical that Infrastructure Australia not be distracted from its work on nationally significant infrastructure. I have gone out of my way to make this clear. I am sure, for example, that an audit of Infrastructure Australia would show that they have received, amongst the hundreds of submissions, issues that should, quite rightly, be considered by local governments, state governments, my department or other departments, but which are not considered to be nationally significant infrastructure. That is understandable, given that the Infrastructure Australia process is new and that the legislation to create Infrastructure Australia was introduced and carried just this year. I sincerely hope that over a period of time both sides of parliament agree that the Infrastructure Australia agenda, as a foundation for nation-building infrastructure, is critical, and on that basis that Infrastructure Australia should not be distracted by other issues and tasks which, whilst important, are more appropriately dealt with by other bodies. Infrastructure Australia will deal with the demand that there has been, particularly from the private sector and the business community, for the coordination of nationally significant infrastructure. So I say to the shadow minister that that is not appropriate in the amendments that have been moved. The second issue is the regulation that is provided for in this legislation. The problem I have with the shadow minister’s approach is that he says that it is foreshadowed that the regulation will be available to the government for introduction because of this legislation. Of course, as a former transport minister he would know that that could be done separately in terms of a regulation. It could be put forward, in the normal process of policy and legislative development, at another time. But it is also the case, I think, that the shadow minister is suggesting that somehow, in carrying the legislation as it has been framed with the reference to a regulation, that is the conclusion of the debate. I say to him that it is not. If his problem is with the word ‘indexation’ appearing then perhaps that is something that could be adjusted in another place. Because this does not conclude the debate on what will be in the regulation and what will not, it does not really matter all that much, in substance and in outcome, what the precise wording of that particular section of the bill is—because the regulation will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny at a future time. So I respectfully inform the shadow minister again that we will be voting against these amendments but that our non-support for the amendments should not be an excuse to oppose the legislation, which does nothing more and nothing less than ensure that heavy vehicles pay their way—a position that both sides of this parliament say they support, and which the heavy vehicle industry itself says it supports. Question put: That the amendments (Mr Truss’s) be agreed to. 11:55:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DS Vale) 59 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 5 Gash, J. Bowen, C. Hockey, J.B. Ellis, A.L. Scott, B.C. Hayes, C.P. Slipper, P.N. Kelly, M.J. Tuckey, C.W. Vamvakinou, M. * denotes teller Question negatived. Question put: The the bill be agreed to. 12:04:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DS Vale) 78 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 57 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. 28 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 12:08:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 28 Motions 28 28 12:09:00 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 as would prevent the Leader of the House moving a motion without notice to require the Leader of the Opposition to immediately: condemn and retract attacks by members of the party he leads on the Governor of the Reserve Bank and on the Secretary of the Treasury; and apologise for and retract his own reckless and irresponsible attack on the Secretary of the Treasury in question time on Tuesday at a time of global financial crisis. Today— Mr TRUSS (Wide Bay —Leader of the Nationals) 12:09:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 12:14:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DS Vale) 45 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 78 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 5 Gash, J. Bowen, C. Hockey, J.B. Ellis, A.L. Scott, B.C. Hayes, C.P. Slipper, P.N. Kelly, M.J. Tuckey, C.W. Vamvakinou, M. * denotes teller Question negatived. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 12:20:00 —I move: That the question be now put. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Absolute thuggery! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Madam Deputy Speaker, I ask you to take action against the member for Warringah. You witnessed that. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—I did not hear what the member said, Minister. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —My time has expired, Chris. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —It is my turn to speak. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —No, I can at any time move that the question be put and I have done so. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the House has moved a motion. His time has expired and it is now the opportunity of the opposition to respond. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Member for Sturt, you have not yet got the call. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, this is jackboot government, bullying of the Leader of the Opposition. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The member for Sturt is warned! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I note that that is the second warning for the member for Sturt today and I ask that you take the appropriate action and name him. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I have warned the member for Sturt, thank you, Minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Are you going to take action? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —No. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I move that the question be now put. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister did have the call. I called the minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —For the third time, I move that the question be now put. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The minister is entitled to ask that the motion be put at any time and I now put the question. The question is that the question be now put. Question put. 12:26:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DS Vale) 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 44 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Costello, P.H. 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. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Albanese’s) be agreed to. 12:34:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DS Vale) 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 46 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 30 12:36:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I move: That the Leader of the Opposition be required immediately, for a period not exceeding five minutes to: condemn and retract the irresponsible and reckless attack on the independence of the Governor of the Reserve Bank by the Member for Canning this morning, when he said “the fact that Glenn Stevens has been caught out he put up the interest rates before the election, during the election, when the rest of the world were bringing down interest rates. And now, in a way to cover the Government’s inept behaviour, they are bringing down interest rates at probably the most rapid rate Australia has ever seen. It really is chaotic, shambolic”; condemn and retract the unprecedented attack on the truthfulness of the Secretary of the Treasury by Senator Abetz yesterday; and apologise for and retract his own reckless and irresponsible attack on the Secretary of the Treasury in Question Time on Tuesday at a time of global financial crisis. In the last three days we have seen three unprecedented attacks from the Liberal Party of Australia— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —We had an agreement. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —We have not even seen the text of the motion. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, I have a serious point of order to you. On behalf of the opposition I seek your ruling as to whether this motion is in order, given that it not just condemns the Leader of the Opposition but requires him to undertake an action which in our view is a potential breach of privilege of the House and therefore out of order. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The motion is in order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Deputy Speaker, further to the point of order raised by the member for Sturt: this motion puts words in the mouth of a member of this parliament. It is a fundamental affront to all Westminster principles for this parliament to seek to control the words and the thinking of another member of parliament. It is absolutely essential that this motion, this act of institutional— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will resume his seat. The motion is in order. I call the Leader of the House. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, on your ruling on the motion: I move dissent— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! We have a motion before the chair. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I am moving dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am moving dissent from the ruling that this motion is in order. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —Mr Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order in relation to the purported dissent from your ruling. As I understand it, having been in this place for 18½ years and on the Procedure Committee, there actually needs to be a ruling before a dissent motion can be put. In this instance the procedure that is being adopted is the procedure since Federation, which is that a motion is read and at the completion of the motion being read and placed before the House it can then be circulated. What the opposition are asking for is unprecedented and in my view disruptive. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, on the point of order: I very clearly asked you a quite specific question for a ruling on the order of this motion. You ruled that it was in order and I am moving dissent from your ruling. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. I call the Leader of the House. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —In the last three days we have seen unprecedented attacks from the Liberal Party on Australia’s independent financial regulators. The fact is we have seen at a time of global financial crisis— Opposition members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Deputy Speaker, you know perfectly well that a dissent motion takes precedence over any other motion before the House. You must take that motion. That is a fundamental principle of the House and you know it full well. I ask you therefore to give me the call to speak to the dissent motion, which is in writing, moved and seconded. 31 Dissent from Ruling 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Does the honourable member for Sturt wish to move dissent from the chair’s ruling? 31 12:42:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I have moved dissent from the chair’s ruling. This is about the fourth time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the motion in writing? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —It is. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I call the honourable member for Sturt. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I move: That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from. The opposition is dismayed to have to move a motion of dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. This is a critical issue about Westminster democracy and the parliamentary process. We are very disappointed, shocked and surprised that you would make a ruling that such a motion would be in order. We have heard from the member from Banks trying to run interference on behalf of the incompetent and failed Leader of the House. This motion is unprecedented, it is uncalled for and it is out of order. It is out of order because it is unparliamentary. It is a potential breach of privilege. There are motions that could be moved about the misleading of the House by a member of the House or a condemnatory motion saying that a member of the House should be condemned for an action, but it is utterly unprecedented in the history of Federation for a motion to be moved demanding an action by any member of this House. It is a breach of privilege, it is a denial of freedom of speech and it is a denial of the rights of every Australian to be able to express their views. This government—so drunk with power, so overblown with its own importance and rhetoric, in the midst of a major international crisis, having bungled the financial response to that crisis leading to a dislocation of the financial sector, a freeze on retirees, farmers, small businesses, savings and deposits—is facing one of the gravest crises in the history of this Federation and yet the Leader of the House comes into the House today and moves a motion which is essentially outside the standing orders of this House and which is potentially a breach of privilege. He has the time to come in here and waste at least an hour of this House’s time in the midst of an international financial crisis on a ridiculous motion condemning the Leader of the Opposition for doing something that he should not be condemned for doing and demanding he come into the House and perform an action—something that the government cannot ask him to do and yet that is what this government is doing. What is the Treasurer doing? What is the Prime Minister doing? What is the Minister for Finance and Deregulation doing? What is the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government doing at this crucial time? I will tell you what they are doing, Mr Deputy Speaker. They are wasting the time of this House. They are wasting taxpayers’ money. Their eyes are not on the ball. They were not on the ball two weeks ago on the weekend of 12 and 13 October and they are not on the ball now. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —Mr Speaker, a point of order that goes to relevance: a dissent motion from your ruling is a very serious matter, and the mover of the dissent motion must show in what way he disagrees with your ruling. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—The honourable member will address the motion before the chair, which is dissent from my ruling, and not go into the broader debate. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for his guidance. The crucial point of our dissent motion against your ruling is that this motion is out of order. It is out of order because it is a breach of privilege. Mr Deputy Speaker, you ruled it in order. For that reason we have dissented from your ruling. We are entitled to do so. This is a democracy—although in the last few months we might have been foolish for not believing that perhaps some of our democratic traditions have been thrown out the window by this government. We apparently were not allowed to ask them questions. How dare we ask them questions about their scrutiny of and accountability for their failed financial package! And yet today we see that the manager of government business in the House has come in and moved a frivolous, foolish and trivial motion. He has reduced the House to a ‘ragtime show’, the Australian reported today. A ragtime show is on display from both the manager of government business in the House, who thinks he is so clever, and this government, which thinks it is so clever. They have moved a motion which is out of order and which is a breach of privilege. And I can tell you one thing: we on this side of the House will not stand by and tolerate an attack on the freedom of speech of any member of parliament in this place. We will stand up for the right of freedom of speech even for a member of the government. Even the member for Fowler and the member for Petrie have been attacking the government’s education revolution this week. We are not going to try to close them down, unlike the government. The member for Fowler will be next, I suppose. The manager of government business will probably move a gag on the member for Fowler the next time she tries to speak. But the other thing is that— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the honourable member to come back to the motion. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —we are of the view that freedom of speech is at issue in this debate. If this motion is allowed to be debated in accordance with your ruling, it will be a denial of the freedom of speech of the Leader of the Opposition and other members of this House. There is no precedent in the history of Federation for a motion to be moved demanding that a member of parliament attend this House, perform an action— 00AMV Hunt, Gregory, MP Mr Hunt —And use certain words. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —and use certain words, as my honourable friend the member for Flinders interjects. They do not even give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to come into this House and speak if he wishes to do so. By the way, he would have been happy to do so yesterday if the government had had the courage to move a censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition. They went around the gallery yesterday saying they were going to censure the Leader of the Opposition, but they did not have the guts to come into the House and do so. He would have been happy to put this debate on the table. Where is the Prime Minister? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member speaking to the matter? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am responding to the matter. Where is the prime ministerial statement on the financial crisis? There is no precedent in the history of this Federation for such a financial crisis to be bedevilling the Australian public, yet the Prime Minister refuses to come into the House and give a prime ministerial statement. But I digress. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You do. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —The opposition’s view is absolutely clear. We will stand up for freedom of speech. We will not tolerate an attack on the freedom of speech of any member of this House. Your ruling is false and wrong. I am sorry to have to say so—we have great respect for you, Mr Deputy Speaker—but on this occasion you have allowed yourself to fall into unsound thinking on the standing orders and how they operate. The standing orders are very clear. This motion is out of order. It should be rejected. You should revisit your ruling and make it quite clear that this is out of order. We should return to the normal transmission of government business in this House, as was planned. This is a stunt. It was a surprise attack—a Pearl Harbor on the opposition—but we were ready for it because we know not to trust the manager of government business in the House. He did not even show us the schedule of sittings until 9.01 this morning. He told me he was going to move a motion on national rental affordability, but as soon as I was out of the chamber he moves a motion of this kind. We know not to trust him. I asked the manager of government business if the next item was rental affordability, and he said yes. As soon as I was down the corridor, thinking he had a clear run, he moved a motion. We were back here pretty quick-smart, and we are on to him. We are not going to tolerate these attacks on the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of this House. This motion is out of order. It is wrong. Mr Deputy Speaker, your ruling was wrong. We dissent from your ruling and ask that you change your mind. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Is the motion seconded? 33 12:50:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —The motion is seconded. This dissent motion is very important. It is critical to the standing and reputation of this parliament that the dissent motion moved by the member for Sturt and which I am seconding now be carried by this House. In accepting the motion from the Leader of the House, Mr Deputy Speaker, you have accepted a motion which offends a fundamental principle of our democracy. The greatest principle of our democracy, the principle which has echoed down the ages, the principle which has made Westminster parliaments respected throughout the world is the principle of the absolute sanctity of free speech. The great principle of parliamentary privilege is designed to ensure that no member of parliament can be interfered with in going about his duty as he sees it. The problem with this motion, which I regret to say you have accepted thus far, is that it offends this great principle. It seeks not just to condemn the Leader of the Opposition, not just to disagree with the Leader of the Opposition, but also to put words into the mouth of the Leader of the Opposition. It seeks to control the thoughts of the Leader of the Opposition. I say to members opposite: they can disagree, they can condemn, but they cannot dictate. All the numbers in the world do not justify trying to dictate to a member of this parliament. If members opposite persist in this course of conduct, having listened to the arguments in this current debate, they will be guilty of bringing into this chamber the worst standards of political thuggery—Tammany Hall and Sussex Street rolled into one and imported into this great chamber of democracy. It is utterly offensive to try to control what members of this parliament say. I have been a member of a government. I was in command of the numbers of this House for the six years in which I was the Leader of the House, and I have to say that not once did the former government try this trick. Not once would the former government have even contemplated pulling a stunt like this, because it is fundamentally against all principles of democracy. It is fundamentally against all conceptions of free speech. If this motion is permitted, the government could quite conceivably come into this chamber and put a motion demanding that all opposition members support a government bill. They could use their numbers to completely crush any dissent or any opposition in this House. I know how politicians in this place are always looking for political advantage. I know how the Leader of the House looked at a couple of newspaper reports this morning saying that the Leader of the Opposition said something which went a little bit too far and he thought, ‘Aha! Let us come out and fundamentally embarrass the Leader of the Opposition.’ If he gave the Leader of the Opposition five minutes to speak, fair enough. If he simply condemned the Leader of the Opposition, fair enough. But to try to put the Leader of the Opposition on his feet and put words into the Leader of the Opposition’s mouth—that is one giant step too far. Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, you are a man of decency and integrity. You are a man who has overcome hurdles to be in this place. You of all people should understand just how precious it is to be in this House and just how important are those principles of free speech and independence of mind which should govern every member of parliament’s actions. That is why you should have ruled differently and that is why this dissent should be carried. 33 12:55:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise to support your ruling. The former Leader of the House, when he was Leader of the House, moved in one motion—not two—to suspend standing orders, demand action and refer the member for Perth to the Privileges Committee. This happened in a very similar fashion, the member for Warringah might recall. He expressed no opposition to that. He did exactly this, and your ruling is consistent with the determination of the parliament at that time—with one exception. We have done this properly; they did not. They did it in one motion. We have done it in accordance with standing orders. What this motion that you have ruled in order will do is ask the Leader of the Opposition to come into this parliament and to retract, on behalf of the opposition, three statements, because in the last three days we have seen unprecedented attacks from the opposition on Australia’s financial regulators. On Tuesday the Leader of the Opposition called for Dr Ken Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury, to be sacked. On Wednesday Senator Abetz called the Secretary of the Treasury a liar, and now, on Thursday, we have the member for Canning alleging that the Governor of the Reserve Bank is politically biased and incompetent. This is an unprecedented attack on— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Chris— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I would ask you to bring the minister back to the terms of the dissent. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The Leader of the House. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —This is an unprecedented attack on the integrity and independence of our most senior economic regulators during a global financial crisis. Dr Henry and Governor Stevens served the Howard government with distinction. They were appointed by the Liberal Party and they served them well. The decision by the Leader of the Opposition to attack these men, directly and through the member for Canning, is political cannibalism of the worst kind. This is the Leader of the Opposition showing that he is willing to say anything, do anything and trample over anyone to score short-term political points. Confidence is absolutely critical at a time of global financial crisis. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: this is a very specific motion. The Leader of the House is required in this motion to argue why your ruling should not be dissented from, not to reach out into the wider ranging debate which he is engaged in now. I ask you to bring him back to the motion before the chair. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the House will address the question of dissent. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I am going directly to the points raised by the member for Sturt in his motion of dissent. The reason this motion should be debated by this House and determined by the elected members of this House is that, at a time of global financial crisis, confidence is absolutely critical—confidence in Australia’s economic regulators, confidence in our independent financial regulators. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. The Leader of the House is defying your ruling. He is required to speak on whether or not your ruling is correct and he is clearly moving on to areas of debate. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will address the motion of dissent before the chair. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —This motion is not just entitled to be moved before this House; it is imperative that it be moved before this House because attacking the credibility of our economic regulators during a global financial crisis is like defaming the fire department during a bushfire. It is not on. This motion has been moved to give the Leader of the Opposition the opportunity to come into this House and ensure that at a time of global financial crisis we walk away from this parliamentary fortnight with the whole of the House of Representatives expressing confidence in the Reserve Bank of Australia, the Secretary of the Treasury and our independent financial regulators. When working families are under pressure, it is not a time that it is acceptable to attack Dr Henry and Governor Stevens in the reckless and irresponsible way that has occurred over the past three days. That is why this parliament has a responsibility at this time of global financial crisis to debate this resolution, which would after all simply require the Leader of the Opposition to express confidence in the Secretary of the Treasury and the Governor of the Reserve Bank. But the opposition will go to any length to avoid having the Leader of the Opposition act responsibly. This is no longer a question just about policy; this is a question of character and leadership. I say to the former Leader of the Opposition that he would have understood that at a time of global financial crisis you do not attack the Secretary of the Treasury and you do not attack the Governor of the Reserve Bank. If the Leader of the Opposition fails to condemn today’s attack on the Reserve Bank, he fails the test of character and leadership that all national leaders face. This is a critical moment in time; this is a big test. We are providing an opportunity for the Leader of the Opposition— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the Leader of the House had wanted to move a censure motion, he could have done so. His remarks would go to a censure motion now. He should come back to the question before the chair. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will address the motion before the chair, which is dissent from the chair’s ruling. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I am doing that, Mr Deputy Speaker, because I am addressing why this motion is in order. I have addressed why it is consistent with motions that were moved by those opposite when they sat over here and I have addressed why it is particularly important at this time of global financial crisis that this occur. The Leader of the Opposition does face a test today: to back the stability of the economy and the stability of our regulators. There are consequences for ordinary working people, in every electorate that we represent, of a failure to have confidence in our regulators. Those on this side of the House have confidence in our economic regulators. In the 12 years that we sat in opposition, there were no attacks from our leaders on the secretaries of the Treasury, there were no attacks on governors of the Reserve Bank because we understood that at ordinary times that would be unwise and irresponsible. But at a time of global financial crisis it is simply reckless and dangerous. That is why the Leader of the Opposition should take the opportunity provided by this motion to come into this House and express confidence in the Reserve Bank of Australia and express confidence in the Secretary of the Treasury. 35 13:05:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —This is a very serious motion before the House—a dissent from your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I recall the remarks— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order— 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—The Chief Government Whip will resume his seat. Order! Before the Leader of the Nationals puts his point of order, I gave the seconder the right to speak, but gave two from the opposition side the right to speak on the motion of dissent. I intend to give two from the government side the right to speak on the reply. The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —In condemning your ruling, in supporting the dissent, the member for Warringah said: ‘I was Leader of the House. I never did anything like this in my term as Leader of the House.’ I present the evidence to support your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. It is a report of the Procedure Committee, which was chaired by Margaret May, entitled: Motion to suspend standing orders and condemn a member: report on events of 10 October 2006. What did it report on? It reported on a motion moved by the honourable member for Warringah when he was Leader of the House. What did the Procedure Committee find? Did the Procedure Committee say that the member for Warringah was correct and that he had followed the proper course? Of course it did not. It actually recommended unanimously that standing order 47 be changed and that, in fact, we have two motions, just as the Leader of the House has moved. The member for Warringah, in speaking to this motion, is absolutely condemned by his own words, his own lack of memory and his own actions when he was Leader of the House. Both motions draw attention to the fact that this parliament is sitting at a time of global crisis. Is this disputed by the opposition? Are they saying that there is no global crisis? Are the opposition offering bipartisan support? No, they are not offering bipartisan support. This is what is objected to by the Leader of the House and by members of the government on this side of the House. They are not only not offering bipartisan support but playing petty politics at a time of crisis for ordinary people. They are attacking, in the most shameful way, the Governor of the Reserve Bank. Indeed, the Leader of the Opposition is himself attacking— 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I really urge the Chief Government Whip to speak to the motion. This is an absolute diatribe. It has nothing to do with the motion. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member for Ryan will resume his seat. The Chief Government Whip will address the motion. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —It does. It asks the Leader of the Opposition to desist and withdraw from his attacks on Glenn Stevens, the Governor of the Reserve Bank, on Dr Henry, the Secretary of the Treasury— Opposition members interjecting— QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —Of course, it does. I know that when we go back to our electorates they will want us to be acting in the national interest, not attacking our officials, not trying to create dissent and confusion— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Chief Government Whip— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! I ask members not to address remarks across the chamber. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —The Chief Government Whip is sadly mistaken about the motion that he is debating. He is now debating the substantive motion, not the motion about your ruling, Mr Deputy Speaker. I ask you to draw him back to the motion which is currently before the chair, and that is the motion about your ruling. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I ask the Chief Government Whip to address the issue of dissent that is before the chair. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr PRICE —Your ruling should be upheld. (Time expired) 35 13:11:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I have had discussions with my colleague the honourable member for New England. His viewpoint is I think the same as my own. I take the view that the country is in a fairly serious situation. We have to find $80,000 million to meet the balance of payments next year because we have no manufacturing and are closing down agriculture. Our housing values are six times average annual earnings, whereas in America they are only three times average annual earnings. So, if they have a crisis, our crisis is far worse. The economy is being carried by mining, and I represent the biggest mining province on earth. Mine prices are down 30 per cent, possibly 50 per cent. Zinc, which is a very good mineral barometer, is down from about $4,000 to $1,400. That is the seriousness of the crisis that we are in. Every member here should listen when I say we really need a bipartisan approach to what is a very serious crisis that is going to be, in my opinion—and I could be wrong—worse next year than it is this year. We want everyone to, please, work together to give the people of Australia some confidence in what is happening. The proposition being put forward by the government is that the opposition cannot attack a public servant. Everyone here should read what happened between 1929 and 1932 because Gibson, the head of the Reserve Bank, was dead wrong. He was incredibly wrong. He took the advice of Otto Niemeyer, and everybody knows now that Niemeyer probably caused the Depression—that was what Winston Churchill said. We took Niemeyer’s advice. The proposition that the government is putting forward—that people on this side cannot attack a public servant—sorry, is not a proposition that I agree with. It is very important that that be established. In my judgement, what the opposition are doing is indulging in partisan politics—and they can laugh and they can scoff, but this is very serious indeed—at a time when I think we should be pulling together. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time for debate on the dissent motion has expired. Does the honourable member for Canning have a point of order? PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Deputy Speaker, I want to move that the member for Kennedy have an extension of time. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —There is no provision for that. Question put: That the Deputy Speaker’s ruling be dissented from. 13:19:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. DGH Adams) 56 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 75 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Katter, R.C. 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 5 Gash, J. Bowen, C. Hockey, J.B. Ellis, A.L. Scott, B.C. Hayes, C.P. Slipper, P.N. Kelly, M.J. Tuckey, C.W. Vamvakinou, M. * denotes teller Question negatived. 36 Motions 36 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 13:25:00 —I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 13:30:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 75 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 56 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Albanese’s) be agreed to. 13:37:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 56 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 38 Motions 38 38 13:39:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I ask leave of the House to move the following motion: that the Prime Minister be invited to remain in the House to make a prime ministerial statement concerning his bungled mismanagement of the deposit guarantee policy of the government amidst the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. Leave not granted. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt from moving that the Prime Minister be invited to remain in the House— or return to the House, given that he has now scurried out of it— to make a Prime Ministerial statement concerning his bungled mismanagement— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —of the deposit guarantee— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat! The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. A government member—He’s been warned! DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member for Sturt cannot begin his speech midway through moving his resolution. Opposition members—It’s a motion! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr Burke —We will check when it is put in writing. We will check if what you said is what is there in writing. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —He’s been warned twice, Mr Speaker. You haven’t been in here. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the minister wants his first warning, I am aware that he has been warned twice. I was the first to warn him, and that sort of behaviour is not assisting the chair. The member for Sturt, who gets heaps of generosity, really needs to learn to not make those types of remarks. With respect to the point of order that was made by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, I will seek the assistance of the member for Sturt as to whether the words that he added when reading out his motion actually form part of the motion, because if they do it might jeopardise the motion. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I can inform the Speaker that they do not form part of the motion, and I am prepared to read the motion again. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will complete his motion. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Member for Sturt from moving that the Prime Minister be invited to remain in the House to make a Prime Ministerial statement concerning his bungled mismanagement of the deposit guarantee policy of the Government amidst the most serious financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Prime Minister— Mr BURKE (Watson —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 13:42:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 13:46:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 73 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 56 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 39 13:51:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —I second the motion. The government is— Mr BURKE (Watson —Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry) 13:51:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 13:52:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 73 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 56 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The question now is that the motion for the suspension of standing orders moved by the member for Sturt be agreed to. 40 13:54:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I table a letter of unreserved apology from the federal member for Canning to the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The federal member for Canning can apologise and recognise when he has done wrong against an independent financial regulator, something that the Leader of the Opposition does not have the humility or foresight to do. Mr PYNE (Sturt) 13:55:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 13:55:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question negatived. Original question put: That the motion (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to. 14:03:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 59 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. 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. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 5 Gash, J. Bowen, C. Hockey, J.B. Ellis, A.L. Scott, B.C. Hayes, C.P. Slipper, P.N. Kelly, M.J. Tuckey, C.W. Vamvakinou, M. * denotes teller Question negatived. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being past 2 pm, the proceedings are interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. 41 Privilege 41 14:09:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —Mr Speaker, in the Daily Telegraph today Mr Steve Lewis has written an article which appears to reflect that he had access to the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests which will be tabled later today. The article appears to be a selective leak of the committee’s conclusions about the behaviour of both the member for Robertson and the shadow minister for early childhood education, child care, women and youth, the member for Indi, which as a matter of fact were not dissimilar. The article does not mention the committee’s conclusions about the member for Indi at all. The leaking of any report is damaging to the operation of a committee. The selective leaking of this report is even more damaging to the successful operation of the committee. This is the first time that a privileges committee report has been leaked to my knowledge, and I believe that honourable members share my concerns at the seriousness of this apparent leaking of the report. I table a copy of the article. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! If the Chief Government Whip is seeking some guidance on whether there should be further action taken, in accordance with the practice that has been established by the House the committee itself should consider the matter only to the extent that it should consider particularly whether the matter has caused or is likely to cause substantial interference with its work, with the committee system or with the proper functioning of the House. So it would be, in the first instance, a matter for the committee itself. 42 14:12:00 Questions Without Notice 42 14:12:00 42 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to an answer given by the Treasurer at 2.23 pm in this House yesterday to a question as to whether the new fee for guaranteeing bank deposits over $1 million will be compulsory and to the Treasurer’s response: 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. I also refer to the Prime Minister’s subsequent observation in question time yesterday: I stand by everything the Treasurer has said. Prime Minister, does this compulsory deposit tax apply from the time of the Treasurer’s announcement yesterday? 42 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —When the Treasurer introduced the Financial Claims Scheme into the parliament on, I think, Wednesday of last week, the Treasurer made it absolutely clear at that time that the interrelationship between the Financial Claims Scheme on the one hand—that is, the guarantee on bank deposits—and the guarantees for term wholesale funding on the other would be coordinated in the implementation arrangements between both the bank and the Treasury and others, and that is the process which has unfolded over the last week or so, as is normal. The Treasurer indicated that was the process. We have had the regulators at work on this process. That is the normal thing to do because there are complex negotiations on implementation between not only the regulators, on the one hand, including the Treasury, but also the banks themselves and also relevant international jurisdictions. So these matters will be resolved and published in their finality when these deliberations by the regulators with the banks are concluded. That is the proper way to do things, and that is what we indicated when the Treasurer introduced his legislation last week. Can I say this to the Leader of the Opposition, who finds this entire exercise entirely amusing: the basic facts are these. The government acted decisively in the middle of a financial crisis. Secondly, what happened was that we took action to— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this is a very simple question about the commencement date of a new tax announced yesterday. The Prime Minister should address himself to that. 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 —As the honourable member knows, as in my previous answer to his question, I am dealing with the process for the final determination of the arrangements for the premiums to be attached to term wholesale funding arrangements and those which may apply to depositors at the upper range of a million dollars or slightly beyond. In the normal course of events, that will be determined after proper consultation with the regulators. That is the proper way to do business. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition, having answered his question, that we on this side of the House have taken decisive action to ensure that we have soothed financial markets. We have taken decisive action because every mum and dad in the gallery today would like to know that their deposits are guaranteed. Under the actions of this government, that guarantee has been provided. Furthermore, as a consequence of that action, we have also seen, through the other actions taken by the government, downward pressure on interest rates. The Leader of the Opposition does not want to hear this, but what has happened in the period since the government took this action? We have seen confidence increasingly restored, when we had so many mums and dads out there concerned about the banks, having watched all the negative news on their television sets coming from abroad, because we acted with a decisive policy statement on the guarantee. Those opposite, wedded to this position, maintained that they would make a guarantee available only on deposits up to $100,000, leaving therefore unguaranteed, unprotected, according to Liberal Party policy, 40 per cent of all deposit accounts. That is quite extraordinary—40 per cent of deposits. So what I would say to those opposite is simply this: on this question, those opposite need to reflect long and hard on the consequences of the actions which the government has taken in providing confidence to mums and dads out in the community. Secondly, on the question of the impact which these decisions by the government have had on the banks, look at what has happened with interest rates in the last week or so. We have had all four major banks bring down interest rates by between 20 and 25 basis points. If you look at the statements which have been put forward by the NAB and the ANZ, what have they said? The NAB have said: ... policy measures announced by the Australian Government earlier this month have started to have a positive effect ... we hope to be in a position where we can pass on further interest rate cuts to our customers. That is as a direct consequence of what the government has done—unwelcome news on the part of the Leader of the Opposition but I would say a good piece of news when it comes to those out there with mortgages. Listen to what the ANZ Chief Executive Officer has said: We are pleased to deliver on the promise we made in January to pass on reductions in funding costs as we see market conditions easing. Then he goes on to say: ... policy measures both here in Australia and around the world have restored some confidence in the global investment community and this is resulting in an easing of high wholesale funding rates. These are the concrete actions which have flowed as a consequence of what the government did Sunday week ago. The Leader of the Opposition is out there with his own policy on guarantees of deposits up to $100,000 but not beyond that, leaving everyone else out there without guarantee. That is his approach. Our approach is strong decisive action which has not only helped in terms of confidence in the general community, with mums and dads concerned about their deposits, but also with the cost of finance for mortgages. Our action has also been supported by the Treasury and by the Reserve Bank. The Leader of the National Party laughs at this. I would suggest that those opposite should not laugh when it comes to further undermining of this country’s independent financial institutions. The Reserve Bank said the other day that the decisions taken by the government were sensible and that the RBA supported them. Furthermore, Dr John Laker of APRA said: The government’s deposit term and funding guarantee, which APRA fully supports, has calmed what was a growing disquiet on the part of some depositors. Put all these things together and you had the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority backing the government’s actions when it took its decision; you had the Reserve Bank of Australia backing the government’s actions when it took its decision; you had the Secretary to the Treasury doing the same; you had the mainstream commercial banks saying that because of these actions the actual cost of finance flowing through to consumers has been reduced and they themselves saying so explicitly in their statements. That is what the government has done. We have the support of these independent financial regulators. Those opposite, lead by the Leader of the Opposition, have spent their entire time undermining the integrity and the independence of these independent institutions. Earlier this week, the Leader of the Liberal Party came to the dispatch box and said— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order as to relevance. The question was about a date. We have not got to that yet. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition is sensitive to the attacks he has come under legitimately because of his attacks on the independent financial regulators. We know that Malcolm believes that Malcolm knows best; we actually believe the Reserve Bank knows better, that the Prudential Regulatory Authority knows better, also that the Secretary to the Treasury knows better. Here we have the alternative Prime Minister of Australia standing up in this place and calling into question whether the Secretary to the Treasury should be dismissed. That is what he said. He refused to come in and repudiate that. He then unleashes the dogs of war in the Senate yesterday through Senator Abetz, in a scripted script from the Leader of the Opposition’s office, where Senator Abetz attacked the integrity of the Secretary to the Treasury. And what did the Leader of the Opposition do about that? Nothing whatsoever. Early this week, the member for North Sydney questioned whether the word of the Secretary to the Treasury counted for anything at all. I say to those opposite that that was just phase one. Phase two was the member for Canning this morning attacking the integrity and independence of the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. That is what you did and you did so in orchestration, I presume, with the Leader of the Opposition’s office. I say to the member for Canning, acting again as one of the dogs of war, unleashed by— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The opposition— Government members—Get it right! PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —The member for Grayndler has tabled my letter of apology. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition, of course, has not retracted his comments earlier in the week when he canvassed the possibility of dismissing the Secretary of the Treasury because he disapproves of the Secretary of the Treasury. He then unleashed the dogs of war in the Senate to launch a further attack on the Secretary of the Treasury; finds that entirely amusing. His office today then unleashed the member for Canning to launch an attack on the Reserve Bank of Australia. His remarks said that Glenn Stevens had been caught out: he put up interest rates before the election, during the election, when the rest of the world were bringing down interest rates. In other words, it was an orchestrated attack by the Liberal Party, attacking the independence and the integrity of the governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia and attacking the Secretary of the Treasury. And earlier we had the attack on ASIC itself on the question of the future of short selling. These are three of the principal arms of Australia’s independent financial regulators. What we have is the Leader of the Liberal Party launching a short-term political attack on their independence. I would say this to the Leader of the Liberal Party: if you have any interest in the long-term— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I know it is a long time since I asked the question but it was about a date. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call and will bring his answer to a conclusion. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What we have had from the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, is an attack on our independent institutions. The Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull: so arrogant, so out of touch and now so out of control that he cannot even bring himself to support the independent financial institutions of Australia in the midst of a global financial crisis. I conclude with this. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: in the midst of a global financial crisis, leadership requires supporting the independence of our financial and economic regulators; the abandonment of leadership, as you have demonstrated, lies in taking short-term political pot shots at them. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: get behind our independent regulators, support the confidence that we need in this economy for the future, rather than simply pandering to your own short-term political advantage; arrogant, out of control, out of touch. 44 Distinguished Visitors 44 14:24:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Mr Clarrie Millar, a former member for Wide Bay and a former and, might I add, respected Deputy Speaker of this House. To Clarrie I say on behalf of the House: I extend to you a warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 44 Questions Without Notice 44 44 14:24:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House why it is so important that confidence in the regulators is not undermined in these uncertain global times? 44 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for his question. In uncertain global times, confidence in key economic institutions, in key financial institutions and in key regulators is absolutely paramount. That is particularly the case given that we are in the midst of the worst financial market crisis since the Great Depression. Because of that it is indeed surprising, I think, that the opposition have over the past 48 hours gone out of their way to slur some of our finest public servants and to trash some of our finest economic institutions. Just think about that for a moment. Given what is going on around the world, why would the opposition choose this time to attack the head of the Treasury, an independent Public Service department—a man who has worked for both sides of politics and has been with that department all his working life? Why would they do that in the middle of a global financial crisis? The Leader of the Opposition was given the opportunity to come into the House and apologise for that attack, but he simply was not man enough. What is worse is that it was because the Secretary of the Treasury had the temerity to say that regulators supported the government guarantee on deposits that he had to be trashed. So what happened after that? What happened was that Senator Abetz, a senior member of the opposition frontbench in the Senate, attacked the honesty of the Treasury secretary in the middle of a global financial crisis. He certainly did not apologise. And what has happened today? What happened today was something far worse. They sent out the member for Canning to attack the Reserve Bank governor personally. That is what they did—to accuse the Reserve Bank governor of political bias because he put up interest rates prior to the last election. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is not relevant for the minister, after an apology has been tabled, to dredge up the same issue again. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning has other avenues of recourse in the chamber. But I do note that this is an occurrence that has occurred to other members, especially when they are members of the opposition, where despite actions being taken by them, or corrections being made, the comments have continued. I just make that notation. I simply say to the member for Canning: he has other courses of action in the chamber to address the problem that he perceives he has. The Treasurer has the call. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The member for Canning not only attacked the Reserve Bank governor for political bias, he then accused him of creating chaos in the Australian economy. That is what he did. I am pleased he has had the sense to come into the House and to apologise. But that is not enough. What is required is a complete repudiation of his statements by the Leader of the Opposition. That is what is required. And what is required is an apology from the Leader of the Opposition for the slurs that have been cast on the Treasury secretary and for his personal attack on the Treasury secretary. That is what is required. The Leader of the Opposition said that this financial crisis had just all been hyped up: ‘It was not all that serious. Don’t worry about it. Don’t worry about its impact on the stock market, don’t worry about its impact on our financial institutions.’ So I guess he would not be worried about the independence of our regulators or the independence of our Reserve Bank. We on this side of the House strongly support the regulators and we strongly support our impartial public servants, and both sides of the House should be doing this at a time of global financial crisis. 45 45 14:30:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to advice from the Governor of the Reserve Bank to the Treasury secretary, Dr Henry, on 17 October in which the Governor of the Reserve Bank said ‘not only must there be a cap, but the lower the better’. Given this advice, does the Prime Minister agree with the Treasurer’s statement on national television four days later, on 21 October, when he said, ‘The Reserve Bank is not arguing for a cap’? 45 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As I indicated in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition in his first question today, the process in which the Reserve Bank and the other regulators, including the Treasury, have been engaged since Sunday a week ago has been, firstly, to resolve the implementation detail of the premium to be attached to the term wholesale funding arrangements for the banks; and, secondly, to resolve the implementation arrangements concerning the deposit guarantee. The interrelationship of those two matters was explicitly canvassed at the time that the Treasurer introduced the financial claims legislation into the House last Wednesday. Since then, as you would normally expect there has been a lot of exchange between the Reserve Bank and the other regulators, including the Secretary to the Treasury, on the detail of that. That is the normal way in which public policy is conducted. Once these matters have been resolved in finality they will be made public, as I have said repeatedly at this dispatch box and as the Treasurer has said repeatedly at this dispatch box. I say this to the Leader of the Opposition: this entire process in the midst of a global financial crisis would be made much easier had we had bipartisan political support for the key financial institutions of Australia. In the space of one week, we have had the Leader of the Opposition launch a political attack on the Secretary to the Treasury, we have had an orchestrated continuation of that attack by his senators in Senate estimates yesterday and on top of that we have had an orchestrated attack on the Governor of the Reserve Bank at the doors this morning and on the independence of the Reserve Bank. Up until now we have had no single statement of repudiation at the dispatch box, let alone an apology, by the alternative Prime Minister of Australia. This is also a pattern of behaviour— 0AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: this question went to a statement made by the Treasurer which contradicted that which has been provided by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The Prime Minister has not answered in any way that part of the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question and I will listen carefully to him. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, in my answer to the question I said that these matters would be determined when the regulators have concluded their discussions internally and with the banks and with other relevant financial institutions, when they would be placed in the public domain. That goes to the substance of the question which has been asked. Secondly, I have said that the entire process— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, on a point of order—and the point of order is on relevance: I am complaining about lack of relevance. The questioner asked the Prime Minister to address a statement by the Governor of the Reserve Bank and a statement by the Treasurer. What he is doing is giving another lengthy description of his long process. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the matters that were related to those comments. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The Leader of the Opposition may be unhappy with the answer. He normally is when it does not suit his short-term political purposes. But what we on this side of the House are on about are the long-term interests of the economy of this nation—and that is the difference. I would say to the alternative Prime Minister of the country, as he would describe himself, that one of the qualifications for office in this country is to support the independence of our financial regulators—a quality and a character element that we have not seen evidenced in his behaviour this last week at all. Can I say to the Leader of the Opposition that he was a member of the Howard government and this goes to a question of a pattern of behaviour by the Howard government in relation to public servants who do not toe the political line. Remember the attack on the then Secretary to the Treasury—who is also the Secretary to the Treasury now—when he made an internal speech in the Treasury about why Treasury should be included more in the then government’s deliberations on climate change and water. What was the response to that? They unleashed the dogs of war. But much worse—and the member for Higgins knows the detail of this and he should hang his head in shame because it happened under his watch—the bonus which would normally be attracted to the Secretary to the Treasury at that time was then— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this question goes to a statement made by the Treasurer which did not reconcile with the advice that was received by the Governor of the Reserve Bank. This has nothing to do with what the Prime Minister has gone on with for six or seven minutes now. He has to answer that part of the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The independence and reputation of our financial regulators is key and critical to each of the matters which the Leader of the Opposition has raised in his question today. Furthermore, the maintenance of the independence of the regulators is doubly important. We had a pattern of behaviour which occurred when the member for Higgins was Treasurer, when the then Secretary to the Treasury had his bonus cut because he had the temerity to deliver a speech which did not meet with the political support of those opposite, and what we see today is a continuation of that pattern of behaviour. This government has a great relationship with the Treasury. 00AMX Johnson, Michael, MP Mr Johnson —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this is an absolute diatribe. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —What was that comment? Order! Before we continue, I think that all of us should take a collective deep breath. I think that this illustrates the fact that perhaps both sides are not quite used to the fact that they have swapped sides and that there is not a real will to change the nature of question time. If members of the House are aggrieved, they might think about whether they would like the Procedure Committee to look at these matters. I remind the House that the standing orders say a lot about questions. They make one particular statement about answers, and that is on relevance. The relevance does not have to be interpreted by some specificity in the eyes of the questioner, and that has been the case for a long time. The Prime Minister will respond to the question and we will get to the conclusion of his answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —So, on the matters raised by the Leader of the Opposition in his question, as I said before in the earlier part of my answer, the final detail of the premiums which would be attached to term wholesale funding and those which are attached to the guarantees for deposits will be released once the regulators have properly concluded their discussions with the banks and other relevant foreign jurisdictions. What I have been seeking to make is simply the associated point: to maintain the integrity of that process, we must maintain and support the integrity of the institutions which are party to that process, one of which is the Treasury. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: this goes to a statement made by the Treasurer as to whether or not he has lied to the Australian people. The Prime Minister is refusing to answer that part of the question, and it is completely unacceptable that he will not be accountable to this parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will just illustrate, without taking any action on the member for Dickson, that that was not a point of order in the way it was constructed, and he knows that. I am suggesting that the House take a collective deep breath and get on with the business. I will not now allow people to approach the dispatch box and debate a point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I ask that that be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In what the member for Dickson claimed to be the repeating of the question, he did use an expression that should be withdrawn. I ask the member for Dickson to withdraw. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Dickson. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The government, in our relationship with the Treasury, respect its independence. We respect the independence of the financial regulators. That is very important in dealing with the grave challenges we face in the global financial crisis right now. My simple appeal to those opposite is that they do the same. 46 46 14:40:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 Mr RAGUSE —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on his consultations with the financial sector on the implementation of the retail deposits and wholesale funds guarantees? 46 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Forde for his question, because the government is committed to protecting all depositors in these uncertain times. Following our announcement on 12 October, we have seen a marked improvement in the operation of financial markets, with spreads falling, resulting in cuts in mortgage rates. This morning, I think, in estimates, Dr John Laker, from APRA said: ‘The government’s deposit term in funding guarantee, which APRA fully supports, has calmed what was a growing disquiet on the part of depositors.’ When the second reading legislation was introduced into the House, I made it very clear to the House that finetuning would take place in the days ahead. That is of course what has been happening. That is what the RBA, APRA and ASIC have been doing. It is what the government have been doing. We have been consulting widely on this question and continuing a series of consultations through today and tomorrow on all of these matters with banks, building societies and credit unions; with financial markets participants; and with those institutions that are not covered by the government guarantee. We do take our responsibilities very seriously, and we are liaising very closely with all of our regulators. We are doing this to ensure deposits are protected and to ensure the ongoing efficient operation of financial markets. As for the details, which have been the subject of some comment—the level above which large deposits will be treated as wholesale funding, how much the fee will be, how a fee will be structured, whether it would be flat, whether it would it be tiered, who would pay and whether it was compulsory or opt in—all those things have been on the agenda, and all of these things which have been on the agenda have been highlighted by me both publicly and in the meetings with regulators and with industry. These are commercially sensitive matters. This is where the opposition really do not get it. This material is commercially sensitive. It has been worked out thoroughly. It has been worked out in accord with the wishes of our regulators. It has been worked out with industry. We will reach a sensible conclusion in a timely manner in the interests of a stable financial system. 47 Distinguished Visitors 47 14:42:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Hon. Bob Sneath, President of the South Australian Legislative Council. On behalf of the House, I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 47 Miscellaneous 47 Miscellaneous 47 47 14:43:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr TURNBULL —I seek leave to move a motion of censure against the Prime Minister and the Treasurer. Leave not granted. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Leader of the Opposition moving immediately—That this House censures the Prime Minister and the Treasurer for their inept and incompetent economic and financial management since coming to office, and in particular: failing to re-act responsibly and effectively to the global financial crisis; establishing an unlimited free deposit guarantee scheme which, in the words of the Reserve Bank Governor himself, “is creating … serious dislocation in the financial system”; ignoring the warning of the Reserve Bank Governor when he wrote to the Treasury Secretary last Friday that “we have been going around and around on this but I think we need to get something out to the markets soon”; expediting the passage through the Parliament of a deposits guarantee law which at the very moment the Treasurer delivered his second reading speech he knew, but did not say, was misconceived and in need of drastic amendment; announcing in the course of Question Time yesterday a new deposits tax which would impose a massive cost increase on Australian banks, a cost they would seek to recover by increased interest rates and fees; when the global financial instability became a crisis, failing to directly consult the Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia on a central element of the Government’s response which falls directly within the Governor’s responsibilities because it affects the systemic stability of Australia’s financial system; right from the beginning of this year consistently putting its short term political strategy ahead of responsible economic management by talking up inflation and talking down the economy in the early part of 2008; undermining business and consumer confidence and increasing inflationary expectations thereby causing the Reserve Bank to increase rates; and attempting to run the Australian economy on the basis of the 24 hour news cycle, causing him to develop policy on the run without due proper evidence, proper analysis, and proper consideration. What we have seen today is an urgent need to debate this issue. We have been calling on the Prime Minister to come into this House and debate his mismanagement of our economy. We have asked him to come in here to give a ministerial statement, to have a debate. We have sought to hold him to account and all we have had is one stunt after another, one picked fact after another, one grand gesture after another. We saw that on 12 October a momentous decision was taken to guarantee all of the deposits in Australian authorised deposit-taking institutions without any cap. This is almost without precedent in the world. The Treasurer said in the House the other day that Germany had the same unlimited deposit guarantee. Well, they do not. Their deposit guarantee is limited to private accounts. The deposit guarantee the Prime Minister announced was completely universal and it was inevitably going to create severe dislocation and distortions in the market, so much so that by the Treasurer’s own say-so we know that by the Wednesday, less than 72 hours after it was announced, he was already, according to him, getting ready to change it, getting ready to install a cap. We have had the most slippery performance about that cap, trying to debate the difference between a cap and a threshold. What we have seen plainly is that any deposit guarantee will distort the market to some extent. If you provide some classes of funds or some classes of institutions with a guarantee they obviously have an advantage that others do not. That is why around the world deposit guarantees are set at levels that are designed to provide security and comfort to households and small businesses. That is why in the United States for many years it was $100,000. It has been raised to $250,000. In the UK is £50,000 and so forth. On the Friday previously, given what was clearly an increasing flow of funds to the big banks, we recommended that the deposit guarantee proposed by the government and supported by us in these times be increased from $20,000 to $100,000. The response was a classic hollow men panic. After meetings over the weekend, instead of coming to a level, a cap, that was a reasonable one calculated to pick up household and small business accounts, what did we get? We got an unlimited guarantee. We have seen what it has done. We have seen cash management funds and institutions that are not covered by the guarantee losing money to those guaranteed institutions. We have seen some funds putting a stop on redemptions. We have seen people with their savings frozen and we know that within days the Reserve Bank of Australia was saying, as I stated in the motion, ‘We have been going around and around on this’—this was on 17 October—‘but I think we need to get something out to the market soon.’ It is 23 October and nothing has gone out to the market. We see the absurd manner in which the Treasurer in his extraordinary incompetence announced yesterday a new tax. He answered a very clear, very simple comprehensible question: was the new deposits fee going to be compulsory? He said that it will apply to all deposits over the $1 million mark and it will be paid by either the bank or the depositor. He repeated that. He said he did not apologise for it being compulsory. He said he was not going to give the banks a free kick—not the Treasurer; he was not going to do that. The Prime Minister endorsed him. Then, when we asked the Prime Minister today another clear question, ‘When is the starting date of this deposit tax going to be announced?’ we got a 10-minute-and-six-second ramble and not one fact—not an answer to the question. He did not disown the compulsory deposit tax at all. He did not throw the Treasurer to the wolves. That is probably touching for the Treasurer. But then, in a subsequent answer from the Treasurer today, there were little weasel words slipped in. So now there is a bit of doubt whether this deposit tax will be compulsory—whether the deposit fee will be a tax at all. The fact of the matter is that we know that this agenda has been driven by a media strategy, a political strategy, and nothing else. You can see that at its height in the nearly two hours of the time of this House that was taken up today with the absurd motions from the member for Grayndler. The Prime Minister loves to talk about leaving no stone unturned. It might be better to say, in his case, he leaves no cliche unuttered. One of his favourite cliches today is ‘letting loose the dogs of war’. There is no snappier dog of war than the member for Grayndler, and he was in here, full of indignation, taking up two hours of the parliament’s time because he was concerned about the reputation of Dr Henry—so it was said. The record shows I did not call for Dr Henry to be dismissed. I spoke as warmly of Dr Henry as his greatest admirers could, and yet we had the ridiculous—indeed, tragic—example of this government, led by the ultimate control freak, proceeding with a motion not by the book, not by the standing orders, but by The Little Red Book of Chairman Mao. The government have a resolution, passed with their majority, calling upon a member of parliament to say certain words. They have not censured the Leader of the Opposition. They have not condemned the Leader of the Opposition. They have passed a motion to say that the Leader of the Opposition should utter certain words. That is certainly by the book. It is not the standing orders. It is not the Magna Carta. It is not the Constitution. An opposition member—It’s Mao’s Little Red Book. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Yes, it is The Little Red Book. My colleague is right. It is The Little Red Book and there they are, the Gang of Four—Comrade Kev, Comrade Wayne, Comrade Albo— Opposition members interjecting—Madame Mao! 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Ah, yes, and Madam Julia—there she is. That is the Gang of Four. It is fine for the Prime Minister to embrace Asian values, but I do not think we should start with the Red Guards and The Little Red Book of Chairman Mao. Messy and disconcerting though it may be, we live in a democracy and this is a parliament. We have a right to debate these issues and we will, and no control-freak Prime Minister is going to be able to silence the opposition, take his activities away from the scrutiny of the press and deny the people their say. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 48 14:55:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Mr Speaker, I second the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The consequences of the Prime Minister’s hasty and ill-considered decision to provide an unlimited deposit guarantee are not abstract. The consequences have been felt by Australians across this country every day since 12 October, and that is why we need to debate this matter now in this House. The Prime Minister has refused to come into the House in accordance with precedent to give a prime ministerial statement on one of the most important and significant decisions that a government has made in a long time. This Prime Minister has refused even to grace the parliament with his presence to speak about the decision made on 12 October which is now having such serious consequences in financial markets across this country. This decision has caused massive confusion in the financial markets. As of 12 October, when the Prime Minister announced his unlimited guarantee on bank deposits, there has been a massive movement of funds from those excluded from the guarantee into those institutions that are included in the guarantee. Let me take one example that was provided in evidence today to Senate estimates by officers of APRA. They were asked about the fact that the government’s decision has created two classes of institution within the APRA regulated, authorised deposit-taking institutions. What the government has done is exclude the foreign bank branches. Foreign bank branches are APRA regulated, they are authorised deposit-taking institutions, yet the government has excluded the foreign bank branches from their unlimited guarantee. Guess what has happened? This is evidence from APRA officers. As of 13 October, billions of dollars of funds have moved from the foreign bank branches that were APRA regulated, authorised deposit-taking institutions under the laws of this country and have moved into the banks included in the government’s guarantee. We are not talking about abstracts here. We are not talking about some foreign investments here. What we are talking about are the funds, the investments and the savings of ordinary Australians. These institutions hold aggregate funds. They hold pools of investments and savings from mums and dads, small businesses, superannuants and self-funded retirees across Australia and, because these banks were left out of the guarantee, they believed that they could offer the confidence to these people that banks with the guarantee could offer, so they have moved billions of dollars of these people’s money into those banks included in the guarantee. But what happened yesterday? At 2.23 pm the Treasurer, in answer to a question about a fee he had mentioned the day before, announced a new and compulsory deposit tax on all the deposits that are now in the banks included in the guarantee. He was not talking about a fee in his second reading speech; that is rewriting history. He did not mention a fee in his second reading speech on 15 October. The Treasurer made a fundamental mistake, of course, as he has in so many answers to so many questions. He said it would apply to all deposits in APRA regulated institutions, but in fact he forgot that he had already excluded some APRA regulated, authorised deposit-taking institutions from his guarantee. We have now got billions of dollars of funds that have flowed in since 13 October into the big four banks in particular and other banks. The Treasurer announced a new tax. I have now been contacted by asset managers who say they want to take the money out of the big banks because they do not want to attract a fee which would be passed on to their deposit holders. They want to take the money out of the bank. Is that an intended consequence—to take deposits out of the big banks? Was that an intended consequence of the announcement of a new tax or are these people stuck with paying the tax that was announced at 2.23 pm yesterday? The Treasurer has not resiled from that. The Prime Minister took 10 minutes to answer a question and not once did he say that this tax was not compulsory, nor did he say that it would not apply from 2.23 pm yesterday. So the Australian public must assume that they will be subject to this new tax on their deposits. They were told that the guarantee was going to be free of charge; they now find that their savings will be subject to a new tax. I ask the Prime Minister: does this mean that the savings of ordinary Australians will now be diluted by the fact that they must pay this tax? (Time expired) 49 15:01:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I noted with some keen interest the statement by the Leader of the Opposition today in reference to the Secretary to the Treasury. He said that his remarks about the Secretary to the Treasury at the dispatch box the other day were the warmest remarks that he could make about Dr Henry. It is strange that, in the process of this extension of warmth, you threaten to sack them. That is a strange expression of warmth in the part of the world that I come from. Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition that, whether it is the Secretary to the Treasury, whether it is the Governor of the Reserve Bank, whether it is ASIC or whether it is the other regulators, the importance of the independence of these financial institutions goes to this country’s long-term economic interest. What we have had here instead from Malcolm Turnbull is a man prepared to slur our economic institutions during a global financial crisis just to pursue his own personal political interests. What we have had here is arrogance. What we have had here is recklessness. What we have had here is a lack of control. For some time we have said in this place that the Leader of the Opposition is out of touch. Remember what he said about interest rates: a mere 25 basis point increase in interest rates was something which people had become ‘overdramatic’ about. Well, that is out of touch. But the remarkable thing we have seen in the last week is not just out of touch behaviour but behaviour which is, in fact, out of control. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: with due respect, the suspension motion is very clear in its terms. This would have been relevant to a motion if the government had had the guts to bring a censure motion against the Leader of the Opposition, but it has not. And therefore it should be brought— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The debate has been a fairly wide suspension of standing orders debate. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The underlying principle in all of this is: at a time of global financial crisis, do the men and women of Australia, the working families of Australia, want to have confidence that we have an independent Secretary to the Treasury, an independent Governor of the Reserve Bank, an independent ASIC and an independent Prudential Regulatory Authority? Do the Australian people want to have confidence in those institutions? Yes, they do. Do they want to have the alternative government of Australia simply taking out the machete and trying to hack them down at every opportunity? That is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has given his sanction to. He smiles as if this is some small, passing matter. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: in his attack on the Secretary to the Treasury he has failed at the first and fundamental character test for occupying the prime ministership of Australia. This is an Australian institution. It should be beyond political and partisan attack. The Reserve Bank is an Australian institution. It should be beyond political and partisan attack—a principle which the Leader of the Opposition does not grasp. The weekend before last, the world was beset by a global financial crisis which was getting right out of control. If you looked at what had happened in stock markets the previous Friday, you would have seen the massive collapse across the world. What you saw were stocks plummeting, credit markets out of control and credit markets drying up. But, beyond that, you saw the visible sapping of confidence of deposit holders around the nation as they became concerned about the security of their deposits. That was the real problem that the democratically elected government of Australia was dealing with. And that is why we sat down with our regulators to work out what to do about it. We met for that weekend. We took tough decisions. We took hard decisions. We were decisive and our decisions were taken with this core interest in mind: how to provide security and confidence for the working men and women of Australia—those in the gallery here today concerned about the security of their deposits and the ability of their banks to provide funding for future loans to business. These were the concerns which drove the government. Those were the concerns which drove the regulators. That is why we spent the entire weekend working here. We acted and we are proud of the decisions we took. The Leader of the Opposition does not understand the depth of the crisis that we are in. He has said that this crisis is simply mere ‘hype’—his word, not ours. Therefore, when the superannuation policyholders of Australia—there are 10 million of them—are concerned about the impact of stock market collapses on the earnings of those funds, he is saying that they are simply responding to hype. He is saying that those pensioners who are in need of extra support at this time are responding to mere hype. He is saying that those concerned about the security of their deposits in banks were responding to mere hype. Can I say to the alternative Prime Minister of Australia: fear and anxiety are not the products of hype. Fear and anxiety are the products of the events across the world that they saw unfold on their television screens. They were looking for governments and responsible political parties to show leadership and to act. This government did so. This government is proud of the action that it took, which was necessary to deal with the reality of the crisis that we were confronted with. If you look at the response across the business community, if you look at the response across the banks of Australia, if you look at the response in terms of what the regulators have said about the actions we have taken subsequently, it is quite clear that the decisions taken by the government on that critical weekend were absolute and necessary in the interests of the working men and women of this country, of retirees, of superannuants, as well as those needing loans if they were out there in small business. There is not just that action on deposits; there is also the action for the term funding arrangements for our major retail banks and, on top of that, of course, a $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy for the future, delivering additional help and support for pensioners, for families and to assist those out there in the hard business of trying to fund the purchase of their first home. That is our policy. We stand by it and we are proud of it. What is the policy of the alternative government of Australia on the guarantee on deposits? What is it? Five times last night on television—they all hang their heads at this moment—the alternative Prime Minister of Australia was asked this question: ‘What is your policy on guaranteeing the deposits of the men and women of Australia? What is it?’ What those opposite have said and confirmed most recently, depending on who you listen to on what day, is maybe a $100,000 limit, maybe not—depending on the weather, depending on the day, depending on the spokesman. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition: the Australian people want certainty at this time. They have a clear decision from us, which is to provide certainty of guarantee of deposits for the future. That is our policy. We have announced it, we stand by it and we defend it, and it is supported by the regulators. We turn to the alternative government of Australia. They do not just walk both sides of the street; when challenged repeatedly to name a number, name a limit, name a condition, they cannot do so. I would say to the Leader of the Opposition again, if he seeks to occupy the prime ministership of this country, having a clear position on something as basic to the mums and dads of Australia as whether or not their deposits are going to be secure in the bank is the first ask of leadership, a test of leadership the Leader of the Opposition has failed. The government has also been acting domestically and internationally, because, in terms of dealing with the confidence crisis which exists across our country and beyond, we are dealing with the problem of financial regulation at home and abroad, we are dealing with the problem of economic growth at home and abroad, and with jobs. We are also dealing with the harmonisation of policies across the globe. Across the last week, together with the foreign minister, together with the Treasurer, together with the trade minister, the government of Australia, apart from attending to these matters domestically, has been engaged in every capital in the world, through our embassies and directly, in ensuring that we would have a place at the table for Australia to argue our case for the future financial order of the world. The decision, announced this morning Australian time, by President Bush to convene a G20 meeting in Washington, a Group of 20 meeting in Washington at heads of government level, is in direct response to the representations by this government and other governments around the world. There were those in the international community who argued that the G7 alone could handle this challenge. Our argument, looking at the Asia-Pacific region and looking at the significant economies here, is that if we are to deliver a global solution to this problem, it requires a global response. Australia will be arguing internationally for an effective response, just as we have been arguing a decisive case through our actions here at home. This government stand up for the long-term economic interests of the economy. We stand up for the long-term interests of families within the economy. We stand up for the interests of those deposit holders who are here in the gallery in parliament today. We stand up for pensioners, for families doing it tough and for those who are seeking to buy their first home. That is the hallmark of a government exercising proper leadership in the midst of a global financial crisis. I would suggest that those opposite support the government. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time for the debate has expired. Question put: That the motion (Mr Turnbull’s) be agreed to. 15:16:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 57 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 77 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * 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. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. 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. 5 Gash, J. Bowen, C. Hockey, J.B. Ellis, A.L. Scott, B.C. Hayes, C.P. Slipper, P.N. Kelly, M.J. Tuckey, C.W. Vamvakinou, M. * denotes teller Question negatived. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 52 Questions to the Speaker 52 52 15:19:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP 1 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, earlier today in the House of Representatives, while at the dispatch box, I was approached from behind by the member for Warringah— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. If the House would be quiet, I think we could get this over and done with fairly quickly. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —who made numerous interjections and threatening comments. Could I ask you, Mr Speaker, as you were not in the chair at the time, to consult with the member for Hughes, who was in the chair at the time, examine the tape and report back to the House at a future time in accordance with whether it is appropriate for any further action to be taken. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will deal with this very quickly. I will firstly make four comments. First, that was not really a question to me at this time because this time is for questions about administration, so I am trying to be consistent about that. Second, I will not look at the tape because I am trying to be consistent about that. Third, the member of the Speaker’s panel has my utmost confidence in the way that she conducted the proceedings at the time. The fourth point is that the basis on which I am able to confidently say that is that I happened to be watching at the time. The ruling that the Deputy Speaker made at the time was a legitimate ruling. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the two ministers want me to deal with this, they will remain quiet. I would not wish them to pre-empt what I am about to say, because I may not say it. I have said that I will not be reviewing tapes, but what I am about to say might cause the member for Warringah a little grief. I am confident in making the statements I have made about the member of the Speaker’s panel because, at the time, I was watching. The problem for the member for Warringah is that if it had been just the vision that I had to base a conclusion on I would have left the matter at this point. Regrettably for him—and this is not saying that the Deputy Speaker may not have heard what was said—there was a live mike. He did make one comment audibly that it would probably assist the chamber if he now withdrew. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I appreciate your comments and I am happy to withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the member for Warringah. 52 Privilege 52 15:23:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Yesterday the member for Hume raised a matter of privilege concerning comments reported to have been made about him by the New South Wales National Party leader, Mr Andrew Stoner. The member claimed that the words used by Mr Stoner represented a threat against him and an attempt to interfere with his ability to perform his duties as a member. Any attempt to threaten a member with a view to influencing the member’s performance of his or her duties as a member is a serious matter and can be punished as a contempt if it is found to constitute improper interference. I have examined the media articles in relation to the member for Hume’s complaint. It is clear that the words reportedly used by the Leader of the Nationals in New South Wales are undesirable. In the political environment, however, it is not unknown for members and other participants to employ hyperbole and to use exaggerated or colourful language when making a point. Many such comments are not intended to be taken literally. Having regard to the political context in which the comments were made and to the desire over many years now that the House’s power with respect to matters of contempt should be used sparingly, I am of the opinion that precedence should not be given to emotion on this occasion. I note that the member for Hume has also taken the opportunity, through the media, to respond to Mr Stoner. 52 Personal Explanations 52 15:25:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 0 Mr SCHULTZ —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr SCHULTZ —Most assuredly and most grievously, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hume. 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr SCHULTZ —In today’s edition of the Land newspaper reference was made to me handing out pamphlets for an Independent in Port Macquarie at the election last Saturday. I know there are some people in the community who think that I have extrasensory powers, but I do not have the power to be in two places at once. I was in the ACT, handing out pamphlets for a Liberal Party candidate on the said day. 53 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:26:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 53 Ministerial Statements 53 53 15:26:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr DEBUS —by leave—Perhaps we should turn the telescope around and look at a tiny dot in the Pacific. Mr Speaker, Australia’s territories are often forgotten when we think of our national system of government, but our territories are an integral part of the Federation. As minister, I recognise the need for the Australian government to actively engage with communities in our inhabited territories to acknowledge their unique characteristics and recognise that residents have essentially the same rights and should receive the same protections as every other Australian. Our island territories are isolated and this brings obvious practical difficulties to the delivery of essential services but as far as practicable they should be comparable to those received by other Australians—remote mainland locations are a good benchmark. Norfolk Island is an important part of the Australian Federation. Its history is fundamental to the Australian story and our development as a nation. On 6 March 1788, just six weeks after the arrival of the First Fleet at Botany Bay, Lieutenant Philip Gidley King landed on Norfolk Island to establish a penal settlement. Over the first decade, the island was the source of supplies that were essential to the survival of the settlement at Port Jackson. Norfolk Island’s first European settlers were also important to the development of Tasmania when many relocated there in the early 1800s. Many Australians today can still trace a personal family connection to Norfolk Island. The violent history of the hellish second Norfolk Island penal settlement was interrupted for several years by the appointment of the Scottish naval officer and geographer Alexander Maconochie as Commandant in 1840. The practical policies he put into place before his removal are regarded now as a foundation of modern penal practice. Many descendents of the Pitcairn Islanders who came to Norfolk Island in 1856 as the third wave of European settlement have made the island their home. From time to time, there have been attempts to suggest that Norfolk Island has a legal or constitutional status different to that of other Australian territories, or that it is appropriate for the island to have separate international recognition. These suggestions are unfounded and the High Court of Australia has affirmed that Norfolk Island is an integral part of the federation like all other territories. Nevertheless there are a number of serious problems facing Norfolk which, if uncorrected, will become worse as the population ages. Thirty years ago the Commonwealth established a microstate government for a population of less than 2,000 Australians—complete with substantial taxing powers and finance and service delivery roles, some of which even the existing Australian states do not enjoy. The government takes the view that the model cannot be sustained in its present form. While a minority of islanders may have their own personal wealth to fall back upon, the present self-government arrangements have caused a growing proportion of people to be significantly disadvantaged in comparison to other Australian citizens. Norfolk Island is falling well behind national standards in areas like health, child protection and welfare, and workplace safety. The government of this very small place is not in a position to resolve its problems independently. The island lacks an economic foundation strong enough to support basic programs and infrastructure. Australian citizens on Norfolk Island do not receive all the benefits and protections enjoyed by other Australians, nor do they have the same obligations. This unique situation gives special privilege to some islanders and disadvantage to others depending upon their personal wealth and circumstance. The Australian government should not be in the business of allowing specific privilege or permitting disadvantage to flourish merely by virtue of location. Unlike other Australians, Norfolk Island residents do not pay income tax. The Norfolk Island government has for a long time said that such a tax would be a crippling burden on a fragile economy. On the other hand, the 2005 report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories entitled Norfolk Island sustainability: sink or swim heard evidence from the Australian Treasury recommending that the Australian tax system should apply to Norfolk Island. Our Indian Ocean territories are similarly remote, yet the Australian taxation system applies there without detriment to the development and governance of those islands. The joint standing committee—chaired by Senator Ross Lightfoot—said in its 2005 report:  … the financial situation on Norfolk Island is sufficiently dire to warrant the recommendation of the Island’s integration into the Commonwealth taxation and welfare system, in spite of the concerns expressed by some Island residents. The Committee is convinced that bringing Norfolk Island into the Commonwealth’s taxation regime will mean the residents of Norfolk Island will have access to better quality services than are currently available. As a broad comparative example of the disadvantages experienced by Norfolk Islanders living outside our tax system, I am advised that the Norfolk Island minimum wage is $10.70 per hour compared to $14.31 on the mainland. The Norfolk Island aged pension cuts off once recipients earn more than $947 a fortnight. At that rate, Commonwealth pensioners are still receiving $227 a fortnight from the Australian government. Norfolk Island pensioners will not benefit from the Rudd government’s boost for Australia’s pensioners to be delivered on 8 December because Norfolk Island pensioners do not receive the Commonwealth pension; they receive the Norfolk Island pension. Concerns about the arrangement for the governance of Norfolk have been raised repeatedly in a number of reports and studies undertaken by parliamentary committees. During hearings for a report handed down by the Senate Select Committee—chaired by Senator Ian Macdonald—on State Government Financial Management in September this year, the Hon. Grant Tambling, Administrator of Norfolk Island from 2003 to 2007, submitted that:  … Norfolk Island is in urgent need of governance reform … And the 2005 report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories expressed a view that:  … the Norfolk Island government was not delivering services and was at risk of becoming insolvent. This year the senate select committee to which I have just referred noted that: The expectation was that Norfolk Island would also be self sufficient and raise its own funds from within the Norfolk community to pay for its delivery of government services and programmes on-island, using ‘federal’ customs, postal, revenue and taxing powers devolved to it by the Australian Government. Norfolk Island was therefore excluded from federal fiscal and taxation arrangements and from the application of many federal laws and the programmes and services provided under such laws. This has resulted in expensive and sub-standard healthcare and other important services. In 2005 the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories report concluded:  … the strategies that have been used to date by the Norfolk Island Government have not, and will not, deliver long-term financial sustainability for Norfolk Island. And at recommendation 1, it said: The Committee recommends that a new taxation model be developed whereby Norfolk Island is gradually incorporated into the taxation regime of the Commonwealth of Australia. A 2003 report by the same committee, also chaired by Senator Lightfoot, recommended: That the Federal Government reassess its current policies with respect to Norfolk Island and the basis for the Territory’s exclusion from Commonwealth programmes and services, with a view to determining: a clearly understood and consistent rationale and framework for Commonwealth funding, advice and assistance that will be provided across government to the Norfolk Island community. The Australian government are working in many countries of the Pacific to establish political stability and economic prosperity and we have an obligation in our own territories to uphold those same principles. The 2003 joint standing committee said: Australia’s long term national interest will be best served by ensuring the same principles of good governance in place in other states and territories of the Commonwealth are adhered to on Norfolk Island. In its efforts to promote good governance in the Pacific region and assist many Pacific Island countries to rebuild and reform their institutions of government, Australia cannot afford to allow Norfolk Island—as an integral part of Australia in the Pacific—to languish behind. Australia also has a national interest and responsibility to ensure that citizens and residents of Australia are not disadvantaged by systemic weaknesses in the existing governance arrangements. The Senate select committee report from September this year noted that the Howard government considered a range of reforms relating to Norfolk Island in 2006; however, the cabinet, somewhat mysteriously, failed at that time to pursue them. The Senate committee recommended the findings of the 2003 and 2005 reports should be reconsidered together with its own recommendations, and that is what the government is now doing. Australia cannot afford to allow Norfolk Island to become a failed state, which is the likely outcome in the longer term if no action is taken. Next week I shall visit Norfolk Island, not for the first time but for the first official visit in my capacity as the Australian government minister responsible for territories. The joint standing committee that has made so many reports already will visit next month. It is appropriate that ahead of those visits I advise the House of the government’s concern for the future of Norfolk Island. I will meet again with the Chief Minister and members of the Norfolk Island executive. I will also be meeting less formally with Norfolk Islanders to discuss some of the issues I have raised today. In the coming months I will take a long-term strategic policy to the cabinet which will have the aim of securing the future of Norfolk Island as a sustainable, just and equal part of Australia into the 21st century. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 10 minutes. Leave granted. 8IS Debus, Bob, MP Mr DEBUS —I move: That so much of the standing orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking for a period not exceeding 10 minutes. Question agreed to. 54 15:37:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the statement by the Minister for Home Affairs about Norfolk Island governance. In summary, the opposition takes note of the minister’s statement; recognises the importance of this issue and the need for changed arrangements to ensure the future sustainability of Norfolk Island; does not propose a course of action but welcomes the opportunity to debate the way forward; and stands ready to work with the government and the people of Norfolk Island to achieve the best possible outcome for this unique people and environment. In 1879 Joseph Campbell wrote a little account, Norfolk Island and Its Inhabitants, and I would recommend this as reading to anyone seeking an understanding of the origins and culture of the island. Campbell describes a small and exceptionally beautiful place, inhabited then by some 400 people, ‘about 250 who reside in the town, the rest in the small farms in various parts of the island’. There were excellent roads built by convicts, first-rate soils, thousands of lemon and guava trees, native flowers and, of course, the Norfolk Island pines. In those days there were a chief magistrate and jury running the island. Islanders had no taxes to pay but they gave one week’s labour out of every seven months to any public work that needed to be done. Before a person could settle on Norfolk, he needed to obtain the votes of two-thirds of everyone over 20 who could read and write, and the inhabitants were described as ‘very jealous of admitting people as members of their community’. Times have changed, and I now understand that some six-months residency is required and that somebody can move to Norfolk Island; it comes under the Australian Citizenship Act more broadly. Norfolk Island is the only non-mainland Australian territory to have achieved self-governance. The Norfolk Island Act, passed by the parliament of Australia in 1979, is the act under which the island is governed. The Australian government maintains authority through an administrator appointed by the Governor-General of Australia. Four of the members of the assembly form the executive council, which devises policy and acts as an advisory body to the administrator. This council is headed by the Chief Minister of Norfolk Island. There is no income tax on Norfolk Island; the legislative assembly raises money through a duty on imports. The Norfolk Island government introduced a goods and services tax that is designed to broaden the revenue base. The GST commenced at a rate of nine per cent on 2 April 2007. Considering that the GST has only been in place for 18 months, the full effect has probably yet to show in the Norfolk Island economy. You only have to flick through Norfolk Island’s telephone directory to realise what a unique place it is. Its phone book lists people by their nicknames. So many islanders share the same surname that it is easier to find them by the sometimes bizarre names their friends and family have given them. As the directory explains in the local creole, which is a mixture of old English and Tahitian words, the list helps you find people quickly by their nickname. Norfolk Islanders have demonstrated fierce independence over the years and even have their own customs service, stamps, international phone code and national anthem—God Save the Queen rather than Advance Australia Fair. I understand that being on the Australian electoral roll is not compulsory and that only about a hundred of the 1,800 residents are on one of our Australian electoral rolls. Australia is regarded by many islanders as a foreign country, and Australians have to bring their passports when they visit Norfolk Island. Government ministers, various parliamentary committees and visiting Australians, as well as the islanders themselves, have over a long time documented the challenges faced by the islanders, so small in number and so far away from mainland services, with limited options to raise sufficient revenue and diversify an economy largely dependent on tourism. As one sentiment was expressed to me recently, everyone wants to reform Norfolk Island but the Norfolk Islanders just want to be left alone. There have been a number of reviews and economic feasibility studies. The November 2005 report by the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories suggests—and I emphasise suggests:  … the only sustainable alternative left for the people of Norfolk Island is the adoption of the taxation and welfare system of the Commonwealth of Australia. The minister has stated: The government takes the view that the model cannot be sustained in its present form— and that a ‘growing proportion’ of citizens are ‘significantly disadvantaged in comparison’ to other citizens. He mentions, by comparison, a lower minimum wage on Norfolk than on the mainland and a lower threshold where eligibility for the pension cuts out. Given the non-taxed and barter nature of the economy, I do not know that these points are necessarily critical to the argument, but what I would say is that we must ensure as an Australian government that health needs, security, child welfare and care of the aged, disabled and vulnerable is provided on Norfolk Island to a standard that is acceptable to Australians generally. I appreciate that there is a difference between rural and remote areas and our major cities in Australia, but standards of health and welfare should be broadly comparable with the rest of Australia. The minister has quoted the Hon. Grant Tambling and his remark that there is an ‘urgent need of governance reform’. As he is the island’s most recent former administrator, from 2003 to 2007, Mr Tambling’s views are relevant. In his submission to the Senate Select Committee on State Government Financial Management, he states:  … the island’s small population base (of now less than 1,800 permanent residents) constrains development opportunities and compounds problems caused by the community’s age-ing profile and international globalisation. Mr Tambling believes:  … good governance … will only be achieved by aggressive and innovative actions in both public and private sectors. If Norfolk Island were to receive funding according to the Commonwealth Grants Commission formula then they would, on a per capita basis, be much better off than they are now, when they receive only project support. The opposition recognise the need for the Australian government to address the issues raised by previous committees concerning the sustainability of the Norfolk Island economy in the long-term interests of its people. I will not go so far as to describe it as heading towards being a ‘failed state’, as others have been quoted as saying. We look forward to further detail that the government may produce following both the minister’s visit to the island and the external territories committee’s visit. It is important that this process not be rushed. The government will, I am sure, carry out sound consultations with the island’s residents and will also recognise the considerable expertise within this parliament from previous ministers for the territories and members of relevant House and other standing committees: I name the Chief Opposition Whip; the member for Hinkler, who has a longstanding interest and is a member of the committee; Senator Ian Macdonald of Queensland; and, of course, the member for O’Connor. A pragmatic approach does need to be taken, but this approach must be in the best interests of the islanders. We should all support the unique and special culture and history of Norfolk Island—as someone recently said to me, you cannot help but fall in love with the geography and heritage of the place—while reaffirming that no citizen of Norfolk should suffer financial and economic disadvantage just because they are resident there and not on the mainland. If—and it is early days in the debate—the decision is made to bring Norfolk Island in line with Australian tax and welfare systems, we should take a gradual approach and phase in new systems of governance, funding and taxation in order to avoid external shocks to the community and not disrupt the way of life or the expectations of Norfolk Islanders. But, as I said, it is only very early in the debate. It is the next generation of islanders whom we must look after. If the roads and buildings are in dire need of repair and renovation, services to the citizens are deteriorating, and workplace health and safety and welfare are a cause for concern, then let us put Norfolk Island on a sustainable basis for those who are children today but will be the community leaders of the next generation. 56 Matters of Public Importance 56 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Aston proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The Government’s introduction of a new tax on deposits which has created unnecessary confusion and disruption in financial markets and to deposit holders including small business, self-funded retirees, farmers and householders 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— Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 15:45:00 —I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question put. 15:50:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr KJ Thomson) 70 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 54 Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 57 Bills S645 57 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 57 Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond —Minister for Ageing) 15:55:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 57 Bills R3066 57 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 57 Mrs ELLIOT (Richmond —Minister for Ageing) 15:56:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 57 Bills R3087 57 Bill returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. 57 Debate resumed. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Cook has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 57 15:57:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —The National Rental Affordability Scheme Bill 2008 gives legislative effect to the Australian government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme. This scheme is a key element of the government’s $2.2 billion affordable housing package that was announced in the May budget. Implementation of the other parts of the government’s housing agenda is well underway. In recent weeks the government has launched the first expression of interest round for the $512 million Housing Affordability Fund. Banks have started offering new first home saver accounts—a $1.2 billion initiative that will help aspiring homebuyers to save for their first home—and the response has been much greater than anticipated by those institutions. A Place to Call Home projects have been announced with the Victorian and Tasmanian state governments, with more states to follow soon. These are projects that will provide homes for homeless people. The government has also announced changes to the first home owners grant that will provide a $1.5 billion stimulus to the housing market, shoring up confidence at a time of global economic turmoil. This shows that housing is central to the Rudd government’s social and economic policy agenda. Our commitment to housing did not happen by accident. We listened to builders, we listened to local government, we listened to community groups and to ordinary Australians who are doing it tough. Everybody was saying the same thing: that housing policy had been ignored at a federal level for way too long, that boosting housing supply is a crucial part of responsible economic management and that access to secure and affordable housing is fundamentally important to the everyday lives of all Australians. This stands in stark contrast to the previous government, which believed that housing was something that should be left to the market alone. They did not believe that the Commonwealth had any role in housing, apart from allocating an ever-diminishing pool of funding to the states and territories for public housing and supported accommodation. Yet the history of Australian housing policy tells us a different story. At various times when housing has represented a challenge for the economy or for the welfare of Australians, governments of all persuasions have shown leadership. In the 1940s Australia was faced with the need for housing for ex-servicemen and the legacy of high rates of evictions and homelessness from the 1930s. John Curtin and Ben Chifley initiated a Commonwealth role in housing that became the first Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement in 1945, providing for the first time decent housing for working people, security of tenure and affordability. From the mid-1950s the housing policy of the Menzies government was focused on homeownership. This was the era where the great Australian dream was born, a vision of a better life for families through homeownership leading to success and security. That vision was driven by national leadership. By the 1970s urban sprawl had created new problems associated with a lack of social and economic infrastructure in our outer cities. In consequence, the Whitlam government appointed Tom Uren as the Minister for Urban and Regional Development. Tom had a mandate to look at urban design and the connection between housing and transport, between services and communities. Again, Commonwealth leadership focused resources on achieving the housing outcomes required for the day. By the 1980s the Australian economy was open to the world and the housing market matured like any other. New programs emerged to ensure the cycles of the market supported the best outcomes for Australians and to moderate the impact of the market on those who were most vulnerable. Commonwealth rent assistance was established to support people on very low incomes. The Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement provided more funds for mortgage assistance schemes to support greater homeownership among lower income earners and to increase the supply of social housing. Perhaps most significantly the Hawke government established an entire service system to tackle homelessness with the first supported accommodation assistance program. But Labor’s reformist tradition goes well beyond housing. The Chifley Labor government created the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme, a massive infrastructure project that helped to drive the post-war economic boom. The Whitlam Labor government first introduced universal health care to Australia through Medibank. The Hawke Labor government introduced compulsory superannuation. And it is the Rudd Labor government that is now showing leadership in the area of housing through housing measures totalling $3.7 billion. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is the first major housing intervention in over a decade. For the first time in a decade the Commonwealth is engaged in the housing market, putting forward a solution to the critical undersupply of affordable rental housing for low- and moderate-income Australians and their families. The most recent inflation figures further confirm the critical need for this scheme. The figures show that rents are a major driver of inflation. They show that rents in our capital cities increased by 8.2 per cent in the 12 months to September 2008. There are now 1.1 million Australian households in housing stress, with nearly 700,000 of these households being renters. The situation is having an enormous impact on families, on key workers, on young people and on pensioners, and the key to rising rents is the lack of supply of affordable rental properties. The government’s National Rental Affordability Scheme tackles this supply issue head on. Of course it is not an instant solution to the high cost of rents that we have seen in recent years. Nothing is an instant solution in the area of housing affordability, but this is a sensible scheme designed to draw investment into the affordable rental area and to increase supply over time. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is a supply-side measure that will see an increase of 50,000 affordable rental properties over the next four years. If there continues to be a demand, the government will expand the scheme with 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. The scheme will also create a new asset class for institutional investors in affordable residential housing. It will encourage many institutional investors to enter the residential market for the first time. The incentives are intended to leverage private sector investment of up to $13 billion over the next four years. More than 1½ million low- and moderate-income households will be eligible to rent the dwellings at a 20 per cent discount on market-rate rents. These households will include key workers such as entry-level police officers or teachers, carers, apprentices, cleaners, hospitality staff or childcare workers. Under the scheme there is a new opportunity for all levels of government, the business sector and not-for-profit organisations to work creatively together to improve the supply of affordable rental housing. The rental incentive will be paid either as a refundable tax offset or as a direct payment. The direct payment arrangement for the not-for-profit sector reflects the government’s strong support for the work of the sector. Its involvement is so important to the successful implementation of this scheme. Under the right circumstances not-for-profit groups could be tenancy managers, developers in their own right or owners of these dwellings as well as members of consortiums. Their participation is to be encouraged. The participation of both investors and the not-for-profit charitable sector and the partnership between investors and charities are crucial to this scheme’s success. The National Rental Affordability Scheme will be given effect through regulation. This arrangement gives the Commonwealth vital flexibility to address changing circumstances and to ensure the scheme continues to meet its objectives in the most efficient way. Because this is such a new approach in the Australian context—and, indeed, a new approach internationally—I expect that over time it will require some finetuning, and we will continue to talk with community housing organisations, charities, builders, developers, financial institutions and other potential investors. I want to thank these interlocutors for their help to date. It has been a terrifically productive process bringing this National Rental Affordability Scheme into being. We have had enormous support from the housing summit group and all its members and enormous support from the staff of the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. My own staff have made an enormous effort in this area as well. I want to thank each of the participants in the development of this scheme and in the finetuning of the legislation. A draft of the proposed regulations was released 10 days ago to assist members and senators to understand the scope and operation of the scheme. The detail of these regulations directly addressed some of the points that have been raised by the many speakers that we have had on this bill. Many speakers talked about the possibilities of this scheme delivering enhanced sustainability outcomes, and indeed reducing greenhouse gas emissions and improving sustainability is a national priority for the Australian government. We have set a target to reduce Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions by 60 per cent on 2000 levels by 2050. We are introducing a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to commence in 2010, and we are also developing a national strategy for energy efficiency across all governments to accelerate energy efficiency efforts. The strategy will also help households and business prepare for the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The National Rental Affordability Scheme is consistent with the government’s policy direction on climate change and on energy efficiency. Sustainability is one of the five criteria against which all applications for incentives under the scheme will be assessed. Dwellings which have building and design features that reduce carbon emissions and reduce energy and water costs for tenants will be assessed more favourably under this scheme. The scheme also allows for the redevelopment of existing but uninhabitable stock. This could apply to many of the independent living units which have fallen into disrepair and have been uninhabitable for some time. This kind of stock, which is often well located, could be redeveloped under the scheme for use by older people and people with disabilities. It is important to point out that one of the criteria for assessing applications is whether the proposal delivers accessibility outcomes. Proposals to build new houses for rent that are appropriate for ageing Australians and people living with disabilities will also be favourably assessed under this scheme. There is nothing in the bill or the regulations to prevent small proposals of 20 dwellings or larger proposals of 100 or more dwellings. Smaller infill and brownfield developments are possible and in fact encouraged by the scheme’s design. In the great traditions of Labor governments, the National Rental Affordability Scheme is an ambitious and innovative approach to reducing the numbers of Australians living in rental stress. We will review the scheme earlier in its implementation to ensure that it continues to meet its twin objectives: to reduce rental stress and increase the supply of affordable rental housing. With these bills, the government is delivering on one of its most ambitious housing reforms: the establishment of the National Rental Affordability Scheme. The scheme will make a fundamental difference to Australians who are doing it tough in the private rental market. I commend the bill to the House. Question put: That the words proposed to be omitted (Mr Morrison’s amendment) stand part of the question. 16:14:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr KJ Thomson) 69 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bradbury, D.J. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. * George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Zappia, A. 54 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Neville, P.C. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 5 Bowen, C. Gash, J. Ellis, A.L. Hockey, J.B. Hayes, C.P. Scott, B.C. Kelly, M.J. Slipper, P.N. Vamvakinou, M. Tuckey, C.W. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 60 Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 16:18:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 60 Bills R3086 60 Bill returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. 60 Debate resumed. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The question is that this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 60 Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 16:20:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 60 Committees 60 60 60 16:20:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I present the report of the Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests on the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May 2008 and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson on 29 May 2008. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —I seek leave to make a short statement. Leave granted. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —This report relates to a reference from the House on 17 June 2008 that asked the committee to examine the issue of the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi on 28 May 2008 and the subsequent withdrawal and apology by the member for Robertson on 29 May 2008. In examining the circumstances of the exchange and subsequent withdrawal, the committee invited submissions from the member for Robertson, the member for Indi, the member for Canberra and the member for Maranoa, all of whom were present during the exchanges in the Main Committee on 28 May 2008 referred to in the reference. The member for Indi and the member for Canberra made submissions, and there was correspondence with the member for Robertson. The committee obtained a variety of records from Hansard relating to the proceedings in the Main Committee during the period of the exchanges on 28 May 2008. The committee also obtained and viewed a DVD recording of the relevant proceedings in the Main Committee and the member for Robertson’s withdrawal on 29 May 2008. The committee provided copies of the evidence it had received to the member for Robertson and the member for Indi and invited them to make any comments on the material. Both members submitted responses. As the House Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests, the committee is essentially concerned with matters which may constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt. Unusually, this reference did not come to the committee as an alleged breach of privilege or a contempt; rather, it was referred as a series of events for the committee’s review. The committee has considered that, in being asked by the House to review this series of events, its role was to assess whether there was a breach of privilege or a contempt that arose from the events and whether the committee had any other relevant comments to make about the events. The only potential matter of privilege arising from the events referred by the House is a question of possible deliberate misleading of the House by the member for Robertson in denying that she made certain statements in the Main Committee. Deliberate misleading of the House of Representatives can be regarded as a contempt, although, as House of Representatives Practice notes, there have not been any findings of contempt for deliberate misleading to date. In the events which the committee has reviewed, the member for Robertson clearly made offensive personal comments outside the formal proceedings of the Main Committee to the member for Indi in terms recorded in the report. The member for Robertson was asked by the member for Indi to withdraw the comments because she found them offensive. The member for Robertson denied that specific comments were made and refused on two occasions to withdraw. The member for Robertson explained in her submission that the words the member for Indi claimed she had stated were not accurate and that all the words had not been recorded, as the member for Robertson was not speaking into a microphone. In denying that she had made comments in the precise terms alleged by the member for Indi, the member for Robertson had not been deliberately misleading such that it would give rise to a contempt; however, the committee notes that comments of a very similar nature to those raised by the member for Indi had been made by the member for Robertson. The member for Robertson’s withdrawal in the House on the following day was an acknowledgement by the member that she had made comments of that general nature. The member for Robertson’s remark during the withdrawal—that ‘the comments were not completely accurate’—is, strictly speaking, also correct and hence not deliberately misleading such that it would give rise to a contempt. In drawing its conclusion on the matter of privilege, the committee is constrained by the very tight interpretation that surrounds a finding of deliberate misleading. The committee concludes that the member for Robertson did not deliberately mislead the Main Committee and the House such that it would give rise to a possible contempt; hence no breach of privilege arises from the exchange between the member for Robertson and the member for Indi. However, the committee observes that the member for Robertson’s responses in the Main Committee fell well below the standards expected of a member and do not reflect well upon her. The committee noted in the report the specific comments made as interjections by both the member for Indi and the member for Robertson in the Main Committee on 28 May 2008. The committee also notes that there were other exchanges between the two members, although these were not audible on tape or picked up by Hansard staff logging the proceedings. In this case, both members involved were on duty as whips in the Main Committee, imposing a particular responsibility on them to behave appropriately. While the exchanges do not give rise to any issues of privilege, the committee considers that the terms used by the members and the tenor of the exchange fall well below the standards expected of members and do not reflect well upon them. The committee notes the provisions of standing order 92(a)(i): The Speaker can intervene: (i) to prevent any personal quarrel between Members during proceedings … The committee also notes that it is usual, where the chair asks for a withdrawal because another member has found words offensive, as happened in the Main Committee, that the chair insists on a withdrawal regardless of the circumstances. Members are expected to cooperate with the requests of the chair in such situations. The member for Robertson should have cooperated with the request of the chair and withdrawn at the time. Had she done so, this matter would most likely have gone no further. After the committee had concluded its draft report on the inquiry, in accordance with its procedures it provided a copy to the member for Robertson and the member for Indi and invited them to make submissions before it presented the report. The member for Robertson made a submission which the committee considered before concluding the final report. In her submission the member for Robertson raised two substantive matters as well as a number of more minor matters. The two substantive issues raised by the member for Robertson were the issue of the jurisdiction and mandate of the committee under standing order 216 to assess and comment on a member’s conduct in proceedings in the House beyond whether there was a breach of privilege or contempt and the issue of whether the committee failed to provide procedural fairness. The committee does not accept either of these substantive issues. In relation to the issue of jurisdiction, the committee notes that the reference was made to the committee by the House, that it was broad in scope and that committees of privileges have in the past reported on matters arising during or as a consequence of their inquiries. In relation to the issues of procedural fairness, the committee has, in accordance with its own published procedures, outlined in some detail in the report the process by which it has proceeded in this inquiry. It considers that this has given all those involved with the inquiry the opportunity to make submissions and representations to the committee throughout the inquiry. The committee sought advice from the Clerk of the House on these substantive issues, and the Clerk’s advice supported the committee’s view. The actions of the members involved in this case raise issues that are more to do with appropriate standards of behaviour and the conduct of members than to do with matters of privilege. While the standing orders cover most aspects of the behaviour of members when they are in the chamber and Main Committee and while they can be used to enforce appropriate standards of behaviour, there is no broader code of conduct to cover the conduct of members generally. The committee is aware of the work done in the early 1990s to develop a code on the standards of conduct expected of members and senators. However, this work was never brought to fruition. The committee considers that the issue of a code of conduct for members should be revisited. There are strong reasons for a code being established, not least of which are community expectations about appropriate standards of behaviour for members of parliament. The committee proposes to review the question of a code of conduct for members and report back to the House. 62 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 62 62 16:30:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I take this opportunity in this adjournment debate—and I thank my colleagues for allowing me to speak—to make comment on the report just tabled: the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee of Privileges and Members’ Interests. I thank the members of the committee. I do not envy the many hours and perhaps the conversations and phone calls that they may have had with regards to their deliberations. It is not an easy job to sit on these committees. The two essential matters that arise from this report are the findings of fact and the conclusion. I am very pleased to say that the findings of fact determine, as set out in paragraph 1.15, that the member for Robertson had said to me, ‘Your child’— QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price —I am reluctant to interject, but it is suggested that members of the committee indulged in telephone calls in pursuit of their duty— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is not a point of order. There are other forms that can be used in the House to clarify that remark. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs MIRABELLA —It is not for me to comment on what conversations may or may not have taken place, but I do not envy any members if they did have conversations with or received pressure from other quarters. This is not beyond the realms of possibility. In the event that they did happen, I do feel sorry for them. There are two important elements. The first, the finding of fact, is outlined in paragraph 1.15: The Member for Robertson, in a reference clearly made to the Member for Indi who was heavily pregnant, said, as recorded by Hansard and noted by the Member for Indi: “Your child will turn into a demon if you have such evil thoughts” “You’ll make your child a demon. You’ll make your child a demon” “Evil thoughts make a child a demon”. The other finding of fact was what I had said, and is outlined in paragraph 1.15: ... the audio of the exchange only reveals the question ‘Are you a man hater?’. and, in paragraph 1.16: ‘How can you say that?’ which was of course in reference to those particular comments. The other important element of the report that I would like to draw the House’s attention to is the conclusion. The whole reason for this committee’s deliberations—the reasoning, the discussions, the debates, the legal opinions—all resulted in this one conclusion in paragraph 1.25. Of course, we have heard that: the Committee is constrained by the very tight interpretation that surrounds a finding of deliberate misleading. It goes on to say: However, the Committee observes that the Member for Robertson’s responses in the Main Committee fall below the standards expected of a member and do not reflect well upon her. I thank the committee for having the courage to make those comments. I am sure that the people of Robertson and the people of Australia will make a judgement upon these matters. QI4 Price, Roger, MP Mr Price interjecting— 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs MIRABELLA —I can understand why there are some in the Labor Party who want to create some position of moral equivalence, as if to say that my comment ‘How can you say that?’ and my question ‘Are you a man hater?’ equate to the comments made by the member for Robertson. It is such a desperate, desperate attempt to try to protect the member for Robertson. I do not know why they want to; she is hardly a jewel in the crown of the New South Wales Labor Party. But that is their choice. It was recorded in the report in paragraph 1.19, that: The only potential matter of privilege arising from the events referred by the House is a question of possible deliberate misleading of the House by the Member for Robertson in denying that she made certain statements in the Main Committee. The Member for Indi acknowledges this point in her submission. In other words, the main purpose of the committee’s deliberations was to determine whether there was a possible misleading of the House. That arose out of the comments made by the member for Robertson, my subsequent request for a withdrawal and a denial of those comments being made. No-one else denied making comments. No-one else was asked to withdraw any comments. This committee deliberated on the question of the possible deliberate misleading and found, on a very tight interpretation, that there was not a deliberate misleading. So let me remind those members: the Australian public knows what you are trying to do and they will pass— (Time expired) 63 63 16:35:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —Today in the adjournment debate I would like to inform the House that on Tuesday, 21 October I had the privilege of meeting with the Asian Women at Work Action Group. Debbie Carstens, the development officer, and eight other women came to talk to me about their own personal issues in the workplace and those of the many coworkers of theirs who have suffered similar mistreatment. The group provides critical outreach services for Asian women working in some of Australia’s key service delivery industries, including clothing, cleaning, restaurants, metalwork, furniture, food, aged care, packing, meat work and, of course, the textile industry. The group is predominantly comprised of Asian women who work tirelessly to both empower and support fellow Asian women workers, many of whom are migrants and are very new to Australian society. They told me that since the introduction of Work Choices their voice and their rights in the workplace had been severely reduced and, in some cases, the employment relationship was on the level of a master-servant relationship. The group provides English classes, outreach services that will actively seek Asian women out in their places of work, along with regular support meetings, seminars and social activities to combat social alienation. A very wide range of referral and casework activity is also offered to help Asian working women through matters of workers compensation, domestic violence, workplace issues and family law issues, just to name a few. Speaking to the action group, I learned first-hand of the plight of so many of the women they help. These are often some of the most vulnerable women in the workforce, who face many challenges every day just in going to work and trying to earn a dollar to make a living. They commonly battle long-term poverty, along with, especially, language barriers, social alienation and stigmatisation. Many battle forms of physical and mental abuse, leading to depression. The group was particularly concerned that migrant workers should be fully informed of their workplace rights and of the remedies available when things are not right. In many cases, a language problem hinders their ability to be informed. Not only do many of these workers not have English as a first language; many of them do not speak English at all. Despite urgently needing help, many simply do not know where to go for it. Many may simply be too scared to go to their boss, for any issue, through fear of losing their job. So, for a new immigrant, simply knowing where to go to access government and community support is nigh on impossible. For some, the language barrier is just too high. All of this all adds up to an enormous lack of negotiating power when chasing employment and securing basic workers rights when in employment. Many of these poor women often experience significant forms of injustice and exploitation in the workplace, like being forced to work horrendously long and punishing hours in very physically demanding, repetitive jobs. They work extremely long days, with little respite and very little pay for their long hours. Many of us know these workplaces as ‘sweatshops’ and some of us call their employees ‘outworkers’. Many of these workplaces are unregulated, extremely dangerous environments where the incidence of injury is extremely high. In many cases, it is outright criminal. The group has a firm commitment to standing up for the rights of these women so that they are given a fairer go in Australian society and are able to gain access to information, resources, relationships and improved self-confidence. Many new migrant women, often here in search of a better life and to gain access to the fundamental things in life—a job, economic security and inclusion in their new society—find it a very lonely, daunting and stressful experience. The group presented me with an extremely moving publication titled 20 Women, 20 Stories, which documents the real-life stories of 20 such women, each dealing with a different challenge in their workplace. The book gives Asian working women a new voice to government and our community at large that they are skilled and dedicated workers who are treated as second-class citizens and who deserve better. In each of these 20 scenarios, the group offers a response, a solution, that gets to the heart of an effective resolution of that particular issue. All 20 stories happened to real working women and carry 20 tales for other women to relate to. They book highlights their plight and offers critical lessons to other working women. 64 64 16:40:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I was contacted only yesterday by the son-in-law of a significantly ill woman who is and has been treated for two weeks by the Gold Coast Hospital. Obviously any stay in hospital is regrettable and one would hope that the hospital would be doing all it could for the health of their patient. Yet this gentleman had some disturbing news. His doctor informed him that the quality of the food being served at the hospital was actually having a negative impact on his mother-in-law’s health and, for her to have the best chance of recovery, the doctor advised this gentleman to organise family members to bring in food. This woman, as all patients at the Gold Coast Hospital currently are, was being fed sandwiches. Gold Coast Hospital food service workers are engaged in industrial action, perhaps just short of a strike, where they are refusing to serve any food other than wholemeal sandwiches. For a patient’s loved ones to be charged with supplying adequate food to someone in care is something straight out of the Third World and not expected on the Gold Coast. So why are we in this situation? The state Labor government has failed to negotiate with the Queensland Public Sector Union for a reasonable level of pay for their workers. The state Labor government has offered a wage increase that is under the rate of inflation. The Australian Workers Union says the work bans will remain in place until there is a satisfactory outcome for members. On the Gold Coast, we have a fair expectation of high-quality public health care. The Queensland Labor government has let us down. Having the union movement holding desperately ill patients to ransom is appalling. While at any other time food quality for patients would seem an issue of priority, as it should be, the sad fact is that this issue has not garnered much media attention at all. The reason, it would seem, is the comparable number of horror stories we have already seen in our health system, which continue to mount: the elderly waiting for hours in emergency room corridors, mistakes made due to the overworking of staff and the whole Dr Patel saga. Last week I was emailed by a woman who only two days before her hip replacement surgery was supposed to occur was tossed from the queue without a new appointment. The Gold Coast Hospital has the third-highest number of people admitted to hospital in Queensland, over 17,000. It services the most people in Queensland of any emergency department, over 26,000, which is 30 per cent more than the number of people at the next highest hospital, Royal Brisbane. The Gold Coast Hospital performed 2,650 elective surgeries, coming third after Royal Brisbane and Princess Alexandra hospitals. According to Queensland Health’s March quarterly service report, right now in Queensland there are just over 36,000 people on waiting lists for elective surgery and 159,000 people waiting to get on the waiting list. Leaked Queensland Health data on Queensland’s biggest emergency departments show that, in the last five years, the number of sick people waiting more than eight hours in the Queensland government’s emergency queues has doubled, under a Labor government’s watch. ‘Access block’ is the term that describes the delay that patients who need to be admitted to hospital experience in the emergency departments when their in-patient bed is not available. Queensland Health’s access block data count the number of seriously ill people who wait eight or more hours. The Australasian College for Emergency Medicine likens the growing emergency department crisis to the national road toll, with recent studies showing a 20 to 30 per cent mortality rate caused by access block and emergency department overcrowding—about 1½ thousand deaths per year at 2003 levels of access block. This is the report card of the Queensland Labor government. The Gold Coast emergency department is at crisis point, with 27 per cent of emergency department patients in access block in 2004, growing to 44 per cent in the 2007-08 financial year. Forty-four per cent of the people who walk, crawl or are carried into the emergency department at the Gold Coast Hospital are lying on trolleys or stretchers for over eight hours, when the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine says that you have a 20 to 30 per cent higher chance of dying. In the last 10 years Queensland Health have reduced the number of hospital beds from 10,809 to 10,304, which is 575 fewer beds. Of those, 1,370, or about 14 per cent, are not actually beds—they are chairs, trolleys, cots, stretchers and lounge suites. That is the report card of the Queensland Labor government. It is absolutely and utterly appalling. Queensland Labor should be ashamed of it. The statistics speak for themselves. It is an absolute disgrace. It should not be allowed to occur and the Queensland state Labor government stands condemned by every single Queenslander that has to rely on such a dreadful, moribund system as that which Queensland Health has left them to fall into. (Time expired) 65 65 16:45:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —Tonight I want to talk about the release of the social expert panel report on the review of national drought policy. The social expert panel report was received by the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the Hon. Tony Burke MP, and was released to the public on 23 October 2008. The Australian government will utilise the panel’s report to inform its development of improved drought policy to help farm families, rural businesses and communities to better prepare for drought and a changing climate. The Australian government is committed to improving drought policy, with announcements expected to form part of the government’s 2009-10 budget. The report makes 37 recommendations. The recommendations are wide-ranging and aimed at Australian state and territory governments, as well as non-government organisations, farm families and rural communities. The report states that drought has negative impacts on the wellbeing of farm families and exacerbates underlying impacts arising from longer term socio-demographic trends that are contributing to decline for some rural populations. The report calls for a new national approach to living with drought rather than dealing with drought. It recommends that governments focus future policy on the social wellbeing of farm families, rural businesses and communities and improving their capacity to live with drought. It proposes that this be achieved through the encouragement of holistic planning, which includes family, personal and environmental considerations. It suggests that this constitute a prerequisite, or mutual responsibility, for government assistance. The report stresses the importance of the social wellbeing of farm families, rural businesses and communities and the role of governments to encourage them to improve their capacity to live with dry periods, noting that better social outcomes can provide better economic and environmental outcomes. The panel was appointed by Minister Burke on 2 June 2008. I thank Minister Burke for his leadership on this issue. I would like to thank the social panel members: Peter Kenny from Queensland, the past president of AgForce; Mal Peters from New South Wales; Professor Daniela Stehlik from Western Australia; Barry Wakelin from South Australia; Sue West from New South Wales; and Lesley Young from Tasmania. I take this opportunity to thank everybody else involved, including support staff. I thank the panel for visiting my electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland, an electorate with extensive farming interests and with businesses and communities which rely on those farming interests. I take this opportunity to thank the Rudd Labor government and Minister Burke for their leadership on this issue for rural and regional Australia, including the residents of my electorate of Flynn. The government is undertaking a major review of drought policy. The review has the support of the opposition and independent MPs. As I said earlier in this speech, this morning, 23 October, Tony Burke launched the social expert panel report. For the first time ever, the panel challenged us to look at drought policy differently. We need to reward those farmers who plan for the future. We need to be reminded that this review is about future droughts. Those individuals who are receiving assistance under the current rules will continue to receive assistance. This report has offered new pathways for us to look at better preparing our families for the next drought. 65 65 16:49:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —Concerns about the Joint Strike Fighter, the actions of its proponents and Australia’s plans to buy the troubled aircraft are continuing to deepen. I recently received a document prepared by the RAND Corporation think tank as part of a major US war games exercise, in which the JSF was pointedly criticised. The blunt assessment was that the JSF could not turn, could not climb and could not run. That is an assessment shared by many air combat experts around the world. The document’s findings were also supported by the results of the war games themselves. The RAND report, and some leaked details of the related Pacific Vision war games, held at Hickam Air Force Base in Hawaii, were released to the media by me in a bid to stimulate debate on what could be a disastrous purchase for Australia and may ultimately put at stake our very sovereignty. The storm of publicity predictably drew angry reactions from proponents of the projected US$500 billion project, particularly from the manufacturer, Lockheed Martin, some elements within the US defence department and even our own military, which apparently briefed the defence minister on the subject and told him the reports were false. RAND Corporation itself, whose Project Air Force section was behind the document, is funded by the US military and eventually issued a brief and puzzling statement denying reports on the matter but failing to address any of the substance. At the same time, the lead author of the report suddenly departed from RAND and had his email address cancelled and his biography removed from their website. The author, a very senior and highly respected analyst named John Stillion, had worked for RAND for many years and was one of the top staff at Project Air Force. His abrupt departure amid the controversy over his report raises some deeply disturbing questions. There are suggestions in some quarters that he was dismissed over the document and that his removal was ordered by the US military. I sincerely hope that this is not the case. My office contacted the head of Project Air Force and was told that Dr Stillion no longer worked there. No other information was provided. I should stress that Dr Stillion was not my source, regarding the document he wrote. I have never had any contact with him. With so much money and so many careers riding on this project, obviously criticism or even debate is unwelcome. If any forces within Australia wish to pursue a witch-hunt in a bid to stifle debate on this issue, then I have a warning: I will make it my personal duty to pursue those conducting the witch-hunt. I will not accept people taking such action for any reason other than the demonstrated national interest. The program general manager of the JSF project, Lockheed Martin President Tom Burbage, and the program executive officer within the USAF, Major General Charles Davis, intimated that those who released the RAND Corporation document and made statements about it had a vested interest. Well, that person is me, and I do have a vested interest. I want to ensure that Australia purchases the capability that it requires, not merely a capability it has been sold. I expect the Defence department or DSTO, or both, to have conducted their own studies comparing the JSF to the Russian-built Flankers that are beginning to proliferate in the region. Presumably those results would prove the same as those suggested by the RAND document. Have Defence done any such analysis? If so, what were the results of that analysis? If they have not, why not? The frantic reactions to reports on this subject—and I am aware there have been many aggressive and angry behind-the-scenes approaches, to journalists and others, as well as the public statements—would appear to prove that the criticism is justified. The planned JSF purchase would be central to Australia’s defence up to 2040, or even beyond. If the product is flawed, then our entire national security policy will be as well. And that is too important for us to ignore. We must serve the interests of Australian sovereignty and security, not the selfish interests of those who have tied their careers to this project, or the interests of a foreign corporation. 66 66 16:54:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to bring it to the House’s attention that this Saturday there will be the Relay for Life on the Central Coast. Some six or seven weeks ago, I had the privilege of meeting with the organisers of this event as well as a number of cancer survivors to talk about and to help to promote this year’s Relay for Life. The Relay for Life is about celebrating the fact that people have survived and moved on in terms of their cancer; but it is also a very sombre affair in that we mourn those who have passed away in their particular personal fight with cancer, which affects so many Australians. On the Central Coast there are over 1,895 people who are diagnosed with cancer every year—that works out to be five people a day on the Central Coast alone. Unfortunately, of those on the Central Coast who are diagnosed with cancer, 756 per year will die per year from some form of cancer. This is two per day. It is a disease that affects all sorts of people and a great number on the Central Coast, as it does around Australia. The Relay for Life, as well as commemorating and celebrating the lives of those who have passed away and celebrating those who have successfully fought cancer, raises money to help research into finding cures for the many cancers that exist and continue the plague our society. The target for the fundraising in this year’s Relay for Life is $170,000. I can say that we are very confident that that $170,000 will be raised, which will be a record amount. Already, before the relay has even started, some $40,000 has come in, and that is a record amount for this early stage. As well as the record amount of money coming in in relation to this great event, the number of people participating has greatly increased. One of the great things about people on the Central Coast is that they are prepared to get in and help those who are less well off than themselves. They have a great deal of community spirit and a great deal of sympathy for those who are doing it tough. This year, 133 clubs—which account for around 1,600 people—are participating in the relay. That compares with only 1,200 people last year, which was a record number that year. You can see that that is a significant number of additional people who will be participating in the Relay for Life this year on the Central Coast. A lot of work has gone into the organisation of this event, and there are two people that particularly need to be thanked for the work that they have done on the Central Coast. The first is Lesley Chart, from the Central Coast Cancer Council, who has done an absolutely tremendous job in bringing this event together. She has been able to promote the event so that there are more participants in it, more people being made aware of the risks of cancer and so that more help can be given to those who are suffering from cancer. The Central Coast has a particularly high level of melanoma cancers. We are a beach society where, in a typical Aussie sort of style, we go down to the beach and often forget to put on the sunscreen. It is events like this, leading into summer, that are just so important in having people recognise the risks that are there in terms of their behaviour. It encourages people to take some steps—by putting on sunscreen and making sure that they are covered up—to lessen the problem. The other person that I need to thank is John Millard from the Mingara Recreation Club which, once again, will be hosting this year’s Relay for Life. The Mingara Recreation Club has a very strong sense of community. It is a community-run club and it is appropriate that this is the club where this event is centred. This is a very worthwhile event. It is an event that the Central Coast community are supporting and I am proud to be associated with it. It is an event that we know will continue to go from strength to strength. Question agreed to. 67 16:59:00 House adjourned at 4.59 pm 67 Notices The following notice was given: 4V5 Moylan, Judi, MP Mrs Moylan to move—That the House: notes that: on 20 December 2006 a landmark decision was made by the United Nations General Assembly to adopt Resolution 61/225; the Resolution recognised the risks that diabetes and its complications pose to families, Member States and world health and was adopted by consensus; the Resolution declared 14 November as World Diabetes Day; this resolution joins HIV/Aids and Autism as the only diseases having their own resolutions and declared days of observation; an estimated 246 million people worldwide, in the age range from 20 to 79 years, have diabetes and this number is expected to grow by 44 per cent, reaching 380 million by 2025; each year 3.8 million adults die from diabetes related illnesses, representing one death every 10 seconds; an estimated 7.4 per cent of the Australian population has diabetes according to an AusDiab study in 2000; and according to an AusDiab study, in 2002 the social and medical costs of diabetes in Australia were estimated to total $6 billion annually; acknowledges the work of Professor Martin Silink AM MD FRACP, as President of the International Diabetes Federation and his colleagues world‑wide for their work to ensure that this United Resolution was carried; recognises that: in the catalogue of chronic illness, few conditions would be more needful of attention than the scourge of diabetes; the prevention and management of diabetes are the responsibility of the whole of society; parliaments should play a leading role in promoting community education and implementing effective policies and health-care for sufferers of this world-wide scourge; left undiagnosed and untreated, diabetes dramatically affects quality of life and shortens life span and its malevolent course inevitably leads to many serious associated health complications including heart disease, stroke, renal failure, limb amputation and blindness; and unless national governments act to deliver comprehensive policies, the implications for health budgets will be calamitous; and calls on the Government to: continue to make diabetes a National Health Priority; commission a Productivity Commission Report into the real and increasing cost of diabetes to the community; adequately fund best practice medicine for the treatment of diabetes; and continue to promote healthy lifestyle programs, especially targeted to children and young people. 2008-10-23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 68 Constituency Statements 68 68 09:30:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Scarborough Beach is on the Sunset Coast, only 15 minutes drive from the centre of Perth. It forms a natural border in the west of my electorate of Stirling. Many happy days are spent by Stirling residents—and, indeed, residents from across Perth—enjoying both the beach and the surrounding amenities. I cannot think of a more beautiful coastline anywhere in Australia. With the summer months approaching, the volunteer surf lifesaving staff at Scarborough Beach are doing increasingly important work, because they save lives. These dedicated people are vital in our community. As the vice-patron of the Western Australian surf lifesaving association and someone who has long been associated with their activities—particularly with the Scarboro Surf Life Saving Club and the Trigg Island Surf Life Saving Club, which is a little further north—I could not imagine the beaches without them. So it is with great anger and frustration today that I rise to talk about what can only be described as antisocial behaviour at its worst. I am deeply appalled by the actions of a few alcohol fuelled hoons last Sunday at Scarborough Beach. So violent was their behaviour against volunteer surf lifesavers who were trying to assist an underage drinker that they caused the surf lifesavers to fear for their lives and they were forced to abandon their posts. They were verbally abused and had empty bottles thrown at them. This is totally unacceptable behaviour towards any person, but to direct it at volunteer surf lifesavers truly beggars belief. Thank goodness there were no serious incidents in the water at that time, because quite frankly somebody could have drowned. It is critical that the hardworking volunteers are able to carry out their duties on their beaches during the summer months unimpeded by hoons and, quite frankly, idiots. It is the actions of a few people who spoil it for the majority of the law-abiding citizens and families who use the beaches in Stirling. It is even more distressing that this sort of behaviour is occurring more frequently. Crime is without a doubt one of the top issues of concern to my local community, and I am proud of our achievements—including $150,000 for CCTV cameras to be installed on Scarborough Beach. These will hopefully help to identify the hoons who use it as a racetrack and to prevent antisocial behaviour. I am pleased to be working with Liza Harvey, the new member for Scarborough, who secured during her own election campaign a commitment that an elected Liberal government would provide the local police with two quad bikes that could be utilised for beach patrols during the summer months. I welcome and wholeheartedly support the new state police minister, Rob Johnson. He has met with the police commissioner, Karl O’Callaghan, about the possibility of installing a new mobile policing unit at Scarborough Beach. I have written to the minister and offered my full support. We must do everything we can to stamp out this antisocial behaviour. 68 68 09:33:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP 1 0 Mr CLARE —Prime Minister John Curtin told the Australian parliament in 1942: Today as in 1915 men are dying so that the nation may live. There will come a new dawn, bringing with it peace and freedom for the peoples of the world, but we can reach it only by striving bravely through the storm and the blood and the grief of war. This was our darkest hour, the time of our greatest peril and our greatest generation. The first among them were men who stood tall in the mountains of the Owen Stanley Range. Our official war history, penned by Colonel F. Kingsley Norris, contains a stirring description of the track they fought along: Imagine an area of approximately 100 miles long … Cover this thickly with jungle, short trees and tall trees tangled with great entwining savage vines … through the oppression of this density cut a little native track two to three feet wide, up the ridges, over the spurs, around gorges and down across swiftly flowing happy mountain streams. Where the track clambers up the mountainsides, cut steps—big steps, little steps, steep steps—or clear the soil from the tree roots … Every now and then leave beside the track dumps of discarded putrefying food, occasional dead bodies, and human foulings. Fighting was tough. Success came at an enormous price: 625 Australians were killed in action on the track and more than 1,600 were wounded. Casualties due to sickness exceeded 4,000. Their sacrifices will never be forgotten. Every year there are fewer voices left to tell this story. It is important that this story is passed on to the next generation of Australians. That is why I have organised a special event, to be held at the Bankstown Town Hall on 18 November, for school students and members of the public to hear more about Kokoda. Peter Fitzsimons, author of the popular history of Kokoda, will speak. We will also screen a documentary. The cost of entry will be a gold coin donation to raise money for Legacy. It is hard for us who are born at a luckier time to truly understand what they endured or what was at stake. Events like this help. Another way is to make the trek from Owens Corner to Kokoda. Next year with my friend and colleague the member for Cook I will lead a group of young people along the track: young people from the beaches of Cronulla and young people from the streets of Bankstown—young people who have clashed in the past but who have more in common than they realise. Kokoda is the place to realise this. It is a place where character is formed and mateships are forged. It is a place where many lives were lost but something special was gained. It is a place that explains who we are as a nation, what Curtin called ‘forever the home of the Anzac people’—a nation worth fighting for. 69 69 09:36:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —One of the most traumatic events to see is the aftermath of a car accident—the human cost and the twisted metal wreckage smashed against fences, light poles or tangled with other cars. On Richmond Road in my electorate of Greenway last week I witnessed such a sight and the memory is still with me. Something has to be done about Richmond Road, not just at the intersection with Knox Street or the corner of St Marys Road, not just moving the speed zones from 80 kilometres to 60 kilometres an hour or from 70 kilometres to 90 kilometres and back to 80 kilometres an hour and not just having a speed camera that everyone knows is there and that people slow down for and then speed up after once they are beyond its reach. Real improvements need to be made to this road, which is the major thoroughfare between Blacktown and Richmond. Richmond Road needs to be upgraded to the standard of Windsor Road, upgraded to a dual carriageway to meet the needs of current and future users of the road. It is currently a goat track and has been for many years. I have had many complaints about Richmond Road. Almost every intersection has been a site for accidents, a number of which have been fatal. When a fatality occurs there is not just the loss of life; there is also the impact on the family, the extended family, the neighbourhood and the community. When is the New South Wales government going to stop taking the people of Western Sydney for granted and give them a decent road? How long do people have to wait for something to be done? Over 12 months ago I called on the state government to upgrade Richmond Road. Some roadworks are being done, but they are not enough and are not happening quickly enough. As the member for Greenway I travel the road frequently—daily when I am in the electorate—and have also experienced near-misses. In the next few years, land bordering the 27 kilometres of Richmond Road from the M7 overpass to Richmond will have an influx of new residents as suburbs like Marsden Park, Riverstone, Windsor Downs, Llandilo and South Windsor expand into populated suburbs. On behalf of my constituents in Greenway and all the people who travel Richmond Road, I call on the New South Wales government to take responsibility and to find a way to secure infrastructure funding to upgrade Richmond Road. This has to happen as soon as possible. Plans need to be put in place without delay, as one more accident is one too many, as the loss of one more life is one too many and as another family, another community and another neighbourhood impacted is one too many. 69 69 09:39:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise to talk about the important contribution of Filipino Australians in my local community. Filipinos are the fifth largest ethnic group in my electorate, with more than 1,300 people speaking a Filipino language at home. They represent a greater proportion of the population in the Penrith local government area than in the greater Sydney region as a whole. Accordingly, we have a vibrant local Filipino community that is deeply committed to embracing the values of Australia while at the same time working to preserve and promote their culture. A focal point for the local Filipino community has been the Philippine Language and Cultural Association of Australia, a not-for-profit organisation established in Penrith. PLCAA have driven a number of successful events over the past 18 months in Penrith and in the greater Western Sydney region to help educate young Filipinos about their cultural heritage and to extend to the broader community an opportunity to learn more about the Philippines. PLCAA’s vision is to develop the ability of Australian Filipinos to communicate in the Filipino language, to make Australian Filipinos appreciate the value of knowing their Filipino heritage and to assist their development as individuals so they take an active role in the community—and they are indeed taking an active role and making a strong investment in the education and development of young people in my community. Earlier this year, PLCAA organised a youth forum to help foster leadership among young Filipinos in our local area, at which I was honoured to be the guest speaker. In May this year the group opened a Saturday morning Penrith community Filipino school for young people aged 17 to 22 at the St Marys Senior Citizens Centre. Students are taught to converse in the Filipino language as well as traditional dances, music, crafts and cooking. The activities at the Saturday school are complemented by the Read Philippines Project, which was launched in Penrith in September last year. The project promotes greater understanding of Filipino culture through donations of Filipino and English language books and audiovisual material to the Penrith City Library. I acknowledge the hard work of all the members of the PLCAA, who have proven to be excellent ambassadors for the Filipino community and exceptional contributors to our broader community. I acknowledge the efforts of Penrith City Council in supporting the local Filipino community—in particular, former mayors Pat Sheehy and Greg Davies. Much of this activity has also been encouraged and supported by the Philippines Consulate General in Sydney and personally by Consul General Maria Theresa Lazaro, who has attended many of the events held in Penrith. I would like to express my gratitude to the Consul General for her generous support. Finally, I would like to note that the PLCAA are also leading the charge on a campaign for a social security agreement between the Philippines and Australia. This is something I have written to Minister Macklin about and will continue to advocate on. 70 70 09:42:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —There are many things that government can do and, more specifically, there are many things that MPs in this place can do. But, at the end of the day, we should never kid ourselves because the real answers to the issues and challenges in our communities are in the communities themselves. As members in this place we have a role to play in supporting and enabling our communities to provide the leadership, energy and innovation that will make all of our communities a better place to live and raise a family. I am pleased to report today on two initiatives in my southern Sydney electorate of Cook, in the Sutherland shire, where we are working to make that type of approach a reality—and earlier the member for Blaxland made a reference to one of them. Next July, I will be joining the member for Blaxland and young people from the surf clubs in the shire for a Kokoda trek. The trek follows on from something commenced by my predecessor, Bruce Baird, to build a relationship between the Sutherland shire and Bankstown. It is all about building trust and providing a very different future for the relationship between our communities, based on mutual respect and a shared commitment to our nation, its heritage and its values. Like many members, I was very moved by the Australian Story program last year about a young man who was very prominent in the revenge attacks in Sutherland shire and climbed the flagpole at the Brighton-Le-Sands RSL and tore down the flag. But he was transformed by his Kokoda trek. On that trek he learnt many lessons about what it means to be an Australian. That young man is now a shining example of what can be achieved through that process. The other thing I would like to draw the chamber’s attention to is the Cook Community Classic, which will be held on Sunday, 2 November. This is an initiative which brings together the four surf clubs in Bate Bay to support the charitable work of four very important youth charities in the shire—Camp Kookaburra, Kids Break Free, Jacaranda House and the Rainbow Club. All of these organisations do important work for young people in the Sutherland shire. The Cook Community Classic is a major surfboat marathon, a ski event, a surf carnival, a community fun day where everyone can get together and raise money to support the clubs, which provide real stability to young people in the shire. There are over 2,000 nippers in the shire who get out there every Sunday and learn the values of thinking about others and providing service to the community and getting all the benefits of fitness and health. They also go out and sell raffle tickets. I would encourage all in the shire to get out and support that event on Sunday week because every single cent raised is going to support those surf clubs and those charities. Those charities focus on supporting people with disabilities, young children who come from families with mental illness, kids dealing with homelessness problems, particularly young women, and kids dealing with substance abuse problems and general antisocial behaviour. It is a worthy initiative and I commend it to the House. 70 70 09:45:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I want to draw the attention of the parliament to some very important local events in my electorate. Four of my local schools are celebrating quite exceptional milestones. North Newtown Public School and Forest Lodge Public School are celebrating their 125th anniversaries, and Glebe Public School and Our Lady of Mount Carmel school in Waterloo are celebrating their 150th anniversaries. Reaching these milestones is a terrific achievement of course, but the day-to-day care and education that these schools give are an even greater achievement. These schools, along with others—Ultimo Public School, Darlington Public School and even my own daughter’s school, Darlinghurst—were all built at a time when there was a great push to provide education to inner city children, who were in those days often very poor children. The history of these schools servicing some of the most disadvantaged communities, as well as, these days, some of the wealthier communities, is quite interesting. This Saturday I will be launching the sesquicentenary celebrations for North Newtown Public School. Parents and teachers have been heavily involved in the preparation for this weekend’s event, and it is a terrific example of a school community that comes together for a common purpose. As part of the celebrations I have been asked to open a new school playground that has been made possible through federal government funding. Glebe Public School will celebrate their 150th anniversary in the first week of November. I am also very pleased to have been invited along to help them celebrate and I look forward to catching up with their local school community. Glebe has a particularly first-rate before and after school care program called Centipede, which has expanded the kids’ horizons by introducing a number of new sports that perhaps they would not otherwise have had access to. As I said, Forest Lodge Public School is celebrating its sesquicentenary and Our Lady of Mount Carmel is turning 150 this year, and I am going to join them next week for their 150th anniversary. Obviously the inner city has changed and the school communities that these schools serve have changed enormously over the years, but each of them continues to meet and exceed the expectations of their school communities and parents, and they provide wonderful care and education for our young people. I wish all of those schools and all of their students, their parents, their teachers and their school leaders all the very best for these important celebrations over this weekend and coming weeks. 71 71 09:47:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Today I raise the issue of the Martinet family of Noranda, a suburb in the electorate of Cowan, and the tragedy that has befallen Mrs Damiana Martinet. On 30 March 2007 Damiana underwent a straightforward operation to remove a brain tumour. She awoke well but some hours later developed a haemorrhage in her brain stem and cerebellum which caused her to become unconscious. According to neurosurgeon Dr Emil Popovic, Damiana has a devastatingly severe neurological deficit—in other words, she can do nothing for herself, not even breathe. She can apparently hear and understand everything but all she can do is blink her left eye. Her condition is called locked-in syndrome, and I imagine that it would be hell on earth. To be able to understand yet not be able to move or talk, to be able to feel an itch but not be able to scratch it—it is hard to imagine anything that is worse than this. The tragedy is not only Damiana’s story but also that of her husband, Alain, and daughter, Patricia. Both are now full-time carers. Alain, who is in his 50s, gave up his job as a sales manager, and Patricia, who is in her 20s, gave up a promising career as a junior corporate lawyer. They have no social lives; they have only a routine of looking after Damiana 24 hours a day and seven days a week. Every three hours, day and night, Damiana must be turned. The care she receives at home ensures that she does not suffer constant chest infections, airway blockages, pressure sores or bladder infections. In hospital the care was never constant and Damiana suffered from all these problems. She has been breathing via a tracheotomy tube since April 2007. The cost to the family of consumables is $40,000 per year. With the support of the state government and the family, the cost of home carers and domestic help is around $200,000 per year as well as the disability pension, two carers pensions and a carers allowance. This all demonstrates that care for Damiana constitutes a significant amount of money. The alternative that the Martinet family are seeking is treatment by the Special Access Scheme. They seek access to unapproved therapeutic goods in the form of treatment by Dr Geeta Shroff of India. Dr Shroff has offered to come to Perth and personally deliver treatment using stem cells. The family submitted an application under the Special Access Scheme, category B, seeking permission to have the treatment here. On 10 October, the family’s application was rejected; however, the neurosurgeon will apply again under category A, which deals with terminal illness or the likelihood of premature death. This is the Martinet family’s one hope for any sort of future. Any improvement in Damiana’s life will greatly help the family and I ask the Minister for Health and Ageing to do what she can to assist this family. I recently wrote to the Minister for Health and Ageing and I also spoke to her last week to seek an appointment. I now have a meeting with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Health and Ageing in November. On behalf of the Martinet family, I again strongly urge the minister to assist. 71 71 09:51:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —I rise this morning to talk about asbestos. There is no known safe level for any carcinogen. This means that it is not known at what minimum level of asbestos fibres in breathing space a person will be safe. In fact, there are known cases where trivial or bystander exposure has led to fatal disease. No-one argues that having more asbestos fibres resident in the lungs is better than having less. Whilst anyone could have amounts of asbestos fibres in their lungs right now, no expert in the world can tell me that one extra fibre entering my lung right now will not be the one to kill me. Consequently, every single such fibre must be regarded as guilty until proven innocent. The precautionary principle entails such a presumption of guilt. I would now add the principle of outcome responsibility. If you by accident step on a dog’s paw, almost instinctively you will say sorry to the dog. If he is injured, you will try to get the dog to a vet or otherwise help them back on their feet. But, given there is so much asbestos around the country in walls, in roofs, in backyard fibro sheds and in the dust blown from long-idle factories, why hasn’t anyone from the industry ever apologised to sick people, to people at risk of asbestosis, particularly those exposed in their younger years who are older now and to governments whose duty it is to police these dangers? By the mid-1960s the harm that asbestos caused was well known but asbestos kept being manufactured. In fact, 80 per cent of all the ACM manufactured around the world was manufactured between 1960 and 2003. How did they get away with this? They did it in a very cunning way. They used the campaign that generated promotable villains. They said: ‘It’s because you smoke; it’s because you don’t wash; it’s genetic. It’s not white asbestos; it’s that nasty blue asbestos.’ They were brilliantly chosen villains but none of them changed the fact that all asbestos of whatever kind is carcinogenic. Most research now shows that you do not need a high level of long-term exposure to contract asbestosis. A few high-level exposures at home may be enough. ILO statistics show that 100,000 people are dying from an asbestos disease around the world per year. That is in the order of one every five minutes. Some 50 companies in the US have sought legal protection from bankruptcy and there are thousands of legal cases on the books. We need to move away from the fraudulent risk assessment of ACMs, all of which condemn many people to further exposure, and to move to what I call a prioritised removal program. Whilst to prioritise will mean some risk assessment, the paradigm shift is towards removal and away from maintenance. It is high time we stopped bequeathing this horror as a time bomb from generation to generation. There are children not yet born who will die in agony as a result of our lazy and opportunistic decisions. Politics lacks courage here and industry does not want to know. This is one of the great remaining ugly secrets of the 20th century haunting and stalking our children and us into the 21st. (Time expired). 72 72 09:54:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I am 34 years old and have the great privilege of representing the people of Moncrieff. I have lived, I must say, in relative terms, a very good life. I raise this matter because recently I received a letter from a 34-year-old constituent in my electorate. His name is Austin Canty. He wrote to me seeking desperate help to assist him with his conditions. Ever since he was born, Austin Canty has endured cerebral palsy. When he was 16 he was also diagnosed with dystonia, a disease which has no cure at this point in time and which presents him with incredible pain. He wrote to me because he is seeking assistance and support and for the Australian government to work to ensure that a website is set up on dystonia, to help find a cure and to help alleviate his pain. To read Austin’s letter is to be touched by a person who, despite incredible lifetime adversity, is doing what he can to help others. Austin Canty’s family moved from New South Wales to Queensland seeking warmer weather in the hope that, in that warmer weather, he may in some way see the alleviation of some of his pain. As a result of his dystonia, a disease of the brain, he is on heavily prescribed medication. He is a difficult patient to deal with, as he himself acknowledges. He has said many times that he feels as if he has been a guinea pig while they have researched and attempted to find out what they could about dystonia. He is required regularly to travel to New South Wales because there is not the level of expertise and specialisation in Queensland that he seeks. His rehabilitation specialist in New South Wales has provided their personal phone number to ensure that he has access to them at any time that he needs it. He has had great support from friends and family. His parents, now ageing, are both pensioners and he has realised that it is exceptionally difficult for them, although of course they must have such magnificent hearts and such magnificent motivation to support their son. His former specialist, Professor Lance of the Prince of Wales Hospital in Sydney, who recently retired, attempted to do what he could in researching dystonia, but what is clear is that this is a relatively young man who does need support and help. He has written to the Prime Minister, to the Queensland health minister and to me as his local federal member, and I am certainly pleased to rise in the chamber this morning to talk about this young man’s experiences and to provide whatever bipartisan support can be made available to ensure that there is more research on, more support for and more understanding of dystonia and the unbelievable pain that it forces on those afflicted with it. I would urge the Rudd Labor government to work towards ensuring that resources are provided to this young man so that he can enjoy the life that lies ahead of him. I seek leave to table a copy of the letter that he sent to me. Leave granted. 72 72 09:57:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —Yesterday I had the privilege of coming across a former member of this House, the former member for Cowan, a friend of mine who is now the patron of the Australian Network to Ban Landmines. Graham Edwards reminded me yesterday of the cause inside the AusAID Mine Action Strategy and the need to increase and continue funding to this very worthy cause. I am reminded, too, that several constituents in my electorate have approached me to support such increased funding, and that is what I would like to do today. The Australian Network to Ban Landmines welcomes the fact that the Australian government committed over $100 million to mine action in the decade from 1996 to 2005 and $75 million in the period 2006 to 2010. What they are calling for is for $100 million to be granted between 2011 and 2015 for this very important cause. The Rudd government, as people here will be aware, has made a very welcome commitment to increase overseas development aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015, and this will make an increase in the commitment to the AusAID Mine Action Strategy affordable. Funding for mine action has support from the Australian population and across all parties in the federal parliament, but I would remind members—as I have been reminded by my constituents—that, while the annual number of casualties from landmines and explosive remnants of war continues to decrease as a result of the impact of the 1997 Ottawa convention, the total number of landmine survivors continues to increase. Indeed, the last Landmine Monitor report stated that there are an estimated 470,000 landmine survivors in the world today that need ongoing assistance. Further, there are 84 countries affected by antipersonnel mines and unexploded ordnances, with an estimated 200,000 square kilometres of contaminated area needing to be cleared. Funding to assist landmine survivors provides services to people with disabilities, generally in countries where such services are often highly neglected. I support this very worthy cause. I support the Australian Network to Ban Landmines, the AusAID Mine Action Strategy and an increase in funding to support this very worthy cause. 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. 73 Bills S647 73 Debate resumed from 22 October, on motion by Mr Byrne: That this bill be now read a second time. 73 10:00:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I am pleased to rise to speak on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. Before entering parliament, in one of my past lives I was closely associated with radio, both commercial and community, in my role as the Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Independent Record Labels. We had real concern about the capacity of commercial and community radio to act as a communication channel for local Australian artists. I also served on national committees in various areas of community radio and worked with community radio stations all round Australia on the promotion of Australian music through that medium. When discussion first began some 10 years ago about the introduction of digital radio and how that would affect the operation of radio in Australia, we had mixed views, I have to say. On the one hand we recognised that digital radio provides many additional benefits to listeners—in particular, better quality of sound, better reception and a more efficient use of spectrum—but we were concerned that, in the switch-on of digital to run alongside analog, the capacity of the new technology be used to increase diversity and the interests of smaller broadcasters be protected through that changeover period. This bill deals with the introduction of digital radio to operate, as it will, alongside analog radio, and essentially it eases many of the concerns that I had in those early years. Mainly, at this stage, it extends the deadlines for the introduction and adds provisions for different sectors of broadcasting for different periods and for different reasons. It extends the deadline for broadcasters in the mainland state capital cities by six months, to 1 July 2009, it treats Hobart as a special case and it introduces special provisions for community radio. The current switch-on deadline for the six capital cities is 1 January 2009 and, to broadcasters who do not meet that deadline, sanctions will apply. Those sanctions can be quite harsh and they include the cancellation of their rights to broadcast in digital. I am very pleased to see that ‘use it or lose it’ provision reinforced in this bill. Spectrum is limited—it is extremely limited—and, while we must provide flexibility for businesses to make the adjustments that they need, we must not allow broadcasters to hold valuable spectrum unused for unreasonable periods of time. But for a range of reasons it has become apparent that many broadcasters will not be able to meet that deadline. This bill amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to extend the deadline for the commencement of digital radio services by six months, to 1 July 2009. It gives additional flexibility to commercial broadcasters to resolve any further infrastructure issues that relate to the rollout of transmission equipment as they prepare for the launch of the new digital services. It should be noted, though, that the ABC and the commercial radio sector have announced that the national switch-on for digital radio will take place on 1 May 2009—before the 1 July deadline. It is important to note that the extension of the deadline will not disadvantage broadcasters that choose to switch on early; it simply provides greater flexibility for those that require the additional time. That extension to 1 July 2009 applies to the capital cities on the mainland. Hobart is treated differently and given additional time again over the six months. That is not an unusual response to Hobart’s circumstances. In the switch-on for radio and the switch-over for digital television, broadcasters in smaller regional markets are given additional time to make the necessary changes for conversion to digital. Hobart is classified as a regional licence area in a number of other contexts, including the rollout of digital television and for advertising market purposes. That is because its population is roughly the same or smaller than other markets classified as regional, including, for example, Geelong, Wollongong and Newcastle. The costs for broadcasters in Hobart, should they be forced to commence digital radio services at the same time as the mainland state capitals, would be much higher than their competitors in the capital cities on the mainland. Hobart’s commercial radio broadcasters stated that, because of the higher costs of operating in small markets, they would not be in a position to commence digital radio services at the same time as larger mainland capital cities. This bill effectively removes Hobart from the capital city category and allows it to commence digital radio services at the same time as other similarly sized markets. Finally, there are special provisions for community radio—and it is quite right that there are. Community radio in Australia is a particularly vibrant sector. We have one of the better community radio sectors in the world, well known for its diversity, local content and grassroots participation in the media sector. In a country like Australia, where diversity in media content is a priority, community radio plays an extremely important role in providing a voice for many people who would otherwise not have one at all. But it often struggles. These community based organisations survive extremely well in Australia, but technological changes such as this one will make it difficult for organisations that are constantly fundraising to support their ongoing operations let alone expensive upgrades of equipment, the skilling of volunteers and access to transmitters under the new formats. The digital radio framework for the introduction of digital radio services in Australia was included in legislation introduced into the parliament in 2007. The framework required that joint venture companies could be formed by digital radio broadcasters for the purposes of holding a relevant digital radio multiplex transmitter licence and managing the transmission of digital radio services in Australia. In line with that legislation, the community broadcasters formed representative companies in each of the state capital cities with dual functions of coordinating the sharing of transmission capacity reserved for community broadcasters between individual community radio licences and representing the community sector should it choose to take up the option of joining the relevant joint venture company. In the tight fiscal environment leading up to the May budget, the government deferred funding for the community broadcasters to participate in digital radio to the 2009-10 financial year. So community broadcasters were unable to purchase shares in joint venture companies. Under this amendment, community radio broadcasters will have an opportunity, should they choose, to purchase shares in the joint venture company in line with the intention of the original legislation passed in 2007. Community broadcasters, though, will not be forced to join the joint venture company. The legislated reservation of transmission capacity remains unchanged by this investment, so broadcasters of all kinds are able to broadcast digital radio services regardless of whether they are part of the joint venture company. Digital radio has the potential to bring significant benefits to radio listeners through a greater number of channels, but it is important through the change of process that we ensure that we see an increase in diversity and not just an increase in the number of channels. The potential for both broadcasters and listeners to benefit from the introduction of digital is enormous. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 amends the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to smooth the transition. I commend the bill to the House. 74 10:09:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 is supported by the coalition. I do, however, have a few reservations and criticisms of the bill. The amendment contains support for the introduction of digital radio transmission in Australia, a topic of great interest to me and one I have followed for a long time. I would like to talk a little bit about the introduction of digital radio services and what that might mean to regional areas—a topic I have been fortunate to investigate in a previous parliament. In September 2001 I handed down the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Transport and the Arts report called Local voices: inquiry into regional radio. The report contained our findings from an inquiry into regional radio throughout Australia. That covered both analog and digital transmission. Chapter 5 detailed the opportunities and challenges which lay ahead with the introduction of digital radio to Australia. Even though the inquiry focused on radio services in regional areas broadly, it was well recognised that the introduction of digital broadcasting was logical and, indeed, the next step for Australia’s radio sector. Some of the opportunities, particularly for regional areas, included an increased number of services and improved diversity of programming as well as digitally generated text services within the radio set. I do not know if it is generally recognised that a digital radio has a little screen on it that digital services can be transmitted to. You might be listening to ABC Classic FM or 4MBS Classic FM in the community network and the piece of music that is being played and the name of the conductor will come up on the screen. It can have lots of other uses, such as for weather reports, stock reports and so on. It is a very interesting medium. Digital radio also has a higher quality sound than AM or FM transmission. It has the added benefit of being able to compress the signal and send down the wire—so to speak—and then split it out again in your radio set. So you can fit a lot more into the spectrum than you can in either AM or FM. Broadcasters will be able to expand the content they offer to listeners and cater to niche audiences throughout the nation. For example, our national broadcaster submitted at the time of that inquiry that flexibility of the digital spectrum meant it would be able to channel-split—that is, effectively broadcast a number of different programs from the one frequency. It could air different livestock or weather reports for specific communities within its broadcast footprint. As a fierce advocate of diversity of content—and this is a potential feature of digital radio—I find this aspect quite appealing, particularly in a media climate where there seems to be a contraction of new, fresh and local program content. You all in this parliament know me. I have been quite a critic of the way regional radio has been dumbed down over the last decade. Digital radio gives us an opportunity to revitalise regional radio. I believe people living in regional and rural areas are hungry for live and local content, and it is something that has been reiterated by me from time to time—both in my parliamentary and coalition policy committees. In my home town of Bundaberg, we are fortunate to have a number of community radio broadcasters, which have done a great job in sourcing and broadcasting local and niche material. Doing so has made these broadcasters an integral part of the community. They reflect local views and allow the wider community to have a conversation with itself on a daily basis. I am not just referring to talkback shows and interviews with local leaders and whatever. I mean that it has the capacity to transmit the sort of music that people want. The sort of music that people on the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast might want—and this is recognised by the ABC, who have a separate transmission subunit for those two areas and down into northern New South Wales—might be quite different from the type of music people in perhaps Townsville, Tamworth or Roma might want. Again, digital radio—whether it is in the community or in the commercial field—gives a chance for greater diversity and selection. In the Local voices report that I referred to we also recognised that a number of issues need to be resolved before digital radio is introduced to Australia. We said it was crucial to have regional areas well placed to receive these services. It seems to me—and I am not being unduly critical of ACMA or the department—that a lot of the time we stumble around trying to get the capital city programs going, whether it was colour television or digital television, and then say, ‘We’ll try to catch that up three or four years down the track.’ I suppose there is a good side to that as well in that it allows country stations and particularly community radio stations, which have a lot more challenges, to get ready for the expense involved in introducing it. This bill amends the start-up date to 1 July 2009—in other words, to the middle of next year. Apparently, this extension has been brought about because of difficulties the broadcasters have been having with access and with certain digital transmission equipment. If this is the case then I support the measure strongly because it is more important to get the switch-over right than to expect broadcasters to meet a schedule that is clearly impossible. I also note that the bill makes provision for Hobart to be classified as a regional radio market for the purpose of the introduction of digital transmission. I support that as well. Tasmania has a population of only about half a million. It is a big expense. The functionality in Tasmania will be similar to a region—perhaps it will be a bit bigger than an individual region. Nevertheless, the Hobart commercial radio community have asked for this amendment. I think it is reasonable. They do not anticipate that they could meet the deadline, so I think it is fair enough to cut a bit of slack in their case. The final measure contained in the bill relates to the community radio sector and gives it the wherewithal to share in the ownership of digital transmission in the form of the infrastructure that is available via joint venture companies. The earlier explanation we used for digital radio was that it had pipes and that you could send five or six signals down the one pipe. If you are sending that into a country area, who is going to manage it? Who is going to split it up and say who does this and who does that? The previous government and the current government believed that this should be done by joint venture companies—in other words, the various commercial players should come together and make provision for the community broadcasters to participate. This is where I am going to be critical. The current government made no provision for that in this year’s budget, so the commercial guys know that it has to be introduced soon, particularly in capital cities, and that they have to go ahead and get the joint venture companies together. The vast majority of community stations, not having the financial capacity to join them, have to stay out of the mix for the time being. They just cannot afford to be in it. So you have the commercial guys being forced to go ahead and the bill making several provisions for the community broadcasters to come into the system down the track. That is annoying for the commercial broadcasters who have gone to all this trouble to set up their mechanisms. They will have to all of a sudden restructure their companies. The bill is quite specific. It says that they cannot overcharge for their shares, they have to ensure that the price does not exceed the amount worked out under a prescribed formula; they have to, within 30 days of receiving a request from a community station, invite them to join; and they have to keep the offer open for 120 days. It says in another part of the bill that the community broadcasters have to get a minimum of two-ninths of the shares—and I am not quite sure how that works where you have a series of community stations. There are a lot of complications to be worked through and if the money had been upfront, allowing the community broadcasters to be able to participate fully from day one, we would have had a much smoother and much more certain system. There would have been certainty out there about what the face of digital radio would have looked like, first in the capital cities and then in regional areas. It would have been quite clear. No matter how hard ACMA and the department work on this, until the government open up the purse strings it is going to be a bit of a dog’s breakfast. The first 12 months will be a period of uncertainty rather than certainty. Section 5.38 of the Local voices report talked about the estimated cost of establishing digital radio transmission in Australia. We took evidence from the Community Broadcasting Association of Australia and they put the conversion at that time—bear in mind that this is some years back—at between $75,000 and $150,000 per station depending on location, size of station and service area. I suppose those figures would have gone up in the normal course of inflation and perhaps some of the equipment has become a bit cheaper over time as well, so I do not know where the balance is now, but you can see that the average community station has no chance. There might be one or two around that can do it but the majority have no chance of coming up with that sort of amount. They are clearly going to have to be subsidised. Clearly, a lot of the infrastructure costs associated with this would not be affordable for most community stations around the country. In fact, a direct quote from the committee’s 2001 report is: Given the financial circumstances of many regional community stations, it is difficult to imagine them being able to embrace digital radio unless assistance is provided by the Government. Governments were warned, the coalition was warned and the Labor Party was warned that far back. It is no good them saying, ‘We didn’t realise the difficulty.’ Of course they realised the difficulties. The government’s failure to provide funding to broadcasters, as I said before, has left the community radio sector with nowhere to go in terms of switching on to digital—no funds to purchase their hardware or infrastructure, as I also said, and no ability to access infrastructure. They are in a pretty parlous state. The fact that the government did not provide the necessary funding assistance makes the option of acquiring a share of joint venture ownership also difficult and it is very important that they have that particular connection. As I said, there would be levels of resentment because they cannot participate fully from the beginning and that will be an inconvenience to the commercial broadcasters. The committee’s report also stated: The costs associated with introducing digital radio for broadcasters are significant although it may be possible to achieve some economies through the sharing of infrastructure. Again, until you give the stations an opportunity to know what they are going to get, how can they even talk about joint ventures either as community broadcasters or more widely with their commercial colleagues? We did make provision for this in our last budget as the coalition government. We provided $2.7 million over three years for ACMA to undertake planning and licensing activities so our national and community broadcasters could make a start on digital. The government has made, I think, about $11 million available next year but, as I pointed out, that hiatus is going to be a bit of a dog’s breakfast until we give the community operators a chance to know what sort of support will be available from the government. I am a very strong supporter of radio services. I think the fourth estate in its various manifestations is an essential plank of a vibrant democracy. I rail against things like excessive networking and the combining of news services, which rob regional areas of local voices—in fact, that is why we called the report Local voices. Digital radio gives us another opportunity to enliven, enhance and create a new platform for people not just in the cities but in country areas to improve, as I said, with agricultural or Country Hour type broadcasting on the radio, a number of services that a farmer might have in his tractor or down on the workbench in his shed, places where he might not otherwise be able to have, say, a television set. This is a very good medium, and it is very important that it gets out to people in a vibrant and usable form. There has been a hiatus during the last 12 months with the community stations, who play an important part in some areas. Recently I was in Dubbo on an inquiry into Regional Partnerships, and in the course of that we had discussions with the community station 2WEB. It really has picked up a big part of the broadcast responsibility in that area and, I might say, has attracted the ire of some of the commercial broadcasters.  I was enormously impressed with that station in particular. There are others too. Stations 2MBS, 3MBS and 4MBS are great services being offered by community stations and they will be able to offer an even better service under digital broadcasting, especially if they are given the opportunity. Perhaps these stations should be given an even higher level of subsidy. They are community stations that operate on a similar basis to the ABC’s FM network. They provide a community classical music network. Some would say they are not quite as esoteric as the ABC. There is a more popular classics twist to what they do, and I find a lot of people listen to that. I know people leave radios on overnight and want soothing music to listen to on 2MBS, 3MBS and 4MBS. I appeal to the government to look, when they are doing this subsidisation of community stations—and I trust they will—to those stations that provide specialist service in quality broadcasting to see that they get some assistance as well. Finally, I support the bill—but with those reservations and with that request for early subsidy to the community stations. 77 10:28:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —It is with real pleasure that I rise to speak in support of the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. Before I get into the detail of the bill, I will make the comment—and I take on board the comments from the member for Hinkler—that community radio particularly is a very important part of our community. Certainly the development of community radio stations over the last decade and more shows their worth to the community. In my speech on this bill I will specifically look at and concentrate on some of those issues surrounding the community radio stations in my electorate. But before I talk about those things I will give some background to the bill. The bill states: The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 (the Bill) will amend the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 and the Radiocommunications Act 1992 to: extend the deadline for commercial broadcasters to commence digital radio services in the mainland state capital cities by six months to 1 July 2009, remove the requirement for digital radio services to commence in Hobart by the extended deadline of 1 July 2009. Broadcasters in Hobart will have the opportunity to commence digital radio services at the same time as other markets of comparable size, such as Geelong, Newcastle and Wollongong, and retain an option for community radio stations to take up shares in the joint venture companies managing the transmission of digital radio services. FINANCIAL IMPACT STATEMENT The measures contained in this Bill are not expected to have any direct, or indirect, financial impact on Commonwealth revenue. I would like to discuss the final measure in the bill that directly relates to community radio. The second reading speech of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister states: 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. Community radio is an integral part of communities such as Forde. Like many community radio stations, the stations in Forde are in need of funds. Community radio stations find it difficult to keep up with their commercial counterparts, particularly with the advancements in technology. The government decided to take a cautious approach to the introduction of public 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 apply for 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 the sector and to listeners are enormous. My electorate of Forde is fortunate to be served by two community radio stations—BeauFM, in Beaudesert, and BFM, in Beenleigh. In a lot of ways, they are more dominant than the commercial radio stations that cover that area generally. In fact, the listening public in the area of Forde find themselves in a bit of a black hole when it comes to commercial radio transmission, and the community radio services certainly provide a wonderful community service. I talk frequently about the remoteness of some areas in my electorate—and if I mention Duck Creek Road again, I am sure a few people will raise their eyebrows. But it is interesting that even areas like Duck Creek Road get the transmissions from community radio. This is an area which, for a whole range of reasons, does not even get regular newspaper and mail services. So the wonderful thing about community radio in my electorate is that it is pervasive and it is out there. It reaches communities like Duck Creek Road, Mount Tamborine and Canungra. There have always been difficulties with community radio acquiring analog transmissions. This bill will offer organisations like BeauFM the opportunity to expand their audience. I am a former media proprietor. In fact, I owned a couple of newspapers in that region. I had a very good relationship with community radio. In fact, I became a regular financial sponsor. I take on board the member for Hinkler’s comments and concerns that there is not enough funding from government. Many organisations would like government to provide more funding. That is interesting, coming from an opposition member, because the opposition think a commercial approach to most things is important. But I adhere to that view in this case because the private sector can provide certain support where it can, as I did when I was a business proprietor. The wonderful thing about community radio is that it lends itself to being very much a part of the community and being supported in many ways. My interest in community radio goes back a long time. I have been in different roles over the years as a media person and a businessperson. I have been there and I have made comment on a whole range of things. Community radio gives the community a very direct level of news service. While the media and new services are important in my organisation, it is also very important to support a community radio station and to be able to get out a local message. BFM in Beenleigh has taken on a training responsibility. A little later in my speech today, I will mention the opportunities we have in community radio to train young people and give them an opportunity to gain more skills in the media area. BFM, the Beenleigh station, has lots of young members and has had overwhelming success in looking at ways to allow others to receive benefits from the programs that they offer. It is a fully operational FM radio station that is set up at the Beenleigh Police Citizens Youth Club and broadcasts to the local Beenleigh community. The station is a tool for the youth development programs that run at the Beenleigh PCYC, and all funding for the station has to be generated from BFM businesses. That is one of the models I have just spoken about where businesses are involved and generate a level of revenue. The station broadcasts 24 hours a day and offers greatest hits from all eras. Of course, one of the most difficult things for any radio station is to provide a program that people will listen to. While I am a great fan of Slim Dusty, many community radio stations tend to overplay certain genres of music. Community radio, in some cases, gets it right more often than other radio stations do. I know there is always a tussle within these organisations over what sorts of programs they run. Regular listeners to BFM take great pride in monitoring the development of their announcers. As I said, they have a training program, which is a great way, not only for youth but for other people with the desire, to be involved in broadcasting. I am sure a number of us in this chamber have had the opportunity to be interviewed on air or have made regular visits to a radio station. Visiting a community radio station is always an enjoyable experience, probably because it is the nature of community broadcasting to be less concerned about getting leverage from the issues, particularly political issues, in our communities. As with BeauFM, many of the businesses in Beenleigh have BFM playing as background music. So it is a wonderful thing that we can continue to support community radio through the amendments we are making with this bill. I would like to make mention of a few people who have been important in the development of those community radio stations, particularly BeauFM, which has been around since 1996. It started as a very small operation in an old caravan. Their known location was fairly mobile, because they used to move the caravan around, but they now have a very well established station with a couple of studios. As I said, it is all done on a voluntary basis through the support of the community and businesses, who see it as an essential service. I will make two points about the notion that it is an essential service. Firstly, we should look at the responsibility at local government level to consider how they might better support local radio. In the region I come from, while the local council at times provides funds for advertising or sponsorship of public announcements, I think it would be legitimate for local authorities to commit more funding to their local community radio station by making them the public announcer for events or whatever other information they want to put out. Secondly, one of the reasons the community radio network was established was to provide an emergency response. People probably do not realise that the capacity to respond in an emergency is one of the things that community radio provides to an area. While it is not called on very often, in my area we know that they are geared up to transmit in times of an emergency. It is a very important reason why community radio should exist. I would like to thank a number of people who have been involved over the years. Jim Dennis, who was a presenter for many years, helped to develop the radio station from its beginnings. Jim had always been passionate about good quality radio and, can I say, he was one of the people who turned Beau FM into a station of some note for news and local commentary. Councillor Dave Cockburn in the last 10 years has been heavily involved in getting Beau FM to the point at which it currently sits. While he has his responsibilities as deputy mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council, he still gives an enormous amount of his time to supporting broadcasting and a whole range of other things. Doug Drescher has been a long-term member of the station and one of the people who helped get the station established. I have mentioned the importance of training. One of their noted presenters is a fellow called ‘Nugget’, who in the region is well known. The name Nugget might suggest that he plays a lot of Slim Dusty, but he mixes it up. He plays lots of different things and is a very good, much revered announcer. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray —Country and western! HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Country and western—that is right. Mark O’Brien is also a very talented on-air presenter and he has put a lot of work into the radio station. And Alf Sander, who just turned 90 years of age, is still a very active on-air announcer and provides some wonderful soundtracks for people who like listening late at night. I should also commemorate the late Rex Rodgers as he was very much a part of establishing the radio station and put in a lot of work over the years. Before I close, I would like to sum up by saying that I support this bill and certainly the aspects that support the development of community radio. I think community radio is a vital part of many communities, particularly those that are outside of capital cities. In regions like my area it is absolutely necessary, even to those people in Duck Creek Road, because it is an important service and one of the only services they tend to get in that region. When I mentioned training I should have said that there is a great model for training in community radio in the Smithfield high school just north of Cairns. In a former role, when I was heavily involved in media, it was one high school that I visited just to see what they were doing with their community radio licence. There is an amazing amount of training that they put through that high school, training of a very high level. In closing, I support this bill. The role it plays and support it gives to local communities is very important. With that, I commend this bill to the House. 79 10:41:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —I rise to speak in support of and in conclusion on the Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008. I acknowledge the contributions of the member for Hinkler, the member for Parramatta and the member for Forde. The Broadcasting Legislation Amendment (Digital Radio) Bill 2008 makes amendments to the legislation introduced in 2007 that provides a framework for the introduction of Australia’s first digital radio services next year. Digital radio will launch in 2009. It will operate alongside existing analog services and promises a range of new and innovative features that will enhance the radio services so valued by Australians. The first two amendments in this bill relate to the commencement date for digital radio in the six state capital cities. Under current legislation, commercial radio broadcasters in these markets are required to commence 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. Due to a range of reasons, including delays to the rollout of transmission equipment, broadcasters are unable to comply with this deadline. As a result, the commercial radio sector and the ABC recently announced that the national switch-on for digital radio will take place on 1 May 2009. Accordingly, the bill will extend, by six months, the deadline for start-up to 1 July 2009. This will ensure broadcasters are not in breach of current provisions for late commencement and do not have their right to broadcast in digital cancelled. The bill will also remove Hobart from the list of markets subject to the new deadline. After consultation with Hobart’s commercial broadcasters, who expressed strong concerns about their readiness to launch at the same time as the mainland state capitals, 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 restores to the community broadcasting sector the opportunity to participate in the joint venture companies formed in 2008 that own digital radio transmission infrastructure, in line with the original intent of the legislation introduced in May 2007. The government is supportive of 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. 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. In conclusion, again I would like to thank all members who contributed to this debate and note the strong bipartisan support that exists in this parliament for this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 80 Bills R3089 80 Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor: That this bill be now read a second time. 80 10:45:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —In the absence of the opposition’s next speaker, I will take this opportunity to make a few remarks in respect of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. Having three social security offices in the division of Mallee and my own office not far from the one located in Swan Hill, there is an enormous amount of activity for my staff in assisting people through the plethora of programs that are offered. So I will be listening with great interest to debate on this bill. As the member for Dawson is now here, I reserve the right to perhaps continue my remarks on another occasion. 80 10:47:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I rise to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. The bill will create a fairer, more effective compliance framework for our nation’s unemployed. Long-term unemployment is a challenge and addressing it requires a sensible and concerted approach by government and industry. It is not an issue that is going to go away overnight. Indeed, the proportion of people on unemployment benefits for more than five years has increased from one in 10 in 1999 to almost one in four today—an increase from 74,000 people in 1999 to more than 110,000 almost 10 years later. The goal of the bill is to increase participation in the system, to get more long-term unemployed people into jobs, into training and into the work community. This new system will be fair, taking into account the individual circumstances of job seekers in rural and regional areas. That is applicable to many parts of my electorate of Dawson—for example, where issues such as transport difficulties may impact on the ability of job seekers to meet their participation requirements. This bill is not about keeping a system that punishes the long-term unemployed. Instead, it is about putting in a system that will get people back into work: off benefits and into our workplaces. Despite what those on the other side may say, this government is committed to fairness in the social security system. This government remains committed to mutual obligation. We believe that those who can work should work, and those who are unable to work should be adequately supported to be in a position to be able to enter the workforce. We believe that this principle is reflected in the fairer and, most importantly, more effective compliance framework proposed by this bill. Some, when talking about the unemployed, cannot resist taking a cheap shot at them and their circumstances instead of looking at the circumstance and the issue holistically. Some prefer to rely on preconceived stereotypes about the unemployed. We on this side of the House will not do that. We will instead look at the facts and deliver a system that will work for those who are unemployed. The government believe unemployed people need to be given every opportunity to enter the workforce not just for the sake of fairness to the taxpayer but for their own benefit. The simple fact of the matter is that work is rewarding and unemployment is not. I reiterate that point: we in the Rudd Labor government have a very clear mandate and we have very clear views on the benefits of being employed over the lack of benefits of being unemployed. It comes to issues such as self-esteem—that is, a person’s perception of their value to the community, themselves and their families and their individual self-sufficiency in being able to work and provide for themselves, for their families and for the ones that they love. The compliance system that exists within the bill encourages commitment rather than the current, punitive approach used. That is an approach that saw too many people cut off from their benefit and from the employment search cycle. The previous system had a number of flaws that this bill will address. A key element of the new system is a no-show, no-pay clause, which aims to instil a work-like culture to employment services. In the bill, if a job seeker without a reasonable excuse does not attend an activity that they are required to attend, Centrelink will impose a no-show, no-pay failure. Centrelink will also impose a no-show, no-pay failure, for example, if the job seeker does not attend a job interview or if they attend the interview but deliberately behave in a way that would foreseeably result in a job offer not being made. This is fair. The important thing to remember in this bill is that the extent of the penalty that a job seeker who is on government benefits receives will be in the hands of the job seeker. The job seeker’s actions will determine what happens within the system. It is important to note that in this bill we have not scrapped the eight-week non-payment periods. They have only been retained for job seekers who commit serious failures. A job seeker commits a serious failure if they refuse a suitable job offer or if they have been wilfully and persistently non-compliant. Again, this is also fair. With the issue of fairness aside, the other issue here is that the previous government’s tactic in addressing non-compliance quite simply did not work. In 2006-07 there were around 16,000 eight-week non-payment penalties applied. In 2007-08 this had doubled to around 32,000 eight-week non-payment penalties. These statistics show that what was in place was not working. These figures are proof that the Liberal government presided over a harsh and counterproductive compliance regime. We understand that wilful noncompliance is different from when a job seeker is experiencing circumstances beyond his or her control. We want a system with incentives to seek work. We want a system that has jobseekers actively participating and searching for work the entire time they are unemployed. We do not want them to be off the radar for two months, missing out on services aimed at getting them a job, as happens now. In conclusion, the government is determined to maintain a strong but fair compliance regime to encourage people to look for work and improve their chances of employment. The new system will provide a stronger safety net for vulnerable jobseekers while reinforcing the idea that jobseekers who are capable have a personal responsibility to actively seek work and participate in activities to prepare them for work. The reality is that there are many circumstances that come past everybody in life which are beyond their control. From time to time, life circumstances—bereavement, the closure of industry or change in modes of production, or global economic crises, things beyond the control of everyday human individuals—mean that people are buffeted from pillar to post and they lose their sense of confidence. When they have lost their job or if they take time away from work through the shock of or depression caused by bereavement, or the loss of a loved one from an unforeseen accident, this can destroy a person’s confidence and their ability to do jobs well, thus affecting their performance. I believe that the role of government in society is to help people like that and to give them a helping hand. I believe the emphasis and the purpose of this bill is to be fair, reasonable and just to people such as that, people who are genuine in their circumstances and who, for one reason or another, are not participating in the workforce. It is this government’s intention to encourage people who are genuine, to give them self-confidence and to bring them back into a productive workplace that increases their self-esteem, increases their self-worth, gives them dignity, respect and, God willing, a decent day’s pay for a decent day’s work. But this government does not go soft on people who deliberately and wilfully choose not to participate in the role of work and the productivity of this nation. It is absolutely essential that we show very clearly that we will have no quarter with people who wilfully refuse to attend interviews and people who wilfully act and behave badly in interviews with the express intention of not wanting the job. We need to show that there is a role for government to be very firm and to bring disciplinary measures to pass. So, given all of this context, I commend this bill to the House. 81 11:00:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I rise to speak today on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 and the changes to the job seeker compliance regime. Labor’s proposed changes to the compliance regime comprehensively roll back the Welfare to Work reforms introduced by the coalition government, and this only reinforces the Labor Party’s weak approach to tackling welfare dependency. We have to ask ourselves why they are watering down the compliance regime. We know this is for base political purposes. This is because they wish to pander to the electoral advantage they can see in keeping people on the welfare teat. They see this as something that will help them electorally and at the ballot box. The new system provided for in this bill is inherently flawed. And that is not surprising, as Labor are traditionally soft on people who just do not want to work. We know that, while that is only a small proportion of people, these people need sufficient incentive to work. In fact, as the shadow minister for employment participation and the member for Boothby, Dr Andrew Southcott, has pointed out, it will be the most lenient system that there has been since unemployment benefits were introduced in 1945. Labor’s no-show, no-pay principle means that, for each day of a mutual obligation activity that a job seeker misses, they are docked a day’s worth of benefit. For a single person on Newstart allowance, that is around $42.90 a day. It is all very well to dock somebody’s pay for a day, but that is not how the world works. If a worker repeatedly fails to show up for work without a valid reason, they will lose their job. It is the long-term disincentives that matter. It is ironic that the Labor Party want to quarantine welfare payments for truancy but they are happy to keep paying people who repeatedly fail to show up for work for the dole activities. What sort of message is that sending to the next generation? In fact, when I was previously a schoolteacher many years ago, I worked in a school in a very low socioeconomic area whose principal—one Mr Ted Sleight—said to staff: ‘We are here as cycle busters. We are here as cycle busters because coming through this school there are generations of children that are on the same cycle as their parents whereby they do not wish to engage in the workforce and they continually want to stay on the welfare system and this is inculcated in their children. We as teachers have got to show them a better way.’  If teachers in schools have to show them a better way, the government have to do the same. Under the model outlined in this bill, job seekers can miss six days of work for the dole activity or six job interviews over the course of six months before they risk any substantial penalty. In any case it is unlikely that the eight-week suspension period for noncompliance will ever be invoked because the comprehensive compliance assessment conducted following serious breaches gives Centrelink a wide breadth of discretion. In fact, it is a discretion so huge that it can mean that any of the following options is available: a job capacity assessment again, a review of the employment pathway plan, an eight-week non-payment period—that is there but whether they use it is another thing—or, finally, Centrelink are not obliged to take any action at all if they wish. Labor’s leniency on perpetual welfare cheats was confirmed when the Minister for Employment Participation, the Hon. Brendan O’Connor, wrote to job network providers in April encouraging them to go easy on those who breach mutual obligations. So you get a direction from the minister to go easy! That was followed up by a letter from the department reminding providers that they have a discretion when there has been noncompliance—in other words, again to go soft. There is also the risk that the changes will bring greater administrative costs to employment service providers, who are already under pressure because of the changes that Labor have made to the job network and training services, which I will go into later. The coalition is unapologetic for its stance on welfare cheats and those who simply do not want to work. The coalition government designed the mutual obligation system with the aim of reducing welfare dependency, encouraging people into the workforce and giving them the necessary support to do so—it is often called the carrot and stick method. Our compliance measures were not designed to be punitive but were instead designed to encourage job seekers to return to the workforce and use available resources to better their opportunities. Welfare to Work was an incentive for people to re-engage. There was a clear link between receiving an income support payment and contributing to society through an employment related activity. I remember talking to a number of people in my electorate who said: ‘I really didn’t want to get involved in this. How dare they send me off to work so I can receive my payments!’ But they said, ‘Once we got into the workforce and realised that the minimum number of hours that we did were not onerous, we actually wanted to work more.’ They enjoyed being back in the workforce because of the people they met, the health and welfare it had brought to them through getting out and mixing with others, and the fact that they got more money. The eight-week non-payment period acted as a deterrent for those who did fail to meet their end of the bargain, and despite what those on the opposite side of the chamber may think it was not unreasonable. Job seekers who missed three appointments, interviews, Work for the Dole activities or other mutual obligation activities over the course of 12 months without a valid reason could have their payments suspended for eight weeks. That certainly is an incentive to turn up and engage. In Canning, the overwhelming majority of those people receiving income support payments do the right thing, meeting their obligations and actively seeking employment. But there are, as I said, a small percentage of Australians who just do not want to work to receive a benefit from the taxpayer. Following long periods of unemployment, there are people who simply become welfare dependent by choice. The longer they are out of work, the harder it is to get back into the workforce. That is why early intervention programs are so important. Under the new system you can be on the dole for 12 months or more before Work for the Dole kicks in—this is compared to six months under the previous government. The coalition introduced Work for the Dole and it had almost 600,000 participants. Mutual obligation was designed to discourage those long-term unemployed from skirting their obligations—and it worked. In fact, in June 2006 there were 205,000 people who were deemed long-term unemployed. Two years later, in August 2008, that number had decreased to 146,000—quite an achievement. The coalition remains committed to ensuring all unemployed persons have the programs, assistance and support that they require to get upskilled and job ready, and this philosophy was instrumental in getting the unemployment levels in this country down to four per cent—and in Western Australia we know it got to under three per cent, into the twos. Locally in my electorate, instead of Labor taking it easy on those who blatantly breach workplace obligations, perhaps the government should give greater assistance to those who really deserve it. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the House of the changes that the coalition made to social security legislation last year, particularly those relating to grandparent carers that extended participation exemptions to principal carers who are relatives but not parents of the children—in other words, grandparents who took the place of parents as principal carers or other relatives who took care of the children. As I have said before, this should have been called the Margaret Saunders amendment, because Margaret Saunders from Pinjarra in my electorate was forced to leave her full-time job in her 50s when, because of a severe drug habit, her daughter became unable to look after her children. It is these sorts of people the government should be making sure there is flexibility in the system for. Margaret again contacted me this week regarding the government’s announcement of bonus payments to pensioners, carers and children. In Margaret’s email she said to me: ‘What really hurts is that grandparents looking after their grandchildren were overlooked again. Yes, some of us will receive the bonus for the kids, but a lot won’t.’ Margaret is certainly putting in her fair share, contributing to the community. She has a degenerative spine condition and the two young grandchildren. She takes them to school, makes lunches for them, runs them to sport and does everything she can, as she did many years ago for her own children. Regarding the bonuses, Margaret makes an extremely valid point. The mother of her grandchildren will receive a bonus as a disability pensioner, and her 19-year-old granddaughter also has a baby, so she gets a bonus and then becomes her mother’s carer, so gets another bonus. While Margaret will receive some money for the children she is caring for as a grandparent, she is not entitled to the carers bonus that recognised foster parents will receive. It is an inequality and it should be addressed. Margaret is one of up to 50,000 grandparent carers who believe they are perpetually overlooked. While the exemption from workplace participation was a step in the right direction, together with childcare and immunisation assistance, these people deserve the same level of assistance as foster parents receive. While I am on this social security topic I would also like to mention a recent event I attended in my electorate. Year 10 students at Armadale Senior High School held a ceremony and made a commitment not to collect dole payments in the future. On No Dole Day the students pledged that when they complete their high school studies they will not accept the dole, as they will do everything possible to get their careers underway through further studies, training or employment. This is a fantastic initiative of a group called the Beacon Foundation which makes young people really think about making a go of it. The innovative program is designed to break the cycle of welfare dependency and addresses the issues of youth unemployment. When I was re-elected as member for Canning in 2001, youth unemployment was around 17 per cent. While that number has come down to a single-digit figure, it is still a strong priority to get young people into jobs. Nationally this year 7,000 students signed the No Dole charter, with 55 schools participating. What a great example to set for young people. Let us not forget it was the coalition’s economic management and workplace reforms that, as I said previously, resulted in lower unemployment levels. In March 1996, when I was first elected to this place, the unemployment rate was 8.4 per cent. Under the Howard government, unemployment fell to 4.2 per cent, the lowest level since 1974. On the coalition’s watch, 2.1 million new jobs were created. In Canning, unemployment was at a low 4.1 per cent in June this year, which is just over half what it was when I became the member in 2001. Despite the worsening labour market under the current financial conditions, Labor has slashed funding to employment services by $279 million to 2012. Not only is funding being cut but services are being consolidated by combining seven contracts into one. Providers will now have to offer the following services: Job Network, Personal Support Program, Job Placement Employment and Training, New Enterprise Incentive Scheme, Harvest Labour Services, Work for the Dole and Green Corps. They are all going to be lumped together for providers. That is a lot of work for any one provider, and no doubt many aspects of these programs will suffer. As I have spoken about before, I think it is a terrible waste and tragedy to axe Green Corps as we know it now, and I know that those who are involved in the program agree with me. In fact, I attended a launch in Mandurah a few weeks ago and they were all talking about it. Last week I met with a local Green Corps coordinator who is desperate to find a way to keep Green Corps operating in its current form. It was designed to be a youth training and development program and it has been extremely successful in securing outcomes for young Australians as well as for the local environment. Now Labor is merging it with Work for the Dole and other services in a scaled back form. Green Corps provides young Australians with far greater skills than practical horticultural skills; it gives them certification. In many cases the experience helps shape these young people’s directions and gives them the confidence they need to get ahead in life and their future careers. In fact, the City of Mandurah council is on its 17th Green Corps program. Tragically, this will end some time next year. It has done a great deal of good for the local environment, as I said, and also for the many young people who have entered into Green Corps. One of the great tragedies of the Labor Party messing with this program is that young people entering the program now will not get the same opportunities because they will be lumped in with all of these other programs including Work for the Dole. The age demographic will change, payment to the young participants will change and the whole ethos of the program in the community will change. I know that there are many people in my electorate who are very concerned about the way the Labor Party has essentially undone Green Corps in this country. The government wants us to believe that this bill is fair. I heard the previous speaker, the member for Dawson, waxing lyrical—it certainly did not bring a tear to my eye, but it probably brought one to his. The fact that he was suggesting that people after bereavement could not work may have some validity in the short term, but eventually those people should go back to work. It is probably better for their health that they re-engage rather than sitting back disengaged from the community and the workforce. It is actually healthy to work. I find it appalling to use those examples for long-term unemployment, but then again I suppose you get that from the dripping wet Left. It is certainly not fair for people who want to do the right thing and re-engage and for those who believe that the work ethic is honourable. The Minister for Employment Participation has already signalled his leniency on perpetual welfare collectors, but he was right about one thing. Those who can work should work and the government should do all it can to get people back into the workforce as soon as possible. Going light on those who abuse the system and delaying mutual obligation activities for the newly unemployed will only increase a dangerous cycle of welfare dependency. In the coming economic circumstances, where the Labor Party has already predicted in its budget that 134,000 jobs will go and many commentators are saying 200,000 people will be out of work, getting people back into the workforce, particularly the long-term unemployed, should be a priority, rather than making it easier for them not to engage. 84 11:16:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. It is the very relevant and important changes that this bill will bring to Australian job seekers that have prompted me to speak on this bill today. It is the bill’s focus on individual circumstances, which provides greater flexibility for job seekers in regional and rural Australia, that has also compelled me today to speak on this bill. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 aims to amend the current Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and introduce the government’s budget 2008 announcements and welcome a new $3.9 billion employment services package and the introduction of a new compliance system for Australian job seekers and providers. This is a bill that is aimed at restoring balance into a system that the previous government had taken—in my respectful opinion—too far. In the light of their failed Work Choices regime, the previous government had engineered a system that was too harsh on vulnerable Australians and counterproductive to the goals that they were trying to achieve in the first place. To illustrate the need for change, I note that an alarming trend had surfaced from the previous government’s approach to helping Australians find work. The previous government believed in punishing first and asking questions later. They believed, without any input from the recipients, in a blanket, one-size-fits-all approach to employment services, payments and penalties. In 2006 there were around 16,000 job seekers subject to the most severe action imposed on job seekers—that is, the eight-week non-payment penalty, eight weeks of no pay. But by 2007 this figure had nearly doubled to 32,000 people on an eight-week non-payment period. Within 12 months the number of people nationally serving the eight-week non-payment period had doubled under the current system. In fact, in my own electorate of Flynn in Central Queensland there was a 44 per cent rise from 2006 to 2007 in the number of people serving this eight-week non-payment period. The eight-week measure was meant to act as a deterrent for people not to abuse the system but, unfortunately, this deterrent clearly proved inadequate and the government must now work at improving the ‘carrot’ side of the equation and not simply—and, in my opinion, cold-heartedly—focus on the ‘stick’ side of employment reform. Surely an effective system should result in an actual decrease in the number of serious penalties being applied. Surely, if the current system had been as adequate as the former government would like us to believe, we would have seen the number of serious breaches decline and the number of eight-week non-payment periods decline as more and more job seekers saw fit to work in the system and return to the workforce. But we have seen the opposite occur under the current system. We have seen a sharp increase in a very small period of time in the number of people serving a non-payment period and so we have seen a clear need for action and a need to amend the system to reflect the set of circumstances that we now face. The current system of providing employment services was introduced in 2006 and replaced a decade-old welfare system. Today’s employment market is vastly different to that of 2006 and, given recent economic pressures, it is set to become even more different. It is important that a degree of flexibility is built into the system and that, as different pressures and forces are placed on our labour market, the system is able to respond to these changes without falling apart at the seams. I believe that the new bill achieves this by empowering those who work within it on a daily basis to make judgements and decisions with the best interests of the job seeker at heart. Over the past decade, the employment market has shifted. We have witnessed unemployment fall. We have seen skill shortages in vital areas. However, this has not been to the benefit of all job seekers. Today’s unemployment figures include a significantly higher proportion of long-term unemployed and highly disadvantaged Australians. In 1999, one in 10 people receiving a benefit from Centrelink had been unemployed for more than five years. Today, almost one in four people receiving a benefit from Centrelink has been unemployed for over five years. This is an increase from 74,000 people in 1999 to over 110,000 people nearly ten years on. With the changing demographics and make-up of the unemployed, today these figures represent some of the most disadvantaged in our society. Some are battling with not only unemployment but also mental illness, literacy problems, poor education and homelessness. Our job is to design and implement a better system to help these long-term unemployed and vulnerable Australians into the workforce, and I believe that this new bill will encourage just that. While the employment market and the make-up of the unemployment figures have changed, one aspect of the system has always, and will always, remain the same—that is, the Australian community strongly expects that those who receive taxpayer funded income support look for work. This is at the very core of our nation—giving others a fair go while supporting those whose luck seems to have faded. We will never alter the system so that it does not reflect this very basic of Australian understandings. What we do need to do, though, is ensure that the system remains relevant and focused on getting job seekers back into the workforce. It is often said that the most demanding of all jobs is actually looking for one. We need to support those of us who are looking for work, but in a fair, balanced and productive fashion and not simply applying a one-size-fits-all approach. The market is full of different industries, different regions and different types of employers and employees, and they do not deserve anything less. Just as there are many differences in the make-up of the labour market, we need to implement a system that recognises the many different individual job seekers and the skills that they can bring to the workforce. We need a system that encourages their commitment and engagement, rather than the current punitive approach. This bill will affect approximately 620,000 people who are receiving Newstart, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit and currently have a participation requirement. To improve the system we simply must better align it to reflect the ethics and characteristics of the workforce. A key part of this reform is the introduction of no-show, no-pay failures. The no-show, no-pay failure is introduced by this new bill and is aimed at job seekers who, without a reasonable excuse, fail to attend a prescribed activity—for example, training or work experience. Just like in the private workforce, if an employee fails to turn up for work for a day then they will lose a day’s pay, and in this case if a job seeker fails to attend a certain activity then they will forfeit one-tenth of their fortnightly payment for each day they have not attended. A no-show, no-pay failure will also be recorded against a job seeker who refuses to attend a job interview with a prospective employer. The new bill also, for the first time, makes arrangements for people who do attend a job interview but behave in a manner that would result in the prospective employer not wishing to make a job offer to the candidate—for example, the candidate stating during the job interview that they do not want the position. Previously, the system did not take into account job seekers’ deliberate attempts to not be employed and they focused only on the actual attendance of the job seeker at the interview. This meant it was possible for certain job seekers to avoid penalties by attending a job interview but behaving in such a manner that it would be unlikely they would be offered employment as a result. The loss of a day’s pay should act as an immediate deterrent for job seekers that choose not to attend activities that will improve their employment prospects. In an effort to remain fair, payments such as rent assistance, pharmaceutical allowance or youth disability supplement will not be affected should a no-show, no-pay failure be recorded; however, all parts of a job seeker’s payment will be subject to the reduced rate. Another important aspect of this new bill is the introduction of what has been termed ‘connection and reconnection failures’. A connection failure will be recorded against a job seeker under the new system if they fail to attend an appointment—for example, an appointment with their employment service provider—and do not have a responsible excuse. Instead of imposing a harsh penalty for a connection failure, the new system will require job seekers to attend a reconnection requirement. A reconnection requirement could simply be another interview similar to the one that they had previously missed. The emphasis here is clear: this new bill is designed to encourage job seekers to communicate with their service provider and with Centrelink. Better communication will lead to a stronger connection between the two parties and result in a better chance for the job seeker to obtain employment or new skills. A penalty will be imposed on a job seeker that fails to attend their reconnection requirement. This penalty will be similar to the one imposed on job seekers that have a no-show, no-pay failure; however, for a reconnection requirement failure the job seeker will lose one-fourteenth of their fortnightly payment for each day that they have failed to reconnect with the system and do not have a reasonable explanation. Unfortunately, there will always be serious cases in which the system will have to deliver serious penalties. The bill retains the penalty for serious failures by job seekers—that is, the eight-week non-payment period—but with a different approach. A serious failure is regarded as a job seeker refusing an offer of suitable employment or missing three appointments or six days of activity. It is made at the request of the employment service provider and is aimed only at those who have wilfully and persistently not complied with repeat attempts by the system to have them re-engage with the system. There are many differences between the eight-week non-payment period penalty in its current form and the one that the government through this bill will introduce. Previously the system was centred on a three-strikes mentality. The first recorded failure would see a job seeker’s payment reduced by 18 per cent for a period of 26 weeks, while the second failure within a two-year period would see payments reduced by 24 per cent, again over a 26-week period. The third strike would incur the eight-week non-payment period. Under the previous government’s system, during this eight-week non-payment period the job seeker was not required to have any contact with the job market or employment service provider. They must simply sit and wait for the period to end. There is no communication during this period, no connection and no chance of improved training or employment prospects. My government believes that there are better things for a job seeker to do than simply wait out an eight-week non-payment period at home. It is often said that the devil preys on idle minds and this, I fear, is what is happening to our job seekers who are caught up in the unproductive web of the eight-week non-payment period. Under the new bill the eight-week non-payment period will be retained. It will be applied to the most serious, wilful and persistent cases but unlike currently a job seeker will be able to restore their payments back by participating in an intensive activity. An intensive activity will usually involve 25 hours a week for up to eight weeks in an activity such as Work for the Dole. This is the main point of difference and one that I feel very passionately about. There is no use in a person sitting at home and further disengaging from society and the workforce when we can present an opportunity for these job seekers to participate, to reconnect with the system and to potentially learn new skills or establish new networks simply by participating in an activity such as Work for the Dole. As I stated earlier it is the greater flexibility of the new system and its focus on individual needs that will be beneficial to rural and regional Australia. This bill empowers those experts that are employed in this field and work in the front line to make decisions that will benefit their clients. Under the new scheme, employment service providers will have the discretion to decide to report noncompliance to Centrelink. Providers will be empowered to make this decision and act only if it is in the best interest of the job seeker to do so. Instead of reporting non-compliance, the employment service provider may choose to negotiate with the job seeker to find alternatives or to make up any noncompliance. Again, this will result in better communication and a stronger connection between the two parties. For the long-term unemployed, I know that the path to employment is often difficult and full of hurdles. Whatever the hurdles that they face, they deserve a system that supports them and encourages them every step of the way. We need a holistic approach to job placement, one that takes into account any barrier to employment and removes hurdles faced by job seekers, whether they are personal issues or training gaps. The benefits of employment and participation in the workforce are immense and cannot be overlooked. So much of a person’s identity and social outlook can stem from participating in employment. The workforce belongs to all Australians—even those who have felt defeated and have given up. This is a bill that will support these Australians and this is a government that will introduce reform to tackle disadvantage head on. The end result will be a system with a heavy focus on communication, on participation, on engagement and on connection, and it is because of this focus that I commend the Rudd Labor government for its leadership on this issue. I also commend the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 to the House. 86 11:34:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —Let me first of all welcome Von Harrington to the Main Committee this morning. Von was Townsville’s loss and Canberra’s gain when she came here—sorry, Von; I am embarrassing you—and we worked well together when she lived in Townsville. The provisions of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 really need to address the issues of those who are smarties and who, in fact, want to use the system not to work but to get around the conditions that the government places in terms of mutual obligation. It also needs to address those who do not understand their responsibilities or do not have the capacity to understand their responsibilities, and they need to be helped. I have always thought that we should not be penalising people who are in that particular position. It is very hard to develop one-size-fits-all legislation, rules and policy for Centrelink, because we do not live in a black-and-white world; we live in a grey world. I just wish that we as legislators could find a way to allow our public servants to take more responsibility in making decisions in the interests of their customers. The problem is, of course, that if one public servant makes a decision here and one makes a different decision over there then that is a risk and causes some problems and conflict, but private business handles this okay. Managers in private business are able to make decisions depending on circumstances, and we should be able to trust the members of the Public Service to also make decisions and be assured that there will be no criticism for taking those decisions. Like most members of parliament, I have seen many examples of the smarties. The member for Hinkler told me just the other day about an example where a fellow wanted to continue to be on income support. He had an orchard and wanted to tend his orchard, but he wanted income support at the same time, so he was saying that he could not get a job. Apparently that became public in Bundaberg, and the fellow who lived next door to this guy rang up and said, ‘I’ll give him a job,’ but then he would not take it because he wanted to tend his lemon trees or whatever they were, but he still wanted his income support. None of us believe that the Australian taxpayer should be funding that kind of scenario. Then you see people who trawl the websites of businesses, get details from them, put them on the form which they send in to Centrelink and say: ‘I’ve asked for jobs at all these places. I pass the activity test,’ or whatever it is; ‘please pay me my income support.’ Centrelink does not have the resources to follow up to see if that actually happened, and none of us as members of parliament would want that to continue. I take exception to the member for Flynn, who said earlier that people should not have to wait at home doing nothing during an eight-week non-payment period. I do not think he quite meant that, because clearly nobody has to wait at home doing nothing if they are not being paid income support. They can still be out there looking for a job. The people who do not actually want a job are the ones who wait at home doing nothing. So I think the member for Flynn would really agree with me that we would expect people who do not have a job and want income support to actually be looking for a job. The social security of this country is a policy issue that my coalition colleagues and I take very seriously. Substantiating this claim is the former government’s well-measured policy decision in 2006 known as the Welfare to Work reforms, one of the major reforms that we instituted in the 11 years of the Howard government. Our reason for these reforms was a clear and sensible one then, just as it is still a clear and sensible one now. You see, we believed then and we still believe now that Australians who are struggling to find employment should be able to turn to an Australian government that will help them in such an obvious time of need. We also believed then, as we do now, that a person should be entitled to receive a regular welfare payment, contingent upon certain conditions. These conditions are ones such as proof that he/she is actively seeking employment and attending workshops and meetings, when required, that might better his/her chance of gaining employment. It is quite sensible. We also strongly believe in the added social security benefit of maintaining such conditions upon welfare payments. For example, if a person contributes to the facilitation of their own job seeking, he/she is then contributing to his/her own future financial stability and nonreliance on social welfare payments. Welfare to Work is clearly a good thing. It is a good policy. Statistics alone show this. These Howard government Welfare to Work measures are working at reducing dependence on welfare in this country and assisting those Australian people who are struggling to find stable employment. The scheme is still working. Not only is it working but it is working remarkably well. It is a very good scheme. In June 2006, for example, we recorded 205,212 long-term unemployed people in Australia. By August 2008, because of the Welfare to Work policy, that number had dramatically fallen, to 146,533 people. That is a reduction of 58,679 people. Those 58,679 people can now have meaningful employment that allows them to live more comfortably. It also allows them to pay tax, of course! Those people have now instilled in themselves a sense of pride and self-worth and have gained meaningful employment that allows them to break the often vicious cycle of welfare dependency. However, unfortunately, there is one fundamental difference between the former Howard coalition government and the current Rudd Labor government. It is as simple as this: the Rudd government is attempting to introduce changes to the sensible penalties for those who treat the Welfare to Work scheme as a handout scheme. The Rudd Labor government must surely be well aware that Australian people who are deemed physically and mentally capable of doing so are better off gaining meaningful jobs than being reliant on welfare payments each fortnight. But, if indeed they do agree with the coalition opposition that employment is better than welfare dependency, why do they wish to introduce changes to a system that is currently and effectively encouraging and facilitating self-help job seeking for unemployed Australians? Why would the Rudd government wish to protract the financial instability and welfare reliance of some of the country’s most vulnerable people? Considering that this Rudd Labor government claims to be deeply concerned about providing opportunities for struggling Australians, it seems to me these amendments, which will relax the responsibilities of welfare recipients regarding welfare payments, are peculiar and ill thought out proposals. The coalition will ultimately support this legislation, but we do have concerns and they have been noted accordingly. 87 11:43:00 McKew, Maxine, MP BP4 Bennelong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare 1 0 Ms McKEW —I rise to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. It is part of a package of reforms being enacted by the government as part of our agenda on workforce participation and productivity. Two of the government’s ambitions in this area are that all working-age Australians have the opportunity to develop the skills and qualifications needed to enable them to be effective participants in and contributors to the labour market, and of course to help those individuals to overcome barriers to education, training and employment. The government is working on a number of fronts to meet these ambitions and the role of this bill is to introduce changes to the Employment Services’ compliance system to ensure that Australia’s job seekers meet their participation requirements and maximise their chances of being in the workforce. The bill brings about a range of possible responses to encourage participation and, importantly, the specific response will reflect the assessment of a job seeker’s individual circumstances. I think this new framework provides a flexible and, importantly, fair response by the government to Australia’s job seekers. The changes presented in this bill will replace the current compliance arrangements which, I think, are counterproductive, nondiscretionary, and contain an irreversible eight-week non-payment penalty. The bill is an important component of the new $3.9 billion Australian Employment Services that will commence on 1 July 2009. The new Australian Employment Services will help address the needs of today’s labour market, which is defined by skill shortages, historically low unemployment and a growing percentage or proportion of disadvantaged job seekers. Over the last 10 years the proportion of job seekers unemployed for more than five years has increased from one in 10 to one in four. These people are from the most disadvantaged in our community, many suffering from language, literacy and numeracy difficulties, poor educational attainment, disability, mental and physical health issues, and homelessness. The approach of the previous government included the use of an irreversible eight-week non-payment penalty for some job seekers. In my own electorate in the last year about 80 people found themselves in this situation, and I note the possible consequences of this irreversible eight-week non-payment period. They are severe, and they have the potential to extend well beyond that eight-week period. Homelessness Australia reports that up to 20 per cent of people who underwent an eight-week breach lost their accommodation or were forced to move to less appropriate housing. Thus the approach adopted by the previous government created more crises, more homelessness and more disengaged people from the Employment Services. The new Employment Services are designed to encourage compliance by introducing a work culture atmosphere. A work culture atmosphere will successfully support job seekers. Like any workplace, the new services will function on a no-show, no-pay system. This is the key I think to creating a balance between participation and penalties for job seekers. Those who do not participate without a reasonable excuse will incur a no-show, no-pay failure. This failure, though, incurs a penalty of one-tenth of the fortnightly payment for every day that they do not attend. Further, if a job seeker fails to attend a meeting with their Employment Services provider, they will incur a connection failure which calls for a reconnection requirement. That is, the job seeker is required to attend another meeting with their Employment Services provider and, if a job seeker continues to fail to reconnect, they will incur a penalty which is one-fourteenth of their fortnightly payment. So a significant change to the current non-payment penalty is that job seekers have the opportunity to re-engage and immediately participate in an appropriate activity. I think this is a balanced approach which will not send job seekers into situations of crisis. Rather, these deductions in their payments are designed to create a clear incentive for job seekers to participate in a positive way with the system, to re-engage with service providers, to attend training activities and participate in Work for the Dole events. All of these activities are designed to increase job seeker skills. The current system’s eight-week non-payment penalty will be retained but only enforced in situations of serious failure and continuous noncompliance. To safeguard those job seekers experiencing genuine periods of hardship, this will be assessed by a new comprehensive compliance assessment. It is not the intention of the Labor government to follow in the footsteps of the previous government and to allow noncompliance and associated penalties to increase. Nor is the government interested in creating severe hardship for those already struggling to find a secure foothold in the community. As part of the new Employment Services this bill also replaces the current activity agreement with a more suitable employment pathway plan. That allows Centrelink and Employment Services to create specific pathways which suit the circumstances of individuals. Under the current system job seekers go it alone for an initial three-month period before service providers are required to actively address their needs. For those new to unemployment, those with vocational and non-vocational barriers, navigating this space on their own is pretty daunting and very difficult. So the new plan’s assessment process is designed to quickly identify job seekers’ unique needs and skills and to actively establish pathways which overcome barriers to employment. Job seekers assessed as the most disadvantaged will receive the most assistance. To help with this process, employment service providers will be measured on the social outcomes attained by disadvantaged job seekers. These include improvements in language and in literacy and numeracy. Increased opportunities to participate in work experience and training will also be available to disadvantaged job seekers. Programs that assist all of these groups will be implemented as part of the new employment services. This is of particular relevance in my electorate of Bennelong because constituents in these groups often contact my office for assistance in managing the complexities of Centrelink. We help mature age job seekers—and, of course, these include people with caring responsibilities—with reskilling and retraining opportunities. For job seekers from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds and for refugees, these programs include assistance which addresses specific language difficulties. To assist with this process, employment service providers will offer specialist assistance from staff of similar backgrounds as well as staff of mature age. Parents are another group of constituents that regularly require the assistance of my electoral office staff, and the new services also offer more appropriate services to parent job seekers. So opportunities to reskill in areas of shortage and to participate in work experience will be available to parents and mature age job seekers, and I think these changes will be of great benefit to them. To address the skills shortage as well as the global economic crisis we are experiencing at the moment, the Labor government announced last week it would increase the commitment to the Productivity Places Program by offering more than 700,000 new places to be created over five years. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11.52 am to 12.49 pm Debate (on motion by Ms Grierson) adjourned. 89 Adjournment 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 12.49 pm, I propose the question: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 89 89 12:49:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —In the matter of public importance debate on Tuesday this week, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts attempted to rewrite history and at the same time tried to account for his approval of 100 billion litres of water to be taken out of the Murray River to provide water to Melbourne via the north-south pipeline. Does he not know that we have recognised that mistake in South Australia—recognised the need to wean Adelaide off the Murray? This minister thinks it is a sensible idea to go the other way and take water out of the Murray for Melbourne’s water supply. It does not matter whether or not it is coming from savings elsewhere; the savings should go back to the river. We made the same mistake in South Australia where, through the Loxton rehabilitation scheme in my electorate of Barker, some 42 billion litres of water was saved annually so that it could be put into the Murray River when it is needed most. These savings alone could be enough to save the Lower Lakes. I point out that these savings of 42 billion litres annually occurred under funding from the Howard government. The water was recovered and then sold off by the state Labor government. The minister went on to suggest that when the Howard government came to office in 1996 it had warnings about climate change impacts on water allocations within the Murray-Darling Basin. One might ask: from whom? Not from the climate change office—that did not exist at the time; not from Kyoto, because that did not occur until 1997; and not from the Murray-Darling Commission, because they had not done any work on it and really did not make strong comments about this until many years later. So who gave these warnings? This is simply the minister rewriting history through figments of his own imagination, and he should return to the House to correct this fallacy. On several occasions the government has claimed various figures for water purchases under the $50 million water purchase program. I have heard and seen ‘34 gigalitres’, ‘32 gigalitres’, ‘27 gigalitres’—a gigalitre being a billion litres—but, as we have learnt during budget estimates this week, the actual water purchase is less than one gigalitre—although I think Minister Wong got her zeros wrong when she claimed 850,000 megalitres or 850 gigalitres. She was only 1,000 times out! The minister also claimed that only 1½ of one per cent of the $10 billion was committed in the 2007-08 financial year. Of course, this was a 10-year program. You would not expect all the money to be spent in the first year. But guess who was in power for most of the 2007-08 financial year? Rudd Labor. Who stopped the referral of powers to the Commonwealth? Labor in Victoria. Who still has not paid the irrigators at the Yatco Lagoon for a commitment made 15 months ago? Rudd Labor. This was a commitment that was a win for the environment, a win for the Murray and a win for the community, but Labor will not pay their obligation to a contract with the people. This is an outrage and should be corrected today. For a small, in relative terms, investment by the federal government of about $2 million, we are saving five billion litres of water every year. That is a bit over $2,000 per megalitre, which is—funnily enough—about the going price for buying water. So it is a very important initiative. We have already done the work under the Howard government’s $10 billion Water Initiative. We have returned the wetlands to their normal wet and dry cycle and have saved water out of the Murray as a result of things that were done 60 or 70 years ago. It is time for this government to honour that commitment. It is time to fix up the problem that they have created by not paying out what they should have. 90 90 12:55:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise to speak on an event that is taking place in my electorate today, which I would have dearly loved to have attended. The participants of that event deserve our appreciation and collective thanks. Today is the AGM and official opening of the new premises of Multicultural Aged Care Inc. I expect that all members here or their acquaintances have had one or more loved ones age and in their latter years become in need of more care than either their spouse or their broader family are able to provide. We all know of the symptoms of ageing. Many people age well and maintain independence. Others require levels of help on certain occasions and others still require almost constant care, whether it is physical support or protection from the consequences of the onset of dementia. Few things cause me more concern for my own parents as they age than the care that they will need as they get older and the services that will be available. Those of us who engage with the aged-care sector hear of people who perhaps migrated to Australia many years ago and who managed to master the English language, or been capable of speaking English over a period of decades, reverting in their old age to their native tongue. From that time on, many simply cannot communicate with or understand those in their presence, including the best-intentioned staff of aged-care facilities. The thought of living in a world in which one is cut off from their surrounds, those amongst whom they live and the very people who are there to care for them—cut off by language and confusion that would leave most of us paralysed—is a terrifying one. So those organisations, such as the Multicultural Aged Care group, that are providing the cultural and linguistic support, directly or indirectly, for the elderly in need of particularly sensitive care deserve very special appreciation and our heartfelt thanks. Within and around my electorate of Hindmarsh there are several such organisations. Several have developed services for and a clientele from the highly substantial Italian and Greek populations that live in Adelaide’s inner western and inner north western suburbs. For example, the Society of Saint Hilarion Inc. has three residential aged-care facilities in Adelaide’s western suburbs, two within my electorate of Hindmarsh, that specialise in caring for people of Italian background. We also have St Raphael’s and St Martin’s, which prides itself on specialising in people from multicultural backgrounds. We are also fortunate to have the Ridleyton Greek Home for the Aged and St Basil’s of Croydon Park, both of which service the very large Greek population in Adelaide’s west, including the area from where I come from, which houses thousands of people of Greek background for whom English is a second language. To aid these and other organisations around the Adelaide metropolitan area, we are fortunate to have Multicultural Aged Care Inc. Multicultural Aged Care was first incorporated in 1992. Its vision statement reads: ... that all older people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds will lead the lifestyle of their choice. The MAC, Multicultural Aged Care, community has been implementing programs in support of agencies that care for people of diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds for over 15 years. But its work is not exclusively agency focused. Multicultural Aged Care has worked with all players in the development and delivery of the services that are required for aged-care residents. Necessarily, it has also been working closely with community organisations on the development of their capacities to care for elderly people and also with governments, peak bodies and mainstream organisations concerning the needs of elderly people from diverse cultural and linguistic backgrounds. Multicultural Aged Care Inc. is today holding their annual general meeting and the official opening of their new premises in Mile End, South Australia. I sent a note to be read in my absence at the event this afternoon in Adelaide. I will state here just a little of what I wrote to be read to those celebrating their achievements and the opening of the new premises of Multicultural Aged Care Inc.: To the CEO, Rosa Colanero, and Evelyn O’Loughlin, Chairperson of the MAC board, I do regret being prevented from attending your meeting and celebration this afternoon, as the care for our mothers, fathers and grandparents who have come to this country from afar, often many years ago, is central to the hopes of so many of my generation. For their care and your ongoing work may I say thank you— and congratulations on your achievement today. Question agreed to. 91 12:59:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 pm 92 Questions in Writing 92 92 300 92 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 2 September 2008: Where Community Development Employment Projects providers are predicting their own outcomes, what percentage of them has predicted that they can place into full time employment: 10 per cent; (b) 20 per cent; and (c) 30 per cent or more, of job seekers? 92 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: CDEP providers do not predict their own outcomes. Employment targets are negotiated between the providers and the department. The target figure takes into account the local labour market conditions with a focus to encourage improved employment placement outcomes. 92 92 302 92 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 2 September 2008: Have financial viability checks of all Community Development Employment Projects (CDEP) been done since CDEP was re-introduced? 92 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My Department will undertake updated financial viability checks for current CDEP providers. The process is expected to be completed by the end of January 2009. 92 92 309 92 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 2 September 2008: Of those Community Development Employment Projects participants who were participating prior its rollback, how many are now in employment? 92 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at the end of June 2008, according to CDEP data around 500 participants had a CDEP Placement Incentive payment claimed for them by one of the 16 transitioned providers. Of this group, for over 70% a 13 week outcome payment had been claimed, and, for over 40% a 26 week outcome payment had been claimed as at 14 October 2008. CDEP providers can claim a CDEP Placement Incentive payment for participants who move off the program and into employment. 13 week and 26 week outcome payments are made to CDEP providers for placing and supporting CDEP participants in employment for 13 and 26 consecutive weeks. 92 92 322 92 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 Mr Broadbent asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 15 September 2008: In respect of AMP shares from 1 January 1998: can he confirm that many of the people who received shares did so as a result of AMP policies based on trust deed arrangements. Where AMP trust deed-based policies existed, did the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC): (a) examine all trust deeds to confirm beneficial ownership of the shares; and (b) require each trustee to provide proof of their identity. Were the shares of uncontactable shareholders retained by Computershare for six years, then sold, and the monies forwarded to the ASIC Unclaimed Monies Unit. Do monies held by the Unclaimed Monies Unit attract interest. Must claimants of monies held by the Unclaimed Monies Unit submit: (a) proof of their identity; (b) certified copies of trust deeds; and (c) a written agreement from all trustees, before their claims will be considered. Are there any circumstances where claimants of monies held by the Unclaimed Monies Unit are not required to submit the information in (5); if so, what are the criteria. Does the Unclaimed Monies Unit assume responsibility for the function of trusts once monies are lodged with it. Will the Unclaimed Monies Unit extend its authority over all trusts including those involved in the original public float of AMP, in order to confirm beneficial ownership of shares 93 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer ito the honourable member’s question is as follows: This is a matter for AMP to confirm. The shares and dividends were transferred to ASIC in period between January 2006 and March 2006. When ASIC assesses a claim it requests that the claimant provide a certified copy of the trust deed. (b) When ASIC assesses claims, all trustees must provide proof of identity. Computershare is the share registry service. The AMP shares would have been listed in the shareholder’s name when transferred to ASIC. ASIC then sold the AMP shares and the proceeds from the sale of the shares are held in trust by ASIC along with any unclaimed dividends. ASIC holds unclaimed monies that it is responsible for administering in the Companies and Unclaimed Monies Special Account. Unclaimed monies are held on trust for their owners, however, ASIC is permitted to invest the principal amount and earn interest on it. The owners can reclaim the principal sum they own but they are not entitled to claim any interest it has generated. ASIC has standard requirements for assessing claims for unclaimed monies. Where ASIC is aware of the existence of a trust, the trustee is required to complete a statutory declaration, provide a certified copy of the trust deed that lists the trustees, provide personal identification of all trustees, and provide proof of the shareholding in AMP. No. No. ASIC does not administer the trust but holds the monies subject to the terms of the trust. ASIC will continue to require proof of the beneficial ownership of shares where they are held on trust.