2008-11-13 42 1 3 REPS 0 0 2008-11-13 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Now that the member for Blair has allowed me to recognise the Chief Government Whip, with great expectation I call the Chief Government Whip. 10841 Bills R3095 10841 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 09:01:00 —I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. This motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to. 10841 Bills R3099 10841 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 10841 10841 09:02:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Nation-building Funds Bill 2008 (the bill) is part of a package of bills giving effect to the government’s 2008-09 budget announcement to establish three new nation-building funds that will provide significant investment in transport, communications, water, energy, education, research and health infrastructure to strengthen our economy. These new funds build Australia’s infrastructure needs for the future and will assist in addressing Australia’s immediate challenges in response to the global financial crisis, as well as its longer term challenges over the next decade and beyond. To help shield Australians from the global financial crisis, the government has announced it will fast-track its nation-building agenda. To facilitate this acceleration, this bill and a consequential amendments bill allow for interim arrangements to begin as early as possible, as investment in critical infrastructure can help secure economic activity in the short term and extend growth potential in the medium to long term. The government believes that the Commonwealth has a central role in meeting the nation’s infrastructure needs. The opposition has taken various positions on the importance of a nation-building agenda, appearing to be for it one day only to come out strongly against it the next. For the sake of our economy both in the short and long term, it is of critical importance that the opposition stops playing politics with nation building and facilitates the passage of this legislation by the end of the year. This is required for the funds to be established by 1 January 2009 and for the fast-tracking of infrastructure projects which are a pivotal part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy. Contribution to the funds The government is committed to implementing an infrastructure investment program, allocating funds for transport communications, energy, water, education and health. This year, the government will contribute: a total of $12.6 billion to the Building Australia Fund for transport, communications, energy and water, infrastructure, including proceeds from the T3 sale and the balance of the Communications Fund; a total of $8.7 billion to the Education Investment Fund for education infrastructure, including the balance of the Higher Education Endowment Fund; and $5 billion to the Health and Hospitals Fund, for health infrastructure. This is an infrastructure program of historical proportions. The government has committed to making future allocations to the funds as budget circumstances permit. Where the funds are used to finance capital projects in the states and territories, funding will be distributed through a new Council of Australian Government (COAG) Reform Fund, which the Treasurer is establishing through the COAG Reform Fund Bill 2008, another component of this package of bills. Investment of the funds The nation-building funds will utilise the investment framework that has been established for the Future Fund. The Future Fund Board of Guardians will manage the investments of the funds. Rigorous evaluation of projects Spending from the funds on specific projects will be subject to rigorous evaluation by independent advisory bodies. In view of the government’s commitment to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the global financial crisis, this bill and a consequential amendments bill allow for interim advisory bodies for the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund to be established as soon as possible. These interim bodies will provide a report to government in December. For the Building Australia Fund, the government has previously indicated that Infrastructure Australia, the independent statutory council headed by Sir Rod Eddington, will produce an interim report in December on a National Infrastructure Priority List. The advisory bodies will assess projects against evaluation criteria which are being developed by portfolio ministers. Interim evaluation criteria are also being developed to allow work to commence as soon as possible. Budget consideration Consistent with the government’s Economic Security Strategy to strengthen the Australian economy in the face of the global financial crisis, the bill permits me, as finance minister, to determine a drawing rights limit for spending from the funds covering the period up to 30 June 2009. This will enable work in key infrastructure areas to commence before 1 July 2009. To apply rigour and transparency to spending from the funds prior to the 2009-10 financial year, the determination will be made in writing and tabled in the parliament. The funds will be established as ‘special accounts’ in the Consolidated Revenue Fund, meaning that any amounts credited to the funds represent amounts that have been appropriated and clearly committed for future expenditure on infrastructure. From 2009-10, the government will consider proposals as part of the budget process. Transparency and scrutiny for payments from the 2009-10 financial year onwards is provided by the government including a general drawing rights limit in the appropriation acts. The general drawing rights limit will restrict the total amount that may be paid out in a financial year to support relevant infrastructure expenditure. This is intended to provide the parliament with a mechanism by which it may oversight the rate at which the amounts are being expended for investment in infrastructure. Payments from the funds Portfolio ministers will be responsible and accountable for payments made from the funds in relation to projects brought forward within their portfolio responsibilities, which is consistent with the usual Commonwealth financial management arrangements. Importantly, it will allow for portfolio ministers to be responsible for the delivery of projects, including the meeting of project milestones. Conclusion With this bill, we begin a new era of investing in Australia’s short-, medium- and long-term needs. These funds are important to address the challenges Australia faces. The funds demonstrate the government’s commitment to building the nation’s capabilities. The funds provide a crucial financing source for investment in critical nation-building infrastructure needs. This is a government that responds quickly at a time of global financial crisis. We intend to invest and build for the future. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. 10843 Bills R3102 10843 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 10843 10843 09:09:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Nation-building Funds (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2008 supports the establishment of the new nation-building funds: the Building Australia Fund, the Education Investment Fund and the Health and Hospitals Fund. As detailed in my earlier speech, the nation-building funds build Australia’s infrastructure needs for the future. This consequential amendments bill will allow for interim arrangements to begin as soon as possible to implement the government’s nation-building funds agenda in response to the global financial crisis. The investments of all three nation-building funds will be managed by the Future Fund Board of Guardians. The government will close the Communications Fund and transfer its balance to the Building Australia Fund. The government will also close the Higher Education Endowment Fund and transfer its balance to the Education Investment Fund. I will now discuss the material changes in the bill. The bill repeals part 9C of the Telecommunications (Consumer Protection and Service Standards) Act 1999, which establishes the Communications Fund, and repeals the Higher Education Endowment Fund Act 2007. The bill also makes the necessary amendments to the Future Fund Act 2006, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Telstra Corporation Act 1991 reflecting the closure of the Communications Fund and Higher Education Endowment Fund. Consequential amendments extend the Future Fund Act’s operation to deal with the Future Fund Board of Guardians’ duties in relation to the Building Australia Fund, Education Investment Fund, and Health and Hospitals Fund. I commend this bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. 10844 Business 10844 Mr BOWEN (Prospect —Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer) 09:11:00 —I move: That consideration of government business order of the day No. 3, Corporations Amendment (Short Selling) Bill 2008, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 10844 Bills R4002 10844 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen. Bill read a first time. 10844 10844 09:12:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill will improve the regulatory environment for the provision of tax agent services. The bill has three main objectives. Firstly, it aims to improve consistency in the registration of tax agents and other intermediaries in the tax field and to regulate the provision of tax agent services in an appropriate but flexible way. Secondly, the bill aims to enhance the protection of consumers of tax agent services, thereby reducing the level of uncertainty for taxpayers and the risks associated with the self-assessment tax system. The third objective is to strengthen the integrity of the tax system and the tax industry. This bill will replace the existing law regulating tax agents in part VIIA of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. This part was introduced in 1943 and is now out of date and out of step with the current tax and commercial environment. Indeed, Australia’s tax environment has changed significantly since 1943. For example, the self-assessment tax system was introduced during the 1980s. In addition, the tax base has expanded significantly over the past 20 years or so, with an associated increase in the volume of the tax laws and the number of interactions within them. These changes in the tax environment correspond with significant growth in the number of taxpayers seeking professional assistance from tax agents to prepare and lodge their tax returns. In 1980, for example, only around 20 per cent of individuals used tax agents to lodge their tax returns. This figure has now grown to 74 per cent. Given the number of taxpayers who use agents to comply with their tax obligations, it is important that such agents are appropriately and adequately regulated, that there are mechanisms in place to ensure they are adequately supported, and that there are incentives for new agents to enter the market. The Tax Agent Services Bill aims to deliver this balance through a number of key elements that I would like to outline. The bill will establish an independent national Tax Practitioners Board to replace the existing state based tax agents boards. The board’s key functions will be to register agents and to regulate the provision of tax agent services. The establishment of a single, national board will make the registration process consistent and standardise the way in which entities providing tax agent services are regulated across the country. It will also enable greater efficiency in the allocation and use of the board’s resources. The bill proposes to establish the board as a statutory authority within the Australian Taxation Office. The board’s funding will be quarantined from the tax office’s annual appropriation and its functions and powers under the bill will be vested independently from the Commissioner of Taxation, thus providing all possible practical independence. A formal post-implementation review of the proposed governance arrangements for the board will be conducted in three years time to assess whether the independence of the board is impaired in any way because of its continued connection with the tax office, and whether an alternative arrangement should be considered. The second key element is the requirement for certain entities that provide tax agent services for a fee to be registered. In addition to requiring tax agents to be registered, the bill introduces a registration requirement for entities providing BAS services. This ensures that a level playing field across industry exists, by broadening the scope and application of the regulatory framework to reflect the broader scope of services provided, given the expansion in the tax base. The definition of ‘tax agent service’ in the bill and the relevant paragraphs in the explanatory memorandum clarify the intention that financial services licensees can provide tax advice that is incidental to financial services, provided that service would not be relied upon in satisfying a tax obligation or claiming an entitlement under the taxation laws. Thirdly, the bill will introduce a legislated code of professional conduct which will govern the provision of tax agent services by tax agents and BAS agents. The code will define the professional and ethical standards required of agents, and their roles and responsibilities. It will therefore provide clarity and certainty around the standards expected of agents. It will also provide a benchmark against which the board and taxpayers can evaluate the tax agent services being provided. The fourth key element is the establishment of a wider and more flexible range of administrative sanctions than those existing under the present arrangement. In cases of noncompliance with the code, the board will be able to impose a sanction that is commensurate with the severity of the misconduct, ranging from a written caution or an order to undergo training or work under supervision, through to termination of registration. The introduction of a range of constructive and educative sanctions for noncompliance will improve the standard of services provided to the public. The fifth and final element is the introduction of a specific civil penalties regime for certain specified misconduct by registered agents and unregistered entities, which will replace the criminal penalties in the current law. For example, civil penalties will apply where an unregistered entity provides tax agent services for a fee, and where an agent knowingly or recklessly makes false or misleading statements. Reform of the regulatory framework for tax agent services was first contemplated during the mid-1990s and was first announced by the previous government in 1998. The framework has been developed and refined over the course of many years. The key elements of the bill have been supported unanimously by the key players in the tax industry, including tax agents, bookkeepers, representatives of the tax and accounting professional associations as well as the legal professional associations, taxpayers and the tax office. Introduction of this bill therefore represents a positive outcome, following a long journey for many stakeholders, particularly those individuals and entities practising in the field, providing tax agent services to the community. The full details of the provisions in the Tax Agent Services Bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. 10846 Committees 10846 10846 10846 09:18:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support 1 0 Dr KELLY —I move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Enhanced Land Force Stage 1 Facilities Project, Lavarack Barracks, Townsville, Queensland and other Defence bases around Australia. The Department of Defence proposes to undertake the Enhanced Land Force stage 1 facilities project at Lavarack Barracks, Queensland and other Defence bases around Australia, at an estimated out-turned cost of $793.1 million, plus GST. Lavarack Barracks is currently the home base for the Army’s 3rd Brigade. The Enhanced Land Force Stage 1 Facilities project will relocate the 3rd Battalion of the Royal Australian Regiment from Holsworthy Barracks in Sydney to Lavarack Barracks to co-locate with the remainder of the 3rd Brigade that is already based in Townsville. To support Army capabilities, there are significant existing facilities at Lavarack Barracks and other Defence bases around Australia. Since 2007, the Army has been increasing in size to implement the government’s Enhanced Land Force initiative, and the existing facilities require modification, extension or new construction to support the increased capabilities effectively. This project will provide new and refurbished accommodation and training facilities, as well as common-use facilities and site infrastructure upgrades at Townsville and other Defence sites across five states. Facilities at Kapooka, Singleton, Holsworthy and Puckapunyal will provide modern accommodation and supporting infrastructure for increased Army training, whilst at RAAF bases Amberley, Edinburgh and Richmond, new facilities will be provided for joint enabling elements supporting the Enhanced Land Force capabilities. Subject to parliamentary approval, construction will commence in mid-2009 and be completed by late 2011. I commend the motion to the House. 10846 09:20:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I rise to support this motion. This is very significant for Townsville, but the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support left out a word in his speech to the parliament. He indicated to us all that Lavarack Barracks is the home of the 3rd Brigade. He did not inform the parliament that that is the ‘premier’ brigade in Australia today. Defence presence in Australia’s only garrison city, Townsville, is one of the reasons Townsville is doing so well in the current downturn in the economy. We love our soldiers and we love the men and women of the Royal Australian Air Force. The 3rd Battalion coming to Townsville is a very significant change in the way the battalions are located. This will be welcomed by the Townsville community, and it will ensure that Defence continue to be a very significant presence in Australia’s largest tropical city. I thank the parliamentary secretary for his referral today. Question agreed to. 10846 10846 10846 09:22:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I present the report from the Publications Committee sitting in conference with the Publications Committee of the Senate. Copies of the report are being placed on the table. Report—by leave—agreed to. 10847 Bills R4001 Cognate bills: 10847 Bills R4005 10847 Bills R4004 10847 Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Ms Macklin: That this bill be now read a second time. 10847 09:25:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) bills Nos 1 and 2. As we know, these are part of the package of spending measures totalling $10.4 billion, with $9.65 billion to be spent in 2008-09, designated to stimulate the economy and known as the Economic Security Strategy. We also know this package is worth half of the current forecast budget surplus. This government is clearly out of its depth, having had to admit that this package was announced without any economic analysis by Treasury. Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan have spent half the forecast surplus without any modelling to show it will have the desired impact. That is a concern. They are making policy on the run, as it has been described over this period of time. When they come into this place and claim that it is their budget surplus, we know that that is not accurate. This surplus was put in place before the last election by the very able then Treasurer, Peter Costello, the member for Higgins. It is the coalition’s $20 billion budget surplus that was built up through careful management of the Australian economy that has been helping to secure Australia’s future. We know that Labor inherited no government debt; a budget surplus, as I have said, of $22 billion; and a Future Fund of more than $66 billion in reserves. In addition, unemployment was at record lows, mortgage rates were low, inflation was under three per cent and growth was high. For a government who claimed accountability credentials time and time again, we are now seeing time and time again that this is a government who hides public information in the shadows. Mr Rudd and Mr Swan must explain— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The honourable member will refer to members by their titles. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —The Prime Minister and the Treasurer must explain the government’s decision and provide the required detailed analysis of how those decisions were actually reached. It is little wonder that they have been described as bungling the management of the Australian economy—and they are trying to hide this bungled management. When the government took office the economic indicators were heading in the right direction; now they are heading in absolutely the wrong direction. The continued mishandling of the economic crisis has damaged the Australian economy, and the worst thing is that it is now affecting jobs. The unemployment rate is expected to rise to 5.75 per cent by June 2010, but there is a suggestion that this figure is probably an underestimate. Unemployment is expected to reach five per cent by next June. I digress for a moment to say that in Western Australia last week it was announced that the unemployment level in that state is 2.2 per cent, a marvellous achievement. So, to those who are in New South Wales, in that rust belt state, and doing it hard, I suggest that if you really do want a better future you might want to go to Western Australia, where 2.2 per cent is probably under full employment at this stage. We are a state that really is looking for skilled workers to fill a whole range of jobs. For example, we are still having trouble getting cleaners for offices and commercial premises in Perth. So that describes the unemployment level in Western Australia. In fact, by providing over 30 per cent of the nation’s income, you could really say that in Western Australia we are carrying the rest of Australia on our back, and that needs to be acknowledged when funds are handed out through government initiatives—for example, the upcoming infrastructure fund. Since we are producing so much of the nation’s wealth, we would like a little bit of it back in moneys for infrastructure such as roads, ports and schools, and additional hospital expenditure. It is the golden state in Australia at the moment, and it needs to be acknowledged for that. We know that the government are into the blame game and that they will blame the global financial crisis for every event that occurs hereafter. However incompetent and however bungled the government’s management of the economy, they will be blaming the global crisis. You can hear it every question time, when the Prime Minister when asked about economic data stands up and says, ‘Oh, yes, but it is the global crisis.’ As I have already said, if they had inherited the debt and the economic conditions that John Howard did when he came to office in 1996, just imagine what the state of the Australian economy would be now. This package includes $4.8 billion for pensioners, carers, senior health card holders and veterans. On 8 December, not only pensioners and other people across Australia but also Canning pensioners will finally get some relief from sky-high housing costs, grocery bills and petrol prices. Those eligible will include age pensioners, disability support pensioners, wife pensioners, widow B pensioners and service pensioners; those on income support supplement, carer’s payment, partner’s allowance, widow allowance, bereavement allowance, parenting payment if a person is of age, special benefit if a person is of age, Austudy if a person is of age and ABSTUDY if a person is of age; and Commonwealth seniors health card holders. I will look at the Canning figures at a glance because I would like to provide this information to the electorate. There are 5,000 single age pensioners and almost 9,000 partnered pensioners in Canning. There are 4,500 disability support pensioners, 600 people receiving carer payments, 2,000 Commonwealth seniors health card holders and almost 1,000 service pensioners. That demonstrates how many people in an electorate of something like 95,000 people are going to be beneficiaries and are going to rely on this support. The bonus will provide a one-off $1,400 lump sum payment for single pensioners and $2,100 for coupled pensioners as long as both partners hold an eligible card. Alternatively, a payment of $1,050 will be made if only one member of a couple has an eligible card. I know Canning pensioners have welcomed these one-off payments, given rising grocery prices, rising fuel prices and the current climate of global economic instability, but the bonus for pensioners is long overdue. Now the Prime Minister and Mr Swan must address raising the base rate of pensions. It is not good enough to give a one-off bonus, because this will be chewed up pre-Christmas and post-Christmas. The underlying problem of pensions keeping pace needs to be addressed in structural reform for pensions and we are asking this government to do that, as we did when we were the government under the Howard coalition. As people know, instead of doing what Keating did—just giving a throwaway before an election—we actually put the pension on a sound footing of twice-yearly increases based on the CPI or the MTAWE, whichever was higher. So it was very transparent. People knew when it was going to be delivered, they knew the reasons for any increase and they received the higher of the two increases. This was a genuine reform in the Howard years. Now the Rudd government must make similar reforms to put pensions and entitlements on a sound footing so that people know exactly when they are getting it, how they are getting it and why they are getting it. People on entitlements are the most vulnerable in our communities and they deserve the consideration and the respect of being told how and when they will be given such a considered increase. We know that the Henry review will not report until mid next year. That will be after the next federal budget in May, which means that there will be little opportunity in the May budget. You can rest assured that the Rudd government will be saying, ‘We cannot do anything until the Henry review is delivered because we will be pre-empting anything from the Henry review’. So that will put pensioners and all other people expecting entitlements further back in being considered. The expected relief will be a longer time coming, so the response to increasing cost-of-living pressures will not flow in any sort of timely way. Once this one-off bonus has been spent pre-Christmas and post-Christmas, pensioners and other entitlement holders will be back to the same problem of not having enough to live on, with increasing rents and increasing grocery prices. Petrol prices are coming down, but we know that they are not coming down to the extent that they should be. Crude oil prices have come down by 40 per cent since July last year, yet petrol prices have only come down by 27 per cent. Fuelwatch has not gotten up and the Fuel Commissioner should be doing his job. Where is the 17 per cent that should be delivered to the Australian people, particularly those most vulnerable: pensioners and other people receiving an entitlement? It would be of real benefit to them if they got the full flow-on of the 40 per cent reduction in world oil prices. The Prime Minister, Mr Rudd, campaigned on this issue leading up to the 2007 election, and he must address this structural reform as a matter of urgency—not after the budget next year; not after waiting for Mr Henry of the Treasury to deliver his report and using that as a later measure. Let us not forget that this one-off measure was designed to stimulate the economy. It is not a compassionate response by the Rudd government to the ongoing plight of pensioners struggling to meet the increasing costs of living. We know that they were dragged kicking and screaming into this response. They even voted down the opposition’s opportunity to address this with a $30 increase months and months ago. This is part of a stimulus package, not a compassionate consideration of the plight of pensioners. The coalition has long called for a rise in the base rate of the pension and, after months of posturing and refusing to even look at it, the majority of the government front bench admitted that they could not even live on $273 per week so they have tried to be a saviour with this payment. The government did not even blink an eye before shelving the coalition’s Urgent Relief for Single Age Pensioners Bill 2008 before it hit the floor of the House of Representatives. It was almost pilloried and ridiculed. But now I do believe that the pressure that the opposition and other minor parties put on the government did have some targeted effect benefiting pensioners. This bill also provides for $3.9 billion in bonus payments to families with dependent children. Payments of $1,000 will be made for each child who attracts family tax benefit A or, alternatively, for children who attract youth allowance, ABSTUDY living allowance or an education allowance under veterans’ entitlements. These bonuses will be a great help to many Canning families. There are 15,000 recipients of family tax benefit A in the Canning electorate. However, I have received a lot of calls from families in the area who are doing it tough and were again overlooked. The Prime Minister’s working families—the focus group tag that he uses—are the ones that are actually being left out. Middle Australia has been sidelined by this issue. Many local families work hard, pay taxes and do not receive any family tax benefits and do not qualify for any lump sum payments. People say to me all the time: ‘Low income people get the support and those on high incomes have an opportunity to minimise their obligations, but how about the good, honest, working, middle-class Australians who pay their taxes and work hard? They get little or no relief from this government.’ These are the families struggling with rising household costs, petrol bills, school fees, health insurance and day-to-day expenses that just keep mounting. As I have said, general structural reform is needed, not lip service. The Prime Minister announced an uncapped guarantee for all deposits in Australian banks, building societies and credit unions, Australian subsidiaries of foreign banks and wholesale term funding. Once again the policy-on-the-run decision was made without any direct advice from the regulator—in other words, the Governor of the Reserve Bank. The resulting mayhem means that Australians have had billions of dollars in savings frozen in investment funds. These are Australians who have saved hard for their future. It is estimated that over one-quarter of a million people have had their savings and their entitlements in these funds frozen. Westpac CEO Gail Kelly has called on the government to place a cap of $100,000 on the deposit guarantee, which is, coincidently, the same as initially suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. Regarding superannuants, the unintended consequence of the government’s haphazard reaction to the global financial meltdown and the unlimited bank guarantee has been the freezing of funds. This has put people who rely on this superannuation drawdown in a predicament and under increasing financial strain. Those with superannuation arrangements face a challenging future, with financial institutions being forced to freeze payments. This was ill considered. Superannuation funds are being severely curtailed in their dividend payment, as asset values collapse. And what was the government’s reaction to those thousands of Australians relying on their superannuation incomes? The Treasurer said, ‘Go and get some help from Centrelink.’ What a terse and insulting thing to say, to tell these people to go and get help from Centrelink. These are their life savings and they cannot access them. It is slightly more complicated and distressing than joining the Centrelink line and in most cases people are not eligible for benefits because they have savings—they just cannot access them. The Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association said that the government pointing superannuants in the direction of Centrelink was of little comfort and only caused additional distress. Centrelink staff are under immense pressure. In fact, I am aware that the head of Centrelink said that, should these people come to Centrelink, it would not have a mechanism to pay them. They would have to wait 28 days to even consider it. The Treasurer continues to show that he is out of touch with the Australian people and cannot be trusted to manage the Australian economy. Changes to the deeming rate will come into effect on 17 November 2008. The rate will be reduced from four per cent to three per cent for the first $41,000 of a single pensioner’s financial investment and the first $68,200 for couples and then fall from six per cent to five per cent for the balance of the investment. Simply, the deeming rate reduction is designed to reflect the fall in investment returns. This one per cent reduction in the deeming rate is aimed at helping people on means tested pensions—such as the age pension, the disability support pension and carer payments—and income support allowances and supplements, such as the parenting payment and Newstart paid by Centrelink. This is just another cynical move by a cynical government. Actually the rate is only 2.4 per cent, which makes the deeming rate changes just another photo-opportunity policy from the government with little practical comfort for those people who need it most. In other words, bringing the rate down by one per cent does not reflect the actual fall in that period of time. The actual fall is 2.4 per cent. So the full relief from the pain is not being passed on. In the time I have left I would like to talk about grandparent carers, another group that has been long neglected. Grandparent carers are those Australians who give up their time and retirement to care for their grandchildren because of the circumstances of their own children. Grandparent carers have long been fighting for the same recognition, support and status as foster carers but it continues to be an uphill battle. Last year was a small win, with the coalition leading changes to social security legislation and extending participation requirement exemptions to principal carers who are relatives but not parents of the children. That is, they extended to grandparent carers the same status as foster parents. This is what over 50,000 grandparent carers in Australia have been calling for for a long time—that as a minimum they receive the same consideration and entitlement as foster parents when they look after their grandchildren. The case of Margaret Saunders in my electorate, who I have spoken about before, is just another unintended consequence of the government’s assistance package. Margaret 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. Margaret now cares full time for her two grandchildren, taking them to school and to activities after school and generally taking on the role of a full-time parent. I mentioned this case in the parliament recently; however, I thought it important to raise it again in reference to this bill. Margaret emailed me following the government’s announcement of the bonuses. She said: What really hurts is that Grandparents looking after grandchildren were overlooked again. Yes some of us will receive the bonus for the kids but a lot won’t. Regarding the bonuses, Margaret makes an extremely valid point. The mother of her grandchildren will receive a bonus as a disability pensioner. In other words, the mother who cannot look after the children is actually going to get a bonus because she is on a disability pension, being a hopeless drug addict—(Time expired) 10851 09:45:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and the two Economic Security Strategy appropriation bills. These bills implement key aspects of the government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy—a strategy that will maintain confidence, strengthen the national economy and help those most in need in our local community. The Prime Minister’s decisive action to strengthen the economy and support Australian households is good news for the people of Newcastle. Working families, pensioners and carers in Newcastle have been doing it tough, and the global economic uncertainty has added to their worries. The significant relief being provided to pensioners, self-funded retirees, low- and middle-income families and first home buyers is a big investment in our community and one which will strengthen the economy in these tough economic times. With payments starting on 8 December this year, the timing is particularly good. This is practical assistance for these and other low-income members of our community and it is a down payment ahead of the full pension review, which is underway. The payments will provide additional support in the nine months between now and when long-term pension reform can be considered in the context of the 2009-10 budget. In Newcastle, where over the past few years people have been telling me they have been struggling to meet the increased cost of living, more than 40,000 people are expected to directly benefit from the provision of the Economic Security Strategy. This is a significant relief. It shows a government that has struck on a decisive course of action that will strengthen the economy by giving much-needed assistance to those who need it most. As Minister Tanner, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, noted when introducing the appropriation bills, the global financial crisis has significantly changed the economic outlook since the budget in May this year. As the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, said, ‘The world has changed.’ We certainly know that, and I think we should all reflect on just what it has been like over the last few months. We have seen banks fail. We have seen banks being bailed out around the world, stock markets free-falling and the global economy stalling. Fortunately, of the top 14 of the OECD highest rated AA banks in the world, four are in our country. We are not immune, of course, but our economic fundamentals remain sound, and our financial institutions give us great hope that we will ride this one out much better than most. But these are extraordinary economic times. I draw attention to an article by Anne Davies in the Sydney Morning Herald from 4 October, where she points out that ‘Wall Street pain reaches down to those who have lost the American dream’. I think we all watched it play out in America first, with a huge $1 trillion share market crash. In that article, she quotes Bernie Sanders, an Independent senator from Vermont, and I think it is important to note some of the things he said, because the middle-class dream has perhaps not been as sound as people thought. He said: The middle class has really been under assault. Since President Bush has been in office, nearly 6 million Americans have slipped into poverty, median family income for working Americans has declined by more than $2000, more than 7 million Americans have lost their health insurance, over 4 million have lost their pensions, foreclosures are at an all-time high, total consumer debt has more than doubled, and we have a national debt of over $9.7 trillion. I remember, as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, asking Governor Stevens how long we could expect the world to shore up America’s debt. His response was that it was in no-one’s interest to withdraw credit to America. I think the debt just got too big. Senator Sanders went on to say: The top 0.1 per cent now earn more money than the bottom 50 per cent of Americans, and the top 1 per cent owns more wealth than the bottom 90 per cent. The wealthiest 400 people in our country saw their wealth increase by $670 billion while Bush has been president … These are astounding figures, and I suppose it reminds us all of capitalism gone a little bit crazy. Certainly people’s expectations and aspirations were unrealistic. They exceeded the norm and moved into the greed sector at an extreme rate. Fortunately, in Australia we have had the Reserve Bank and our other Australian financial regulatory institutions, who have given us warnings over many years. I remember Ian Macfarlane, then Governor of the Reserve Bank, at our hearings of the Standing Committee on Economics urging the then Howard government to take on the supply constraints in our economy. I remember Governor Macfarlane suggesting that house prices were overinflated and required some policy settings. I remember Governor Stevens drawing attention to our imbalance of trade and the ongoing consumption of cheap imported goods that were putting our economy in a parlous state, with inflation running rampant. It is a new global economy. It is a time for strengthened regulators, not diminished regulators, and I urge the opposition to desist from their attack on our regulators. We are a fortunate country. We are certainly now seeing that we are indeed the lucky country. These are astounding times: you turn on the ABC news in the evening and you see Alan Kohler from the business program telling you that 42 per cent of international GDP wealth has just disappeared in one day. That is some write-down to the wealth of the globe, and certainly it has been felt in Australia. What has that meant and what will it mean to Australians? I think we need to be reminded that for most Australians the only asset they have is their home. We have now seen home values decrease. Their home is the only asset most Australians have, and they prize it. They work hard for it. It is an acquisition they strive for. And certainly we need to make sure that the housing sector, including housing construction, is strong. We have done that through our bank guarantee. We have done that through supporting our second-tier mortgage lenders with our $8 billion of assistance and through the first home owners grants. For most Australians their only savings are in their superannuation fund. (Quorum formed) The savings of most Australians reside in their superannuation. The policy of the previous government that saw over $4 billion rushed into superannuation at the end of the financial year in 2007 is not perhaps one that stacks up very well now. It is always important that people contribute to the economy of Australia. It is always important that people pay their taxes. That is the way that wealth is distributed. I know that many people in my electorate are particularly concerned about the loss of value of their superannuation. For most Australians the only security they have is their job or the Centrelink safety net—which I just heard the member for Canning say was an embarrassment. Well, no, going to Centrelink is never an embarrassment—we are fortunate in this country that there is a safety net. Making sure that people’s security is shored up by employment is one thing that this package particularly tries to address. We do expect the strategy to boost the level of real GDP growth by between a half and one percentage point over the next several quarters. In Newcastle I was pleased to see that the Newcastle Herald had a headline ‘Manna from Kevin’. This legislation, and this $10.4 billion package, is a significant result. It has a particularly good outcome for Newcastle and the Hunter. The Newcastle Herald said, ‘Rudd’s $250 million Christmas bonus for the Hunter is just the boost into our economy that we need’. In my electorate of Newcastle alone there will be an injection of at least $55 million for recipients of age pension single and age pension partnered; carer allowances, carer allowance single and carer allowance coupled; carer payments; our family support packages for people on family tax benefit A; and DSP partnered and single. Overall there are at least 40,000 people in my electorate who will be receiving a dividend from this economic security package. In Newcastle we are blessed to have the Hunter Valley Research Foundation, an independent and autonomous body that find their own funding and do what I think in our country is some of the best collective learning and training in economic management for a city that I have ever seen. At their recent economic indicator breakfast they pointed out that our economy, having diversified and having fundamentally strong foundations, is in a better position than most. They said: Together with a structurally sound and diverse economy we are better placed than a lot of regions to weather the storm They also said: Economic conditions in the Region have deteriorated but not to critical levels There is some relief from the mess —Accelerated government spending —Lower $A–improving our international competitiveness— and for our knowledge based manufacturers, our very diversified manufacturing sector, that is good news— —Lower interest rates, fuel prices and (soon) inflation So they point out that lower interest rates, lower fuel prices and lower inflation—soon, we hope—are also going to mean greater success for our economy. I would also say that the economy of Newcastle and the Hunter still has its roots in the coal industry. I would urge the New South Wales government to sign off on the port agreement put forward under the Greiner plan. I know it is one supported by industry. When you get total support by industry, and you know that the ACCC are looking favourably at an agreement such as that, it would be in the best interests of the region to have that agreement signed off on by the New South Wales government now. Our package, though, as pointed out, has great dividends for the people of Newcastle not only in the payments alone but also in the training packages and in the investment in infrastructure. The fast-tracking of infrastructure is something that is particularly important in the region and I look forward to Infrastructure Australia supporting the people and the economy of the Hunter by rolling out some freight and logistics related infrastructure as soon as it possibly can. We are already seeing that sort of growth and investment from the private sector. In Newcastle and the Hunter the key is confidence. It is this package that will help to deliver that confidence. The Hunter Valley Research Foundation also point out that the housing sector remains vital to a recovery. The first home owners boost that gives an extra $7,000 to people purchasing an existing dwelling and an extra $14,000 to people purchasing a new dwelling, raising those grants to $14,000 and $21,000 respectively, is an excellent initiative and one that is very much needed. Indeed, the Newcastle chapter of the Master Builders Association said that the first home owners boost would, ‘Give the region’s building industry a much needed shot in the arm.’ I also note that we are investing over $117 million to create 56,000 additional productivity job seeker places in 2008-09. These places are to develop the skills that Australians need and that Australian businesses and industry need. It doubles the number of productivity places to 113,000 and hopefully will be a huge boon for young people, often the first people on the edge during financial downturns. The nation-building funds, too, will be extremely important investments in the productive future of our nation. We have established an independent authority, Infrastructure Australia. In my region, I am particularly looking forward to some support from the Health and Hospital Fund for the Hunter Medical Research Institute. I also think particularly of the port and the coal chain work being done by ARTC. In conclusion, I would like to commend the Prime Minister, the Treasurer, the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for bringing this Economic Security Strategy forward. It is an extraordinary response to the extraordinary economic times that we are now living through. It will go a long way to immediately stimulating the consumer economy and the housing market and to investment in long-term skills and therefore productivity. It recognises the tough times being faced by pensioners and low- and middle-income families and responds to those pressures with immediate financial relief. I am confident that this package will both keep the economy strong and help those people in our community most in need. I commend the bills to the House. 10855 10:02:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008, theAppropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009. The Rudd government released its Economic Security Strategy last month, including spending measures totalling $10.4 billion, with $9.6 billion to be spent in 2008-09. That represents half the forecast budget surplus. The social security bill provides $4.8 billion in a one-off payment to pensioners, carers, senior health care card holders and veterans and $3.8 billion in payments to families, with payments scheduled to be made from 8 December 2008. Other measures include $1.5 billion for first home buyers and $187 million for training. I welcome some relief for the most vulnerable members of my community, who have suffered under the strain of rapidly rising cost-of-living pressures over the last 12 months and the underlying rate of inflation, now at a 17-year high under the Rudd Labor government. This is well overdue. Only now are pensioners being given relief, after being denied a fair deal for far too long. I must make it clear that this one-off pension bonus in Labor’s $10.4 billion package does not include an increase in the base rate. So, while pensioners will undoubtedly welcome the money, it does not come with a commitment from the Rudd Labor government to raise the base rate. Pensioners are not assured that under the Rudd government they will receive any more money in the future. A future without financial certainty does not inspire hope for our pensioners. After much oscillating from the Rudd government’s three wise men on addressing the survival gap for pensioners, the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation have spun their way to this decision. One said that there would be no increase to pensions and one said that they will wait for the outcome of yet another review, but they all said that they could not live on the current pension rate of $273.40 per week. Finally, a decision was made when the Prime Minister consulted his crystal ball and got a hunch that the economy was going to worsen. Since coming to office, the ‘Rudd review fest’ has established a massive 165 committees. This style of government does not come cheap and I have to ask these questions: how much money has been spent on these reviews? How much has been paid to consultants? How much red tape has been created by the government, which spun the line to Australians prior to the election that they would cut red tape? On 21 February 2008, in my address in reply to the Governor-General’s speech, I made what is becoming an increasingly significant observation. If you recall, I observed: With an economic crisis evolving in various parts of the world, let me say that managing a trillion-dollar economy is not a game. We need to keep vigilant. In unsteady and inexperienced hands, with outside interference from the unions, all that we have achieved as a nation could be in jeopardy. This great nation could be set back 20 years in terms of both the economy and employment. Isn’t it infuriating that my forecast for Australia’s economic and unemployment climate under the Rudd Labor government is now begrudgingly accurate? Labor governments both past and present have made a mess of the Australian economy and have driven unemployment figures sky high. During the Hawke-Keating Labor government era, Australians endured an average inflation rate of 5.2 per cent, while in stark comparison under the former Howard government inflation averaged only 2.5 per cent. During the Hawke-Keating government period the maximum standard variable home loan rate rose to 17 per cent, while under the former Howard government it dropped drastically to 6.05 per cent. And I do not need to remind this House that government debt under the previous Labor government rose to $96 billion. Labor governments have a long history of driving the Australian economy into the ground, and the Rudd Labor government has proved in only 12 months that it is no exception. The economic mismanagement of the country by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer since coming to office in November last year has severely damaged Australia’s economy and is seriously threatening Australian jobs. The coalition left to the Rudd Labor government unemployment at its lowest level since 1974. Under the former Howard government, more young Australians took up apprenticeships than ever before, which is vitally important when there is a skills shortage in our nation. The coalition remains committed to creating long-term solutions, unlike the Rudd Labor government, which is all about quick, bandaid fixes that are ultimately all spin and no substance. The Rudd Labor government are using the global financial crisis as an excuse for their utter incompetence and mismanagement. After all, from day one they talked down our economy. They said they would end the blame game, but all they have been masters of is finding someone to blame for everything. I demand that the government release the current economic forecasts. Is it that the Treasurer does not understand these figures or is it simply that he cannot find them? I fear that the Treasurer will sit on these statistics until he can understand them himself, and at that rate they may never be released. If it takes the Treasurer three minutes and 20 seconds to find a piece of paper detailing the inflation figures from notes actually in front of him, then we could be waiting years for these figures and even longer for a solution. The Rudd Labor government must deliver on what they promised to the Australian people. Working families know what they heard and they know what they were promised, and it was not 165 reviews, commissions and talkfests. The Rudd Labor government are hypocritical in the highest degree. Prior to the election, Labor said they were economic conservatives, but their management of the economy proves that Labor are really economic vandals. Here we see history repeat itself yet again. The coalition, the real economic conservatives, build the nation’s wealth, keep unemployment low and work on keeping the national purse in the black. By contrast, after only 12 months Labor are already projecting a rise in unemployment and the budget going into deficit and are spending our savings. I first entered politics to build a better future for my children—indeed, all children. Under this Labor government, I am now very nervous for the future of the children of our nation and the legacy Labor’s policies will leave for them. In opposition the Labor Party were vehemently against one-off payments. The current Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs said in 2004 that her ‘No. 1 concern’ about the baby bonus was that it was ‘being paid in a lump sum’. The current Minister for the Status of Women said in 2007 that the baby bonus should have been paid fortnightly to remove the ‘jackpot effect’. Furthermore, in an interview conducted by the ABC Insiders program as recently as 27 June 2007, the current Treasurer said that lump sum payments were ‘dishonest and irresponsible’. So, could the three wise men—and I use that term lightly—the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, please explain why it is that they are resorting to bandaid measures in an attempt to rescue the economy when they have repeatedly condemned lump sum payments? Perhaps they will not have an answer. Is it that the Rudd Labor government are in the game of saying one thing and doing something entirely different? While these questions remain unanswered, I fear the Australian economy will continue to sink faster than the Titanic. The government will blame the global financial crisis for every event that occurs hereafter. However incompetent and however bungled the government’s management of the economy, they will blame the global financial crisis. In talking about the financial climate, let me assure you that the Australian economy is, metaphorically speaking, facing the prospect of a catastrophic hole in its ozone layer. It will not be too long before Australians will feel the unbearable burn of the Rudd Labor government’s utter incompetence and inability to manage the economy. The cancerous consequences of a poisoned economy will take years to recover from and the diagnosis is looking increasingly poor if the Rudd Labor government does not take proper steps now to ensure the long-term economic viability of our nation. The Rudd Labor government is clearly out if its depth, and the Treasurer’s performance to date does not give me any confidence at all that he is able to manage our economy. Incredibly, the Prime Minister and Treasurer admitted, after persistent questioning, that the government announced this package without any economic analysis from the Treasury. In fact, the Prime Minister and the Treasurer will spend half the forecast surplus without any modelling to show it will have the desired impact. Shame on you! The coalition wholeheartedly believes that more support should be given to Australian pensioners. However, a one-off bonus is not the answer. This is not a game of Deal or No Deal; we cannot gamble with the financial security of Australians, who have given so much to the building of our nation. Now that the government has spent half its surplus, what happens if things get worse? At this rate, inevitably they will. The finance minister is telling people to spend, spend, spend this one-off payment and not save the money to help pay ongoing cost-of-living expenses. What tricks do the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the finance minister have up their sleeves for after Christmas, when much of the money has been spent but pensioners are still struggling to get by on $273.40 a week? Of course, there will be no tricks available and Australian pensioners will again be asking for assistance to see them through their hardship—and rightly so, I might add. The former, Howard government were committed to pensioners. In 1997 we linked the age pension to growing incomes so that when the Australian economy boomed pensioners were not left behind. The former, Howard government also increased pensions at two per cent a year above the rate of inflation. Yet the Prime Minister and the Treasurer attacked the economic legacy of the Howard government and claimed inflation was out of control. The Treasurer said the ‘inflation genie was out of the bottle’ and the Prime Minister said there was an ‘inflation monster’ damaging the economy—more spin. Incredibly, we saw the government of the day talking down the Australian economy on the world stage, creating a crisis in confidence. It was also the former, Howard government that introduced a utilities allowance, encouraged workforce participation, halved the assets test taper rate and introduced a fairer taxation regime for self-funded retirees. Australian pensioners were much better off under the coalition government. The Australian economy was much better off under the coalition government. In fact, Australia as a whole was much better off under the coalition government. We here in the blue corner are not into cheap publicity stunts. We are not into playing the boy who cried wolf. We do not break promises or lead the Australian public astray with undeliverable ideals. We did not frivolously spend half the forecast surplus budget without thinking about the long-term repercussions. In times of a global financial crisis we need to travel with more precaution, looking not only at those vehicles around us but also at the warning lights ahead. This is what the Howard government did when there was the Asian meltdown, SARS, US recessions, 9-11 and all the other global economic crises over the past 12 years. The coalition took positive, decisive action that saw Australia through these tough times, all the time growing our economy and taking all Australians on the journey with us. The Rudd Labor government must answer why they have spent half the forecast surplus without any modelling to show how it will have the desired impact on our economy. They are flying blind and the consequences are dire. With a limited surplus, how do the Rudd Labor government plan on delivering their mostly unfulfilled election promises? What will happen to the nation-building infrastructure fund now? Funding for the F3 link road, one of the most significant roads in the Hunter, was an $870 million commitment by the coalition on top of the money already provided to start the project. The Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has refused to commit to funding for the F3 Seahampton to Branxton link road. Can you tell me why it is that the four Hunter Labor MPs are not standing up for their region in this parliament? The members for Hunter, Newcastle, Charlton and Shortland for years all cried foul on the F3 funding, but now they have the purse strings what have they done? Mr Deputy Speaker, you would be right in saying there is another review—no action, just another review. The silence from the four Hunter Labor MPs about the F3 has been absolutely deafening. The member for Hunter boasted on the F3 link website that he is behind the project all the way, but after 18 years of campaigning, including 11 years in opposition demanding the F3 link be funded, he would win a gold medal in Beijing for his world-class backflip. Now he has the government purse as a cabinet minister, it shows that Labor never had any intention of funding the project. The minister has now confirmed this. The member for Hunter was widely quoted in the media as saying that if it was on the coalition’s bottom line then Labor would match it, but within days of the Rudd Labor government being elected we had the member for Hunter doing a backflip on the funding for the black spot in his very own electorate. These projects are not wants; they are desperate community needs. I urge the government to accede to the people’s needs on this issue and provide the funding. Excuses such as it is a state issue or it is a local government issue do not cut it anymore. Remember, Prime Minister, you said that this is the end of the blame game and the buck stops with you. Given the Treasurer’s flippancy in managing the budget, it is unlikely that the F3 project will ever be federally funded whilst the Rudd Labor government rules. The Prime Minister, in what can only be described as a senseless act, axed the Investing in Our Schools Program, putting the funding pressure for much-needed facilities back on the parents and communities that already do so much. This is perhaps one of the Prime Minister’s biggest mistakes as investing in the future of our children’s education is paramount. As I have previously stated in this House, Rudd’s education revolution has quickly become an education dissolution. So where does the Prime Minister plan to get the money from to get our nation’s education facilities to world-class standards as he promised, bailing out incompetent state governments? And whatever happened to the Rudd Labor government’s promise to put a trade training centre in every Australian secondary school? That is right, the Rudd Labor government dropped the ball on that promise too. This broken promise means that there will not be a trade training centre in every school in Paterson, as the Prime Minister explicitly promised last year. This promise was a cruel hoax and will not do anything to encourage more apprentices or to address the skills shortages in the Paterson electorate. The former Howard government worked tirelessly to create a world-class apprenticeship system. The list does not end there. The Prime Minister has failed to deliver on his promise to establish defence family healthcare clinics for defence personnel and their families. What a cheap publicity stunt that was. I have listened to so many ADF families who are angry that the promise of free basic health care at special defence clinics has been completely abandoned. Labor went to the last election promising to do more for our Defence Force families—brandishing a $33.1 million carrot by promising to establish 12 healthcare clinics. Budget night saw this commitment slashed back to $12.2 million, with only $2.4 million provided in the 2008-09 budget for a limited trial to be provided through another undelivered Rudd government election promise of GP clinics. Now the plan is for more trials, more reviews, more words and no action. Quite frankly, our ADF families deserve better. They do not deserve to be used as political pawns by the Rudd Labor government. Labor went to the election saying they understood the unique challenges and problems faced by defence families in accessing health care when on rigorous posting cycles. Obviously, they do not. It would seem that, as the rhetoric from the Rudd Labor government has pushed the Australian economy spiralling out of control, so too proportionately does the number of unfulfilled Rudd Labor government promises continue to escalate. If the Rudd Labor government listened to Australian working families, which they claim to represent, then they would know that the actions they are taking at present are not enough. Australia’s economy, once an international reference point on good management, has now accelerated out of control to a point where it is crashing at a rate greater than other comparable countries. For God’s sake, if they do not know what they are doing, at least get out of the way and let those that do correct their mistakes before it is too late I actively listen to the constituents in the Paterson electorate. I know that they are amidst great financial hardship at the moment and I know that the ‘Christmas bonus’ will be a welcome relief. However, I have also been repeatedly asked what will become of the financial struggle after the money runs out? Will the government commit to ongoing funds? That is the real issue. The hard-fought surplus delivered by the former Howard government is not a magic pudding. The Rudd government cannot say ‘Me too’ anymore and copy the coalition’s policies. It has to come up with its own solutions. Unfortunately for the people of Australia, the Rudd team are not up to the job and they are going to need more than a crystal ball or an Aladdin’s lamp to solve this crisis. As the former Labor leader Mark Latham learnt, there is no magic pudding. Labor have created a crisis in confidence that will take years to heal in the Australian psyche. I said the other day in this House that Kevin 07 has definitely become Mistake 08. The future of our nation is at risk here along with our economic viability and our trading ability. The world is seeing a financial situation that has not been seen for decades and we need to have careful management. We need to make sure that resources and references are well established and that the economic process that is undertaken in delivering a future direction for this country is well founded. It cannot work on hipshot announcements that come out just to snatch a 90-second grab on the TV or the radio. I say to the Labor Party that our leader, Malcolm Turnbull, has offered to sit down in a bipartisan manner to work through the issues facing this nation. But the Labor Party seem to think a bipartisan manner is sitting down, discussing issues and then just agreeing with everything the government do without questioning or, indeed, offering up the experience of a government that had run this country so well for the last 12 years. There will be many challenges that face us, and I fear most for those who are disadvantaged in our community. This one-off funding package does not relate to a continual, ongoing increase in their weekly budget—something that is so drastically needed as they fight the tight economic times. Our leader has said we will not oppose these bills—we will support these bills—because, after a long wait, those in need in our community desperately need it. But it might have been more prudent for this money to be set down not only this year but for years to come as a $30 increase in the pensioners’ budget each and every week. I commend these bills to the House. 10860 10:22:00 McMullan, Bob, MP 5I4 Fraser ALP Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance 1 0 Mr McMULLAN —We have just heard a speech which was both politically intemperate and economically illiterate. I suggest to the member for Paterson that he sack the person who wrote it and then read his speeches in advance next time before he comes in. But I do support the package. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —If the member opposite is so wise then I suggest that more people need to hear it. (Quorum formed) 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMULLAN —Of course, I support this package of bills—in particular the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 because of what it does for the pensioners, carers, veterans and people in need in my constituency—like all my colleagues on this side of the House. I broadly support the package because of its macroeconomic significance in the face of the global financial crisis, but today, under the heading of the appropriation bills, I mainly want to speak more broadly about the global financial crisis and some of its implications internationally and for the poorest of the poor. Australians are already feeling the pinch of this global financial crisis. It is a problem here in Australia, particularly for many families close to the poverty borderline. Yet we are better placed than almost any other country to cope with this situation. Many Australians are having to tighten their belts, but for the poorest people in the developing countries in our region it is not a question of whether they eat in or eat out; it is a question of whether they eat at all. As many colleagues would know, this follows on from a period in which people in developing countries have been under pressure as a result of significant increases in fuel and food prices. We will not know what the final impact of the financial crisis will be on people in the poorest developing countries for some time, because the linkages are not as direct as they are in North America and Europe, but it is clear that there will be two impacts—maybe more. The first is the capacity for foreign investment to flow into these developing countries, which is the key driver of economic growth. Nobody can yet measure what the impact will be, but we know that foreign direct investment is likely to be constrained. Secondly, and most obviously, as the economic pressure mounts in North America and Western Europe the capacity of those countries to purchase the goods produced by the developing countries will fall. So we are in a situation where this global financial crisis puts people in the poorest countries and their countries under great pressure. I am going to do something that I think is unique for me. I have been in this parliament a long time, and in the last eight years I have not found a cause to agree with President Bush on, but on this occasion I do. Last month he made an excellent speech about the need for those of us involved in responding to the global financial crisis to ensure that we do not turn inwards and lose our focus on the poorest people. He said: … we meet … in the middle of a serious global financial crisis. Over the past few weeks, we have seen how the world’s economies are more interconnected than ever before. …            …            … During times of economic crisis, some may be tempted to turn inward—focusing on our problems here at home, while ignoring our interests around the world. This would be a serious mistake. Secretary of State Rice, more directly, said: Reneging on our commitments to the world’s poor cannot be an austerity measure. I think President Bush and Secretary Rice are absolutely correct, and they reflect statements made by Prime Minister Brown and by Australia’s Prime Minister as well. Now is, in fact, the most critical time to maintain our assistance to offset the profound negative impacts of the three concurrent crises: the global financial crisis, the spike in food prices and the spike in fuel prices—although that is abating somewhat, but it still had a devastating effect. If we are seriously committed to the Millennium Development Goals—which we committed to not just in good times but for all time—we need to focus now, in difficult times, more fundamentally. This government have a commitment to increase our aid expenditure to 0.5 per cent of GNI. The Prime Minister and the Minister for Foreign Affairs have reiterated our commitment to that in the face of this crisis, and I welcome that. There are two direct impacts that the global financial crisis will have on our 0.5 per cent commitment. Firstly, the dollar value of this percentage might not be as great as we originally envisaged because the value of gross national income may not rise as quickly as we anticipated in the normal budget forecasting parameters. Secondly, the decline in the value of the Australian dollar will have an effect on the impact of our commitment, although not as much as might be expected, because of the character of the expenditure. However, from time to time the decline in the value of the Australian dollar might impact on the dollar value of some of the initiatives we have taken in developing countries. I emphasise in this context that the outlook for developing countries in our region continues to worsen. The number of people that could be pushed into poverty from the combined impact of the financial, food and fuel crises could be as many as 200 million globally. We talk a lot about measures to assist the poorest in developing countries. At the end of the day the fundamental reality is that, while economic growth is not sufficient in itself, there is no path out of poverty without economic growth. If economic growth slows, as appears inevitable, that will reduce the capacity of countries in our region to lift their poorest citizens out of poverty. Recent new estimates suggest that in 2005 there were 1.4 billion people living in poverty globally. There is a link, of course, between income growth and poverty. The most recent estimates that I have seen from reputable agencies suggest that a one per cent reduction in global growth could push as many as 24 million people into poverty per year. Based on this simple estimate of global slowdown, it is currently envisaged that the global growth rate will drop from approximately five per cent in 2006 to maybe 2.2 per cent in 2009. Some are even more pessimistic than that, but let me use that as the basis of calculation. That could push an extra 75 million people into poverty. With downside risks to global growth in future, that number of 75 million more people in poverty might even grow. As President Zoellick of the World Bank has said: The financial crisis will only make it more difficult for developing countries to protect their most vulnerable people from the impact of rising food and fuel costs. It is always tempting when faced with a global financial crisis and its domestic implications to turn inwards and focus on our own domestic problems, and of course that is a fundamental responsibility of government. History of past downturns says that, when the countries of the world turn inwards in response to crisis, they make the crisis worse. The fundamental factor that turned a serious problem in 1929 into the Great Depression was people turning inwards to protectionism and cutting back expenditure when they needed to be increasing it. We are faced again with a historic turning point where major decisions need to be made globally and by each individual nation about their approach. We need domestic stimulus packages such as the one reflected in these bills and in the other bills introduced today. We need to focus on the problems of the poorest people and those in most difficulty in our country, as is reflected in the social security measures in this package and those that are being foreshadowed for the budget. We also need to ensure that, as we move to respond to the crisis that we confront, we do not turn our eyes away from the poorest of the global community, those most dependent upon our assistance, who have become even more vulnerable as a consequence of the global financial crisis and for whom this will be literally a life and death issue, as against an issue of serious disadvantage and difficulty for people in our country and in developed countries around the world. We must never take our eye off those who we directly represent: the pensioners, the veterans and the carers in my constituency and all the other constituencies around the country. I am delighted to support these bills for their domestic impact, particularly for those most disadvantaged in my electorate of Fraser. I also endorse the underlying approach of these bills and others introduced today as part of a broader strategy of response to the global financial crisis which not only responds to Australia’s legitimate domestic concerns but also allows us to continue to play a positive role in response to the global concerns for the most vulnerable in our global community. Therefore, it is my great pleasure to support these bills and commend them to the House. 10863 10:35:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I also rise to support these Economic Security Strategy bills in globo and acknowledge the efforts of the government in what are broadly recognised as some pretty difficult economic times. I represent a community on the mid North Coast of New South Wales which has a very large elderly population. There are a lot of people on fixed incomes within the mid North Coast community. Therefore, the 8 December Christmas ham package in particular is one that many households within my region will certainly welcome. The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 will amend the social security law, the family assistance law, the Veterans’ Entitlements Act and the tax law to provide for payments to pensioners, seniors, people with disabilities, carers, veterans and families with dependent children, as announced by the government on 14 October as part of an overall $10.4 billion economic strategy. The payments will provide financial support during what are, as I said before and as everyone has said, some very difficult global financial times. The payments and cards attracting the Economic Security Strategy payment include the following: the age pension, the disability support pension, the wife pension, the widow B pension, the service pensions, the income support supplement, the carer payment, the partner allowance, the widow allowance, the bereavement allowance, the parenting payment, the special benefit, the Austudy payment, the Abstudy payment, the Commonwealth seniors health card and the Veterans’ Affairs gold card. It is a substantial range of investments being made by the government and I think a great number of people on the mid-North Coast will receive a payment in the lead up to Christmas. This package is a bit of a double-edged sword. It recognises that it is time to bunker down and that we are entering some very difficult financial times, but at the same time, as a response to that, it is something that will be welcomed by many. My reason for wanting to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate bills is to raise several points. One is that I hope the response by government is about not only an immediate stimulus package of $10.4 billion but also a process of review and reflection about corporate governance within the public sector—local, state and federal—in Australia today. I mention the public sector in particular because we are putting together a stimulus package on the back of a period where, from the point of view of a taxpayer or ratepayer, a fair contribution has been made to government over the last decade to deliver services throughout council areas, state areas and across Australia. Yet here we are at a time when financial systems around the world are feeling the pinch and catching many of these public sector agencies with exposure. I have a local council on the mid-North Coast, for example, that has an exposure through investments of $25 million; that is almost one quarter of its investment strategy. It does raise substantial public sector corporate governance questions about how this could happen. Likewise, there are other councils affected—not only in New South Wales but also right throughout Australia. I understand there is one in Western Australia with some exposure that is close to $80 million. It again raises that corporate governance question of how on earth this could happen. In New South Wales there are corporate governance questions about what has happened with state trading arms and state agencies, and their levels of exposure. Have they stuck to the guidelines from Treasury corps at a state level and, if they have, how were those guidelines so wrong? If they have not, what on earth has gone wrong to allow various trading arms to not stick to the guidelines? I would hope there is a process of review that can be driven by the Commonwealth, because this is an all of public sector corporate governance question that needs to be answered. This should not only be about delivering a Christmas present for many homes in response to the financial situation we are in; it should also be about minimising the chance of this happening again in the future, particularly within the public sector, where all of us have a level of control and authority. For the exposure of the three tiers of government within the Australian public sector to be unknown—anecdotally in the hundreds of millions of dollars—should be of great concern to many. This is the people’s money—no-one else’s. People have been paying taxes and rates to the three tiers of government, and doing it in good faith, yet, due to questionable investment strategies by those three tiers of government at various times, those moneys are certainly exposed and potentially lost within this financial meltdown that we are seeing throughout the world. I hope the government considers the role it has of taking a lead on a review of the past and a review of the corporate governance standards within the public sector—not to hang people from trees and throw stones at particular people or particular governments but to make sure that we have in place a set of public sector corporate governance standards that can minimise any loss of ratepayers’ or taxpayers’ money into the future. I also think there should be a period of review, reflection and recommendation in regard to private sector corporate governance standards within Australia. We went through a period about two years ago with various collapses of private companies, which failed gloriously in various countries, particularly in the US. HIH was probably the standout one in Australia. There was a government response: there were the Sarbanes-Oxley laws, which were brought into the US; there were the UK companies bills and we flirted with the CLERP 9 laws. Surely all of those and how they have stood up in testing times are now under question. I think there is also a role for government to play in a period of reflection and in making recommendations as to how those various responses to company collapses several years ago have stood up in the current climate and financial issues before us. If we were all honest about it, there are still holes in the prudential standards, the accountability standards and the corporate governance standards within Australian company law, and we can do better. This is particularly the case with company directors, for example. One of the key roles for company directors in Australia today would be to protect the reputation of the company that they are a director of, yet the words ‘confidence’ and ‘reputation’ are very similar and the issue in this current climate is confidence as much as anything else, and so there has been a failure to protect confidence within certain companies, in the roles that they have played, for example, in delivering products—and, focusing on the subprime issues, delivering questionable products—to the market. There is a question of the reputations of those companies being exposed by the activities of those selling. Therefore, if we are following the chain of command back to who has actually allowed this to happen within Australia and within financial markets around the world, we as a country need to start to shoot home some questions to the various companies involved, and the directors of those companies, as to how the confidence of the market and the reputations of the companies involved were allowed to be exposed in the way they have been. Again, I think that is a valuable role for government to take leadership in. I hope someone within the ranks of government is listening and will consider that. This is a welcome package—there is no question about that. The only final point I would like to make is a question about the bank guarantee. I was hoping some detail on that may be within this in globo package. Certainly a guarantee has been put to market. It has been put to many homes throughout Australia that we have an ironclad guarantee. I would like to see some details on that guarantee as to how, in a legislative way, that ironclad guarantee stands up on appropriations, for example, and on the question of impacts on consolidated revenue and therefore impacts on service delivery by government. I may have missed it, but in my readings of the three bits of legislation before us I could not see anything answering those questions for me. Again, whichever minister responds, I hope that question is answered—whether we are going to see later legislation or whether we have to take the government on trust that this guarantee is ironclad for the market. I would certainly like to hear more details on that. As far as the many households on the mid North Coast are concerned, they will certainly look forward to the first week of December. We have just seen the state government deliver some pretty hard knocks to many hip pockets on the mid North Coast, so it is not only about global issues. In our area we have had three mortgage funds go into receivership. There are a lot of nervous local residents on the mid North Coast of New South Wales. Any help is welcome. If we get a fair slice of this $10.4 billion package, I think there will be some happy people. 10865 10:48:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —I will not be taking all my time, I have just discovered, as I am very pleased to announce. I had anticipated that I might— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —We’re disappointed. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —but I have been given guidance from external angels, so you will not have to listen to me for as long as you thought, you poor thing. I am not sure I have any sympathy for you, but nevertheless. I am very pleased to participate in this discussion and debate and to support the passage of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and the two cognate bills before the House. The global financial system is currently experiencing, as we all know, significant upheaval. What we are seeing is arguably the greatest global economic downturn since the Great Depression. As a student of economic history, while my colleague was studying something else at the same time—we were together at university, if you know what I mean, but doing different things— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —Arts/law. IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —He was doing arts/law. I was just a humble arts student, but I did do economic history, so I understand full well the impact of this downturn. I want to say that I think that the decisive leadership shown by the government is something which deserves the support of the whole community. I say that because I recognise and understand the questions the previous speaker, the member for Lyne, raised. I will not be responding to those here, but I do think you and your electorate accept—and I know that everyone, certainly on this side of the chamber, accepts—the importance of this infusion of money, that this stimulus package is most important for every Australian family. We ought to understand that the leadership shown by the government is something which we should be proud of. Whilst I acknowledge that the Leader of the Opposition may have different views about these things—in fact, a lot of different views—we should acknowledge that the government, in taking these decisions, has done so in a way which should give us great heart. The government made tough decisions earlier in the year, in the May budget. It reintroduced discipline into the government’s spending and delivered us a $22 billion surplus, and it is because we have that surplus that we are able to make this investment. It is a buffer for more difficult economic times, and those economic times we are in. Whilst we did not expect it at the time, the failure and the dynamics of the American subprime crisis have been exported around the world and we are all now suffering. We can see the dilemma which is confronting governments across the world in how they deal with these issues. I have to say, when you look at what is happening around the world, the decisive action which has been taken by the government is, I think, seen and applauded across the world. I thank the government and I thank the Prime Minister and the Treasurer in particular for the leadership they have shown. The government is acting decisively, using the surplus that it worked to produce. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer announced the five measures taken here on 14 October: firstly, $4.8 billion for pension relief, an immediate down payment on long-term pension reform; secondly, $3.9 billion in support payments for low- and middle-income families; thirdly, a $1.5 billion investment to help first home buyers purchase their first home; fourthly, $187 million to create a further 56,000 new training places in 2008-09, a doubling of the training places we have currently; and, fifthly, the acceleration of the government’s nation-building agenda. It is a solid package by any measure, and it is a package, moreover, which is unashamedly aimed at protecting the most economically vulnerable members of our community from the full effects of the global economic crisis. I could go into each item, but I know that time will preclude me from examining each and every one. Instead, I just want to put things into perspective here as to what this means for an electorate like mine. I live in the centre of Australia, in Alice Springs. My electorate is 1.3 million square kilometres and it has within it a population which is very poor. It is a very diverse population, although 40 per cent of my voters are Indigenous Australians. I do not think many people understand the costs that these communities suffer and the cost of living generally in these remote communities in places like the Northern Territory. We confront the highest fuel prices in Australia; we have the least access to communications, child care, health services, and higher education and training facilities. Since 1998 the Northern Territory government’s Department of Health and Families has prepared its market basket survey of remote community stores, a regular survey of the cost of household food baskets in rural and remote areas, as part of its nutrition and physical activity program. A standard basket has been priced for each of these stores. This basket is sufficient to provide food for a hypothetical family of six for a fortnight. A major supermarket and corner store in each of the district centres were surveyed for comparative prices. It discovered that the cost of a food basket in remote communities was, on average, 32 per cent above the same basket of goods in Darwin supermarkets. So you can see that the reforms that have been introduced by this economic stimulus package, in particular the assistance to families and pensioners, are of great significance. And the payments are quite substantial. I am certain that in this context, at least in my communities, people will be most grateful for the changes which have been introduced through this legislation. The government has acted decisively and while we see the opposition are supporting the legislation in the chamber they are doing their darnedest to white-ant it outside of the chamber, and that is a difficulty. I read this morning in the Australian Ken Henry’s comments at the Press Club yesterday. In part, he said that it was a shame all this contestability had occurred as a result of him effectively being accused of doctoring figures. I think it is a sad reflection on the way in which we treat those people who are responsible for running our economy. Importantly, the way it was described is that by attacking the Reserve Bank and the Treasury in the way in which the opposition have done they have effectively undermined confidence in the Australian economy. Not a smart thing to do. The opposition talk through both sides of their mouths: on one side of the discussion they say, ‘We support the government’s package,’ but on the other side of the discussion they say: ‘Frankly, there are many aspects that we don’t like. We don’t like the projections you make, because they don’t give us the story we want. We—the opposition, that is—would like to see our economy grow a lot slower than you’re anticipating. In fact, for political purposes, we’d like to see us in recession.’ That is effectively what they are saying. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce interjecting— E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan —That is totally untrue! IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —‘That is totally untrue’—they say it with smiles on their faces! The smiling assassins—look at them! They sit over there and say one thing to us publicly—that in fact they support the government’s proposition in relation to this stimulus package—and then go outside of this place and try to white-ant the messengers; that is, the people talking about what this economy should be like and the people making projections for what we can anticipate in future months. They do not like the picture, so they try to shoot the messenger. Not a very smart thing to do. A8W Pearce, Christopher, MP Mr Pearce interjecting— IJ4 Snowdon, Warren, MP Mr SNOWDON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am encouraged to look at Hansard. I do look at Hansard. I am a regular and avid reader of Hansard. I am a particularly avid reader not only of Hansard but also of other documents that might reflect on what the Leader of the Opposition has said over time. We know that he has taken, I think, 21 different positions on this stimulus package. A little bit of consistency is warranted. The government has shown early, decisive action with the crafting of the Economic Security Strategy. It has been responsible, equitable and fair and has shown all the hallmarks of traditional Labor values. In times of greatest hardship the Australian people have always been able to put their trust in Labor to deliver. The Rudd government intends to deliver for all Australians, despite the self-serving logic of those opposite. Unfortunately, and sadly, I do not think the opposition have within them the ability to understand precisely what the government is doing here. They would rather undermine confidence in the Australian economy. I commend the bills to the House. 10868 10:59:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —It is good to rise in the House on this very beautiful morning in Canberra to speak on this package of bills: the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009. These are the so-called Economic Security Strategy bills that have been presented to the House by the government. The bills provide some $4.8 billion for pensioners, carers, senior health card holders and veterans; $3.9 billion for families; $1.5 billion for first home buyers; and $187 million for training. In the time available to me I think it is important to put these bills into the context in which we are now operating. Of course, these bills represent some sort of response from the government to what has been happening with the global financial crisis and also to what has been happening with the resulting dislocation in the Australian financial system as a result of the government’s policies. In putting it into context it is interesting to note that, within the context of what is a very serious situation around the globe in finance, we are yet to have the Prime Minister come into the parliament and address it about what the government’s plan and strategy is to go forward. I think it is absolutely astonishing that the only comments that the Prime Minister has made in relation to this global financial crisis have been in response to questions asked during question time. And, Madam Deputy Speaker Moylan, you would know that the Prime Minister has difficulty in answering questions during question time. So here we are in one of the worst situations that the globe has faced—and, of course, Australia is not immune from that—yet our Prime Minister will not come into the chamber, will not make a speech to the chamber and will not inform the parliament nor the people of Australia of what his plans are, not just in the short term but also in the long term. It would be interesting to know what it would actually take to motivate the Prime Minister to come into this chamber and provide us with a sense of confidence that he does have a plan. The only thing that I can think of that might encourage him to do that is if we were to take this chamber and place it in a foreign country. I presume that, if we were a parliament in a foreign country, he would be very happy to come in and address us, but he seems to have an enormous amount of difficulty in actually coming in and addressing the parliament of the country of which he is the leader of the government. That is a great shame, because this a very serious situation. Of course, our Prime Minister is very fond of declaring war on things. We heard yesterday the member for North Sydney asking a very poignant question in question time. He referred to the Prime Minister’s declaration the other day that he had declared war on unemployment. He also referred to the declared war on drugs, the declared war on inflation, the declared war on whalers, the war cabinet to fight disadvantage, the war on downloads and the war on pokies. In May there was a war against doping in sport and in October there was the war on bankers’ salaries. Let us take the war on inflation. This war on inflation was announced by the Prime Minister in a speech at the beginning of the year in Perth. It was a five-point plan to fight inflation. Inflation has gone up every quarter since the Prime Minister declared war on it, and the only thing I can say is that he and his generals on the front bench have obviously been shooting blanks all year because it is not working, is it? I think you would also have to say that about the other wars. The Prime Minister has this habit of declaring war on things and of everything being important. I remember before the election that education was going to be the first priority of this government. Also, economic management was going to be the No. 1 priority, defence and security were going to the be No. 1 priority, inflationary pressure was going to be the No. 1 priority, climate change was going to be the No. 1 priority and cooperative federalism was going to be the No. 1 priority. So we have a lot of wars and a lot of No. 1 priorities. The other interesting thing in the context of these bills and the global financial response is what has happened here in the Australian market as a result of the response that the government have taken to date. A lot of this revolves around the bank guarantee issue. We have the government saying that their May budget has changed because of the global financial crisis. Everything seems to be as a result of the global financial crisis. I think that is interesting and it is important to keep note of the fact that the government can only blame the global financial crisis for so much. They have to be accountable and take some responsibility for their own actions. The varying announcements that the government have made regarding the bank guarantee have certainly dislocated the market. I think it was Paul Keating who once said, ‘If you change the government of Australia, you change the country.’ We are nigh on one year since the government changed and I guess you really have to stand back and ask: has the country changed? Well, boy, has it changed in one year! We now have inflation at a 13-year high. We have unemployment increasing. Unemployment is projected to go through the roof, to go up to nearly six per cent; others are saying it will be higher than six per cent. Around 270,000 Australians have had their assets frozen. Consumer confidence is at an all-time low. Business confidence is at an all-time low. The budget surplus that was left by the coalition government has been significantly reduced. So I guess the question that Australians are now asking themselves is: are we better off today than we were a year ago? And I have not found a single Australian who says that they are better off today than they were a year ago. 10869 11:06:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —Listening to the contribution from the member for Aston was interesting. He kept going on about a range of things that have happened since the change of government. People in this country and in my electorate that I have been speaking to are enormously proud of those changes. Certainly the people in my electorate are very pleased that the country has changed since the election last year and that this government is committed to doing things on the education revolution, climate change and other things. Today I rise in support of the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009. As we know, the global financial crisis is affecting markets across the world, including in Australia. We are not immune from these effects and there is no point pretending that we are. It is affecting economic confidence in Australia and across the globe. It is the worst global financial crisis since the Great Depression. The Rudd government has taken decisive and early action to protect Australia’s economy from this global financial crisis. Although the Australian economy is strong and we remain better placed to deal with this financial crisis than many other nations, we have to act in a responsible way to ensure we do strengthen the economy. Part of the Rudd government’s response to this financial crisis is the Economic Security Strategy. It is a strategy that will help safeguard our economy. It is a strategy that will strengthen the Australian economy. It is a strategy that will support Australian households in extraordinary economic times. The Rudd government’s $10.4 billion strategy contains five key measures: $4.8 billion for an immediate down payment on long-term pension reform; $3.9 billion in support payments for low- and middle-income families; a $1.5 billion investment to help first home buyers purchase a home; and $187 million to create 56,000 new training places in 2008-09. Finally, this responsible strategy has a nation-building component: to accelerate the implementation of the government’s three nation-building funds and to bring forward the commencement of investment in nation-building projects. We are acting now for Australia’s long-term future in this global economic crisis. The Economic Security Strategy prepares us for a strong future. The Rudd government has taken this action to make sure working families and pensioners have a secure future and the benefits of a strong economy. In my electorate of Franklin, more than 30,000 people will receive a payment under the Economic Security Strategy. These people represent senior Australians, mums and dads, carers and those with a disability. They represent the people in my electorate that I want to help during these uncertain economic times. Under the Rudd government’s Economic Security Strategy there will be a payment of $1,400 to singles or $2,100 to couples who, on 14 October, were in receipt of the age pension, disability support pension, carer payment, wife pension, widow B pension, service pension or income support supplement or who had a Commonwealth seniors health card. As I said earlier, that will include a significant number of my constituents. If there is a couple where one person is entitled but the other is not, the payment will be $1,050. People who are receiving a carer allowance will receive $1,000 for each eligible person in their care. The Rudd government will invest $3.9 billion to provide immediate financial support to help around two million Australian families, or around 3.9 million Australian children. Over 10,000 families in Franklin receive family tax benefit A and they will receive this immediate financial support. Parents of dependent children who receive youth allowance, Abstudy living allowance or an education allowance under the Veterans’ Children Education Scheme or the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Act will also receive the $1,000 payment for each eligible child. These payments will be delivered over the fortnight commencing 8 December this year—assisting families just before Christmas, which we all know is one of the very difficult and most expensive times of the year. I know these payments will be well received by those in urgent need in my electorate. I take this opportunity to quote just one of the many people who contacted my office after the announcement: Congratulations on the actions of the government to confront our present economic problems. This is a great response to a situation that needed firm measures. These comments clearly show that the community does welcome this package and that it will provide immediate support to people who need it most. I need to put it on the record that these people were not eligible for a payment but were very pleased that other people were receiving it—people that needed it. This government is responding to the challenging economic times through this strategy. This strategy will assist not only Australian households but also Australian industry. The Economic Security Strategy will make first home buyers eligible for grants of up to $21,000 with the first home owners boost initiative to strengthen construction activity in the housing market. This initiative is designed to stimulate housing activity and to give first home buyers a better chance in the housing market. In my electorate of Franklin there are three rapidly growing municipalities: Clarence, Kingborough and Brighton. Many young Tasmanians are contemplating entering the housing market for the first time, and many of them will be buying their first home in one of these rapidly growing areas of southern Tasmania. My electorate office has received numerous calls from parents wanting to know when and how their children can access the first home owners grant of $21,000. Across Australia it is estimated that more than 150,000 first home buyers will benefit from this scheme. And, for those first home buyers who choose to buy an established home, the grant which they are currently entitled to has doubled from $7,000 to $14,000. This initiative has been welcomed by many but particularly the Housing Industry Association. HIA expects the first home owner boost initiative to provide a $15,000 boost in the production of new dwellings. Managing Director of HIA Ron Silberberg said: This measure will provide an immediate stimulus for new housing and help restore business confidence across the sector particularly in the building product manufacturing sector. This government will invest around $1.5 billion in the housing market through this initiative. This Economic Security Strategy also includes jobs and training. The Rudd government will invest $187 million to create an additional 56,000 training places this financial year. This funding injection will effectively double the Productivity Places Program from 57,000 to 113,000 in 2008-09. This will take the government’s total investment in training places since April this year to more than $400 million. These new places will take the Rudd government’s total commitment to the Productivity Places Program to more than $2 billion, with more than 700,000 new training places created over five years. The new places will be available at certificate II, III and IV levels, with 10,000 places to be allocated as structural adjustment places to provide retraining opportunities and support for displaced workers. There has been a huge demand for training since the Productivity Places Program began, with more than 50,000 job seekers enrolled and over 11,000 having already completed their training in areas of skill shortage. This $10.4 billion stimulus package also has a nation-building element to it, as I mentioned earlier. The government will fast-track its nation-building agenda to help shield Australians from the global financial crisis and to plan for our future. Government ministers will bring forward their interim infrastructure report so that work can commence in 2009 on projects in the key areas of education and research, health and hospitals, transport and communications. I find it hard to believe that in a time of global financial crisis—at a time when there are real challenges in the global economy—those opposite are dragging their feet when it comes to supporting our programs. As the Prime Minister said in the parliament on Monday, it would be good if we had bipartisan support, and not just in name but in reality, for the key challenges we face. The Australian people want action. They want to know that the representatives they elected are working together in this time of uncertainty to secure the Australian economy; they do not want uncertainty. All those opposite have been doing is muddying the waters and causing uncertainty for the millions of Australians who want to know the Australian economy will be secure. This government has taken action with its Economic Security Strategy. Not only have we devised measures in the strategy but also we are taking action in other matters, such as the guarantee on bank deposits. This government has taken a responsible approach to protecting the Australian economy and supporting Australian households with this stimulus package. What Australian people now want is for those opposite to take some decisive action. The action that the community wants and deserves is for those opposite to work with this government in a bipartisan way to strengthen the Australian economy, rather than continually sniping at and undermining it from the sidelines. On the day that this package was announced, the Leader of the Opposition said he supported it. Since that time, though, he and his team have done nothing but snipe at and undermine this package that is clearly supported by the majority of Australians. This is a time when we need to work together. It is what the Australian people expect and it is what they deserve. This government is determined to act to protect Australia’s economy. Equally important is the need to support households during this economic slowdown. I urge those opposite to take a real bipartisan stance, support the package in total and keep supporting it in the community and in the media. I commend these bills to the House. 10872 11:16:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —The Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008, the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 1) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation (Economic Security Strategy) Bill (No. 2) 2008-2009 introduce and authorise the government’s response to the economic crisis. I noted the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Franklin, calling for bipartisanship. The opposition has offered bipartisanship and it has been spurned time and time again by the government. It is hypocritical for the honourable member to just parrot the Prime Minister’s lines as though somehow or other the government is standing on honourable ground in relation to these issues. The reality is that the government has rejected bipartisanship. It has refused to take advice when it has been given. It has usually been humiliated into taking it a few weeks later, but the reality is that the offer of bipartisanship has never been taken up in spirit by the government. How can it therefore now be critical of the opposition? The reality is that there would not be a stimulus package today had we had a Labor government over the last 10 years. The money would not have been there to provide this kind of support. It was only the coalition government’s careful management of the Australian economy that has enabled the money to be put aside that is being deployed in this legislation to help keep our economy strong. Never in Australian history has a government inherited such substantial financial reserves as were left by the former coalition government after the last election. The $20 billion surplus and the $60 billion in reserves have provided the Labor government with an unprecedented opportunity to be able to stimulate the Australian economy. Our economy was the envy of the world just 11 months ago. There were surpluses there; now they have all disappeared. Labor would not have had this money if it had behaved as Labor is behaving in all of the Australian states. Even in good times, Labor is not able to put money aside for difficult times. In reality, the pensioners of Australia and others receiving payments as a result of this package are reaping the rewards and gaining some benefit for the years of careful management by the previous government. The payments of $1,400 to single pensioners and $2,100 to pensioner couples and the grants to first home buyers will be very welcome. They will no doubt provide some comfort and assurance to those who are receiving the grants. However, the hypocrisy of the Labor government in dealing with pensioners has never been more evident than through the process of this economic package. The National and Liberal parties have been working to highlight the needs of pensioners and those on low incomes struggling from the failure of Labor to address issues like the rising costs of petrol, groceries and housing. Only three weeks before this package was announced, Labor used its numbers in the House of Representatives to vote down legislation that would have increased the single age pension by $30 a week. It has done nothing about permanently resolving the problems of pensioners, carers and others who clearly need a permanent improvement in their payments. Labor is hiding behind endless reviews, waiting for another inquiry—inquiry after inquiry—before it does anything about it. This package proves that Labor could have fixed the problem for pensioners and could have fixed it permanently months ago. But it preferred to see pensioners suffer. It was prepared to see them go without. It offered them no support whatsoever when prices were going up and, in reality, told them they would have to wait well into next year. Now this economic crisis has come Labor is offering them a sorry payment, sorry money—a payment of $1,400 or $2,100. Those pensioners are going to greatly appreciate those payments, but it is only short-term relief. Pensioners and families will need more than a big Christmas party. Indeed, I urge pensioners and others who are receiving these payments to consider very carefully how they spend the money. The reality is that next March the pension will still be too low, the carers payment will be inadequate and the services provided by this government will still be inadequate. They will need to have as much money as they can to help them through these difficult times, so they must use the payment carefully. Can I also refer to another monumental turnaround by the Labor government. We have got used to those; we are getting them almost every day. Labor was a constant critic of bonuses to mothers, pensioners and carers when it was in opposition. When we provided cash bonuses, we were told it was a waste of money and that the money would not be used properly. Labor is now going to provide six million of these one-off payments in the one week, but when it was in opposition these payments were somehow an ‘inappropriate use of money’. This policy makes a mockery of the government’s claim that it could not have done something to help pensioners in the past. The release of $10.4 billion demonstrates that the government had the capacity to act if it had wanted to do so. It cannot wait any longer to provide meaningful relief to Australian pensioners. The problem is that Labor have now used all the money. They have spent the surplus. They admit that the country is now getting close to being in deficit. So what money is going to be available to provide lasting and permanent benefit to pensioners next year after their review is completed? Are they going to plunge the country deep into deficit after their very first year of government? It usually takes Labor governments a few years to bankrupt a country; this government is going to try and do it in record time. The fact is that the Prime Minister, the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister have all done their level best to talk down the achievements of the coalition in building the Australian economy. The fact that they are now relying on the surplus built up by the former, coalition government to shield Australia from this storm demonstrates how economically incompetent they really are. Whilst pensioners and others welcome the fact that they will receive these payments in the run-up to Christmas, this does not represent a change in the attitude of the government. It is still mean in the way in which it deals with pensioners and the poorer people in our community. A classic example of this occurred again last week when the government announced changes to the deeming rates. With much fanfare and patting itself on the back, the government announced that the deeming rate would be reduced by one per cent. That will mean that many part-pensioners will get an increased pension and some who are not eligible for a pension at all will become eligible. That, as far as it goes, is welcome. But this was only a one per cent drop in the deeming rate. Since the deeming rates were last altered, interest rates have dropped by two per cent; but Labor has only passed half of that on to pensioners. So we have the Prime Minister and other ministers tramping around the countryside demanding that the banks pass on the full amount of the interest rate cuts to their borrowers—saying that homeowners and small business should get the benefit of the full two per cent interest rate cut—but the government itself only gave pensioners one per cent. This is a mean government. It expects the banks to pass on the benefit but where it had the capacity to set an example it has not done so. It is a mean and tricky government that is only interested in short-term gain—a headline—when in fact pensioners are the ones who will be hurt. I appeal to the government. What is its justification for having kept in its own coffers one per cent of the two per cent reduction in interest rates that has occurred since the last deeming change? This is clearly a government that does not care about pensioners and does not care about people who have special needs; it just hopes that it will be forgiven for all of these actions by simply giving them a one-off payment. I have another example. During the last budget there were many big announcements, but one thing the government did not announce publicly was that it had cut $180 million from Medicare pathology rebates. There were no public announcements about that—in fact patients had to find out when they were told by their pathologist and they got a big bill. I have received, at my electorate office alone, 500 letters from local pathology patients who are just furious about this action. The government did not have the courage to announce it on budget night. There were no press releases about it. The government just secretly slashed the pathology rebates. This is an example of the government ripping up the agreement that it had with the pathology service providers, which was not due to be considered again until July 2009. The pathology providers had made a number of concessions and in return the government had made an agreement with them which was not due to expire until 2009—and which the Labor Party in opposition had supported; but when they got into government they ripped up the agreement and slashed the rebates to pathology services. When I wrote to the minister, I got back a letter saying, ‘We would like the pathology services to bulk-bill, and they can afford to cover this extra cost.’ We are talking about asking the pathology service providers to pay $180 million. The reality is that they have done the only thing they could do—they have passed these extra costs on to people who can ill afford it. Once again the federal government is hurting the poor and the sick in our community. The government gave no warning about these changes. It has no concern for those who are most hurt by these sorts of issues. I am concerned also about the approach the government has taken in relation to the seniors card and making it more difficult for people to get the seniors card. These are not the actions of a government that cares about the people in our community who are disadvantaged. There are a host of other areas where the government has increased costs for those who can least afford it. That is why these grants that are going to be given to pensioners, carers and others are so superficial. They clearly do not represent a change of heart by this government; the government is just as mean towards pensioners as it has been ever since it was elected. It is just as uncaring. If it were not for the fact that there was a coalition government to give them the budget surpluses that have enabled this, it would have had no capacity to respond at all. So we welcome the payments, but I urge pensioners to remember: this government has not repented. You are still going to have the same troubles next year and the problems have not been solved. 10875 11:28:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 0 Ms CAMPBELL —I rise to add my voice to those in support of the government’s Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and other bills. These bills form a key component of the government’s Economic Security Strategy—that is, the $10.4 billion strategy to strengthen the Australian economy. At times words can become overused and as a result lose their impact, but there is no more appropriate way to describe the current economic situation than as a crisis. This global financial crisis requires quick and decisive action, and that is exactly what this government is providing through this legislation. This bill provides for payments to pensioners and families, payments which will make an enormous difference at a time when it is needed. This is immediate financial support to pensioners, seniors, people with disabilities, carers, veterans and families with dependent children. You will note that this package covers all pensioners—it is not the practice of the government to single out some groups and exclude others simply because it suits us to make a political point. We are not, it should be noted, the opposition. For it was they who made great play of caring deeply for pensioners and their plight and yet proposed to offer financial support to a select few. The proposal callously put forward by the opposition left some two million pensioners with absolutely nothing. Instead, we are offering much needed assistance to all pensioners plus families. In my electorate of Bass, this will see almost 30,000 people and families receive one-off payments. Budgets were already becoming stretched. I know that, because that is what people are telling me and my parliamentary colleagues each and every day. But the global financial crisis has added even greater financial pressure to household budgets. As a government we understand that and we have acted. More than 20,000 Northern Tasmanian pensioners will receive payments of $1,400 if they are single or $2,100 if they are eligible couples. Nationwide, this is a $4.8 billion commitment and it builds on the $7.5 billion committed in the Rudd government’s first budget. It brings to a total of $12.3 billion the money committed to seniors, pensioners and carers since the election less than a year ago. I understand that this is an issue which has concerned many in the community and I guarantee the House that it is something which the most senior members of the government understand also. I know this because it was raised at the community cabinet held in Launceston on the fifth of this month. This was a historic day not only for Launceston, Bass and the whole of Northern Tasmania but for the entirety of Tasmania. This was the first time that the federal cabinet, led by the Prime Minister, had met in Launceston. As the Prime Minister so rightly pointed out, cabinet is an old institution. Launceston is one of the country’s oldest cities, and yet this was the first time the two had come together. There were many issues raised at what was a wonderful community meeting. Among them were the pulp mill, water, population and sustainability. What was also in evidence was that there is an enormous amount of concern about the global banking and finance systems. Coupled with that are apprehension and anxiety about the individual financial pressures under which families, workers, seniors and pensioners are struggling. These were concerns which, thanks to this government’s community cabinet program, the people of Bass were able to articulate directly to the Prime Minister and senior government members. And articulate they did, with passion and vehemence. Many people in my community took the opportunity afforded to them for one-on-one meetings with the Prime Minister and other ministers. One of those who met with the Prime Minister was a pensioner. I know that she did not mince her words, as she has not done that with me throughout the year. This lady has spoken with me often of the pressures on pensioners, of how financial pressures have taken their toll on her and of how the rising costs of living are making things harder and harder. I can assure her and the thousands of others like her in Bass and across the country that relief is on the way. These one-off payments which form an integral part of the government’s Economic Security Strategy will be paid on the eighth of next month. But allow me to put these in context if you will. This is not a political bribe. We are not perpetuating the practices of the previous government. This is not about buying off a section of the community we need to help us win an election. We are not the Howard government—that is quite obvious. This is about providing much needed, much deserved assistance. These payments are down payments on long-term pension reform. They are designed to provide that much needed assistance and support in the nine months between now and when long-term reforms are introduced from the beginning of the next financial year. Indulge me as I highlight for the House the actions taken by the Rudd government in this area since the election less than 12 months ago. Among the first things we did was acknowledge the hardships under which many pensioners, seniors and carers are struggling. Instead of turning a blind eye until election time, like the previous government did, we acted. The Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has asked the Secretary of that department, Dr Jeff Harmer, to complete an investigation into measures to strengthen the financial security of seniors, carers and people with disabilities, including a review of the age pension, carer payment and disability support pension. This review is part of the government’s wider inquiry into Australia’s future tax system, chaired by the Secretary to the Treasury, Dr Ken Henry. We acted. While the opposition was out and about crying crocodile tears over the plight of some pensioners—just some—we were acting. I have spoken at length in this House of the struggles of pensioners. I have spoken also in disgust at the political opportunism of those opposite. I do so again here today. We will not pit pensioner groups against each other. We will not exclude two million carers, people with a disability and married pensioner couples from this payment. Those opposite would have had almost 15,000 pensioner couples, carers and people with disabilities in Northern Tasmania denied financial assistance. This demonstrates a few things. It shows just how out of touch those opposite have become. It shows the depths they will plunder in a desperate attempt to gain political advantage. You know what? Not us. As the Prime Minister articulated during community cabinet in Launceston, and as he has done consistently throughout the global financial crisis, as a government we have taken decisive, early action—not because it is politically expedient to do so but rather because it is the right thing for the health of our nation’s economy. It is the right thing also for seniors, carers, people with disabilities, pensioners and families. These payments recognise the additional costs of single pensioners relative to couples. For the first time, they are being made to those on the disability support pension. It is little wonder that the government’s Economic Security Strategy has been welcomed by the National Seniors Association, Carers Australia, the Combined Pensioners and Superannuants Association, the Fair Go for Pensioners Coalition and National Disability Services, to name but a few. More than that, however, has been the response that I have received in my electorate. No-one is suggesting for a second that this is the end of the line for assistance for pensioners and the like. As I said, and as others have said, these payments are down payments while the review into pensions is undertaken. Having said that, the response which I have received has been positive. Many people in Bass appreciate that as a government we need to act responsibly and with due process, and that is what we are doing. They appreciate also that, when the opportunity presented itself to assist those who needed it most, we took it. As I mentioned earlier, this help will reach almost 30,000 people in my electorate of Bass. More than 9,200 families who receive family tax benefit A will, as a result of this legislation, receive $1,000 for each dependent child who attracts family tax benefit part A. This too is about providing targeted and much needed relief to those families struggling with rising costs. I say it often in this House but it remains true today. I am proud of this legislation and proud to be part of a government which has responded quickly and decisively to a range of pressing needs. There is a global financial crisis and the government has responded to assist Australia’s economy. There are rising costs of living and these are placing pressure and strain on the most vulnerable in our community, and the government has responded. Pensioners, seniors, carers and people with disabilities are struggling—and I will say it once again: the government has responded with $10.4 billion in the Economic Security Strategy, which also includes other measures. We are responding to the challenge of housing affordability and stimulating residential construction activity through the first home owner boost, which will increase grants to first home buyers purchasing an established home to $14,000 and to those purchasing a newly constructed home to $21,000. This will apply for all contracts entered into by 30 June 2009. We are helping Australians secure jobs and investing in our people by creating an additional 56,000 new training places this financial year, to strengthen the Australian economy in these difficult global times. We are committed to supporting and training job seekers to ensure all those who can benefit from extra help are able to access these places. The Rudd government will fast-track its nation-building agenda to help shield Australians from the global financial crisis. We are accelerating the implementation of our three nation-building funds and bringing forward interim infrastructure reports to December 2008 in the key areas of education and research, health and hospitals, and transport and communications so that work can commence next year. Across the board the government has responded, and with this legislation in particular it is providing immediate financial support during the global financial crisis. With that, I commend the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and related bills to the House. 10878 11:38:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —My commitment to the House now is that I will not use the word ‘decisive’ any more than 20 times in this speech, which I think is the record set by the previous speaker. When people watch the ABC, they see this Rudd government documentary otherwise known as The Hollowmen. HWC Campbell, Jodie, MP Ms Campbell interjecting— 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The member for Dickson has the call. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —The task of the ‘hollowmen’ is to put together notes and speaking points based on their research with focus groups, and the word that they came up with was ‘decisive’. The focus groups believed that this government was indecisive. They believed that Kevin Rudd did not have the ability to do anything beyond referring a matter off to a committee or a review. By delaying it, the government could come up with a considered response, but nonetheless it was indecisive. HWC Campbell, Jodie, MP Ms Campbell interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! If the member does not desist from interjecting I will remove her from the chamber! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Now the rhetoric of the government and the member who just spoke is to make sure that in every speech in this place they repeat the word ‘decisive’. They repeat it constantly because they want people to believe that they are a decisive government. It is not true, but they repeat it. Every action that the government have taken and every decision that they have made to refer matters to committee, meanwhile failing to help Australians in the public hospital system and small businesses, reinforces the fact that right around the country people know—Australians are not stupid—that the government are not decisive but rather are a government of committees run by a bureaucrat who does not have the capacity to make long-term decisions in the best interests of this country. Regarding the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and related bills, the government were dragged kicking and screaming to a decision to help older Australians. They have been kicking and screaming for the past 12 months, since last November’s election. They resisted the federal Leader of the Opposition’s calls for an increase in the age pension rate for single pensioners. They refused on countless occasions to provide support. Ultimately they have provided support to people in the Australian community who are most in need—age pensioners and carers. The Labor government act not in the public interest but in their own self-interest. They made the decision to provide this package not because they saw it as being in the best interests of pensioners but because they wanted a political fix to the problem that their focus group was telling them about. So they came up with this idea to spend over $10 billion of the surplus moneys that were given to them by the previous, coalition government. Do not forget that, without the surplus funds gifted to the current government last November, none of this would be possible. It would not be possible for the government to be running a surplus budget if they did not receive the funds from the previous 11½ years of good economic management. Had we not repaid their government debt of $96 billion over the last 11 years, they would not have been in a position today to meet the expenditure that they are talking about as part of this bill or, indeed, any other bill which is before the House at the moment. The Labor government inherited the most complementary set of economic statistics in this country’s history. They inherited unemployment at a 30-year low. They benefited from the fact that we had repaid all of that debt, saving the country about $8 billion a year in interest. My view is that, if a Labor government had been in power over the last 11 years, not only would that $96 billion of debt not have been paid back; it would have increased dramatically—because Labor are bad managers of money. The Australian public know that and they are seeing it in action at the moment, not just at the federal level but right around the country—everywhere. Nowhere is it more obvious than in New South Wales, where that basket case of a government is really a disgrace. And a very close second, I think, is Queensland. Under the so-called leadership of Anna Bligh, Queensland is very quickly heading down the path of New South Wales, and that would be a tragic outcome for the great state of Queensland. If we see a repeat at the federal level of Labor’s state economic management, particularly as in New South Wales and Queensland, the future of this country is under great threat. We need to make sure that Labor do not continue to operate systems like the health system and the employment markets in this country in the way in which New South Wales Labor have mismanaged their economy over the last 10 years or so. The most important point to make about this bill is in relation to confidence. We are suffering from international global effects, but the federal government are making the impact, particularly on small business, much worse. The government have really belted the confidence out of consumers and businesses right around the country. As the shadow minister for small business, independent contractors, tourism and the arts noted in his recent press release: The National Australia Bank’s Monthly Business Survey and Economic Outlook for October 2008 has recorded a record fall (21 points) in business confidence to a low of -29 index points. Contrast that to 12 months ago—to November 2007. Do not forget that Labor has this very nervous Treasurer out there on a regular basis providing performances which only get worse. His performances are an embarrassment to this country not just domestically but internationally as well. That is what small business are looking at at the moment and that is why they are keeping their hands in their pockets. We have the effects of the international crisis—there is no doubt about that—but Wayne Swan and Kevin Rudd are making it worse. If small business are putting staff off, if they are not making an investment, then this economic contraction will continue on much longer than it needs to. We need to make sure that people understand that Labor do not manage money and they do not manage money well in times of bad economic circumstance. Do not forget that the Liberal-National coalition government, when we were in power over the 2001-02 period when the United States last went into recession, were still able to manage our economy with a growth rate of four per cent. We were still able to maintain unemployment at record lows. That is how we managed the last international economic crisis. It stands in stark contrast to the way in which this Rudd government have completely mismanaged the Australian economy over the last 12 months. For that they should stand condemned. I say to the Australian people: at the first opportunity, please remember what it was like during the 11½ years of the coalition government in this country and the way in which we managed the economy, and compare it with the last 12 months and the way in which the Rudd-Swan government have managed the economy. There can be no greater contrast in competence or lack thereof. That is the message that the Australian people need to hear. I will conclude my comments on that note. 10880 11:46:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —Before I commence my remarks in the Economic Security Strategy debate, I would like to make some comments on the remarks made by the member for Dickson. (Quorum formed) Ms PLIBERSEK (Sydney —Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women) 11:49:00 —I move: That the question be now put. A division having been called and the bells having been rung— 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! There appears to have been a problem with the procedure with the hourglass. The clerks have advised that the bell did not go for four minutes. I, therefore, am reconvening the division. Ring the bells for one minute. Question put. 11:57:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Mr AJ Schultz) 71 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. 55 Abbott, A.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. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Windsor, A.H.C. Wood, J. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 10881 Mr TANNER (Melbourne —Minister for Finance and Deregulation) 12:03:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10881 Bills R4005 10881 Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 10881 Mr TANNER (Melbourne —Minister for Finance and Deregulation) 12:05:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10881 Bills R4004 10881 Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Tanner: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 10881 Mr TANNER (Melbourne —Minister for Finance and Deregulation) 12:06:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10881 Bills R4000 10881 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen. Bill read a first time. 10881 10881 12:07:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, and Assistant Treasurer 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today I introduce a bill which will amend the Corporations Act 2001 to address certain aspects about the regulation of short selling. The bill contains three key short-selling measures to enhance the integrity, fairness and transparency of our markets. First, the bill clarifies the powers of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) to regulate short selling. Currently, ASIC has the power to modify certain parts of the Corporations Act through declarations. These declarations are commonly known as ASIC class orders. To avoid doubt, the amendments make it clear that ASIC has the power to regulate all aspects of short selling including prohibiting these transactions and imposing or varying requirements on these transactions. The changes also mean that ASIC can regulate transactions that have a substantially similar market effect as short sales. The recent international financial turmoil has highlighted the need for the regulator to be able to quickly respond to issues that could potentially threaten the fair and orderly operation of our markets. In September 2008, ASIC used its power to make various declarations in relation to short selling. In substance, the class orders imposed a ban on covered short selling subject to limited exemptions and required disclosure in relation to the exempted transactions. The declarations were made in light of the unprecedented volatility being experienced on Australian and global financial markets, and international regulatory developments occurring at the time. As part of clarifying ASIC’s short-selling powers and to avoid any doubt over ASIC’s actions, the bill expressly states that the declarations made by ASIC in relation to short selling were within the scope of its power. The amendment operates for the benefit of parties who organised their affairs in accordance with the class orders and will, importantly, provide certainty to business. The second measure, in effect, bans naked short selling. Typically, this will mean the seller will need a legally-binding securities lending agreement before making the short sale. The government has taken action in this area because transactions of this nature have a higher risk of settlement failure because there are no available securities at the time of sale. In addition, naked short selling may also distort the operation of financial markets by causing increased price volatility and potentially facilitate market manipulation. Furthermore, the perceived activity of naked short sellers may damage market confidence, particularly among retail investors. Community expectations on what is acceptable with regards to short selling, plus the need to protect Australian companies and retail investors from unjustified targeting and abusive short selling are also important policy considerations in this regard. ASIC has the ability to grant exemptions from the naked short-selling prohibition. The government foresees the ASIC exemptions may allow some non-speculative naked short sales. Given the dynamics of the market and the rapid changes in the conduct and structure of financial markets, the government considers that these exemptions are more appropriately facilitated by ASIC, rather than by law. The third measure will ensure the disclosure of covered short sales. The measure is primarily about transparency. Earlier this year, it became apparent that complete data on the level of covered short selling was not publicly available and that legislation was required to address the issue. The uncertainty surrounding the activity of covered short sellers in Australian securities is having a significant impact on Australian capital markets. We have seen significant price declines in some shares, which have caused considerable rumour and speculation about the role of short selling. This speculation is affecting confidence in the market, particularly among retail investors. Under the disclosure regime, a seller will be required to disclose covered short sales to their executing broker. The broker will in turn be required to disclose this client information to the market operator. Brokers trading on their own behalf will be required to disclose their own covered short sales directly to the market operator. It will be an offence not to disclose. Regulations will set the timing and manner of the disclosures. The market operator, for example, the ASX, must publicly disclose the short-sale information it receives. To complement the disclosure requirement, and ensure clients understand their obligations, brokers must also ask clients if the sale is a covered short sale before making the sale. Details of the timing and manner of disclosure are to be included in regulations. This will ensure the regime is able to adapt more readily to the ever-evolving market environment and the mechanisms by which transactions occur. The disclosure of covered short sales will provide useful information to investors and regulators, contribute to pricing efficiency and also promote market confidence and integrity. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Anthony Smith) adjourned. 10883 Bills R3088 10883 Debate resumed from 11 November, on motion by Dr Emerson: That this bill be now read a second time. 10883 12:13:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr MURPHY —Though the substance of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 may appear dry and difficult to digest, it deals with significant reforms that are, without question, in the public interest. Trade measurement involves the exchange of goods at a price determined by volume, weight or some other type of measurement. Australia’s trade measurement system, which this bill seeks to reform, has been described comprehensively by Robert McEntyre in a speech entitled ‘Australia’s technical infrastructure: its value and importance to trade’ as: … the collection of activities, rules, principles and concepts that establishes, maintains and gives authority, traceability and confidence to the measurements, quantities … and qualities … of a nations products. In simple terms, a robust trade measurement system is needed to ensure instruments that are used to measure the weight, quantity or quality of traded goods are accurate enough to give fair results to buyers and sellers. If left to their own devices, it would not come as any surprise if a seller’s definition of a kilogram was somewhat lighter than a buyer’s definition of a kilogram. We often take for granted the accuracy of measurements coming from scales in supermarkets, pumps at petrol stations or indeed liquor dispensers at the local pub or club. Yet customers need to be assured that, when packaging states that its contents are a specific weight, volume or quality, it is an accurate statement of the actual contents. We accept that 30 litres of petrol actually is 30 litres of petrol because of our trust in Australia’s system of measurements. There can be no doubt that, while legal metrology and Australia’s trade measurement system may not always be known or understood by the population at large, they impact on all Australians in their day-to-day lives. With Australia’s trade measurement system underpinning much of the production and provision of commercial goods and services, to the tune of more than $400 billion a year, there is an ongoing need to ensure our systems are uniform, simple and relevant. Australia’s trade measurement system has undergone some significant changes in the past 20 years. Our three former legal metrology organisations—the National Measurement Laboratory, the National Standards Commission and the Australian Government Analytical Laboratories—have all come together to form a single national metrology body known as the National Measurement Institute. In 1990, most states and territories agreed to enact and maintain separate but uniform trade measurement systems according to the legislative model set out in the uniform trade measurement legislation. Among other measures, the uniform legislation controls the approval and use of measuring instruments in trade, the packaging and marking of prepackaged articles, the licensing of measuring instrument servicing persons, and the powers of inspectors and sanctions. Despite these changes and the outward appearance of standardisation, there has been waning regulatory oversight over the consistency of processes involved in Australia’s trade measurement system. As far back as 1995, the Kean inquiry into Australia’s standards and conformance infrastructure noted a decline in the trade measurement system and the lack of uniform implementation of trade measurement legislation. These problems were compounded over the course of the next 13 years in light of inconsistent changes to legislation at different times in different jurisdictions. The resulting divergence in fees, licensing schemes and legislative interpretation across jurisdictions has clearly impeded economic activity and created inefficiencies. One need only think about the impact on retailers’ selling methods when they operate in different states with different packaging requirements or the impact on the 800 firms that repair and verify measuring instruments who have to deal with differing licensing criteria, fees and reporting requirements. It should not take seven or eight regimes to ensure a level playing field for transactions based on measurement. That nothing much has changed for the past decade has only served to undermine the very transparency and confidence trade measurement systems are designed to promote. It is absurd that companies operating nationally in a country like ours, with a population of 21 million, should face more regulatory obstacles in trade measurement than those in the United States, with its population of 300 million. Replacing eight state and territory based systems with one national system is the logical approach. It is an approach that has long been logical to the industry also. That much was confirmed by the ‘Review of the national trade measurement system: discussion paper’, released in June 2006. It found, inter alia: … industry’s choice of options are national legislation; consistent interpretation and application of legislation; and a single licensing system for servicing licensees. It is an approach which the review team itself concluded was logical. Yet it is an approach that should have been met with more vigour by the Howard government. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 introduces a new national trade measurement system for Australia by replacing the current fragmented situation across each state and territory. The bill inserts general trade measurement provisions into the act, including (1) provisions dealing with the accuracy and reliability of trade measuring instruments, (2) provisions to ensure prepackaged articles contain the stated quantities, (3) the appointment of inspectors and details of their powers and (4) licensing requirements for those involved in verifying and repairing measuring instruments. A trade measurement system administered by the Commonwealth will also be better placed to deal swiftly with the many challenges presented by new measurement technologies. Technology has been advancing rapidly in many areas, including automation, software and measurement instrumentation. Measuring instruments are also changing in this new age of technology with, for example, smart electricity meters being rolled out in many countries. I have no doubt there will be future changes and corresponding regulatory impacts in physical, chemical and biological measurements. The benefits of the eradication of unnecessary costs are clear for businesses that operate across borders. The Productivity Commission has estimated the cost of complying with Australia’s disparate business regulations, such as trade measurement systems, to be in the order of $40 billion. It further estimates that reforming business regulation could add up to $16 billion a year to our gross domestic product. So there can be no doubt that the crippling regulatory burden faced by many Australian businesses is a dead weight on our economy. It should come as no surprise that the Council of Australian Governments, COAG, has on more than one occasion sought to harmonise business laws across each state or create a single layer of Commonwealth regulation. Yet regulatory reform through COAG under the previous government was sporadic at best. On countless occasions we read of reforms being talked about, but nothing happened. We read of reforms stalling or being delayed. Countless concerns were raised during the Howard government’s tenure that there was a gap between reform rhetoric and reform implementation in the context of regulatory hot spots. Trade measurement was identified in 2006 by COAG as one of the regulatory hot spots in need of urgent regulatory reform. The reformist zeal of the pre-2008 COAG is perhaps best described by Mike Steketee in an article published in the Australian on 28 October 2006 when he said: … the co-operation that is supposed to be the hallmark of COAG is looking more and more like coagulation. In stark contrast, the Rudd government has rolled up its sleeves on this and has already achieved real outcomes on cooperative federalism. Take, for example, the Council of Australian Governments’ meeting communique dated 26 March 2008, which finally delivered the breakthrough on trade measurement—of which this bill is a direct product. That same communique stated: The COAG reform agenda is underpinned by a common commitment to clear goals, genuine partnership and the governance and funding arrangements needed to deliver real reform. A fresh spirit of goodwill has delivered breakthrough agreements in areas unresolved by COAG for too long. Rather than turbocharging the COAG process to turn reform rhetoric into outcomes, the Howard government became complacent and chose to rely on the commodities boom to steer it through trouble while playing the blame game with the states. This bill is a step in the right direction not only for national economic growth but for the creation of a seamless economy in which companies can operate across jurisdictions without facing inconsistent laws and regulations. The more we do to create a seamless economy, the more it will help our companies compete domestically and internationally. An efficient trade measurement system is also essential for the international competitiveness of our exporters. Accurate, reliable and consistent measurements can boost international consumer confidence in our goods and, in turn, international trade and commerce. A national system may, for example, make it easier for Australia to enter into mutual recognition arrangements with other nations on trade measurement matters. These arrangements allow Australian exporters to have their products tested, measured or certified in Australia for compliance with the requirements of importing countries. Such arrangements are effective in reducing the time and cost involved in getting goods to international markets. The importance of legal metrology to exporters cannot be overstated. I again quote from Robert McEntyre’s address to the Queensland Studies Authority Asia Pacific Forum. He stated: Desired outcomes of an effective Australian technical infrastructure include: …            …            … Increased competitiveness, market share, innovation and lower operating costs for Australian industries and companies, through optimising trading environments as a result of removing technical barriers to trade. An example is the food sector, where the measurement of pesticide residues and chemical and microbiological contaminants can be technical barriers to trade. Ongoing progress in implementing efficient measurement systems will only assist the Australian food export industry. The importance of quality measurements in trade can also be evident in assessments of the protein content of grain or the sugar content of cane sugar. As we work towards reducing global tariffs and opening international markets, ongoing reforms to technical measures and procedures will assume even greater importance. Market access is simply not enough. Our exporters must be afforded every opportunity to export their products quickly and cost-effectively. At the heart of this bill lies another significant change which will ensure this is the case. The bill introduces an option for manufacturers to use, voluntarily, an average quantity system rather than the current minimum quantity system. Under the minimum quantity system, an offence is committed where a tested product shows a shortfall of the product in the package. With most filling and packaging processes automated, it is almost impossible to meet this standard in a production run—forcing packers to overfill packages to avoid an offence. The average quantity system allows packers to use a statistical measure that a batch of goods would be, on average, within statistical normal distribution. This measure increases the efficiency of production while protecting consumers. It is important to note, for the sake of our exporters, that the average quantity system has been adopted by our major trading partners, including Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, the United States and New Zealand. I also note that the International Organisation of Legal Metrology—an intergovernmental treaty organisation established to promote the global harmonisation of legal metrology—has recommended the adoption of the average quantity system for international trade in prepacked goods. Given prepacked goods form the bulk of international trade and the importance of the International Organisation of Legal Metrology’s recommendations to underpinning international trade, the amendments in this bill are both prudent and timely. The adoption of the average quantity system will enable our exporters to compete on a more equitable basis with international traders now and in the future. I note that in his contribution to this debate the member for Groom, who is the shadow minister for industry and resources and also has an abiding interest in trade matters, raised concerns that it is still not clear that the national trade measurement system will have a significant net positive value. It is prudent for me to quote a section of the final report into the review of national arrangements for administering trade measurement in Australia which deals adequately with such concerns as raised by my friend the member for Groom. It states: Direct financial benefits to industry have proved difficult to quantify, but productivity benefits have been clearly identified and would justify the additional investment on the part of the Australian Government … The cost of implementing national legislation and administration of the trade measurement system is insignificant in comparison with its importance to the Australian economy. I conclude on that salient point and commend this bill to the House. 10887 12:29:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a pleasure to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008. From time to time in this House, bills come before us that are truly of national significance—bills that are truly important, bills that truly make monumental changes to the way that we deal with life, business and a whole range of other areas, and bills that people line up to speak on. Some people would say that this is not one of them. I would say that they are wrong. This is actually a very important bill. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Hear, hear! 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —Absolutely—hear, hear! The member for Lowe, who just spoke on this bill, agrees with me. This is an important bill because it makes some very important changes in some very important areas of trade law and practice. I have to say that, while a number of Labor members have been very keen to not only speak on this but also be active and participate in this regulatory area, we have not seen that enthusiasm from members of the opposition. I think that is a sad reflection of their view, not just on what this bill is about—trade measurement and measurement in Australia—but on the more global impact on our national economy, the way we do business, business practices in Australia, consumer affairs, the confidence that people have in our systems in Australia— 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr Murphy —Trade. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —and of course trade. There is no way that we can have an effective trade regime in this country without an effective and efficient trade measurement system, and that is at the core of what this bill is about. Like on many bills that I have spoken about in this House over a long period of time, but particularly in the last 11½ months or so, I am very proud to speak on this issue. The Rudd Labor government is picking up on the leftover issues, the unfinished business, of the previous government. This area is important, as people will understand once they hear from the speakers about what it involves and how it can impact on their daily lives, their hip pocket and their family budgets—all the things that matter on a daily basis. We need to start by at least getting one thing right: what is trade measurement? On first inspection, a lot of people might consider this bill to just be about how long a piece of string is or how much something weighs. It is much more than that. In fact, I have often been asked that very question: how long is a piece of string? I have an answer for that: it is twice as long as it is from the middle to the end. Perhaps that should be contained somewhere as well! Trade measurement is a term that refers to the use of measurement as the basis for price in a transaction. It is very important in business. For example, there is the volume of petrol when you go to the petrol station and fill up at the bowser. We have heard that example; it is a very important one. When you put in, say, 50 litres, you know that you are getting 50 litres of fuel. You are not getting 45 litres and, more than likely, you would not be getting 55 litres. The idea is that you get what you pay for, and that is the essence of it. After a cursory examination, people might think that is important in terms of the consumer aspect, but it actually goes much further; it is important to our national economy, the efficiency of our economy, our productivity and our trade with trading partners. However, while we have some very good standards in Australia, there has been over several decades a desirability right across the board to have some uniformity—a bit of harmonisation and a bit of national consistency in the way we apply rules, the way we license and the way we approach these things. That is a hallmark of the Rudd Labor government. We are determined that in Australia there is a better way to do a whole range of things. We believe that you can have productivity growth and efficiency gains in a whole range of areas. Trade measurement in itself can become more efficient and can help with productivity. You can apply the same principles—national consistency, licensing, efficiency and productivity—across a whole range of sectors. We have seen that in the way we have approached the issue of health provision in Australia—that we need to have a more consistent approach. National consistency is important in removing regulatory burdens and unproductive red tape across the board. That goes not just to health but also to education. We see that in the areas in which Labor have pursued an agenda. It is not just about saying, ‘We will put more money on the table,’ because we are doing that—we have made that financial commitment—but we are saying that we need to look for efficiencies and productivity gains. We do that across a whole range of areas, and education is one area. In the area of business—and this pertains more closely to trade, but when you dig deeper it pertains to the little things in all of our lives every day and it reflects the confidence that we all have as consumers in the systems that we have in place—it is exceptionally important that we get this right across all jurisdictions in Australia and, in the end, across one jurisdiction: the national economy of the Commonwealth. That is where we need to get this right. That is not a statement critical of the way that the states have operated, because it is certainly true that over a number of years the states and territories have put in place a number of consistent regimes across the board. In fact, in 1983 the Scott review recommended a national approach to the administration of trade measurement. They did that for good reason. The recommendation resulted in the drafting of uniform trade measurement legislation. Unfortunately for all of us, it took more than 20 years for all jurisdictions to enact that legislation. That is lost time, lost productivity gains and lost efficiency. We cannot regain that, but we can move forward. So, despite the fact that we had uniform format legislation, practical problems persisted. That was largely because all states and territory regulations were not implemented at the same time, causing difficulties in timing issues, with different jurisdictions across different states. There were also differences in the way the regulations were applied, administered and interpreted, with varying nuances between jurisdictions. That led, very importantly in the progress of getting this right at a national level, to the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group of COAG being directed to deliver some early action on regulatory reform, in particular in relation to some hot spots. It was identified that there were a number of areas, called hot spots, where this was actually having an efficiency impact, a productivity impact. COAG identified that back in 2006 and again in 2007. The area of trade measurement had become one of the top 10 identified regulatory hot spots for COAG. So this is an important issue. This is in that basket of goods which, on the surface, some might think is inconsequential—an inconsequential bill and inconsequential changes—but in effect it has some real impact. Following on from that, the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs also commissioned a review of trade measurement arrangements. They identified a number of problems and costs associated with businesses that operate across borders, that have different cost-recovery procedures in different jurisdictions, different processes for licensing, different costs involved in what those licences are, inconsistent advice and basically the mishmash that you typically end up with in a system such as ours, where you have a federation of states, which in principle works well but has areas of difficulty, inefficiency and bureaucracy—layer upon layer of ineffectiveness. This is just another tranche for us, the Rudd government, where, as a new government coming in, we can start paring away at the red tape burdens and inefficiencies and start stripping back the bureaucracy that prevents national efficiency, that prevents us being competitive not only on a national platform but also on a global platform. This review concluded that the adoption of a national trade measurement system would deliver a net economic benefit to Australian industry, to business, to government and to consumers alike. In April 2007 COAG accepted this recommendation. The National Measurement Amendment Bill, which is now before us, will give effect to that COAG decision. As I said at the outset, I am very pleased to be able to speak on this legislation. I think it is an important part of our national trade system. Just as importantly to me, it is about consumer confidence and consumer affairs. This has certainly been an issue for a lot of constituents of mine. I know that right across Australia there are from time to time circumstances that arise where people’s confidence in measurement is undermined. It quickly becomes apparent to members of parliament that it is one of those areas where consumers can really be dealt a harsh blow. There is an expectation from the Australian consumer that, when they go to a trader and buy an article that says ‘100 grams’, that is what they will be purchasing—100 grams of whatever that article is; that if they go to a service station and buy 50 litres of fuel, it will be 50 litres of fuel; and that, if they buy something by length, they know exactly that that is the length that they are receiving. It is a base standard and an expectation that we have in this country that we can have confidence in our systems, and largely speaking we do have that. From time to time there are issues and problems about packet weights. We have already passed legislation in this place to make sure there is some clarity not only in the way items are measured and recorded but in the way they are promoted so that people can have confidence in that and there is no trickery involved—by duping or conning people into buying something they thought was something else. We have seen examples of that over the years. It is important to note how that system works and why it is so important: to make sure that we give confidence to buyers and sellers in the marketplace, to make sure that we have accuracy and to reduce the transaction costs of each trade. As we heard from the previous speaker, this is not a small area of concern. Trade measurement and trade based on measurement is worth something in the order of around $400 billion per year, so it is a significant amount. If we were to allow that system to deteriorate that could jeopardise not only consumer confidence but trade confidence. It could also jeopardise the confidence that our trading partners have in us—that what we do is of the highest standard, that when we say something is of a particular measurement that is actually the case. Again I acknowledge the presence at the table of the member for Lowe, who is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade; he would understand very well just how important it is in our global relationship with our trading partners that they have confidence in our system, not just that we have confidence in it. Unfortunately, while Australia’s current trade measurement infrastructure is good and is sound, it is not as efficient and certainly not as effective as it could be. That is just one more reason why this change is so necessary and why we have this measurement legislation—to remove some of the confusion. Significantly, every state and territory will be brought into line by agreement and through partnership so that we have a nationally consistent, efficient and effective trade measurement system. COAG has identified this as a major area of reform and we are following through on the commitment that we have made in that area. The Rudd Labor government made some big commitments pre the election that we want to see through—commitments in the area of supporting business, small business, contractors and trade, making sure that we remove for them the impediments to business and to trade. In our view, government should be there to assist their business, not hamper it. The role of government should be to provide an effective system of standards, licensing and regulations to ensure that the most efficient and effective trading platforms are in place. That is not the case yet; that is not the case today. The system we have inherited from the previous government is overly burdened by red tape and regulatory regimes, and represents inaction and lost opportunities in what could have been done in those 12 years. The Howard government did not really pay attention—which is probably the kindest way I can put it—to what they claimed was one of their core constituencies, and that is the small business sector. Apart from perhaps dealing with a couple of the more populist issues within the business sector, the real issues of efficiency, red tape and other burdens—real, practical, everyday cost burdens—on small business were not addressed. What we saw was a growing mountain of red tape, a growing mountain of regulation, a growing mountain of requirements placed on small business and other businesses to comply with the ever more complicated systems and regimes put in place by the previous government—let alone the system of taxation in this country. It is so complicated, so complex, so inefficient that we have been placed in a position today where we need to look at how we measure all of that. If you brought our tax system in here and measured it from the floor, it would be the height of a tall child. The reality is that there is a lot of work to be done. This is one more step in that process that we have put in place to harmonise regulation across this country, to bring into line the ability of the states and territories of the Commonwealth to work together at all tiers of government, truly, I would say, for the first time in Australian history. That is the great opportunity that is provided by this bill before us. At its core are productivity gains by reducing red tape and reducing the costs and burdens for small business. We as a government are committed to that sector through this bill but we also believe that it will flow on to other areas of the economy. In effect, that will give us greater quality and a greater capacity to grow and better link with our trading partners. I want to mention briefly the global systems of trade measurement and how important it is for us to be on the same platform as our trading partners. Currently, ours is a minimum quantity system, which means that you are basically guaranteed that within a particular measurement you will get a minimum amount. While on the surface that seems like quite a reasonable approach to take, what it means is that business tend to overfill or give a little bit extra just to be certain they do not breach any regulation or more. The bigger picture is that it means massive inefficiency for business. There are good data and statistics and evidence to show that moving to an average quantity system will mean that you get roughly 98 per cent accuracy on average weight, on average length, on average quantity, and that is a satisfactory amount in terms of tolerances that are acceptable not only to consumers but also by regulations, law and government. I think that by moving across to that system and joining with our major trading partners which have the same systems in place—countries such as Canada, China, those in the European Union, Japan, the United States and New Zealand—we will ensure that we maintain a competitive advantage not just in the quality of our trade and all that is associated with that but also in the quantity of it. We will maintain the confidence that people have in our systems and that competitive advantage that we always need to ensure that we have. The bill before us contains an array of systems that will give us a range of things. The bill will ensure the accuracy and reliability of our trade measuring instruments, such as scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges. It will also mean that prepacked articles contain the stated quantities. It means the appointment of trade measurement inspectors and proper licensing provisions for the verifiers of measuring instruments. It means that private sector firms or individuals will be licensed to verify trade measuring instruments, while transitional provisions will ensure a seamless transfer from the states and territories to a national system. This is good public policy, this is in the national interest, this is a very important bill, and I commend it to the House. (Time expired) 10891 12:50:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I rise to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 and I would like to commend the two previous speakers, the member for Lowe and the member for Oxley, for their contributions. The importance of this national measurement system is due to the fact that it concerns industry, small business and, generally, our total economy, which is very dependent on having a surety of certain standards. In discussing this bill, I would like to give an understanding of some of the history that has brought us to this point. People often take it for granted that our measurements are just there. We quote capacity and length and we have a whole range of different understandings by measurement. But there have been thousands of years of history in the development of measurements to get to the point where we can say that standards can be put in place and confirmed—certainly in this country of Australia, a federation of states. On this side of the House we have spoken many times about the notion of cooperative federalism, and, certainly, red tape reduction is a major part of ensuring that we can provide to industry some definitive measurements. I will take you back to the era of the ancient Greeks and Romans. History shows they were great builders of cities. Because the Romans advanced through so many countries—and the wars and battles involved in taking on these great lands—there are significant remnants and remains of them. Their legacy is essentially in the built environment. You can see all the ruins if you travel to some of those countries. Rome is a very good example of the input that the Romans have had in that area in the built environment. It comes back to an understanding of measurement and the standards that were established many thousands of years ago. Today the symmetry of this chamber is very much based on an understanding of those early measurements. If you pick up a piece of paper, for instance, and look at the symmetry of that piece of paper and consider the fact that most pieces of paper are rectangular in shape, you will see it is no accident. This comes back to some determination many thousands of years ago about what the perfect rectangle might be. If this decision had not been made some thousands of years ago, we might be writing on square pieces of paper and the symmetry might be quite different. Again, on the notion of construction, if you look at the building of a house or a large facade or at some of those ancient Roman buildings, you will see they were not just put together based on the available material or the masonry that they had available to them; the symmetry had some significance in the way that they were built. That was highly dependent on a standard of measurement. If you look at the so-called perfect rectangle—otherwise known as the ‘golden rectangle’—or any rectangular shape or one that is most pleasing to the eye, you will see it is based on ratios. It is taking a square measure and then applying a ratio of one to one to two. Again, if you look at a humble sheet of paper, that is representative of that golden rectangle. If you look at the way they designed the ancient Greek and Roman buildings, you immediately see what I am suggesting. That comes down to the proscenium arches that we have in our theatres. Even the way that we have determined that we need to watch TV on the flat screens that have been developed has a bearing on some very basic measurements. The reason I am raising this is to point to the significance of this bill and the need to standardise our measurements. The subtleties of this understanding have huge ramifications and, as I mentioned earlier, we could well be writing on square pieces of paper rather than rectangular pieces had decisions not been made about standardisation. I can probably give a better demonstration of that if we look at the introduction of the metric system into my state of Queensland back in 1974. The metric system goes back a long time. There have been variations of it and different languages explain the notion of the base of 10. Square roots and a whole range of tables that were developed probably 500 or 600 years ago all were based on the notion of the decimal or the point of 10. If you look as far back as 1586, the interesting thing is that the English—in consideration with the French and with the emerging Americas through the War of Independence—had a large role to play in the determination of weights, measures and those very things that I am talking about. The irony is that today the US still has major confusion over the way that they deal with their weights and measures. In Australia there is not so much confusion anymore because the introduction of the metric system into this country helped a lot of that; but, if anyone has ever been confronted with the notion of using foolscap or quarto paper against an A4 or, dare I say, an A3 sheet, they all have relevance in the need for standardisation. Only a few years ago you could quite easily accidentally purchase a writing pad that might not actually fit a certain folder or fit into a particular printer simply because the standards of measurement were not determined very well. The US, as an early industrial nation, played a major part in developing the whole notion of print, and these ratios and measurements were somewhat ad hoc. The irony is that decimal currency entered the US just after the time of the American War of Independence simply because there was a need to have a standardisation of their currency and the introduction of paper currency. Yet even at that stage it was probably too difficult for the Americans to introduce the notion of a metric system or a standardisation of a system of measurement. Back in 1974 in the state of Queensland it was certainly a mandate and a dictate. I was, at that stage, in grade 9. I had spent all my earlier years learning the notion of feet, inches, yards, fathoms—what we call imperial measurements. I will not say it was belted into us, because that is not what happened, but we felt under a lot of pressure to be able to roll off those tables of measurement. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —1,760 yards to a mile. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —That is right, Member for Rankin. There are 1,760 yards in a mile, 5,280 feet—and it goes on and on. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr Raguse —That is right, and it had relevance to the length of a cricket pitch. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! I know the minister is erudite but he need not demonstrate it so obviously. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —The member for Rankin understands where I am coming from. The reality is that those measurements did not work together, and I should give an understanding of why we adopted them under the British system. Even with those earlier influences of the British, with the French King Louis XV and as part of the War of Independence, there were a number of stand-offs. Measurement became very much a part of the deliberations about war and about a range of standards. I can probably suggest that, politically, there were reasons why the Americans, once they gained independence, took on decimal currency but decided the overall decimal system was not going to suit. In talking about the imperial system, the terminology itself has some bearing on the whole notion of the system. The imperial system brings up the notion of royalty. This is probably well depicted in the Vitruvian Man that Leonardo da Vinci drew, and many people will know that figure with the symmetry of the human body. It has a major role to play in the notion of measurements. Imperial measurement was very much the introduction of a system usually by the principality, by the leader at the time or by the royal family if it was a monarchy. If we look at the Vitruvian Man, it explains the fact that a foot had a particular measure—it was the size of the ruler’s foot. That was fine if there was an average and it was a dynasty of leaders who may have had similar features, but you can immediately see that, if there were a child king, the whole system of measurement would be turned on its head. The Vitruvian Man is a way of looking at the standard of feet, but it was clear that having a system that would change every time a ruler changed would be a concern. I should mention the term ‘ruler’. We understood at school when we had 12 inches, which is a measurement that was related to the thumb, that 12 inches would make a foot, and that was on a ruler denoting the ruler at the time, or the king or the leader. So it was very much based on some sort of ad hoc approach to measurement. So standards were established. The Romans had their own system of measurement but it was very much based on ratios. The development of the decimal system was a major step forward for this country. We had decimal currency introduced in 1966, followed within eight years by the introduction of the metric system generally. I remember asking a group of young people many years ago whether they understood where the metre actually came from. It was an established measurement but over time there have been changes to the way it is determined. Essentially, it was decided in the mid-1700s that there should be a way of establishing a standard—something that will not change. We understand today that we keep the standard in a different way—usually in a beam of light or through some atomic measurement, certainly in the case of weight, length, volume et cetera—but back in the mid-1700s there was a major step forward in astronomy in terms of understanding the global theory rather than the flat-earth theories that existed before those early explorers. I wonder whether anyone in the House knows where the metre comes from? 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Sir! Sir! HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —It is a question and answer session. Member for Rankin: do you know where it comes from? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Through the chair is where remarks should be directed. The minister does not need to assist the honourable member, who is doing quite well on his own. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker, for your indulgence. I will tell you where that measurement comes from: it is actually one ten-millionth of the distance between the North Pole and the equator. That was a standard that was established at that particular time. That standard has changed because there are now more reliable ways of standardising the measurement. If you have ever wondered where we came up with this notion of the metre, it is very closely related to the yard—three feet—which goes back to the Vitruvian Man. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —That is right. There are 39.37 inches in a metre, in fact. The reality of establishing a standard that was based on a notion of 10 meant that you could divide the standard of a metre. I will use the linear measurement to start with, although measurements of volume and mass come into it too. The metre’s divisibility by 10 was a very important part of what the establishment of that measure was about. I relate to my earlier statements about industry the development of the printing industry. Certainly Gutenberg did not have a lot to do with the notion of a standard paper size. He essentially cobbled together whatever he could in terms of rags and other things to print on. But with the industrial revolution and the Americas moving ahead—particularly what became the US—there was the creation of the printing industry as we understand it today. The standard of paper was something that people worked very closely on. All of us who read newspapers in the days when we travelled by train would remember having large newspapers that we would have to fold and twist. The development of the metric system allowed the introduction of the tabloid paper. The tabloid is essentially an A3 sheet of paper. Even though there are variations of that now that are called tabloids, usually a tabloid is something smaller than the old, large newspapers. The difficulty for industry in this country before we established the metric system was the inconsistency between the US and us. We had always had that inconsistency, even when we had the imperial system in this country. We had the pint and the gallon, but the US gallon happened to be a lesser amount than the Australian gallon. Those inconsistencies have, to some degree, moved on because of our adoption of the metric system and because other countries, when making international trading arrangements, talk in terms of metrics. But in the printing industry and the metal industry, when measurements were still in the old imperial system—feet and inches—square measures were certainly worked out in that way. I will use the example of the printing industry because it comes down to the notion of a sheet of paper. I talked about the golden rectangle and why we have rectangular sheets of paper—because they are in the shape of the perfect rectangle. People may understand that the notion of A3 and A4 sheets of paper—I have an A4 sheet here in front of me—is based on the standard of a square metre. You start with the calculation of an A0. An A0 sheet is one square metre of paper, but in the golden rectangle ratio of one to one to two. It is from cutting up that A0 sheet of paper that we get the other sizes of paper. The most common size of paper used is A4. Essentially that is an A0 sheet of paper halved to make A1, A2, A3 and then A4. It goes on to A5, A6, A7, A8 and A9, which is the size of a business card. They are all related to each other. Those sizes also had some bearing on the way that paper could be folded. Coming back to these measurements you can see the need for standards. We have established quite well in our country our understanding and use of the metric system. This legislation will ensure that, right across the board—right across the federation of our states—we will have consistency. Many members in this House would have lots to do with printers and people providing printed material. It is always interesting to look at the calculation of folding. Again, it comes down to a standard. If you take a piece of paper—it does not matter what size it is—you can fold it in half only seven times. You cannot fold a sheet of paper more than seven times. People might want to challenge that but the reality is that you cannot physically fold— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Did Pythagoras come up with that? HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —Pythagoras did not, but it is a simple rule of physics. I will get back to the notion of the A0 and the standard square metre. If you look at a ream of paper—500 sheets in the metric system—it will often have a GSM measure on it. It may be 80 GSM, 120 GSM or 200 GSM. Essentially that means, for example, that the paper is 80 grams per square metre. That means that every A0 sheet in the shape of the golden rectangle is that weight. From that you can then calculate the weight of a printed item. It certainly adds to our efficiency in transport when we have standards of measurement. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —That is right: you cannot fold your sheet of paper any more than seven times. If you had the right sort of device— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I think Mr Speaker has ruled that props in the chamber are not appropriate. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —However, it does prove my point. The serious side of this, of course, is that we have established in certain industries over time the real need to have standards. These days we do not get foiled by the notion of having foolscap or quarto paper. Essentially, it is all based on the metric system of paper. In fact if you go further into that, there is every size of paper for every particular need and you can go from an A size to a B size to a C size. It has all sorts of connotations but the reality is that it is built on a standard. The metric system is very important. It flows through everything that we do in this country. The reality of this legislation is that we are going to be able to tidy up those last remaining pieces to have consistency across all of our systems of measurement. You need only look to history to understand that there have been thousands of years of development to get to this point. This country has taken 107 years to get to a point where we can standardise most of our measurements. We have tried at different times—certainly in 1960, with a major event for this country; in 1966, with decimal currency; and in 1974, certainly in Queensland and related to the rest of the country. The system of measurement is very, very important for the efficiencies of what we do in industry every day. Those examples I have given from the printing industry are typical. You will find those same systems used in the metal industry and in the service industries for understanding and determining weight and measurement. The ISO standards were established at an international level in an attempt to maintain some consistency. But, as a global community, we have a long way to go with standardisation. The US are way behind us. The inefficiencies in lots of their systems come down to the fact that they have not at earlier times taken on the need to do what this country is doing right now. I certainly commend this bill to the House. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the honourable member for his interesting contribution. Maybe he has missed his true vocation. 10896 13:09:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I commend to the House the member for Forde’s contribution to this debate. I rise to speak on the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 and hope to deliver a brief and well-measured speech. I am sure all would appreciate that. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 amends the National Measurement Act 1960 to introduce an Australia-wide system of trade measurement based on the current measurement systems found in each state and territory. This bill will introduce a national system. I commend my government’s approach on this matter. It is long overdue. This amendment bill is in response to trade measurement being one of the 10 regulatory issues identified by COAG in 2006 and 2007. Australia currently has eight different jurisdictions, one in each state and territory. This has created increases in compliance costs for those businesses operating across state boundaries—in effect, a red tape nightmare. The bill inserts general trade measurement provisions into the act which will provide the legislative framework for the national trade measurement system. These include provisions to ensure the accuracy and reliability of trade measuring instruments, provisions to ensure pre-packed articles contain the stated quantities, the appointment of trade measurement inspectors and their powers, licensing provisions for the verifiers of measuring instruments and the operation of public weighbridges, provision for private sector firms or individuals to be licensed to verify trade measuring instruments, and transitional provisions to ensure a seamless transfer from the states and territories to a national system. A trade measurement framework provides confidence to buyers and sellers that measurements which support our trading system are consistent and accurate anywhere in Australia. The bill will create the legislative framework for a national system of trade measurement. Currently, trade measurement is regulated by the states and territories, but they each regulate trade measurement slightly differently. This bill will address the issues surrounding businesses operating across state and territory boundaries, which will be welcome news. As mentioned earlier, creating a national trade measurement system was identified by COAG in 2006 as a regulatory reform hot spot, an area where overlapping and inconsistent regulatory regimes were impeding economic activity. The bill gives effect to the COAG decision. A national trade measurement system will reduce the regulatory burden for business, particularly for those firms that currently have to comply with different requirements when operating across state and territory borders. The new system will be administered by the Commonwealth from 1 July 2010. The bill has provisions which will ensure the accuracy and reliability of trade measuring instruments like scales, fuel dispensers and weighbridges; ensure pre-packaged articles contain the stated quantities; allow private sector firms or individuals to be licensed to verify trade measuring instruments; create powers for the Commonwealth to appoint trade measurement inspectors; create all the necessary elements of a national trade measurement system with the technical and administrative detail to be specified in regulations; and provide traditional arrangements to ensure a smooth transfer from the operation of state and territory legislation to a national system. The bill also introduces the voluntary option of using the average quantity system, AQS. AQS is an internationally recognised system for sampling and testing groups of packages to determine whether, on average, they contain the quantities with which they are marked. The offence provision in the bill will apply to a wide range of companies, from large to small, in a wide variety of circumstances. This makes it desirable to have a range of enforcement options appropriate to the different circumstances to which the bill might apply. Consequently, the bill provides for different categories of offences in relation to particular conduct for a range of responses depending on the circumstances of a particular suspected offence and for a variety of penalties. The availability of AQS will meet longstanding requests from major packers and wine producers and will improve their international competitiveness. The system also provides flexibility to introduce new technologies or approaches. For example, the protein content of grain now determines the price paid to growers, rather than weight. The new national system will have the flexibility to take up these new ways of doing business. This is groundbreaking legislation. This is fantastic legislation for Australia. I commend the member for Rankin and I commend this bill to the House and congratulate the Rudd Labor government for its outstanding leadership on this issue. 10897 13:15:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation 1 0 Dr EMERSON —in reply—I believe that the speakers list on the debate on the second reading of the National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 is now exhausted. I have a copy of it here in my hand, after having attempted to fold the piece of paper seven times. I got it to six and that is small enough. I think it is time to bring this debate to a close. I was fascinated with the contributions of our various speakers, including the member for Forde, who gave us a very good exposition of some of the benefits of the bill. He mentioned such weights and measures as kilograms. I had the honour, recently, of going to the National Measurement Institute to witness the handing over of what we call the perfect kilogram. It was grown from a single silicon crystal into a perfect spherical object weighing exactly one kilogram. It was important that this was done because the measure of the kilogram is in France and it has degraded. It is a piece of metal and it has degraded slightly over time. I suppose that does not matter too much when it comes to how many cornflakes you have in a packet but it does in matters such as space travel. Similarly, they are very important for caesium clocks and so on. A small error can have a spacecraft missing a planet or a solar system by a very large amount. So this is actually all very important, not only to the past but to the present and to the future. I want to thank a gazillion—which is a very large number of millions—people: everyone who has spoken on this. The National Measurement Institute, which will have responsibility for administering the new system of trade measurement, has pointed out to me that the desire for an orderly system of trade measurement reaches back to very early times. I am sure that the member for Forde would be fascinated to know that this was all anticipated in the Bible, where Leviticus, chapter 19, commands: ‘You shall not pervert justice in measurement of weight, length or quantity. You shall have true scales, true weights, true measures; dry and liquid’. So, there you go, a command from on high that we have the National Trade Measurement Amendment Bill! I will now move to another religion. The Koran actually warns: ‘Woe to those who stint the measure’—so get your measures right because the Koran says that is a very good idea. Fast-forward now to the Magna Carta, which set out that there would be one weight and one measure in the realm. These are the sorts of measures that the member for Forde was talking about. Indeed, I remember from primary school—and the member for Forde said that it was not belted into him, but it was close to belted into me—that there are 12 inches in one foot, three feet in one yard, 1,760 yards in a mile, 5,280 feet in a mile, 100 links in one chain, and 80 chain to one mile but also that one chain is a cricket pitch. I do not know if the chain came from cricket or that cricket got it from the chain, but if ever a fast bowler is wondering exactly why the length of the pitch is as it is and is thinking maybe it should be a bit shorter or a bit longer, the answer is that it is exactly one chain. And, of course, there are 16 ounces in a pound and, I think, 2,240 pounds in a ton? HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr Raguse —That’s right. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —Yes, 2,240 pounds in a ton—and that is about as much as I know about that, so I should move on. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 will set the framework for a national system of trade measurement. It will replace all of the current state and territory based systems. In a seamless national economy it makes no sense at all for our trade measurement system, a system which underpins commercial transactions across Australia and into our export markets, to be regulated by nine different jurisdictions. Yet that is the situation that has applied up until this point. It is what I call rail gauge economics, reflecting on the different rail gauges that were in the Federation of Australia that took a very, very long time to remedy. Former Prime Minister Andrew Fisher lamented in 1916 that in order to travel from Perth to the east coast you had to change trains many times. He thought that was absurd in 1916. Finally it was fixed up, and there is a celebration today. We have these sorts of absurdities still in so many areas of regulation—27 areas of regulation—that we are pursuing through the Council of Australian Governments to put an end to rail gauge economics. This measure today, pardon the pun, is designed to do that in relation to trade measurement. It is what we have been working so hard to change through the business regulation and competition working group, which I have the privilege of co-chairing with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. The system that we have been debating today and yesterday builds on the experience of state and territory administrations. They themselves have reasonably good systems in place. There is no doubt about that. But the advantage of this, like fixing up the rail gauge problem, is that it will remove current inconsistencies and, importantly, help reduce business costs. It will allow Australia to adopt new technologies and processes, which will help our industries compete better internationally. A number of our speakers have made that point. The member for Lowe and other speakers pointed to those sorts of benefits. The National Measurement Institute will be responsible for administering the new national trade measurement system and will offer employment to inspectors and others who are currently working in trade measurement in the states and territories. This bill is the product of a decision of the Council of Australian Governments in February 2006. COAG identified trade measurement as a priority hot spot reform area, where overlapping and inconsistent regulatory regimes were impeding economic activity. I acknowledge here the contribution of the member for Groom, who at that time was the Minister for Industry, Tourism and Resources and is now the shadow minister for energy and resources. He did initiate good work on this. He spoke on the importance of this bill and he was involved at the ground floor. I pay tribute to the work that he did and we are very pleased to have been able to bring this forward into the parliament. The bill has been developed through industry consultation and supported by a legislative working group with state and territory officials convened by the National Measurement Institute. The member for Paterson raised one issue that I want to comment on regarding the role of the National Measurement Institute in administering the national trade measurement system. The National Measurement Institute will be responsible for policy and standards as well as enforcement. It is true that policy development and enforcement activities are often given to separate organisations to avoid undue influence on policy development by the enforcement activity. However, in the case of trade measurement, the policy is very straightforward; it is simply to ensure confidence in measurement through the use of verified measuring instruments. There are no Commonwealth agencies with the necessary expertise in this area other than the National Measurement Institute. Separating these functions would also create unnecessary complexity and add to costs, which we do not want to do, and that is obviously another area of concern that has been raised by opposition members in this debate. So we really do not want to go to a more costly exercise just for the sake of separation in this case. Because of these factors the decision was taken that the National Measurement Institute would undertake both of those roles. In closing the debate I want to share with the House the reaction from industry to the bill following its introduction into parliament. The Winemakers Federation of Australia welcomed the introduction of the bill, with its chief executive stating: This is a very important measure and one which will save the Australian wine industry approximately $19 million per year … The Australian wine sector relies heavily on its export industry with 60% of its product being exported overseas.  This measure will put Australia in line with other countries and increase our international competitiveness. This is something that the wine industry has been advocating for some time and we applaud the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy … for taking this important step. I reiterate, therefore, my thanks to the former minister for industry for the work he has done. In a statement issued by Accord Australasia, the peak industry group for the consumer, cosmetic and hygiene products sector, Executive Director Bronwyn Capanna welcomed the bill. She stated: Industry greatly welcomes this new legislation. It addresses the long standing problem business has faced with having to deal with separate and often inconsistent requirements of state and territory legislation.                    …              …              … By introducing an Average Quantity System the new legislation will bring Australia’s trade measurement regulations into line with our major trading partners … …            …            … Australian export firms will benefit from greater harmonisation with the rules of their export markets. It is pleasing to see the government meeting its commitments to introducing reforms of COAG regulatory ‘hot spots’ like trade measurement. Indeed, it was one of the 10 regulatory hot spots identified by the Council of Australian Governments. The National Measurement Amendment Bill 2008 lays the basis for the new national system of trade measurement, which will provide a level playing field across Australia for all transactions which are based on measurement. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 10900 Dr EMERSON (Rankin —Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy and Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation) 13:26:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 10900 Bills R3011 10900 Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be considered at a later hour this day. 10900 Bills R3089 10900 Bill returned from Main Committee for further consideration; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered at the next sitting. 10900 Bills R3080 10900 Debate resumed from 25 September, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 10900 13:28:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —The Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 5) Bill 2008 contains five—essentially unrelated—schedules. The opposition will be supporting this bill. I will go through each of those schedules in some detail. Schedule 1 of the bill, as we know from the explanatory memorandum, amends the A New Tax System (Goods and Services Tax) Act 1999 and the object of the schedule is to ensure that the goods and services tax is applied to the value added to real property after 1 July 2000, where there is an interaction between the margin scheme and going concern farmland and associated provisions. Schedule 2 of this bill makes changes to the thin capitalisation regime provisions in division 820 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The object of this schedule is to make changes to the thin cap position of complying entities for certain specific impacts due to the adoption of the Australian equivalents to the International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005. We also know from this bill that schedule 3 of this bill amends section 128F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The object of this schedule is to provide an exemption from interest withholding tax for bonds issued by state and territory central borrowing authorities in Australia. Schedule 4 amends the Fringe Benefits Tax Assessment Act 1986 to ensure the correct operation of the ‘otherwise deductible’ rule in relation to investments held by an employee with a third party. The final schedule, schedule 5, amends division 6C of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 in order to make changes to the eligible investment business rules for managed funds. I will begin with schedule 1. Schedule 1 deals with the GST margin scheme. This is quite a substantive and technical set of amendments. It is designed to prevent entities manipulating their affairs relating to real property so they can reduce their GST liability. The schedule essentially corrects the uses of the GST margin scheme that were not intended in the original purpose of that provision. The first aspect of the schedule ensures that, where the margin scheme is applied to real property that was previously acquired on a GST-free basis, the value added by the entity that made the GST-free sale is included in calculating the GST payable under the margin scheme. This is consistent with the intent of the goods and services tax to apply to value that is added to real property. The explanatory memorandum, I might point out, explains this in great detail and has a number of examples about the use of the margin scheme, how it operates or can operate presently and how it would operate in the future as a result of these changes. The second aspect ensures that where the eligibility to use the margin scheme is removed, the eligibility cannot then be reinstated by interposing a GST-free or non-taxable sale. This is a significant change to the current law and how it has been operating. Currently, the eligibility to supply real property under the scheme can possibly be reinstated by interposing a GST-free or non-taxable supply. The third aspect of the schedule strengthens the general GST anti-avoidance provisions to apply to schemes that are entered into with the sole or dominant purpose of gaining a GST benefit. There is some history, as is often the case, with schedules in these tax laws amendments bills. The development of the approach that has been taken commenced some years ago and builds on the previous, coalition government’s demonstrated commitment to maintaining the integrity, base and operation of the goods and services tax—a very important, reforming tax introduced just over eight years ago. The essence of these measures addressing the GST margin scheme was initially announced in 2005. While parliament was considering the Tax Laws Amendment (2005 Measures No. 2) Bill 2005, it proposed amendments to the GST margin scheme and the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, announced some intended changes on budget night in May 2005, in Budget Paper No. 3, which said: The Government will prevent entities manipulating certain elements of the GST law (such as the margin scheme, the grouping, associates, joint venture, going concerns or farm land provisions) to reduce the GST liability on supplies of real property. In recognition of the significant impact on a range of stakeholders, including the property industry, the then coalition government undertook extensive and widespread consultation to ensure that any changes would not have any unintended effects. The measures announced by the previous coalition government were intended to restrict the property owners from incorrectly reducing their GST liability when selling their property under the margin scheme. On 7 June 2005 the then Minister for Revenue and Assistant Treasurer, the Hon. Mal Brough MP, announced that, following some consultation, amendments had been made to the bill and the government would undertake further consultation on the proposed rules in the future. Due to the complexity of the measure and in the interests of ensuring the integrity of the recently introduced GST, the former Treasurer, the member for Higgins, announced in the 2006-07 Budget Paper No. 3: The Government has deferred the tax integrity measure concerning the interaction of the margin scheme with the GST-free going concern and the GST-free farm land provisions. He also announced that consultations would continue on this matter, which they did, with the aim of ensuring that there would not be any unintended or adverse effects. It is the case that prior to the last federal election the then coalition government and Treasury were in the process of further consultations. As a result of that long-running consultation process, the new government this year announced its intention to introduce these measures on budget night. Since budget night the measures have undergone further consultation under the new government’s watch. There have been some changes to what was initially announced on budget night, and those changes have occurred as a result of the consultation. We on this side of the House think that that consultation and some of the changes that have occurred are good, and it has improved the measures that will operate. Most notably, it has removed any retrospective elements that would have applied from budget night. The measures will be entirely prospective from the date of royal assent and will not apply to real property that has already been purchased or to real property that is subject to an option to purchase at the moment. This area of GST law, as I said, was in contemplation for a number of years. It is a technical area and there has been a long period of consultation. The intent, as I have said, is to ensure the correct operation of the goods and services tax, which of course the former coalition government strongly supported and introduced and which we now presume the current government also supports as strongly as we did back in the year 2000. Schedule 2, as I said before, modifies the accounting standards treatment of specified assets and liabilities by amending standards relating to the thin capitalisation regime. The measure was initiated by the adoption of the Australian equivalents to International Financial Reporting Standards in 2005. The current form of this schedule is, we are told, the result of extensive consultation with industry stakeholders. There have been some improvements made through that consultation process—for instance, it provides subject to specific conditions that for thin capitalisation purposes certain entities: will not be allowed to recognise deferred tax assets or deferred tax liabilities or assets or liabilities from defined benefit plans; will be allowed to revalue intangible assets that cannot currently be revalued because they do not satisfy the intangible assets accounting standard in AASB No. 138 for the only reason that there is no active market for valuation; and will be allowed to recognise internally generated intangible assets if they do not satisfy the intangible assets accounting standard for the only reason that they cannot be reliably costed. Schedule 3 extends the exemption, under section 128F of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936, from interest withholding tax for state central borrowing authorities when they issue bonds. Schedule 4 deals with FBT. The necessity, the requirement or the need for this schedule and for action in this area was brought about by the Federal Court decision in National Australia Bank Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation. The court ruled that an employer could reduce the entire taxable value of a fringe benefit provided jointly to an employee and third party—typically their partner—in relation to an income-generating asset. This was clearly inconsistent with the general principles of income and deductions. The measures, once they take effect when this bill is passed and given royal assent, will require an employer to adjust the taxable value of the fringe benefit according to the proportion of the jointly held asset that the employee owns. Finally, the last schedule, schedule 5, makes changes to the eligible investment business rules contained in division 6C as they apply to managed investment funds. The measures in this schedule, subject to certain conditions, include a definition of the term ‘investing in land’ to include fixtures, chattels and movable property. The schedule also expands the range of financial instruments in which a managed investment trust can invest from the current specified instruments that are listed in division 6C. The schedule introduces the following safe harbours: a two per cent safe harbour for non-trading income set at a whole-of-trust level and a 25 per cent safe harbour for non-rental, non-trading income from investments in land for public unit trusts investing in land for the purpose of deriving rent. We note that the Board of Taxation is currently conducting a review of tax arrangements applying to managed funds that operate as managed investment trusts. We look forward to reading that report, which is due to be delivered some time early next year or by the middle of next year. We also, on a broader level, look forward to the Henry review of tax over that same time frame. In conclusion, I note that the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics on 25 September 2008 by Senator the Hon. Helen Coonan. The Senate Standing Committee on Economics was well placed to examine the effect of these measures. The Senate committee held a hearing in Canberra on 28 October, received several submissions and reported just recently—in fact last Monday, 10 November. Having dealt with all of the issues and having noted some issues and some concerns, their recommendation is that the bill be passed by the Senate. I commend the bill to the House. 10903 13:43:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —When I was writing this speech on the Tax Laws Amendment (2008 Measures No. 5) Bill 2008 it was quite late in the evening and I was considering the Australian economy. I was thinking about Simon and Garfunkel, strange though it may be. The words to one of their songs were, ‘I am a rock; I am an island,’ or something along those lines. I cannot be as entertaining as the member for Forde, and I certainly cannot sing anywhere near as well as the member for Forde, but those words reminded me of the Australian economy—because Australia might be an island geographically but it is not financially. We have seen the impact of the global financial crisis nationally and domestically. We would love to be able to isolate our economy and not worry about the fact that the subprime market in America might have collapsed and about its impacts on our economy. We would love to be able to isolate ourselves, but we cannot. That is a Hansonite approach that does not face the economic reality that we confront. Maintaining the integrity of our taxation system in this sort of climate is crucial. Every day, constituents or friends of mine have spoken to me about the impact of the global financial crisis upon their personal lives—their superannuation entitlements, the value of their real estate and their personal financial security. The bill before us today is about maintaining the financial security of our markets, of our economy and of our taxation system. We cannot deliver for our people, we cannot deliver hospitals, we cannot deliver schools and we could not deliver the Economic Security Strategy that we have announced, without our taxation system being viable, consistent and just and fair to everyone—that is, individuals and companies. We have announced a huge package of $10.4 billion in our Economic Security Strategy, which will help constituents across the country but also in my electorate of Blair, around Ipswich, the Lockyer Valley and the old Boonah Shire. They would think it a great strategy, and certainly that has been the feedback. But I also think that they would think that this bill—this omnibus bill, which like so many of its predecessors introduced earlier this year amends our taxation laws—is a fair and just measure. It has used the device, as the member for Casey said, of a schedule to improve the integrity of the scheme. It is important to note that our taxation scheme is one which has bipartisan support. If we have at this time confrontation and conflict in our economy, with it facing the global financial crisis, then we are going to go backwards as a country. The measure of us as a country and a community is in this time of challenge and controversy. This is not a time of comfort and convenience for us as a country. This is a time of real difficulty. So we have to make sure that government internal revenues can provide for the Economic Security Strategy and can provide for roads, schools and hospitals. We have to make sure that it is viable. We have to get sufficient money to do this. This is what this is all about. We have to do it in a fair and just way. The Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs, the Assistant Treasurer, said concerning the first schedule in his second reading speech on 25 September 2008 that this bill is about ‘maintaining the integrity of the GST tax base’. It is about overcoming deficiencies with respect to the GST system as it applies to real property—that is, ‘land’ in common parlance. Budget Paper No. 2 talked about the scope of the proposed changes. I will quote it because I think it is worth quoting: The GST provisions dealing with real property are intended to ensure that GST is payable on the value added to land once it enters the GST system. The margin scheme achieves this outcome by applying GST to the ‘margin’, that is, the difference between the purchase price paid by the seller and the price paid by the buyer. This measure provides that, where the margin scheme is used after a GST free or non-taxable supply, the value added by the registered entity which made that supply is included in determining the GST subsequently payable under the margin scheme. The measure will also strengthen the GST anti-avoidance provisions to ensure that they can apply to contrived arrangements entered into to avoid GST. Schedule 1 ensures that the margin scheme provisions and associated provisions to do with farm land are not to be used by developers to structure their sales of real estate to limit GST on or after 1 July. The supply of subdivided farm land and land for farming is GST-free. Presently, an entity which acquires real estate and then sells it under the margin scheme pays the GST on the value added by itself. The value added by the supplying registered entity is not included for GST purposes. This anomaly will be overcome. It will be made plain that the GST is payable only on the incremental value. It is only on an increase that it is payable, and it is only paid when there is a connected series of transactions. The GST is only paid on the increase. It is only paid on the increase of the value of a property sold after 1 July 2000. The bill overcomes that problem by preventing the application of the margin scheme and by ensuring that land is treated as a taxable supply for GST purposes. There are further amendments to ensure that if the margin scheme is used following a GST-free sale of a going concern—for example, an artificial or a contrived scheme to enable registered entities to avoid GST—then the Commissioner of Taxation can negative any benefit for GST purposes. This is not about denying legitimate concessions. This schedule is concerned with schemes which are designed to avoid the payment of GST. The current law is unfair because some property developers can take advantage of the margin scheme to avoid GST while others cannot. I do not anticipate that there will be any significant increase in the price of housing and land as a result of these changes. The explanatory memorandum makes that clear. Where I live, there is property development everywhere, and I cannot imagine that the Ripley Valley, Springfield, Walloon, Rosewood or Flinders View are going to see a major increase in the value of land and housing as a result of these changes. Schedule 2 reforms what is called thin capitalisation. That is about where debt exceeds the prescribed level under the Income Tax Assessment Act. The entity is then said to be thinly capitalised—that is what it really is about. This schedule reforms the thin capitalisation regime in relation to the Income Tax Assessment Act concerning accounting standards for identifying and valuing a registered entity’s assets, liability and equity capital. The intention is to adjust for certain impacts the adoption in 2005 of the Australian equivalents to the International Financial Reporting Standards. The thin capitalisation regime is basic to our tax system. It ensures companies, Australian and foreign, do not set about reducing their tax liabilities under the Income Tax Assessment Act by setting aside an excessive amount of their debts to their business dealings in Australia—in other words, that they do not say, ‘This debt is in Australia; therefore I can reduce the tax which I pay in Australia.’ This will ensure that those companies pay their fair share of tax in Australia, which is good for our economy and our capacity as a government to provide for the people of Australia. Schedule 3 ensures that defined bonds issued by our state and territory governments are eligible for exemption from interest withholding tax. This measure was first announced by the Treasurer on 20 May 2008 in the context of reforms to assist our financial markets. What we have seen overseas in the last few months indicates how crucial the viability of our financial markets is to the continuing prosperity of our economy and our people. Our state government bond issuance is crucial to the integrity of our financial markets in the global financial crisis. If our state bond markets work better, with enhanced interest in these types of securities, this will add to our economic security and viability, and it is likely to result in a greater pool of funds available to state and territory governments. Improved liquidity of the market and getting more people—individuals and companies—involved in these types of investments improves the financial capacity of our states to provide for law and order, hospitals, schools and other essential services in our states and territories. It is crucial that we enhance confidence in our markets, financial and otherwise, to ensure that our economy, our companies—both large and small—and our individuals have confidence not just in the government but in the future prosperity of our country. Improving the financial security of our state and territory governments, and therefore their capacity to spend money on essential infrastructure, is important both nationally and particularly in South-East Queensland, where I live and where one in seven people in Australia reside. Schedule 4 relates to arrangements where an employer gives a fringe benefit to its employee and associate—almost invariably a spouse in the circumstances—when the two of them are, for example, engaged in jointly acquiring an income-producing asset, for example a rental home, a rental unit or some shares. It is very common today for people to own rental units, rental properties generally and shares. We are a country that really is interested in these types of things. When I was a boy, these were not the things that the average Australian was particularly interested in, but nowadays this type of investment is crucial to our long-term security. The days when we could rely on or guarantee the pension are well and truly gone. We really need to provide for those who are disadvantaged in old age through the provision of pensions, but we also need to provide for old age through our superannuation and other investments. The reform in schedule 4 relates to what is commonly called the otherwise deductible rule. The member for Casey talked about a very curious court decision in a matter involving the National Australia Bank and the federal Commissioner of Taxation in what has become known colloquially as the NAB case. In that case, the employer provided some low-interest loans jointly to an employee husband and his wife. That is a pretty common occurrence. Those joint low-interest loans were invested in a jointly held investment property. In other words, it was a loan fringe benefit. Very strangely, the Federal Court held that the employee was the sole recipient of the loan fringe benefit. It further held that, as the sole recipient of the loan and the sole investor of the proceeds, if the employee husband had incurred and paid unreimbursed interest on the loan, he would be entitled to a deduction for the expense. In other words, the otherwise deductible rule under section 19 of the legislation meant that the taxable value of the loan fringe benefit was reduced to nil so that the employee had no fringe benefit tax liability arising from the loan fringe benefit provided to both the employee and his spouse. This outcome is really a legal nonsense and it is entirely inconsistent with the operation of the otherwise deductible rule. The amendments in the legislation before the House overcome this very bizarre decision of the Federal Court, and I commend that particular part of the legislation which overcomes the very weird decision of the Federal Court in relation to taxation. For agreements between employer and employee entered into before 13 May 2008, they will still be able to use the current law, but we are giving until 31 March 2009 to allow employers and employees— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 10906 Ministerial Arrangements 10906 14:00:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I inform the House that the Prime Minister will be absent from question time today— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am glad my appearance is so popular with the opposition—as he is travelling to the United States to attend a meeting of the G20. I will answer questions on his behalf. 10906 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 10906 14:00:00 10906 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer to the statement of the member for Dawson this morning when he said ‘There is no question that Kevin Rudd was indiscreet’ when false and damaging details of a private and confidential conversation with the United States President were leaked to the media. I ask the Acting Prime Minister: if the Prime Minister has not already apologised for this appalling indiscretion, will he apologise to the US President during his G20 visit to Washington and will he give a commitment to this parliament that he will not be so derelict in his future dealings with President-elect Obama and other world leaders? 10907 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I do sincerely thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. On the question of things that the member for Dawson may have said, I will check. I will not take the word of the Leader of the Opposition on that. On the substance of the Leader of the Opposition’s question, it strikes me as remarkable that the Leader of the Liberal Party would be calling on someone to apologise to President-elect Obama other than the former Prime Minister of this nation, John Howard. That is who should be apologising to President-elect Obama. Let us just imagine a parallel universe where in 2007 John Howard had won the last election. Let us imagine a parallel universe where John Howard is in the prime ministership—the member for Higgins has been reassured by him that he will hand it over when he is 94, so the member for Higgins is patiently waiting—and the presidential election is over; we know that President-elect Obama has won. Let us just imagine how that phone call would have gone between Prime Minister Howard and President-elect Obama. I do not think it would have escaped President-elect Obama’s notice that Prime Minister Howard said about him: I think that would just encourage those who wanted completely to destabilise and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for (an) Obama victory. These are the words of former Prime Minister Howard: If I was running al-Qaeda in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008, and pray, as many times as possible, for a victory not only for Obama, but also for the Democrats. Just imagine how that telephone conversation would have gone. Just imagine it. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under the standing orders, questions cannot contain hypothetical material. Surely, the same standing orders apply to answers as well. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —At risk of getting myself into trouble, I would make the observation: if only the member’s point of order were right. It is not, and I refer him to page 553 of the Practice. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I was asked about the question of apologies to President-elect Obama and I am just asking the House to imagine the first telephone call, had it ever occurred, if we were in that parallel universe between Prime Minister John Howard and the man he had called— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Acting Prime Minister said she was asked about apologies to President-elect Obama. Without wanting to declare a war on irrelevance, she was actually asked about an apology to President Bush and she should return to it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The question actually did refer to President-elect Obama, but putting that to one side, of course what should be happening here is that we should be noting not what the Leader of the Opposition says but what he does. When the greatest offence was paid to President-elect Obama by the then Prime Minister of this country, when the then Prime Minister of this country described the man who is now going to be President of the United States as a terrorist, did we see the member for Wentworth go out and condemn it publicly? Did we see him disassociate himself from it? No, we did not. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order to do with relevance. I ask the Acting Prime Minister to come back to the question that was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister will respond to the question and bring her answer to a conclusion. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I am very happy to. The opposition day after day has raised this issue when it has been fully dealt with by the Prime Minister. What I am asking for is an explanation of their hypocrisy, given the actions of former Prime Minister Howard. 10908 10908 14:06:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister advise the House on how the government is achieving its commitment to delivering both fairness and balance in Australian workplaces and transparency and openness in government? 10908 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Deakin for his question, and I know that he is deeply interested in workplace relations and fairness and balance in workplaces and has been working closely with me on the development of the government’s new workplace relations legislation. I thank him for his efforts. When the Liberal Party was in office we saw industrial relations extremism in this country in the form of Work Choices. This government is committed to fairness and balance in workplaces and we will, before this parliament rises, deliver into this parliament for debate and determination our substantive bill to bring fairness to Australian workplaces. But, as well as being industrial relations extremists, the Liberal Party in government were the masters of the cover-up, because they did not want working people to know—they did not want Australians to know—just how badly hit and hurt they had been by Work Choices and the industrial relations extremism of the Liberal Party. Indeed, the member for North Sydney, now the Manager of Opposition Business and then the relevant minister, used to make an art form of going round denying that such data existed. I am in a position today to advise members of the House and people more generally that we have worked to compile a sample of Australian workplace agreements which will be available for researchers, including members of the media, to use. The sample is now available on DVD-ROM, and what the sample does is compare pre-Work Choices Australian workplace agreements with Work Choices Australian workplace agreements. This is an interesting comparison because pre-Work Choices Australian workplace agreements were bad enough—there is no place for individual statutory employment agreements in a fair system—but, when you compare them to Work Choices Australian workplace agreements, what strikes you is that they look so much better, which is not a compliment to those old AWAs; it is a revelation about how bad Work Choices AWAs were for Australian workers brought to them by the industrial relations extremists in the Liberal Party. To give you just a snapshot of that information, if we look at this sample, in the retail industry Work Choices AWAs, on average, reduced overtime penalty rates from 54 per cent to 35 per cent—that is, the number of people who got penalty rates in their agreement was reduced from 54 per cent to 35 per cent as a result of Work Choices AWAs. They were rip-offs taking away penalty rates. This also happened in the accommodation, cafe and restaurant industry, where we saw the number of agreements that had penalty rates for overtime reduced from 42 per cent to 20 per cent. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The industrial relations extremists chant out, ‘How much was their pay?’ when ABS data clearly shows, when comparing pay outcomes on Australian workplace agreements to pay outcomes on collective agreements, that they ripped people off. I am pleased with the interjections because they indicate yet again to the Australian people, in case they were in any doubt, that those on the other side are a party of industrial relations extremists that are still supporting Work Choices. There is a test here for the Leader of the Opposition, who voted for Work Choices—voted in favour of it every time it was presented to this parliament. There he was, lined up as a member of the Howard government: ‘Workplace relations extremism? Count me in.’ Yes, he voted for that on each and every occasion. Now, shortly, he will have to make a choice as to whether he will still support workplace relations extremism or support a fair and balanced system. I would say to the Australian people on this issue: watch not what the Leader of the Opposition says but what he does when the Liberal Party votes on this matter. 10909 10909 14:11:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Acting Treasurer and Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the Acting Treasurer to the Prime Minister’s announcement on 12 October of a government guarantee of wholesale funding of Australian incorporated banks and other authorised deposit-taking institutions, which, from the moment of its announcement, the opposition has called upon the government to make the subject of legislation. Does the Acting Treasurer accept that the Prime Minister’s stubborn and indecisive refusal to present legislation ensuring that payment on the guarantee is, in the words of Standard and Poor’s, ‘unconditional, irrevocable and timely’ is going to undermine the entire objective of enabling Australian institutions to raise wholesale funds overseas, depriving banks of much if not all of its benefit? Doesn’t this mean that if the banks do not benefit— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: standing order 100(d). 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The difficulty that the chair is in is that there has been a degree of flexibility allowed when there have been expressions that are by way of argument or other matters against the standing order. On this occasion, whilst it has been highlighted, I will allow it, but I am assuming that the question is nearly finished. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —It is, Mr Speaker. It is a complex and important issue. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese interjecting— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —The minister for finance is listening, Albo. He is listening. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will ignore the interjections, and the interjections will cease. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —Doesn’t this mean— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the Leader of the Opposition has insisted that people be called by their correct title. That also applies to the Leader of the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will refer to members by their parliamentary or ministerial title. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I will not read the whole of the question again but just the final paragraph. Doesn’t this mean— Government members interjecting— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr TURNBULL —I am glad the government think this is so funny. You are listening—good. Doesn’t this mean that if the banks do not benefit then neither will the millions of Australians desperate for banks to lower interest rate charges on loans, credit cards and other borrowings? 10910 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. The premise of the question is that the absence of legislation underpinning the contracts that the government is going to offer wholesale borrowers of funding, mainly financial institutions and in particular banks, would in some way undermine the integrity of those offers. This is a premise that I do not accept and the government does not accept. Should a government in the future, for example, this government, ever be called upon to fulfil such a guarantee because an organisation has collapsed—a remote eventuality, I hasten to underline, and the government has stated that from day one—the premise behind the Leader of the Opposition’s question is that the attempt by the government of the day, perhaps the Rudd government, to get legislation through the Senate to honour that guarantee would fail. I wonder why the opposition might consider that an attempt by a government to fulfil an obligation to the Australian people in management of the Australian economy might fail in the Senate. I wonder why the Leader of the Opposition might consider that to be a serious possibility. I assert that any future government that is required to honour such an obligation would have the support of the parliament in honouring such an obligation. The government in pursuing this guarantee is doing so on the basis of the executive power to enter into contracts, and that is how the government intends to proceed. 10910 10910 14:16:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister explain the importance of certainty and stability in workplace relations for Australian families and Australian businesses, and are there any threats to certainty and stability? 10910 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Petrie for her question and I also thank her for her efforts in working with me on the government’s workplace relations legislation, which will be in this parliament shortly. I sincerely thank her for her efforts. The government when in opposition last year made a set of promises to the Australian people. We promised them, if elected, we would sweep Work Choices away. We promised them, if elected, we would implement our Forward with Fairness plans. They were detailed to the Australian community and the Australian community voted for them. Those plans will ensure that we have a system that working people in this country can rely on. Under Labor’s system, the days of the rip-offs of the Liberal Party and its industrial extremism will be over. Our system will have at its heart a rock solid foundation, a modern safety net made up of 10 National Employment Standards and modern awards. No-one will be able to sweep that safety net away the way it was swept away under Work Choices. We will have a bargaining system that is fair. We will ensure that if the majority of employees want to bargain in their workplace then their employer will bargain with them. We will ensure that there is bargaining in good faith. Our new industrial umpire, Fair Work Australia, will be empowered to make good faith bargaining orders. Our new industrial umpire will be able to direct parties to meet, to disclose relevant information and to consider proposals and respond to them in bargaining. Our new laws will ensure good faith bargaining includes refraining from unfair or capricious conduct. If bargaining goes off the rails, the industrial umpire will be there to help. It will be able to convene conferences, conciliate and make recommendations on the application of one party. We will have special arrangements for low-paid workers. We believe low-paid workers should be assisted. That is something that the Liberal Party never believed in, because low-paid workers were at the centre of the rip-offs of Work Choices. Members of the opposition shake their heads, but the facts are against them. The facts show crystal clear that it was the industrially weak that bore the brunt of Work Choices, and those opposite defended it. Our industrial umpire will be able to deal with unfair dismissals. Our industrial umpire will be there to help ensure fairness in the system. We want to provide certainty for Australian employees and Australian employers. We have worked hard and collaboratively with employers and employees during the course of this year. With a business advisory group, with a small business working party, with a workers advisory group and through the committee on industrial legislation, we worked through the details of this legislation. It will be in the parliament soon. The great unanswered question here is: what will the Liberal Party do when the legislation comes to the parliament? The Liberal Party is led by a man who voted for the extreme Work Choices laws 23 times, despite Australians around the country urging him not to do so. We are still awaiting an answer. I say to Australians again: do not ever listen to what the Leader of the Opposition says but watch what he does. We will know whether or not he is still entirely in the embrace of industrial relations extremism and wants to have Work Choices still hurting working families in this country before this parliament rises at the end of the year. 10911 10911 14:20:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Attorney-General. Will the Attorney-General advise the House if his department has provided any advice to the effect that legislation should be enacted to underpin the wholesale bank funding guarantee? 10911 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member for his question. It has been the practice of both sides of parliament not to provide details of legal advice. I can confirm, to answer the honourable member’s question, that my department has provided advice. I acknowledge the presence in the chamber of the former Attorney-General, the member for Berowra, who has specifically said that on a number of occasions. In terms of the legislative underpinnings, the Acting Treasurer has said that the guarantees will be provided on the basis of contracts entered into under the executive power of the Commonwealth, but the Commonwealth is clearly entitled to rely on all constitutional heads, including banking, corporations, interstate and international trade, insurance and so on. While I will not detail the advice that has been provided to government, I can assure the honourable Leader of the Opposition that the measures that will be implemented will have an appropriate constitutional underpinning. 10911 10911 14:23:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 Mr NEUMANN —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister outline to the House the importance of international engagement to help address the global financial crisis? 10911 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Blair for his question. One of the key contributing factors to the global financial crisis has been poor regulation. A cavalier attitude to risk, of course, has been relevant to this crisis, and also opaque and complex financial structures that have been allowed to develop in an inadequate regulatory framework internationally, particularly but not only in the United States. That presents a very big reform challenge not just for Australia but also for the entire international community. Australia does have a very robust and strong set of regulatory institutions and a very strong regulatory framework. That is something that I have said on a number of occasions has emerged under both sides of politics. One of the reasons the recent attacks by leading opposition figures on the key regulators were so disappointing is that I believe both sides of politics in this country can take credit for Australia having a strong, robust and world-class regulatory regime. The government is taking strong and decisive action both at home and abroad to pursue regulatory reform. Today, Senator Sherry, the Minister for Superannuation and Corporate Governance, and I announced new initiatives with respect to a couple of key issues that arise as a result of the global financial crisis: first, reform of regulation of credit-rating agencies and research houses to require them to hold financial services licences, which they have not previously been required to do, and to provide annual compliance reports to ASIC with respect to their methodologies; and, secondly, the requirement of full disclosure of covered short selling where the participant has a direct legal interest in the share that is being purported to be sold and an outright and indefinite ban on naked short selling, which ASIC will have the power to lift should it so consider that appropriate. The Prime Minister and the Treasurer are both currently en route to the leaders of the G20 summit in Washington that is going to occur this weekend. The purpose of that summit is to analyse the causes of the global financial crisis, to receive reports from the key countries on progress on the responses emerging from those countries to the crisis and, in particular, to agree on a common set of principles for reform of regulation of the global financial sector in order to prevent any kind of recurrence of the crisis that the world has just been through. The Prime Minister made a very early contribution to this debate in his address to the United Nations General Assembly, where he laid out a number of key principles in order to structure an approach on the part of the world’s financial system in order to ensure that we get stricter, stronger regulation, including things like clamping down on excessive executive salaries and stricter capital adequacy requirements. Australia is set to play a very significant role in the international efforts to reform our financial regulatory structure. As I said, that is something that both sides of this House should rightly take pride in, that we are in a good position to influence the international outcomes on these issues because we bring to the table in these discussions the strength and the credibility based on having had a strong, robust regulatory regime for some time—good arrangements in Australia that mean our word will be treated with some respect in these discussions. There are big issues to be debated in these discussions that go to the entire role of the financial services sector in our economy. We have seen entire industries built up around moving money from here to there to here in ever increasingly complex arrangements, with ever greater complexity, with ever greater cavalier disregard for underlying risk and ever greater disconnection from the activities in the ordinary, mainstream real world economy. Many have lost sight of the role of financial services, which of course is intermediation of two broad kinds: to direct savings, whether national or global, into investment to maximise returns, productivity and efficiency and to enable day-to-day transactional banking activities to occur at the lowest cost and the maximum efficiency. Those are the functions that the financial services sector are supposed to fulfil in a modern economy, but we have seen it grow and proliferate and mutate to a range of activities that, to any reasonable observer, seem to bear little relationship with its core tasks—as I say, with less and less transparency and attention to risk and with ever greater complexity. We have got to revisit these issues globally to ensure that the financial services sector serves the wider economy, not the other way around. The Rudd government is working hard, with the Prime Minister and the Treasurer pursuing global reform of the financial services sector at the G20. We are pursuing structural reform at home. We will continue these efforts to get better arrangements for all Australians. 10913 10913 14:29:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is again to the Acting Treasurer. I note the Acting Treasurer has conceded that payment under the wholesale guarantee cannot be made without an appropriation bill being passed by parliament. Is the Acting Treasurer aware that Standard and Poor’s has ruled it will not give the government guarantee a AAA credit rating unless the payment on the guarantee is ‘unconditional, irrevocable and timely’? Why won’t the government act to fix this flawed guarantee and allow banks to receive its full benefits, which must then be passed on to the millions of Australian customers through lower interest charges and fees? 10913 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I do not really have much to add to the previous answer that I gave to this question. The same position applies. The position is that the government believes that it has full executive power in order to enter into these contracts and that these will have the desired effect with respect to delivering the guarantees that the financial institutions require in order to ensure that they enjoy the confidence of investors who are lending money to them, particularly international investors. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham —You sent us to war without legislation! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —The member for Banks has actually made a very important interjection, because it illustrates the point that the government of this country, under Liberal or Labor, from time to time enters into a variety of very serious obligations that are not necessarily legislated by the parliament, including decisions to go to war. So when John Howard decided to go to war in Iraq he did not go to the parliament first and get money for that decision. He made a decision and the government made a decision to go to war without parliamentary authority, which he was entitled to do under the executive authority of the Commonwealth. So it is within the executive authority of the government to take these decisions, and they will provide the guarantees under the basis of contract that these institutions require. Should it ever be required that a guarantee of this kind must be delivered upon, then that will need to be appropriated. I conclude on this point: when this was announced by the government, the opposition said it gave bipartisan support to the initiative. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has asked his question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —So, in other words, yet again the opposition is trying to slide out of its initial phoney, statesmanlike position, trying to pretend that it is both supporting the government’s initiative to stabilise the economy—and in this case help to produce lower interest rates—and, at the same time, sniping relentlessly at those initiatives. If the opposition were fair dinkum about its support for these positions then it would not be asking these questions, because implicit in these questions is the assumption that they would block an appropriation in the Senate for any such guarantee. 10914 10914 14:32:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the Acting Prime Minister update the House on the government’s actions in responding to the appointment of an administrator and receiver for ABC Learning one week ago? 10914 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Page for her question, and I know she is concerned about the circumstances of child care in her own electorate. Indeed, she sent me a note raising some issues with me during the course of question time because she is very concerned to stay across everything that is happening locally. Can I say to members in the House generally that it is exactly one week since ABC Learning announced they were going into voluntary administration. I understand members of the government are following these matters and dealing with local inquiries—the member for Page is. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I take it from the interjections that members of the opposition are not concerned and not engaged. But in the past seven days the government has been working hard to help ensure the stability and continuity of child care across this nation for families. Last Thursday ABC Learning moved into voluntary administration and, soon after, a receiver was appointed. From the outset, we have sought to keep mums and dads informed about what is happening with ABC Learning. Within hours of the company’s announcement and the appointment of the receiver, the government established a dedicated hotline number. The number is 1802003. To date we have had 700 calls to this number. As well as the hotline, the government provided information through the mychild.gov.au website. So far pages on this site have been viewed over 55,000 times since last Thursday, obviously showing people are looking for information. On Friday I announced a funding package of up to $22 million to provide certainty for affected parents and to ensure that ABC Learning centres continue in operation until 31 December and that everybody has the care that they need for their children and need to rely on. We are of course working to ensure that we can make a further statement to give parents certainty for the period beyond. On Tuesday this week I announced that an expression of interest process had commenced for those who were interested in owning and operating ABC Learning centres. People, whether they are from the profit sector or not-for-profit sector, can register their interest with the receiver. Yesterday, Wednesday, I updated the House on the detailed work plan that the government’s insolvency adviser, PPB, and the receiver, McGrathNicol, have embarked on in order to find the way forward. At every stage, the government have acted decisively to deal with this problem in the interests of working families. Indeed, the government have worked all year to clean up the mess that we inherited in child care from the Liberal Party. It strikes me as passing strange that, now they are sitting on the opposition benches, apparently they are styling themselves as policy geniuses, but in government they left us with the kind of mess that we are dealing with in child care. ‘Let the market rip!’ There was no workforce plan, no quality plan, no early learning years plan and no plan for market design, and here we are, fixing up the mess. Of course, much of that work has been done by the Parliamentary Secretary for Early Childhood Education and Childcare, the member for Bennelong, and I want to thank her for it. I would draw the attention of members of the House to the fact that this work has not gone unnoticed by those in the childcare sector and those who care desperately about policy in this area. I would draw the House’s attention to the words of Professor Deborah Brennan from the Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, who today wrote in the Age: Since Labor came to office, a lot of quiet work has been happening behind the scenes. Early childhood educators, unions, providers and public servants are working on a variety of projects that will strengthen regulations and accreditation in the early childhood sector, introduce a national “early learning” framework, and improve the qualifications of the early childhood workforce. We are dealing with child care for the future and we will continue to do so. 10915 10915 14:37:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and the Minister for Tourism. I refer the minister to his admission that every tonne of carbon dioxide emitted in Australia during the production of liquefied natural gas saves the production of nine tonnes of carbon dioxide when consumed in China for electricity generation. Minister, if the government is serious about lowering global greenhouse gas emissions, why is it condemning the liquefied natural gas industry to a 25 per cent cut in production by refusing to compensate it under the proposed ETS and condemning the world at the same time to a subsequent increase in CO2 emissions? 10915 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the honourable member for the question. The member for Groom has raised a very serious question: the challenge of the Australian government to introduce a balanced Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in association with introducing a renewable energy target of 20 per cent by 2020. That is exceptionally important because this government, unlike the previous government, is absolutely committed to a comprehensive response to climate change while maintaining Australian jobs and economic prosperity. The truth of the matter is that, unlike the previous government, we are equal to the task and prepared to take on the hard jobs confronting Australia in the 21st century. It is for that very reason that the Australian government is engaged in a detailed process of consultation not only with the LNG industry but also with all other industries potentially affected by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. In handling these challenges, we are committed to putting in place not only an appropriate Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme but also a portfolio of responses, including the development of a renewable energy source program and improving energy efficiency in Australian industry. The concerns raised by the LNG industry have been listened to by me and by other ministers in response to a genuine green paper process aimed at making sure we put in place a balanced response going to the introduction of a price on carbon, the objective being to reduce Australia’s exposure to carbon emissions. I simply say to the LNG industry—perhaps this is a lesson for some on the other side on the issue of consultation and taking the Australian community with them—that the Australian government is absolutely committed to providing the internationally competitive investment and regulatory frameworks necessary for the expansion of the LNG industry in Australia. With respect to the future of the LNG industry in Australia, I was pleased to see the announcement by Inpex about a potential $20 billion investment in Darwin in recent weeks. That announcement is not only important for Australia, it is exceptionally important for the future of Northern Australia. The LNG industry is not only part of Australia’s future; it is also part of the global community’s response to climate change. It is also vital for jobs, exports, economic growth, regional development and investment. I simply say to the member for Groom: it is about time that the opposition understood that in the 21st century we have to take on the modern challenges. That is about maintaining jobs and prosperity in Australia and also acting in a decisive way on the climate change front. 10916 10916 14:41:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. What is the government doing to build new partnerships with local government and support the important work they do in communities across Australia? 10916 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Bass for her question, and for hosting the eighth community cabinet that the Rudd government has held. It was held in Launceston just last week. As well as the formal meetings with the community cabinet, cabinet ministers meet with relevant people from their portfolio. Indeed, before the formal proceedings at Launceston City Council, I met with the mayors of Launceston, George Town, Dorset, Flinders Island and Meander Valley. I am also pleased to inform the House that next week the second quarterly instalment from the government’s record $1.9 billion financial assistance grants will be distributed to all local councils and shires around Australia. This is a record amount of financial support that was provided by the government in the budget. Importantly, around two-thirds of this support will go to regional and rural councils, thereby providing them with support. Because they are untied grants, the local communities can decide for themselves how this money is spent. But of course our support for local government does not stop there. We want a new partnership between the national government and local government. The cornerstone of that new partnership is the Australian Council of Local Government. Next Tuesday this partnership will be put into practice when up to 400 of the nation’s mayors and shire presidents come to Canberra to engage in dialogue with the cabinet and with other members who have chosen to come, including the shadow minister for housing and local government, the member for Cook. They will be discussing building a new cooperative relationship amongst governments, helping to address the particular challenges that the growth regions are experiencing, the implementation of the government’s regional and local community infrastructure program that we announced in the budget in May and the path to constitutional recognition. But of course they have also been intimately involved in the lead-up to the conference. They have been engaged in setting the agenda. Indeed, on 22 October, when parliament was sitting a couple of weeks ago, I hosted a meeting here which all of the state local government associations attended, along with other invited senior local government representatives including the Lord Mayor of Brisbane, Campbell Newman, who is playing a constructive role in the new organisation, and the Lord Mayor of Adelaide, Michael Harbison. They pledged to make the meeting a success. We met again last week, again making sure that local government are very involved in the process itself in the lead-up to next week’s meeting, which will mark a new beginning in cooperative federalism—one that advances the economic interest based upon getting that local input so that everyone benefits regardless of where they live in Australia. 10917 10917 14:45:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr ROBB —My question is to the Acting Treasurer. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Those on my right will come to order! FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr ROBB —I think he would like to hear the question, Mr Speaker. I refer the Acting Treasurer to the politically rushed and flawed design of the government’s emissions trading scheme. What will be the increase in global greenhouse gas emissions if, as has been reported, Nyrstar closes its Port Pirie and Hobart smelters and Visy shuts down its two paper recycling plants in Melbourne and Sydney and these facilities move to China? Where are the 3½ thousand Australians expected to find new jobs? 10917 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —It is clear the Liberal Party is still unable to make up its mind on whether it thinks climate change is real or not. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. The minister is responding. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Only a couple of days ago in one of his lesser moments, while he was busily out there accusing the Treasury secretary of cooking the books, the member for Goldstein was also trailing his well-established ‘capitalesque sceptic’ credentials on radio and indicating that he does not share the views of the Leader of the Opposition—or at least on what the Leader of the Opposition says will occur. You may recall that the Minister for Resources and Energy responded to a question briefly, and I can only reiterate the point that he made. That is: in contrast to the previous government, which did nothing for 10 years about the climate change challenge, this government is committed to dealing with climate change, both by cooperation in international forums and by establishing a carbon pollution reduction scheme that is designed to ensure that Australia can gradually diminish its emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases and, in doing so, structure the scheme in such a way as to take into account the sectoral needs of specific parts of the economy that are particularly exposed, such as emission intensive trade exposed industries. The member for Goldstein would be aware that Professor Garnaut reported on and proposed a particular structure to deal with this specific problem— FU4 Robb, Andrew, MP Mr Robb interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Goldstein has asked his question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —and that the government has established a green paper process, which is part of the way through, involving discussions with people from a variety of industries who do have concerns of this kind. I have been involved in many of these discussions with major companies, including as recently as this morning, about their views as to the structure of the scheme. One of the biggest companies in Australia with particular points of view to put met with me about these issues, and one of the things they said was: ‘Don’t delay. Yes, there are issues to be debated. Yes, there is a good process through which these matters can be debated in public, courtesy of the green paper process and Professor Garnaut’s report. But do not delay; proceed to make decisions and ensure that Australia can get on with tackling climate change and playing a leadership role in the world because we cannot afford to keep ignoring this problem.’ We as a nation cannot afford to continue to ignore the problem as the former Howard government did—with the Leader of the Opposition as minister for the environment—for 10 years. Australia can no longer afford to be run by climate change sceptics. 10918 10918 14:49:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What type of support is the government providing to children with type 1 diabetes? 10918 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Longman for his question. He and many members on both sides of the House do take a great interest in what we can do to assist those, particularly children, with type 1 diabetes. It is a good day to ask this question because tomorrow is World Diabetes Day. I know that tonight many people will be going to the Diabetes Australia gala dinner to mark this day, particularly the parliamentary support group, the member for Pearce, the member for Moore, the member for Isaacs and the member for Lyons—the executive members amongst this House. I know many people will be attending and I trust that it will be a great celebration. The member for Longman has a particular reason for asking this question. Cabinet ministers would recall that in March we held a community cabinet meeting in the member for Longman’s seat in Narangba. A very brave young boy insisted on keeping his hand up for, I think, almost all of the community cabinet to have a chance to ask the Prime Minister a question about what action we could take in helping children with type 1 diabetes. He asked the Prime Minister if the government would consider subsidising insulin pumps for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. We assured the family at the time that we were considering the matter of subsiding insulin pumps for children diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. I am very pleased, as members of this House would know, that we were able to fund a subsidisation program in our first budget. This commitment commenced on 1 November and means that eligible families will receive a subsidy of between $500 and $2½ thousand to assist with the cost of insulin pumps. Two weeks ago I was pleased to be joined by the CEO of the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation, Mike Wilson, and the President of Diabetes Australia, Dr Gary Deed, to announce that the program was now open for applications. The program will administered by the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. On that morning we also heard from a young youth ambassador, Hannah Frank, of the changes to her life since she has been able to use an insulin pump. I would like to read to the House part of the speech that Hannah gave. I remind you that these are the words of a nine-year-old girl. She said: I know lots of things I hope my friends never need to know. I know how to prick my finger and test my blood sugar levels. I know to eat lollies if my blood sugar level is too low. If I don’t I will probably go unconscious and be rushed to hospital. I know it makes me sad when the kids at school wish that they had diabetes so they could eat lollies too. I would be happy to never eat a lolly again if I could just not have type I diabetes. My pump has made a difference to our whole family. Our life doesn’t have to be planned around injections and I have more freedom like my friends. I can also sleep at my best friend Meg’s house, which is the best part of having a pump. So this is a very real program that will make a very real difference to many hundreds of families across the country. We are pleased that it is being supported by all members of this House. I would like to thank, as I did at the beginning, those opposite who have been so supportive of this measure. The insulin pump does assist in keeping glucose at a more stable level and assists in the reduction of complications later in life. Research indicates that the insulin pump therapy improves the quality of life of people living with type 1 diabetes while, of course, we continue on our search to find a cure. I remind the House that, whilst we need to always redouble our efforts in trying to reduce the incidence of type 2 diabetes, type 1 diabetes as yet is not preventable and we in this House need to do all we can to assist those with type 1 diabetes, and this measure is an important step. 10919 14:54:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I want to associate the opposition with the comments of the Minister for Health and Ageing. The government is doing very good work in relation to type 1 diabetes in particular and it builds on the work that the member for Warringah as the then health minister did when in government. It is a wonderful cause to help people who are in great need. There are about 128,000 young Australians with type 1 diabetes and about 709,000 Australians with type 2 diabetes. It is certainly deserving of a bipartisan approach. I commend all those members of the House who have been associated with this, in particular the member for Pearce. It is a wonderful cause that we should all support. 10919 10919 14:54:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, and it refers to the government’s plans to pay for infrastructure which the New South Wales is now too broke to afford. I ask: does the minister agree that the New South Wales government should sack itself and call an election immediately to save the people of New South Wales from the sheer incompetence crippling our state? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question is out of order. I call the member for Melbourne Ports. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The member for Warringah was referring to an article in a newspaper today— YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will resume his seat. The unnecessary use of the front page of the paper amuses me no end! I will allow a point of order on my suggestion that the question was out of order. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, the member for Warringah asked a question about a media report today. He asked a question of the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, who is going to allocate money to New South Wales infrastructure. It seems like a perfectly legitimate question to ask. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think it was a long bow when the minister was asked whether or not he thought the New South Wales government should sack itself. The member for Melbourne Ports has the call. 10919 10919 14:56:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr DANBY —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. How is the government responding to the emerging humanitarian crisis in the Democratic Republic of the Congo? 10919 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question. The Australian government is very deeply concerned about the recent outbreak of violence and fighting in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Regrettably, the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a country with a terrible recent history of conflict and suffering. Its people have suffered two civil wars between 1996 and 2003 and it is estimated that those wars have claimed over five million lives as a result of violence and consequent disease and starvation. The Democratic Republic of the Congo in conjunction with the international community, including the United Nations, has made considerable efforts in recent times to restore stability and rebuild national unity. Since 2000 a United Nations peacekeeping organisation has been present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and over the years Australia has given substantial and strong support to that UN peacekeeping organisation, contributing over $30 million. Very regrettably, as members would be aware, we have recently seen conflict break out again. In October the forces of General Nkunda moved through North Kivu province in the east, defying not just government forces but also those UN peacekeepers. There have been alarming reports of targeted violence against civilians, including lootings and killings and the use of rape as an instrument of war. There have been intense international community efforts to seek to resolve the crisis. I refer to the efforts of Foreign Secretary Miliband and French Foreign Minister Kouchner, who flew to the region to meet with President Kagame of Rwanda and President Kabila of the Republic. In early November the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon held in Nairobi an emergency meeting of African heads of states. The secretary-general has called for an immediate ceasefire, the establishment of aid corridors to allow urgent delivery of humanitarian assistance, reinforcement of the UN peacekeeping mission and implementation of peace agreements previously signed. The government very much welcomes the recent announcement by SADC—the Southern African Development Community—to provide not just support of those sentiments expressed by the secretary-general but also immediate military and humanitarian aid. Australia stands alongside the secretary-general in his efforts to see a resolution to this crisis. Whilst it is appropriate for Australia to make a contribution to peacekeeping through its contribution to the United Nations, it is not, in the government’s view, appropriate to make a military or a peacekeeping contribution in terms of boots on the ground. But it is important for Australia to consider the need for urgent humanitarian aid and assistance. Early in November, in response to the crisis, I announced that we would apply $1 million emergency humanitarian assistance, enabling us to give consideration to further humanitarian assistance on the basis of the United Nations assessment. I am able to advise the House today that Australia will make, all up, a contribution of $5 million for humanitarian assistance in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It comprises the $4 million that I am announcing today, $3 million of which will go to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to deal with nearly 250,000 displaced people, to UNICEF and to the UN Office of the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. One million dollars will go to Australian NGOs who have a presence in Africa. Of the $1 million previously announced, as I have indicated before, half a million dollars will go to the World Health Organisation and half a million dollars will go to UNICEF. The funding of these agencies will allow for the immediate needs for those adversely affected by the violence—in particular food, health, water and the protection of women. Australia’s desire to assist is not just a reflection of our desire to be a good international citizen but also a reflection of the government’s view that Australia needs to increase and enhance its commitment to the countries of Africa and to engage with the countries of Africa. Australia needs to forge broader and deeper relations with the countries of Africa and build on the people-to-people and commercial links which have burgeoned in recent years. We welcome the increasingly strong voice of African nation states and we look forward to playing our part in the peace and security of the continent of Africa, including—and in particular—the Democratic Republic of the Congo. 10921 10921 15:02:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to media reports that Dean Mighell, the Secretary of the Electrical Trades Union, spent $80,000 from his own workers’ redundancy fund, Protect, on an extraordinary trip to London that included business class flights, meals, drinks, valet service, internet, in-house movies, booze and other items including a phone call to a transsexual escort by the name of Suzana. Is this an appropriate use of workers’ redundancy funds? Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that the member for Deakin is a former organiser for the redundancy fund? Can the Acting Prime Minister assure the House that the member for Deakin was not involved in the distribution of almost $1.4 million of the funds that were used to buy a house for Kevin Harkins, the union’s state secretary and former candidate for the Labor Party at the last election? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The first part of the question was in order but the part referring to the member for Deakin and the rest of the question were well out of order. The last part was really something that could only be introduced by way of substantive motion. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Health and Ageing is not helping at all. I have suggested that the first part of the question is in order. I just simply say to the member for North Sydney—as he mumbles a new precedent—that I got myself into strife when I prevented on three occasions out of about eight the Prime Minister from taking questions when they referred to the conduct of a member. That deals with the second part of the question. He knows that the third part of the question is well and truly out of the order because it is bordering on something that should be done by substantive motion. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I seek your guidance. We have just witnessed the member for North Sydney cast a slur on a range of members on the alleged basis of asking a question in question time. Can you indicate— Opposition members interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —It wasn’t a question. Can you indicate whether it is in order for, in the guise of asking a question, members of this House to be defamed? You allowed the member for North Sydney to continue with that question even though it was clearly out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I simply say to the Leader of the House that (1) I have ruled two aspects of the question out of order and (2) I could not have ruled them out of order until I had listened to the question. If he thinks that I am happy about that situation, I can indicate that I am not. But I cannot pre-empt what is going to happen and whether or not I think it is appropriate is not the chair’s business. I have dealt with the two aspects of the question that I believed were out of order. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr Stephen Smith —The remarks that the member for North Sydney made in that part of his question which was out of order were clearly offensive and should be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I think the real problem was that they were couched by way of a question rather than being definitive. I think that the ruling out indicates that they are not part of the record. 10921 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —Can I say to the question from the member for North Sydney, firstly, as I have seen in media reports, as I have been advised, ASIC is investigating the matter he refers to. If there are any allegations of improper conduct in any way then obviously that is something that ought to be properly investigated and dealt with. I will repeat what I said to this parliament yesterday in a different context: everyone should abide by the law; there are no exceptions. Everyone should abide by the law. Having said that, when everyone should abide by the law, the way the system works in this country—perhaps the member for North Sydney might prefer it were different—being a democracy, is that if there is an assertion that someone has not abided by the law, that is not tried in this parliament; that is dealt with by the appropriate investigative authorities, who should then deal with it. So everyone should abide by the law and everyone should let due process go through in relation to the allegations, and as I am advised ASIC is dealing with the matter. More broadly, can I say this: if the member for North Sydney believes he is in possession of information that goes to proper conduct of any member of this parliament then he should immediately move the relevant substantive motion. If he does not do so, people will understand what kind of person he is. 10922 10922 15:08:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms GEORGE —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister update the House on the government’s actions to bring an end to commercial whaling, including so-called scientific whaling? 10922 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for Throsby for her question and her interest in this issue. The Rudd government remain resolutely opposed to commercial whaling in any form, including so-called scientific whaling, and our commitment to whale conservation remains clear in the number of unprecedented actions the government has taken since coming to office. We have advanced a significant reform agenda through the International Whaling Commission, with initiatives for international non-lethal whale research partnerships, starting in the Southern Ocean, and conservation management plans to support the recovery of vulnerable whale species and populations. Many countries, including New Zealand, Chile, the United Kingdom and the United States, strongly supported Australia’s proposals and we are now working towards putting these plans into action. I am pleased to inform the House that Australia will host an international workshop in March 2009 to plan the non-lethal whale research partnerships for the Southern Ocean. The partnerships will also be open to all countries and will demonstrate once again that all essential whale research can be performed without killing a single whale. We remain optimistic that through this reform agenda we can help shape the International Whaling Commission into a 21st century, conservation orientated organisation, a body focused on studying living whales, not counting dead ones. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase interjecting— HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Kalgoorlie and the member for Swan! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —The government is also giving serious and careful consideration to a range of options for possible international legal action against Japan’s Antarctic whaling program— 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —What about jobs for the people of the Kimberley? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie is warned! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —and we have carefully analysed the information obtained through our monitoring of the Antarctic whaling fleet last summer. This was the first time that monitoring had been undertaken of the whaling fleet. No previous government has had the kind of information available to inform its consideration of legal options that we now have. Our immediate efforts are on finding a diplomatic resolution to this issue and that is why we have increased our diplomatic engagement on whaling, particularly with Japan over its scientific whaling program. We have appointed Mr Sandy Hollway AO as Australia’s special envoy for whale conservation to advance the government’s objectives of ending Japanese scientific whaling and improving the conservation of whales. We have repeatedly called on Japan—through the Prime Minister, the foreign minister, through me and through the envoy—to suspend its whaling program in the Southern Ocean, particularly as we engage in reform of the International Whaling Commission. We make no pretence that this is an easy task. In fact, this is a complex issue, an issue between friends but one we know the Australian community feels very strongly about, and that is why we have been working so hard and why we will keep working to bring commercial whaling to an end. I note a report overnight from the Asahi newspaper in Japan that the Japanese government’s whaling program— 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Kalgoorlie then left the chamber. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Members opposite clearly had no interest in this answer, because they did nothing for 12 years on this issue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will continue to respond to the question. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —I will begin again, Mr Speaker. I note a report overnight from the Asahi newspaper in Japan that the Japanese government’s whaling program will make its first-ever whaling target reduction—a reduction of 20 per cent in the upcoming season, to 750 whales—while the program’s overall target will be reduced by approximately 10 per cent. Whilst this is at present an unconfirmed report, if accurate it would represent the first time since Japan’s scientific whaling commenced in 1987 that the actual target has been reduced. In fact, since 1987 the target has only increased, including more than doubling between 2004-05 and 2005-06. I also emphasise that, while any reduction would be welcome—it would be an encouraging sign—given that it has not happened before, the government’s objective remains bringing an end to all commercial whaling, including whaling in the name of science. That is the objective we will continue to pursue, intensifying and stepping up our efforts including through the Prime Minister and senior ministers, through the special envoy on whale conservation, through our reform agenda at the International Whaling Commission and through the active consideration of options for international legal action. 10923 10923 15:14:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Acting Prime Minister. Acting Prime Minister, does the government stand by the Prime Minister’s pledge to the Australian people that he will fix the public hospital system by 2009 or he will have a referendum to take over the public hospitals from the states? BV5 Adams, Dick, MP Mr Adams —It’s your fault! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lyons is simply not assisting. 10923 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Acting Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. This government has inherited from the former government a public hospital system that has had a billion dollars ripped out of it. It cut back GP training places and other workforce places, leaving us with a crisis in workforce in many parts of the country. It is not a track record to be proud of. What the government has done since it took office is to work with our state and territory counterparts on new Australian healthcare agreements. What the government has said consistently is that it will work with our state and territory colleagues to get new cooperative arrangements to deal with the problems in the health system. What the Prime Minister said before the election, as opposed to what the member for Dickson just summarised him as saying, was that we would work with our state and territory counterparts and seek a new era of reform. My colleague the Minister for Health and Ageing is well into the journey of the reform agenda. We have already put more money into hospitals. She has a reform commission working with her. The Prime Minister always said that we would aim to work through these issues cooperatively, and that is what we are doing. What he said to the Australian people as well was that, if these processes did not work to a satisfactory outcome, the buck would stop with him. We are doing exactly what the Prime Minister promised before the election: working collaboratively through the processes. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —We said that we would do that first. We said that we would invest in our hospital system, and we have. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman is warned! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —We said that we would invest in GP superclinics and we have. The list goes on. The last thing that I would think that a member of the Liberal Party would do— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. This was a question directed in relation to the referendum as a commitment of the government. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Acting Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —In responding to the question, I say this to the member who asked the question and to members opposite: the last thing that I would have thought that members of the Liberal Party would want to do is to start a debate about honouring election promises, given that they are the political party that gave to this nation the terminology ‘core’ and ‘non-core’. From the very first day they were elected, they wanted to dump their election promises, and they did. I remind members opposite that, when it comes to the question of promises, they promised Australians before the 2004 election that it would be business as usual in workplace relations. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I again rise on a point of order in relation to relevance. There has been a defiance of your earlier ruling by the Acting Prime Minister. It is about the referendum. Does she stand by it or not? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —What I can say to the member for Dickson— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Just answer the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I have answered the question. His screaming is not going to change that. We are a government that honours its promises. We will do that in health. We will do that in all areas in which we made promises to the Australian people. That is a sharp contrast to the non-core promises of the Liberal Party and its failure to tell the Australian people about Work Choices before 2004. 10924 10924 15:19:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. What is the government’s response to community concerns about the need to improve Indigenous aged care? 10925 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Solomon for his question and note his very strong interest in and commitment to Indigenous aged care. Our plan to improve Indigenous aged care involves construction of new infrastructure, emergency maintenance works and staff training. Last week, our newly established Indigenous aged care task force completed a site-by-site audit of Australia’s 29 Indigenous flexible aged care services. As a direct result of this, early next year teams of tradespeople will undertake a comprehensive building works program to carry out necessary improvements. In the last few months, I have visited a number of communities, including in Katherine, Mutitjulu and East Arnhem. I have listened firsthand to the concerns of community leaders and also seen the very unique challenges of remote Aboriginal aged care services. It is very clear that these services need to be improved. Staff training and infrastructure are our priorities in these areas. We are committed to tackling these challenges through our $46 million program. At Uluru, the older women of Mutitjulu, speaking in Pitjantjatjara through an interpreter, put the case to me for an overnight nursing home facility. In response, we have acted, and we will build overnight staff accommodation so that staff can be there to look after residents. We will continue to consult with and take the advice of Aboriginal communities as we work through the Indigenous aged care plan. In the coming weeks, subject to appropriate community consultation, we will also be providing more aged care places in Mutitjulu and East Arnhem. In addition, we will tackle the problem of overnight staff accommodation at Docker River. This will help retain staff in that area. Also, 11 Aboriginal aged care services will now receive assistance to help them install appropriate protection for elders around open fire pits. This is about finding a delicate balance between cultural sensitivity and ensuring the health and welfare of older and frail Indigenous people. This Indigenous aged care plan addresses long-term staff training and retention. I look forward to further updating the House on how this government is continuing to improve Indigenous aged care. 10925 10925 15:21:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is also to the Acting Prime Minister. I refer the Acting Prime Minister to the Prime Minister’s commitment that the buck will stop with him when it comes to public hospitals. Given that nurses from the Dubbo hospital are borrowing bandages and urinary dipsticks from the local vet and meat has been taken from the menu at Coonabarabran hospital because they cannot afford to pay the butchers, what will the government do to help these hospitals meet their share of the $205 million that the New South Wales government has cut from the area health service as a part of its mini-budget? 10925 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —What I can say to the member is that the government did make promises about health before the election. We are honouring them. I have explained that we are working collaboratively on new Australian healthcare agreements, that we are working on reform, that the Prime Minister did say we would work through those processes first and that ultimately the buck did stop with him but that we would be working to improve health care. What has this government done? We put $1 billion into our healthcare system. We put money into elective surgery waiting lists to make sure that people who were on queues for elective surgery would get assisted. All of that is additional resources above and beyond what the former government, the Liberal government—of which the member who asked me the question was a very senior member—provided. Above and beyond what the Liberal government put in, we have put in extra resources. I understand that the member is saying that there is more to be done in health, and I could not agree with him more. There is more to be done in health. We are working on new Australian healthcare agreements because we understand there is more to be done in health. But I would ask the member to reflect: given we have put in additional resources since the 2007 election, how bad was it when you were in government? 10926 10926 15:24:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 Mr HAYES —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister inform the House of how the government is reforming infrastructure investment decision making? Is he aware of any examples of poor infrastructure investment decision making in the past? 10926 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Werriwa for that question. As members would be aware, the government today introduced our legislation to establish the three infrastructure funds. This marks the beginning, the next step, in implementing the nation’s nation-building agenda. This is an agenda that we remain committed to, and that is one of the reasons why the Prime Minister has asked for the infrastructure priority list to be brought forward to December. Of course, this priority list is being developed by Infrastructure Australia, an independent body, made up of Commonwealth, state and local representatives but also, importantly, representatives of the private sector, which we established to examine the nation’s infrastructure needs. This is an entirely new approach when it comes to dealing with infrastructure for the nation. I know that some of those opposite are struggling to adjust to this new concept, because their criticism of our approach has been very confused. On the one hand we have had the Leader of the Opposition and others out there accusing us of establishing a slush fund, but in the next breath they say that we are not spending infrastructure funds soon enough—we should just get on with the job and not have a proper process. You cannot have it both ways. You have got to actually stand for something. But I wondered why they were so obsessed, and maybe it is because of the way that they dealt with, or did not deal with, infrastructure issues. An example of their approach was recently brought to my attention, which is why I particularly welcome the second part of the member for Werriwa’s question. In 2006, the former government called for submissions from councils on strategic road priorities. Five councils in Victoria formed the Northern Metro Regional Group of Councils and commissioned a review of their road needs. They produced this detailed report. It thoroughly analysed and it prioritised eight road projects. They sent it off to the federal government and waited to hear the outcome. Nothing happened. Days passed; weeks passed; months passed—nothing happened. But a year later the councils got a letter with an offer to fund one of their projects. But, of course, it was not the No. 1 priority, it was not even the second priority and not even the third. It, in fact, was the project that was ranked sixth. It is a project that one of the councils that has written to me has said is: … heavily dependent on subdivisional development. With next to no development, at this stage the construction is out of sequence and may be seen as a poor use of funds. What the council is saying is pretty simple: this is a road to nowhere. It is actually a road through an empty paddock—a road that might be needed sometime but that is certainly not needed now and is certainly not a priority, which is why the councils put it as No. 6 on their list. The No. 1 project was only a kilometre or two away, in the middle of a booming residential area. So I was wondering: what wisdom did the former government use to overrule the priority list that had been developed by these local councils and pick out the project at No. 6 over the top of the first five projects? I was looking at a map of the area, trying to understand their thinking. When it came to me, I realised I had the wrong map, because I was looking at a road map. What I needed was an electoral map to understand the way that they decided infrastructure spending should be provided. As you may be aware, Mr Speaker, the No. 1 priority project, which could not be funded, was in fact in the electorate of Scullin—your electorate, Mr Speaker. The No. 2 project was in Calwell, so they could not fund that either. The No. 3 project was in Jagajaga, so they could not fund that either. Of the eight projects, only one was in a marginal Liberal electorate—that of McEwen. It did not have the lowest cost, it did not have the highest benefit, it is not even needed now, but it was on the right side of the electoral map. That was why it received the funding. On this side of the House when we want advice on infrastructure we actually consult Infrastructure Australia, an independent body. When those on the other side want advice about infrastructure they do not look to engineers, they look to the electoral commissioner. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 10927 Personal Explanations 10927 15:30:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —Most definitely. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —This morning in an interview at the doors of Parliament House, I misspoke. Later in the same interview I clearly stated, ‘I am not saying the Prime Minister is indiscreet at all, absolutely not.’ 10927 15:31:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yesterday the Leader of the House suggested that I was entirely wrong in claiming that previously there had been no precedent to move a motion to close down the Leader of the Opposition’s MPI. The Leader of the House went on to cite a large number of examples. The explanation from me— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member must indicate where he has been misrepresented. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is no personal explanation here; this is simply a debate and an argument. There is no suggestion that the member for North Sydney has been misrepresented. He just has a different point of view. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will listen very carefully. The member for North Sydney knows that he must show where he has been misrepresented and that he should not debate the question. Order! I will listen very carefully. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —The 26 June 1996 motion moved against the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Beazley, by Mr Reith calling on government business followed a substantive motion moved by Mr Beazley during question time at 2.42 pm. The 24 March 1998— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney cannot go through the whole list and debate each one. He would have to establish how, in those cases, he has been misrepresented. He can only make a general statement about the personal explanation that the Leader of the House made. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Further to that point of order, the chair yesterday allowed the Leader of the House to go through extensively all of the occasions where the Leader of the House alleged that I had given the wrong advice to the House. If the Leader of the House was entitled to extensively go through the list then surely I am entitled to respond to each and every one of those allegations. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think that there are other procedures of the House that could be used to do that. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will not give advisory rulings and the Leader of the National Party has been here long enough to know that he cannot by interjection suggest or ask questions like that. 10928 15:34:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yes, I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Yesterday the Leader of the House stated that I had misled the House and he cited 13 occasions where I had done so implicitly by stating that the Leader of the Opposition was gagged and disallowed an opportunity to discuss a matter of public importance. The detail provided by the Leader of the House was wrong. Of the 13 occasions listed by the Leader of the House— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney will complete this aspect and then we will get on with the business. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Of the 13 occasions listed by the Leader of the House where a matter of public importance did not take place, a substantive motion— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney will complete the sentence. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —had preceded it along with up to two hours of debate on the said motions. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —You’re wrong, Albo, admit it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fadden will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Fadden then left the chamber DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I seek leave to table the records. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Leave is not granted. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —I must say I was wrong; it was 15 occasions, not 13, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will go to the presentation of papers. 10928 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:36:00 —Documents are presented in accordance with the list circulated to honourable members earlier today. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. I table references to the Hansard of 22 August 2001, 6 March 2003 and 20 September 2007 where the Leader of the Opposition was denied an MPI debate without there being a motion moved by the opposition. 10929 Questions to the Speaker 10929 10929 15:36:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 Mr NEVILLE —Mr Speaker, before the minister at the table presented papers I was trying to get your attention to ask you a question. You overlooked me. It is a small procedural matter. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —My risk taking is probably spent. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —I assure you it has nothing to do with frogs. This morning there was an incident involving a four-minute count for a division. There was quite a deal of disagreement in the House about whether the four minutes was actually taken or not. I think the general consensus is that it was not four minutes. Could I suggest to you that the tape be run to find out what length of time was actually used so that this sort of mistake does not happen again? 10929 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —I repeat something that I am trying to get through to people. Firstly, this is not a time for raising questions about procedural matters with me. Standing orders allow me to be questioned about matters under my administration to do with the Department of the House of Representatives and the Department of Parliamentary Services, which I administer with the Senate President. Secondly, I am not going back over the tapes. But, despite those two comments, I have every faith in the member of the Speaker’s panel who was in charge of the proceedings. As I understand it, a very satisfactory resolution to the matter was reached. I think that we should leave those types of matters there because sometimes, I think, we go round in circles about procedural matters here and it must remain a complete mystery to those outside who are watching us. 10929 Matters of Public Importance 10929 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Dickson proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the government to deliver an effective public hospital system. 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— 10929 15:38:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —The coalition, like all Australians, is greatly concerned about what is happening in our public hospital systems right around the country. For the last 10 or 12 years—and, in some cases, since even longer ago—Australians have been subjected to a complete mismanagement and downgrading of services right around the country. There are very few exceptions as you look state by state and territory by territory for good practice operating in our public hospitals as they have been managed by the Labor Party. The greatest frustration for the health professionals around the country—the nurses, the doctors and all of those people, particularly in primary health care, who are involved in public hospitals—is the way in which the public hospitals have been managed over the last decade and, as I say, in some cases even longer. They are worried because they have a service to deliver to people who are in need. Australians arrive at accident and emergency sections and at public hospitals looking for service. They have a demand for the services—in some cases, of course, in emergency situations—and it is the great and never-ending frustration of those people who deliver these services that, because of the way in which these services have been managed, they cannot provide an adequate and timely response to those patients who are most in need. It is about time, as we approach the 12-month mark, to call to account this federal government for some of the promises they made during the last election campaign and for the way in which, over the course of the last 12 months, they have not delivered on those promises or provided any idea of how they are going to turn around this mess that their state Labor colleagues have managed to create in a dozen years. This is a situation which is untenable. The remarkable admission today in this chamber by the Acting Prime Minister of this country that the Labor Party would not honour its election promise to go to a referendum if the states and the federal government do not resolve this matter in relation to state public hospitals is a disgrace. It is a disgrace because this Prime Minister said to the Australian people during the course of the last election campaign that on health the buck would stop with him. Over the course of the last 12 months, as was raised by the leader of the National Party today, in hospitals such as in Dubbo and others around the country spending has been going backwards, which is resulting in worse outcomes for patients in hospitals right around the country, and that is unacceptable. When Australians listened to this Prime Minister at the last election, they heard him say that he would fix health and that, if he did not fix it with the states by 2009, he would go to a referendum. The government has watered down its commitment during question time today, and the Australian people should recognise that for what it is: a pathetic action by a government which is on the ropes in terms of delivering outcomes to the Australian people. People who listen to this chamber regularly know that whenever somebody from the government comes into this chamber—it does not matter whether they are delivering a speech on health, the economy or social security—the word that they use religiously is ‘decisive’. ‘Decisive’ is a word that they have to use and have been directed to use because this government, the Rudd-Swan government, is seen as being indecisive. It is a government that has set up any number of reviews and advisory councils. It has put all of this together but with no concrete outcome that is going to result in better health outcomes for the Australian people. So, when the Australian public listen to members of the Australian Labor Party and in particular this Prime Minister talk about decisive action, they should know that it is not an indication of any decisive action that the government has taken; it is merely a delivery of the advice that has been given to them by focus groups operated by the hollow men who work in the Prime Minister’s office. Many people around the country would watch the acclaimed series The Hollowmen on the ABC. Some people see it as a comedy and other people see it as a documentary. Many people see it as a documentary because they see in the day-to-day actions of this government exactly what happens on The Hollowmen being played out by the Rudd Labor government. This is a government which is not serious about delivering for the public; it is serious about delivering for itself. It is not interested in honouring its election commitments. What it has done over the last 12 months is facilitate further downgrading of services by state governments in the public hospital arena. It has come up with this mantra, no doubt devised by the focus groups in The Hollowmen, that it needs to end the blame game. ‘Prime Minister,’ the focus groups would have said, ‘use that phrase, because the Australian people want to hear you say it.’ So he says it, but what does it mean and what has it meant over the last 12 months? It has meant that this is a Prime Minister who has used that term to disguise the inaction and, I think, the complete failure of state Labor governments around the country in their obligations in public health. This federal government has made a number of health decisions in the last 12 months which really are all about the way in which health has been delivered in the states over the last 12 years. This Rudd Labor government is replicating the hospital management style that Nathan Rees has perfected in New South Wales, that Anna Bligh has perfected in Queensland and that many other state leaders have perfected around the country. If we continue to see this health minister and this Prime Minister managing the federal health system like their state Labor counterparts over the last 12 years then heaven help the long-term future of health in this country. This debate today has been prompted by the enormous number of emails and phone calls that I have received from people in distress all around the country—people who have had terrible experiences in public hospitals and people whose lives have been devastated by the way in which public hospitals are run and the way in which that is condoned by this federal government. They are devastated by the treatment that they receive and the lack of timely treatment. That, of course, is highlighted in the AMA Public Hospital Report Card 2008, which was released yesterday. It is a damning report, to say the least. It reports that the hospital funding split between the Commonwealth and the states and territories requires more attention. It talks about public hospital capacity having fallen by 67 per cent in the last 20 years. The AMA calculates that 3,750 beds are required to decrease occupancy levels to 85 per cent. Eighty-five per cent occupancy is important because it is considered the safe working level. The royal hospitals in Adelaide, Brisbane, Canberra and Perth and Sydney’s North Shore and Prince Alfred royal hospitals are closer to 90 per cent occupancy, and some are closer to 95 per cent occupancy. This position is something that is condoned day in, day out by this Rudd Labor government. It has to come to an end. The report says: Despite minor recent improvement, less than two-thirds of emergency department patients classified as urgent are currently seen within the recommended 30 minutes. The majority of these issues are, of course, state and territory issues, but this is a situation which has festered and deteriorated over the last 12 months under the watch of this Rudd Labor government. The Labor Party, not just in health but in a number of areas, have embarked on a rewrite of history, a propaganda campaign talking down the economy that they inherited from the coalition government at the end of last year. They have tried to rewrite history in relation to the way in which we managed the economy as well as health. Let me put on the record a few statistics which I think demonstrate the proud record of the Howard government in relation to health. The total investment in health and ageing in 1995-96 under Labor was just under $20 billion, at $19.5 billion. In 2007-08 the coalition committed $51.8 billion to health funding, a real increase of 88 per cent. That is a remarkable statistic. Labor spent $6 billion under the MBS in 1995-96—bear that in mind. Under the coalition $12.5 billion was spent in 2007-08, an increase in real terms of 48 per cent. Do not listen to anything that the Labor government have got to say in relation to health. Their track record proves that they are as fraudulent on health as they are on the economy. It is about time that the states and territories started to own up to their responsibilities and that this health minister stopped whimpering in a corner with the Prime Minister instead of calling to account what has been a disgraceful display by state and territory governments. The reality is that the coalition government in relation to Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme funding in 2007-08 spent $7.1 billion, a real increase of 110 per cent, compared to 2.4 per cent when Labor were last in power. We are not going to stand on this side of the parliament and tolerate some rewrite of history by the Labor government. We are not going to tolerate some sort of propaganda campaign which holds them up as having had a great period in office prior to 1996 and which says that it was the coalition government that failed in its responsibility in relation to health over the 11 years that we were in government. The fact remains that we excelled and provided very good outcomes in the areas we had responsibility for during the period of 1996 to 2007—not to say that we had it perfect or that more could not be done. What we did was to embark on a way in which we could hold the state and territory governments to account, because they have run the public hospital system into the ground, and it will take years to rectify. If this health minister and the government are going to continue the form of the last 12 months—that is, to be completely uncritical of the state and territory governments—then this situation will only continue to deteriorate and will take even longer to rectify. The government should be condemned for their inaction to date, and they should be condemned for managing the hospital system in exactly the same way as Nathan Rees. When people think about federal Labor in health, they should think about state Labor in health. When people think about the Prime Minister and Nicola Roxon in health, they should think about Nathan Rees and Reba Meagher. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms Roxon —That’s getting a bit low! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —A state Labor management style has been imposed on us. The health minister indicates that that is a bit low; we need to see how low the health standards drop under this federal government before we can definitively say whether the health minister is accurate or not. We know that health has been disastrous under the Labor governments in New South Wales, Queensland, Victoria, the Northern Territory, the ACT and South Australia. Right around the country, Labor has run the health system into the ground, and this federal government is on the same path as well. The first Reba Meagher-style announcement of this health minister was in relation to private health. Reba Roxon said that 500,000 people should be forced out of private health and into the public hospital system. The health minister claims that forcing 500,000 people out of private health and pushing them into the public health system, a system which Labor have already crippled, is somehow going to deliver better health outcomes for the Australian people. We cannot stand by—the Australian people cannot stand by—and tolerate a further deterioration of this health system, which is what will happen if the federal government continues down this track. When you look at the figures you will see they are quite amazing. For the change that the government proposed to the Medicare levy surcharge, their first figures indicated that 485,000 people would drop their private health insurance. This withstood scrutiny for about 24 hours. The government finally realised and admitted to their mistake that 485,000 did not include children or dependants, and the figures shot up to 644,000. Don’t people with children and dependants get services in the public system in this country? Is that where Labor thinks we should be? It is such a ridiculous position to be in, and an embarrassing one for the Minister for Health and Ageing. This ended up with the government’s compromise to 500,000 people—including, I might say to their credit, dependants and children—who will now be forced off private health and pushed into the public health system as a result of Labor style management of health. Public health deserves much greater support than it is getting from the government, and this coalition opposition will not stand by while we have some sort of rewrite of history. We will make sure that we continue to call this government to account. They should stand condemned for the way in which the Acting Prime Minister walked away from their election commitment today. As a coalition, we will make sure that we keep the pressure on the states and territories and this government to make sure that the public health system in this country turns around, because we are committed not just to a public health system but also to a private one. We are the only side of this parliament capable of delivering positive health outcomes. The figures from when we were in government demonstrate that, and we will show it when we are returned at the next election. 10933 15:53:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —That was a disappointing display from the shadow minister, the member for Dickson. I was looking forward to 15 minutes from the shadow minister, who has not really said very much about health and who does not even care enough to stay and hear his own matter of public importance answered. The media is more important to him—’Oh, I am sorry, Minister, I have to do a doorstop on the matter that I am raising in the House.’ I actually think that is quite astounding. Has a shadow minister ever raised a matter of public importance in the House before and then left before it was debated? It just shows that the shadow minister is not interested in our public hospitals. He knows that this is one of the cheekiest matters of public importance to ever be raised in this House. After 12 years of being in government and doing nothing about public hospitals—after 12 years of neglect—he wants to pretend that we should be able to fix every single thing in the health system within 11 months. We agree that there are problems in our health system. We agree that a lot of them were caused by the previous government. Interestingly, I agree with the shadow minister on that, because the shadow minister is now on the record as saying that mistakes were made in dealing with public health in their 12 years in government. But he believes, despite having spent 12 years making all of those mistakes, that we should miraculously be able to fix them in 11 months. We are very proud of what we have done in 11 months, and I am going to take the chamber through all of the extra investments that we have made. What I suspect in this matter of public importance is that it is just the same old, same old from the Liberals. They used to blame the states; now they want to blame the government. They are always blaming someone else. It is the same old story. In fact, it is ‘Dutton’ dressed up as lamb. I reckon that is what the shadow minister is doing—it is just the same old measures that he has always been arguing. We saw that there were problems in the health system. We went to the election with specific commitments as to how we would fix the health system. We are very proud of what we have already done. We have put a billion extra dollars into our public hospitals already, and they needed it. We have met and been negotiating with the states and territories and we are very close to finalising our deals. Contrary to what the shadow minister always wants to say, we are not apologists for the states. Some of them have got things wrong, but what the shadow minister does not want to acknowledge is that the coalition did nothing in government to try to improve the standards of our public hospitals. They did nothing in the negotiations with the states to improve the arrangements. They used to say to the states, minutes to the sign-off line for the healthcare agreements, ‘Here is our deal, take it or leave it.’ That was their negotiations. We actually believe we can deliver better outcomes if both levels of government work together. We hope we will be able to deliver that. We will not be handing over a single dollar to the states and territories without a guarantee about the improved performance that that will deliver. We have already been able to achieve that in elective surgery. We made a commitment that we would put $600 million into elective surgery and, at the halfway mark, we have already seen more than 14,000 surgeries undertaken. I wonder whether members on this side of the House know how many more elective surgeries that is in just the first six months of this program, compared to those funded by those opposite for a whole 12 years in government? 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten —Tell us, tell us! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —It is 14,000 more. There was not a single elective surgery procedure paid for by the previous government to try to deal with the waiting lists that they were so worried about. I want to take note—while the shadow minister has deigned to stay here for a little longer—of a report from the AMA yesterday that he wanted to quote so enthusiastically. They release a report card each year on the state of our public hospitals. They did that yesterday, and they rightly pointed out some serious problems that remain with our hospitals which make us so determined to fix them. What the shadow minister failed to say was that most of the fairly scathing assessments from the AMA actually were the same as the ones that were made last year. The reason they were the same as the ones made last year is that over nearly 12 years of Liberal government we have seen a decline in standards in our public hospitals. We cannot pretend that the previous government had nothing to do with it. Even the shadow minister, in his more sanguine moments, is prepared to admit—for example, in front of 300 or 400 GPs at a conference in Darwin last week—that mistakes were made by his government. But he comes into this House and wants to put on the macho man act, pretend that everything they did was fantastic and that they fixed the whole system. I do not know why he did not quote one of the significant changes in the issue of access and equity from the AMA report. In 2007, on the previous government’s watch, the AMA said There has been a distinct deterioration in the proportion of Australians being admitted for elective surgery within medically recommended times. We find in 2008, in an area where we have made immediate injections of funds, that the report from the AMA says that there has been some improvement in the proportion of Australians being admitted for elective surgery within medically recommended times. That is no small feat. We have not been in government for a long time. We have acted fast. We have started turning things around. But it is not quoted by the shadow minister. I wonder why that would be. 00ATG Shorten, Bill, MP Mr Shorten —Selective. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —They are very selective about the process that they are taking. I think this matter of public importance, arguing about ‘the failure of the government to deliver an effective public hospital system’, should really be a question: ‘Why can this government in 11 months not fix all of the problems that we caused in 12 years?’ That would be a more honest debate for the shadow minister to have, but he is not interested in doing that. I think it is also disappointing that the shadow minister has not been prepared to look at our investment in GP services. Part of fixing our hospitals is investing more in our hospitals, but a big part of it is making sure we get services that can be delivered outside hospitals into our communities so that people do not need to go to hospital. This is a particular problem for the member opposite. A GP superclinic has been promised in his electorate. He has been unable to decide whether or not he supports a superclinic in his electorate. HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr Raguse —I’ll have another one! HWA Rishworth, Amanda, MP Ms Rishworth —I’ll have another one! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —I thought there might be some people who were prepared to have one. He will not go on the record about it. He wants to criticise us for all of the most outrageous things. He wants to make outrageous comparisons between us and the state government, and then he expects that we are going to keep the gloves on in dealing with him. He is going to have to decide what he wants to do in his local electorate. I know the member for Cowan, who is here listening to this debate, has one that is going to be delivered in his electorate, and he has been an enthusiastic supporter—sensibly. It is not every day that the federal government wants to put millions of dollars into your electorate, and you would be pretty silly not to want it. We are going to make sure that it works properly. I am interested that the member for—Gwydir? HWN Coulton, Mark, MP Mr Coulton —Parkes. 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —Parkes is here, because I understand that he and a couple of his colleagues are very enthusiastic for us to have GP superclinics in their electorates. What I suggest is that you lobby your shadow minister either to get to a position where the Liberal Party will support this investment or to suggest that the money that we have promised to his electorate could be put into yours. If the shadow minister wants us to do that, we are more than happy to do it. But the thing that has been really outrageous and, frankly, pretty disappointing about the shadow minister’s MPI is that in less than five minutes he had run out of anything to say about health. In less than five minutes he was already on to his theories about spin doctoring and his theories about other things. We have not heard anything yet from this shadow minister about what he would do to fix the health system. We have not heard anything from any of the Liberal Party about a single policy in health. They do not know whether they are going to support ours. They are not prepared to own up properly to the legacy that they have left us with. Again, we made an announcement last week of 175 new GPs across the country, and nine of them are likely to be in the training area that covers the shadow minister’s electorate. He is not even sure whether he welcomes that or not. He is not prepared to be honest about the fact that the member for Warringah and the member for Bradfield—the previous Leader of the Opposition—admitted that they made mistakes in capping the number of those places in GP training, but he is not even sure whether he welcomes those places. It is very interesting to me that, in addition to the people on this side of the House who are very interested in hospitals, we have a number of members whom I have been engaging with directly—I even met with the member for Riverina earlier today—who do have serious problems in their hospitals. I do not deny that there is a lot of work that we have to do to fix this. There are problems in the local member’s community with GPs being trained overseas. We are working to fix those problems, but we cannot do it all at once. We have to take it step by step. We are proud of putting $1 billion into our hospitals, putting $600 million into elective surgery, creating more GP training places, getting extra nurses trained and setting up a vast range of other supports for rural services in particular, but we are going to get further changes right and we are not ashamed about taking the time to get proper advice, to do it clearly, and we are not ashamed about negotiating with the states and territories to demand more from them if we invest more through the healthcare agreements. We have been absolutely upfront that we want transparency, that we want strong reporting and that we want improved health outcomes, and the commitment that we made at the election was that, if we cannot get the states and territories to sign on to those changes, we would go back to the public asking for their approval to take over financial control of the hospitals. The deadline we set for that is the middle of next year. For some reason, the shadow minister is too busy to even hear the answers. He has gone off to do some media interview because that is more important than his own matter of public importance. He does not want to hear that we are working exactly as we promised and we are following those standards. I think it is disappointing. I think we have some serious issues in health that we have to confront. We have some big changes that we are going to have to be prepared to make. We have big investments that are going to be very difficult in these financial circumstances but are necessary for the community. But we have a shadow minister who is not even prepared to stay and listen to his colleagues who are going to debate the matter of public importance. He is not even prepared to stay and hear what else is going on. Those opposite always want to use the worst examples from our state colleagues—and sadly, on occasion, they give us examples that those opposite can use—but I would like to take the chance to give some good examples. As a result of the elective surgery money that the Commonwealth provided to each state and territory, Victoria committed to undertaking 9,400 elective surgery operations this year. Victoria reported in their parliament today that already, two months ahead of time, because of that extra assistance that the Commonwealth has provided, 9,918 extra elective surgery operations have been performed. That Commonwealth money has meant that nearly 10,000—in fact, 500 more than were promised—elective surgery procedures have been undertaken. That means that in my electorate, in the electorate of the member for Maribyrnong and in the electorate of the member for Deakin—in all of the Victorian electorates—more people have had their hip surgery done, their knee surgery done or their cataract surgery done because we put the money on the table. Why is it that the shadow minister does not want to use those examples? Why doesn’t he want to come in and say, ‘When the states are performing well, we should give them more to give them some reward payment’? Why doesn’t he want to engage in that sort of constructive debate? He just wants to complain about the states and use every bad example instead of, when we invest money and the states can deliver better services, being prepared to come in here and stand up and say that they are doing well. He is too busy out there doing his media, and he is the one who had the gall to suggest that our government is being run like The Hollowmen. This is someone who thinks this matter is so important that the parliament should allocate an hour to debate it but he is only prepared to stay to hear himself talk. I thought the Leader of the Opposition had a good opinion of himself, but that attitude obviously flows through to all of his shadow ministers. The shadow minister only wants to listen to himself speak, not to get any real answers from anybody else. And I am getting a little bit sick of some of the pious displays from the shadow minister. He welcomed the initiatives and the comments I made today about the insulin pumps and Diabetes Day, which are very important—I notice there are still members from Diabetes Australia here—and that is good because it is something that very many members, particularly backbenchers, have been actively engaged in for a long time. But you cannot do that and pretend to work together and then stand up and put on this appalling display and not be prepared to listen to what it is we are doing. I challenge the shadow minister: if he thinks that the Commonwealth has not done enough, does he want us to take back the billion dollars that we have already given to public hospitals? Does the shadow minister want us to take back the money we have paid for all of those extra surgeries? Does he want us to stop funding an extra 170 GPs in the next two years? Does he want us to not go ahead with the more than 1,000 nursing places that are going to start as of next year—90 already this year, 1,094 next year? We already know he does not want us to proceed with our binge drinking strategy, so I am not even going to ask that hypothetically because he has been disinterested in these changes. I am presuming he does not want to stop us screening people for bowel cancer, a big investment that we made in the budget. Why do none of these major investments in health get a mention from the shadow minister? It is just the same old same old Dutton dressed up as lamb! (Time expired) 10937 16:09:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 0 Mr COULTON —I have no problem today standing up and debating this matter of public importance, because I can tell you that in my part of Australia the issue of health supersedes any other. It is the issue that my office deals with on a daily basis. I acknowledge that the health minister is aware of what is happening in my electorate, and I acknowledge that I have had some meetings with her. But make no mistake about it, this debate today is about trust—the trust created last year when the Prime Minister, then the Leader of the Opposition, said, ‘When it comes to health, the buck stops with me.’ All across Australia people voted for the Labor government because the then opposition leader promised that he was going to fix health. Thankfully not too many people in my electorate followed that line, but right across Australia many people did. The situation since that time has deteriorated rapidly. In my electorate, the Dubbo Base Hospital is $16 million in debt. The Greater Western Area Health Service is in a state of terminal collapse. Base hospitals at Orange and Bathurst and countless small bush hospitals are in dire straits. My colleague, the Leader of the Nationals, the member for Wide Bay, in question time today mentioned the fact that the staff of Dubbo Base Hospital are purchasing supplies from the vet and the local chemist shop. Indeed, a surgeon at Dubbo hospital, when needing a particular piece of equipment to undertake an operation and finding out that credit had been cut off from the supplier, cleared Greater Western Area Health Service’s bill with his own credit card so that he could purchase the equipment needed to undertake that particular operation. In the hospitals in the towns of Gilgandra and Coonabarabran patients are no longer fed meat because the butcher has not been paid. In this day and age, this is a terrible state of affairs. I would like acknowledge that tomorrow is national Diabetes Day and that we still have members from Diabetes Australia up here. I am looking forward to the function at the hotel tonight to recognise this special day. But, in contrast, this week air services are being pulled out of four towns in my electorate. One of those towns is Walgett. On Tuesday I had Ms Christine Corby, who is the CEO of the Walgett medical service, in my office quite distressed. I hear you ask: what does the withdrawal of airline services have to do with health? It is quite simple: these remote towns are serviced by fly-in practitioners—specialists, heart specialists, dentists, oncologists and specialists who deal with diabetes. The other thing that happened this week was that the diabetes map for Australia was released. Guess whose electorate has a high level of diabetes. And guess which town in my electorate is the worst. It is Walgett, which has a large Aboriginal population. When we were in this House early in the term of this government debating the merits of sitting on Fridays, the Prime Minister went to my electorate. I might say this was without my knowledge, but I guess I will come to terms with that. He visited the Walgett Aboriginal Medical Service and he spoke with these people; he recognised and understood, quite rightly, the great work they are doing. The withdrawal of the en route subsidy, which means that $6 million has been taken out of these routes, has made these services unviable, so policies of this government are affecting the health of people in western New South Wales. There has been talk about solutions. The minister mentioned the GP superclinics. There was quite a bit of mirth on the other side as people acknowledged the fact that they had this wonderful largess come their way in the form of a GP superclinic. A town in my electorate, Gunnedah, has the ultimate GP superclinic. If a GP superclinic is a stock standard Commodore, the people of Gunnedah have come up with a Statesman DeVille—the top of the range. Not only does it fit the complete criteria of the GP superclinic model to a T, it has an added bonus—that is, the training side of it. It is a partnership between the doctors, the local community, the state government and universities. As well, local industry is putting in personal private money to fund this clinic. Unfortunately, there are no funds left. The bucket for GP superclinics is empty. And in some cases they have gone to marginal seats where they do not really want them. The local GPs are saying, ‘We’re going to be overrun with doctors; we don’t really want the clinic.’ That is why there has been a slow take-up. The people of Gunnedah, a town of 12,000, are serviced by three doctors. Can you imagine waiting for six weeks to see your GP? How does a young woman going through a pregnancy have a relationship with her doctor when there are three doctors to service 12,000 people? Indeed, in the true tradition of people in country areas, they are trying to get this job going on their own. A group of young mums in Gunnedah are fundraising for facilities for the local maternity room because the funding is so short. So in this day and age a progressive and growing town like Gunnedah, a town with 12,000 people and a large agriculture and mining base, is now having to fundraise for equipment for the local maternity wing. They have a solution by way of the Gunnedah medical centre which, anywhere it has been shown, has got rave reviews, but unfortunately the bucket of money is gone and people are squabbling over their GP superclinics because the local doctors are saying that there is going to be overcrowding of doctors. The other case in point is in the town of Dubbo, Lourdes Hospital. Lourdes Hospital is in a state of disrepair. It is owned and run by Catholic Healthcare under an arrangement with the New South Wales government. Catholic Healthcare were prepared to put up a large amount of money, demolish the Lourdes Hospital and reconstruct a new hospital. They required a co-contribution from the New South Wales government. I cannot understand why any government, especially a cash-strapped one like New South Wales, would look a gift horse in the mouth and not take up that offer, but it appears that Lourdes Hospital has become a victim of the mini-budget last week. Lourdes Hospital is a rehabilitation hospital. It does not just service the 40,000-odd people in Dubbo; it services an area with 200,000 people. People have to travel for five or eight hours for medical services. I know some people in this place have trouble coming to terms with the fact that they have to travel those long distances. My family were quite fortunate. My son, who is now 19, was one of the last children born in the Warialda Hospital. Now the young mums have to cross their legs for 200 kilometres and their partners have to break all traffic rules to get them to Tamworth on time. The ability to have children in rural Australia has been taken away. Even the base hospitals are now struggling. There have been many speeches saying that there was nothing from the previous government. I can tell you why the people supported me in the last election with regard to health. It was because of the promise to return the management of health back to the local areas. We have these huge area health services. In Baradine, which is a town that has 500 people, they have built their own doctor’s surgery and they have just purchased, with their own money, a house for him to live in. But they are at the beck and call of a bureaucrat who lives in Bathurst, 600 or 700 kilometres away. What New South Wales have done with the health service is depoliticise it. I do not mean that they have party-politicised it. I mean that the local chairman of the health board and the local mayor cannot go down and knock on the health minister’s door and say, ‘We need a physiotherapist,’ ‘We need a speech pathologist,’ or, ‘We need an oncologist that is going to come once a month.’ They cannot do that because the person who is in charge of these hospitals now is a bureaucrat. They are part of a chain. Their voice has been taken away. I have been having meetings in my office in Dubbo with nurses and doctors from the Dubbo Base Hospital. They come in almost under the cover of darkness, terrified that someone in the health service will know they have been talking to me, their federal member. The health minister has seen the faxes. (Time expired) 10939 16:19:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I find it completely hypocritical that the coalition would put this discussion of the public hospital system on the agenda. From what we heard earlier from the shadow minister, it appears that even from the bowels of opposition we are still hearing the blame game. They still have not worked out that the people did not want the blame game. In response to hearing that the Australian people cannot stand by and tolerate a declining health system, I have something for them: the people did not stand by and tolerate a declining health system—that is why we are on this side and they are on the other side. This all happened last year. So to come in here and carry on after 12 months that the system is not on track is absolute cobblewash. An opposition member—Cobblewash! DZY Georganas, Steve, MP Mr GEORGANAS —Well, you look for a word that can describe what has happened here today and there is not one. After 11 years of neglect, today they have the audacity to come in and pull this on. Figures show $1 billion was slashed in 2003 from public hospitals. There was $1 billion taken out of public hospitals, and it will take a lot of time to turn that around. We saw a decade of neglect, but the government is stepping up to the mark and is determined to deliver dramatic improvements in health care. The State of our public hospitals, June 2008 report is based on figures from when the Howard government was in power. I will read some of those figures out. In 2006-07, public hospital admissions increased by around three per cent. That is more than twice the rate of the population growth. When did this happen? It was in 2006-07. Who was in government then? It was the Howard government. Again in 2006-07, there were 6.7 million presentations to emergency departments, the equivalent of a third of Australia’s population. When did this happen? It was when the Howard government was in power, yet all we heard was the blame game. All we heard from the other side every time a question was raised by us when we were in opposition was, ‘Blame the states.’ The number of patients presenting to emergency departments between 1998-99 and 2006-07 increased by over 34 per cent. Three in 10 emergency department patients were not seen within the recommended time. This all happened under your watch; this all happened while the Howard government was in power. All states and territories, with the exception of New South Wales, had a lower percentage of people presenting at emergency departments seen in the recommended time than in 1998-99. Indigenous Australians represent five per cent of public hospital admissions, but only 2.5 per cent of the Australian population. On average, the longest waits for elective surgery procedures are for knee replacement—162 days median—and hip replacement—median 106 days. This is why we are determined as a Labor government to improve our hospitals. All these facts and figures refer to when the opposition was in government. Much work lies ahead of us. We know it is not an easy task, as the Minister for Health and Ageing said, to deliver a better health and hospital system. Much of this work has already commenced. Already, after just 11 months in government, we have a proud record. We will invest an extra $1 billion in public hospitals in the next year—the largest single-year increase in almost a decade. That is $1 billion extra into the health system; $1 billion more than the previous government had in there. We established the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission to drive large-scale reform. Reform is something that we did not hear at all about over the last 12 years. We have invested $275 million in 31 GP superclinics to help keep people well and out of hospital. We have begun a wide-ranging review of primary care and the Medicare schedule to create a greater focus on prevention in our health system. We are also committed to establishing a $10 billion Health and Hospitals Fund, the largest investment in medical infrastructure in Australia’s history. That is an extra $10 billion that was not there when you lot were in government. We have increased the overall budget for health and ageing to $50 billion for the first time ever. These are real reforms. We have also announced a plan to bring almost 10,000 nurses into the health and aged care systems. That is 10,000 nurses on the floors in hospitals to ensure that they deliver services for people. We have also begun work with the states and territories on a new Australian Health Care Agreement to end the blame game and improve our hospitals. As I said earlier, all we saw was 11 years of blaming the states for everything that went wrong instead of sitting down and negotiating with them and talking with them. All we had was blaming the states. There is much in our health system to fix after 11 years of neglect, and it does not end at hospitals. We are determined to look at health in all areas. We are committed to introducing the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. Instead of supporting the government in its reform agenda, the opposition are actually jeopardising it. Their not supporting the Commonwealth Dental Health Program in the Senate is causing pain and suffering for thousands of pensioners and other low-income people in Australia. There is an enormous need in my electorate of Hindmarsh, which has many elderly people, for the Commonwealth Dental Health Program; they want and need a Commonwealth Dental Health Program. It is a big need not only in my electorate but in many electorates. In South Australia the average waiting time for dental care restorative services is estimated at 18 months, for dentures 39 months and for specialist dental care 33 months. All these waiting times increased under the Howard government’s watch. Every time dental care was raised in this place the government at the time would wipe their hands and say, ‘It is a state issue—nothing to do with us.’ In South Australia the waiting time is a little shorter, down from 49 months in 2001—thank God for the Rann Labor government being elected back in 2002. They managed to reduce the waiting list. After Howard was elected in 1996, one of his very first acts was to abolish the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. The Rudd Labor government was elected on a platform that included the re-introduction of the Commonwealth Dental Health Program. However, dental care for pensioners and low-income families risks being stalled by the opposition in the Senate as they continue to not support the government’s program. There are currently about 30,000 people in my state on waiting lists who would receive immediate relief if the opposition were to support that program. We have heard before in this place the horror stories of people suffering with bad dental decay. The opposition can currently give these pensioners immediate relief if they choose to support our very important dental scheme in the Senate. They would be able to assist pensioners immediately by not opposing this program. By opposing this program they are only doing harm to these people and making them wait longer. The opposition’s record is quite bad. The Liberals cut funding by $1 billion in an already stretched system. They practised the systematic neglect of our hospital system for 12 long years. They played the blame game for 12 long years. Despite their belated recognition that they have made mistakes, the matter of public importance debate today is a clear sign that they have not changed at all since the heady days of government. In fact, I propose that the wording of this matter of public importance today be changed to, ‘The failure of the opposition whilst in government from 1996 to 2007 to deliver an effective public hospital system.’ That is what it should be. As I said, when they sat on these benches on this side they consistently refused to take any responsibility for the problems in our health system. Now it seems that they have the same approach—willing to blame everybody else but themselves for 12 years. Almost everybody knows that the blame game was the clear cause of many of the problems in our health system. We know they cut $1 million, we know they neglected reform and we know they failed to invest in prevention, knowing full well that those sick people would end up in state hospitals, and then they could just blame the states. Those failures are why the statistics you have heard in the last 48 hours happened on their watch. That is why the AMA talked about 1,500 people dying from overcrowding. But it is important to remember that these figures are figures from 2003. Who was in government in 2003? The Howard government! (Time expired) 10942 16:29:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —In the seconds left, I will just say this: with this bad policy the government will move 500,000 people from the private system into the state hospital system. The Rudd government takes the savings in one hand and with the other hand transfers the problem to the states in increased numbers in those queues. There is no double happiness in this. This is a double unhappiness for the people of Australia. That is the great deceit that is involved in this matter. The government needs to change its mind with regard to its lack of support for and undermining of the private health system, and do the right thing for this country and agree to the choice of two systems of health. Debate interrupted. 10942 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 10942 10942 16:30:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to highlight the important issue of community safety, particularly in the context of end-of-year celebrations of secondary school students, or ‘schoolies week’ as it is colloquially known. I refer the House to a report in today’s Herald Sun newspaper in relation to Jon Hucker, a young man who was seriously injured in an unprovoked assault two years ago during schoolies celebrations in Lorne. Mr Hucker’s skull was tragically fractured, and it took 18 months of rehabilitation to teach him to walk again and to feed himself. Mr Hucker has a message to young people: one punch is all it really takes to change someone’s life. Schoolies week should be a time of celebration and great enjoyment for people. It has become a rite of passage as they move from secondary school into the next chapter of their lives. Across Gippsland and across Australia there will be young people celebrating the end of high school, filled with that hope, enthusiasm and exuberance that youth brings. I would be the last person to tell young Gippslanders that they should not go out with their friends and let off a bit of steam but, as with most things in life, a bit of moderation is needed, and I urge young people to look after their mates. It is better to walk away from a blue rather than end up in a coma or imprisoned as a result of one stray punch. For those over 18 years old, by all means enjoy a couple of drinks if that is your choice, but do it safely and in the company of people that you know and trust. I do not wish to rain on the schoolies parade in any sense at all, but there are cowardly predators out there who will prey on drunk young women and seek to pick fights with young men. For those enjoying their end of year celebrations, as a father of four young children I urge you all to act responsibly and to look after your mates. In my electorate the coastal townships in particular will play host to many young people, and some of the major centres like Traralgon will have extra celebrations for the occasion. Our local police have done an outstanding job in the past, and I am certain that this year will be no exception. But there is always someone who takes it too far, someone who cannot go out at night without causing trouble, and our police cannot be everywhere, which is why I want to raise the broader issue of community safety issues and the government’s opportunity to invest in local community initiatives going forward. The city of Traralgon is the entertainment capital of the Latrobe Valley and it attracts thousands of young people every weekend. They come from right around Gippsland—from Sale through to Morwell and Moe—into Traralgon, which is the centre of the night life for the region. The majority of patrons are well behaved and enjoy a night on the town in complete safety. But there have been many incidents of violence and street crime in recent times, such as vandalism and damage to shops and vehicles, and the local business community has obviously had enough. Businesses are working with the Latrobe City Council and local police and have formed their own community safety committee. The previous government provided this committee with seed funding of about $150,000 to trial security guards at taxi ranks on the busy Saturday nights, and the reports from that trial have been very promising. The money has been spent, however, on this and other projects and on investigating other possible initiatives which may be able to be used in the Gippsland-Latrobe area, such as lighting and the use of closed-circuit television cameras not only to help make Traralgon safer but, more importantly, to help people feel safer as they go about their entertainment on a weekend occasion. The Traralgon CBD Safety Committee is now seeking funding through both state and federal government sources to continue hiring security guards in the future to help reduce trouble in the nightclub precinct on weekend nights, but there is no funding available to them at present. I know of several other communities across Gippsland which are facing similar problems. These communities know what steps they want to take to reduce the incidence of violence and to help make residents feel safer, but they cannot access funds to go ahead and implement some of these good ideas. Like Traralgon, the Advance Morwell group was also supported by the former coalition government and received an election commitment of $250,000 to install closed-circuit television cameras in the centre of town. The Rudd government has failed to take action in this area. I could keep naming towns and initiatives, but the key message I have today is that the federal government needs to make funding available in the future for such programs as the former coalition government’s National Community Crime Prevention Program. It will mean that communities can attend to these incidents of violence and work with liquor licensees in these towns to clean up trouble spots. I see it as a tragedy when parents fear for their children’s safety while doing something as simple as enjoying night life in their own local community. Naturally, security provisions and closed-circuit televisions do not go to the core of the problem of those people acting irresponsibly, but we can improve the safety of our streets through the use of security guards, closed-circuit television and, of course, the extension of education programs to encourage young people to act responsibly at all times. Australians have a right to feel safe in their community and the federal government should support local communities as they develop their own local solutions to local problems. 10943 10943 16:35:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I want to commend the Salvation Army on their prospective new crisis centre, which is to be erected in my electorate. It is addressing the issue of homelessness in a very thoughtful way—an issue which, since this new government and Prime Minister have been in office, we have been addressing in a much more serious way. An Australian Bureau of Statistics report released in September showed there were 105,000 Australians who were homeless on census night in 2006, up from 99,900 in 2001, with 16,000 rough sleepers in 2006, up from 14,000 five years earlier. Homelessness amongst kids under 12 has increased by 22 per cent since 2001, with 2,192 more children under 12 without a home on census night in 2006. There are more than 14,000 homeless people in metropolitan Melbourne, and that number has doubled since the 1990s. The rate of homelessness in Melbourne is almost four times that of regional Victoria. Many of these people often have severe mental health problems compounded by drug and alcohol addiction. It is numbers like these that have led the Labor government to refocus Commonwealth efforts to tackle homelessness after years of neglect by the previous government. My area, St Kilda, seems to attract many of these people because of the very thoughtful, hard work of organisations like the Sacred Heart Mission, who provide a healthy, free lunch every lunchtime for many of the people with mental health, drug or alcohol problems. They served 600 meals the day after Christmas, and they are to be commended for their work. On 7 October I attended a meeting between the Minister for Housing and the Salvation Army about a great new project in my electorate. The Salvation Army now have under construction a new purpose-built crisis accommodation centre. They currently have a smaller crisis accommodation centre that is insufficient to meet the demand that I have just described. Traditionally crisis accommodation has been dorm style, literally putting people—often with severe mental health, drug and alcohol problems—on top of each other. This new project will see each tenant living in a more dignified circumstance with their own apartment. Rather than the high-density, multistorey accommodation blocks of the past, this new model involves low-density, often single-storey, family and single accommodation units. At the meeting I attended with the Minister for Housing, Ms Plibersek, whose own electorate of Sydney faces similar housing problems to my electorate, the minister was impressed by the possibilities of this new project. She indicated that she would make sure that the federal government would do what they can to help with the project. The project is a good example of how all levels of government, NGOs and business can work together to achieve important social goals. The Salvation Army has worked with the Port Phillip Council and the state government on planning issues and the state government has provided $2 million in funding. Business has provided $1.5 million in support of this project. The Salvation Army still needs $3.5 million but it is hopeful about its prospects, especially in light of the federal government’s new focus on homelessness. I would like to acknowledge some of the people from the Salvation Army who have played a significant role in getting this program off the ground: Paul Bourke, the program manager, Jenny Plant, the crisis services manager; Doug Parker, the operations manager; the campaign board, known as New Life, which includes Chairman Margaret Jackson AC and patrons Dame Elisabeth Murdoch AC, DBE and Baillieu Myer AC. It was also my very great honour and pleasure at that meeting with the minister to meet the great and famous Australian General Eva Burrows AC. I also want to commend Peter Fox of Linfox. He has put half a million dollars of his own money into this centre and is busy raising another $1 million through business donations. If everything goes according to plan, this important new centre will be finished in April or May of next year. I have seen the site on which it is to be built, at the beginning of St Kilda Road. I could not think of more appropriate, secure accommodation for people with these kinds of problems to benefit from. I commend the Salvation Army on their important and practical work to address the issue of homelessness. 10945 10945 16:39:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —I have only been the shadow minister for health and ageing for a short period of time but I have met some wonderful and amazing people and I have read some incredible and inspiring stories. People who have diabetes and those who support the awareness of the growing epidemic of diabetes certainly tell a remarkable story and they should be commended for the work they have done in our country. I want to acknowledge in the gallery today Dr Gary Deed, the National President of Diabetes Australia. He leads an inspirational organisation that is making a significant difference in people’s lives. Tonight he will be attending the World Diabetes Day gala dinner in Canberra, which I know a number of people from this House will be attending. I know that it receives wide support—the cause generally but the dinner tonight and the celebration of Diabetes Day tomorrow in particular. I also want to acknowledge as part of my contribution to this debate tonight the wonderful work of the member for Pearce, Judi Moylan. She is a person with remarkable character who set up the Parliamentary Diabetes Support Group. She works very closely with Dr Mal Washer, Mr Mark Dreyfus, Senator Guy Barnett, Mr Dick Adams and Mr Cameron Thompson, the former member for Blair. With Diabetes Australia and a number of other organisations they have been able to make some tangible contributions directly through the work that they have done. For that, today I commend them. Our thoughts are with those people who are suffering from diabetes. Earlier this week, Diabetes Australia launched their online map, which can be found at www.diabetesmap.com.au. The statistics on that site show that there are 128,652 people in this country with type 1 diabetes and 709,919 with type 2 diabetes. The profile reveals a number of other statistics as well. People can visit the site to get an understanding of exactly how many people in their area have diabetes and what they face. The growing number of people with diabetes in this country is striking and it is something that, in a bipartisan way, members on both sides of this chamber need to be united in challenging. Diabetes Australia, along with a number of other organisations and along with people like the member for Pearce and her group, create awareness and strive for prevention, detection and management, but ultimately a cure. That is why the former government, followed by this government, provided important research funding, and some of the funding has been quite remarkable. I know that the member for Pearce and other players are very proud of the funding that has been able to flow to organisations. There was $5½ million allocated in the May 2008 budget to make insulin pump technology more affordable for families who have a child under 18 with type 1 diabetes. We want to work with the government to implement the coalition’s policy to make the pumps available to more people so that they can manage their diabetes more effectively. There was a $15.3 million commitment by the government towards consumables used with the insulin pumps. That builds on considerable work that was done by the coalition government in association with the industry groups. I think that was a highlight of our period in government and I am sure that it will continue under this government as well. At the dinner tonight I am looking forward to seeing Billy Renouf and Dominic Clark from my electorate. Together with a number of other young adults they have been on quite an arduous walk today, which, to their credit, they did as part of raising awareness of Diabetes Day. I am sure that they will be looking forward to having something to eat tonight and that they will sleep well when they get into their beds. They will certainly deserve a break. I have also had contact over the years in my electorate with Jack Yorston, who tells a wonderful story. He has got type 1 diabetes and he is reflective of the wonderful spirit of kids all around the country that deserve our support. (Time expired) 10946 10946 16:44:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —On Saturday, 25 October, I attended the Clubs SA 23rd annual Awards of Excellence presentation. Clubs SA is the representative body of community clubs throughout South Australia and includes social, sporting and service clubs. Firstly, I take this opportunity to acknowledge the valuable work that all of these clubs do in building community spirit, lifting community pride, building community cohesion and providing many local community services. Whether it is through the dining room facilities and the sports and recreation opportunities that they provide or through the many community events that they host, these clubs add so much value and life to the local communities that they serve. Secondly, I take this opportunity to recognise the work of the thousands of volunteers who are associated with these clubs. It is because of their voluntary work that many of these clubs continue to survive and it is because of their voluntary work that they provide the services at affordable prices to many people who would otherwise be left disengaged from the rest of society. Like so many other volunteers, these people do what they can because they care. What was clearly evident from the presentation night was that these clubs provide not only services to their own members but substantial support to other community groups and charities. I particularly acknowledge the support that Clubs SA gave to two young South Australians, James Greenham and Skye George, who recently walked the Kokoda Track as part of the Kokoda Youth Challenge. On the presentation night, they shared their incredible experience with guests. As someone who has not walked the track, I was very impressed with what these young people had to say about their experience. I also take this opportunity to acknowledge Cameron Taylor, President of Clubs SA, and his board members: Bill Cochrane, Kym Flanagan, Darren Chandler, Loraine Donaghy, Steven Grant and a long time friend of mine, Bob Raphael. These people are all dedicated community people and Clubs SA has grown and strengthened because of the board’s collective leadership and wisdom. Finally, I acknowledge the award finalists and individual category winners on the evening. They included: the Para Hills Community Club, the Clubhouse, the Murray Bridge and District Community Club, the Colonel Light Gardens RSL, the Renmark Club, the Marion Sports and Community Club, the Parafield Gardens Community Club, the Barmera-Monash Football Club, the Cobdogla and District Club, Racquets SA and the Salisbury North Football Club. All of those clubs do an exceptional job within each of their local communities. The club of the year award for a regional club went to the Clubhouse, located in the Barossa Valley. For the Adelaide metropolitan area, for the second year in a row, the award went to the Para Hills Community Club. I am pleased to say that the Para Hills Community Club is located in the Makin electorate and is well known to me. The club was built by local Para Hills residents in the mid-1960s and over the years has consistently been a social focal point for locals. In recent years, under general manager Cameron Taylor and chairman of the board Chris Goldner and his fellow board members, the club has been substantially redeveloped and modernised, now providing a range of services which include a social outlet for locals, dining room facilities—and it is an excellent dining room facility that they have there—a meeting place for many of the local community groups and an over-50s group. The club is also the major supporter of many of the local sporting clubs. In fact, it is 12 months almost to the day since our Minister for Finance and Deregulation and I visited the club. In a recent speech that the finance minister gave, he had fond memories of his tour and spoke highly of the club. Clearly, the club made an impression on him. Once again, congratulations to the Para Hills Community Club and all of the other award winners on the night. 10947 10947 16:49:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I rise to acknowledge and pay great respect to the community of Somerville on the creation of the Somerville Secondary College as an independent stand-alone secondary college. This has been a long fought project. It is a great outcome for the community. It has proceeded in three stages. The first stage was to have the school itself established. This was land which was to have been sold by the state government, and I am delighted to have been able to have worked with the Somerville Secondary College Committee, as it then was. They were people who had a sense of vision, purpose and hope that this town, which had grown and expanded and which had a great sense of unity, should have a secondary college. They were successful. Led by Phil Brake and many others, that committee went on to ensure that the Somerville Secondary College was established as a satellite of the nearby Mount Erin Secondary College. I am exceptionally pleased that the previous government was able to commit $3 million all up to the establishment of this new school. It has given many students the chance to have a school within Somerville. It has already been and will be for many decades to come one of the centres of life in this town. What is perhaps extremely impressive is that from that base there was always the imagination and the sense of vision that it would become an independent stand-alone secondary college. That decision has now been achieved. I congratulate Chris Lloyd, the new principal of Somerville Secondary College. That is to be the name. That was always the intention. That will be an independent school. Great work has been done by many people: by members of the community, by members of the school council, by members of the school teaching group and, of course, by the principal and his predecessors. It is with a real sense of joy that I am able to offer my congratulations to the school and the people of Somerville on the fact that they will now have a new Somerville Secondary College as an independent stand-alone college. In particular, I am pleased that the battle for a new school oval has been won. The oval project went to tender on 15 October. I understand that there were many different tenderers. I understand from the school’s principal that the project will be completed during the first term of 2009. It will be a great facility. It will be an all-weather facility. It will have a running track. It will be good not only for the students but for the town and people of Somerville. Beyond that, I also want to note that not only will this much-needed new oval be of value to the school but I am very hopeful that its use will be extended, and I know it is the intention of the school to extend that use with appropriate support to the community. In that context, I have written to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council to ask them to consider funding change rooms and other facilities, including lights, which would enable the community sporting clubs to make use of this new, all-weather oval with a running track in the middle of Somerville. That would be a great thing. This leads me to the third stage. We have embarked upon the first two stages of the big vision for a Somerville secondary college. Stage 3 will be the creation of years 11 and 12. We had thought it would take many years for the school to be established, but we were successful. We had thought it would take the best part of a decade for the school to be allowed to stand on its own as an independent year 7 to 10 school. Now, those two stages having been successful, we work towards this being a years 11 and 12 facility at the appropriate time so that Somerville will have a true secondary college from years 7 to 12. It is a great outcome. I am delighted with the progress. I thank all those who were involved, I congratulate everybody who has been part of the development of the Somerville secondary college and I say with great respect to the Mornington Peninsula Shire Council: we do hope that you can assist with the completion of the oval’s facilities. 10948 10948 16:54:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I rise today to acknowledge Dripstone Middle School in my electorate of Solomon for the fantastic efforts it makes on an annual basis in raising money for cancer research. My niece, Christina Francis, is a year 9 student at the school and I asked her to make a contribution to this speech, so it would be remiss of me to claim credit for what she has put on paper. I will read out what she sent me: Dripstone Middle School’s motto is ‘A Community of Achievers’ they live up to their motto in academic, sporting and cultural achievement, as well as being very active in the community. Dripstone staff and students believe that it is important to raise much needed funds for various charities. This fundraising has been part of Dripstone life for at least twenty years. In 2007 the students of this middle school raised over $3,000. $200 for the Humane Society International, $2 629 for the Bone Marrow Donor Institute and $243 for the Starlight Children’s Foundation— as well as taking part in the ‘Relay for Life’, where they raised over $4,000. She continued: Over the years they have been sponsoring a little boy named Connor who has eye cancer and have raised thousands of dollars for him. Every year on Dripstone Day they have a ‘Crop and Colour’ activity and the money raised goes to the Bone Marrow Donor Institute. Since its inception, ‘Crop and Colour’ has raised around $30,000 for various charities. In 2008 Dripstone has again taken part in ‘Relay for Life’ and expanded their range of charities, to include the ‘RSPCA’. The Relay for Life was once again held at Gardens Oval recently and it was again a huge success. 43 teams raised $182,000 with more cash expected to roll in over the coming weeks. This is a record amount of money raised and was very welcomed by the organisers and the Chief Executive Officer of the Cancer Council NT Helen Smith. ‘We had more cancer survivors’ walk than we’ve ever had’ Ms Smith said. ‘And that’s what it is all about ‘She added. Dripstone has a strong sense of community and enjoys taking part in community activities. The students are enthusiastic and keen to make a difference in the world. Students are encouraged to take part in Wednesday Afternoon Activities. These activities include The Dukes Mob where participants have the opportunity to interact with elderly members of the Darwin community. The students also partake in a leadership program that helps them to be more active in their community. I believe that Dripstone Middle School is committed to keeping up their community achievements and will be a valuable asset to the community for years to come. I thank Christina for her contribution. I would like to acknowledge the many fabulous people who perform as carers in our community. A couple of weeks back we as a nation celebrated Carers Week. Carers make a fantastic contribution to our community; they are the unsung heroes of Australia. Carers are selfless givers to us, selfless givers to our community and selfless givers to the people they provide care to. I encourage all Australians: whenever you see a person with a disability, go and introduce yourself to them. Then turn to the person who is with them and ask if they are their carer. If they are, thank them. Tell them that we appreciate what they do and that they do a fantastic job. I support the comments of our Prime Minister, who while opening National Carers Week said: The great thing about what you are doing here is giving a truly personal dimension to what is an extraordinary national story. The story of carers in our country is a narrative about Australia itself, it’s a narrative also about those who provide that care individually and each story is different. One statistic I found amazing is that around five per cent of Australians under the age of 25—that is, 350,000 young people—provide care for another person. Furthermore, 170,000 young carers are under the age of 18 and among these the average age is 12 to 13. These are great young kids who are trying to juggle their study, their work and their caring responsibilities every single day—outstanding. On 8 December carers will be rewarded for their tireless efforts when they receive a one-off payment of $1,000. This will be a welcome payment for the some 400,000 Australians who receive the carers allowance. In conclusion, congratulations to everyone in our community who works tirelessly to help others. Whether you are a carer, a fundraiser for research into illnesses or someone who always kicks the tin and donates, your efforts are appreciated. It is this community engagement, this willingness to lend a helping hand and this compassion and care that unite communities and build a better society. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 10949 16:59:00 House adjourned at 4.59 pm 2008-11-13 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 10950 Constituency Statements 10950 10950 09:30:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —Graffiti vandalism is a criminal act. It does immense damage to the appearance of properties and infrastructure and can reduce the degree of pride and comfort that residents have in their own neighbourhoods. Today I want to talk briefly about the campaign of one of my constituents, Mr Peter Nardone, to reduce the capacity of aerosol cans—the favoured implement of graffiti vandals—to be used for this illicit purpose. Mr Nardone is one of those people who reached the end of their tether after his business premises were continuously vandalised with graffiti. He set his mind to thinking of ways to make it harder for people to use aerosol cans for that purpose. His solution is an invention which would prevent aerosol cans from being refilled and also prevent spray nozzles from being replaced with nozzles that better serve those intent on vandalising people’s property. Normal spray nozzles on aerosol paint cans spray paint widely and in a fine mist, and obviously are not designed to be used for graffiti. But they can be easily replaced. I was shocked to learn that there is a thriving market in nozzles specifically designed for graffiti that can be easily purchased over the internet. Graffiti vandals simply remove the nozzles and replace them with the ones specifically tailored for their needs. You only have to do a quick Google search to find hundreds of suppliers. That is why Mr Nardone has been campaigning to Standards Australia to alter the standards for aerosol dispensers to ensure that, firstly, these products are incapable of being refilled and reused and, secondly, that the nozzles are tamperproof—in other words, they cannot be replaced with nozzles specifically designed for graffiti. It has been something of a personal crusade by Mr Nardone to get action in this area. Unfortunately, his efforts have so far been unsuccessful. While Standards Australia has given him a hearing, it has not been prepared to change the standards in a way that would mandate this approach. There are always a million reasons not to do something, but my concern is that the greater good of reducing graffiti has been sidelined, particularly by Standards Australia. All levels of government must work together in tackling graffiti, and I urge the regulatory authorities and the federal government to ensure that their actions are helping rather than hindering the efforts of state and local authorities in deterring graffiti vandals. 10950 10950 09:32:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —This year is a very important year for Redhead, which is a very special place in the Shortland electorate. It is very important because it is the centenary year of the Redhead Surf Lifesaving Club and the centenary year of the Redhead Public School. On 31 October I attended Redhead Public School’s ceremony to celebrate its centenary. At that assembly, captains of the school from the 1980s opened a time capsule that had been sealed 25 years previously. It was really interesting to see the information that came out of that time capsule. Redhead is a very special place. It is one of those places that has managed to keep its identity. It started as a little mining village and it still has a closeness and a strong community spirit that is reminiscent of that mining era when the community came together, worked together and lived very closely together. The working of the mine was very much a part of the way the community survived and lived. It was the lifeblood of the community. The school still has that very special feeling about it. It was a wonderful day. There were celebrations by the children and considerable reference to the history and the past events of the school. It has been a year of celebration by the school. In December this year Redhead Surf Lifesaving Club celebrates its centenary. It was formed on 12 December 1908 by the residents of Dudley Redhead. The first president was GH Thomas and the first secretary was EJ Doyle. It was actually the fifth surf club to be formed in the Newcastle area. Redhead Surf Lifesaving Club is a very special club. It is a very strong club—it is the strongest club in the Hunter. It has performed very well at the state titles and at the national titles. It is a club that performs well not only in competition but also in patrols on the beach. On 12 December it will be 100 years old. On 6 December there will be celebrations of the club’s centenary. (Time expired) 10951 10951 09:35:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —On 5 November Dr Brendan Nelson and I hosted the 2008 Paterson Citizen of the Year Awards. These awards recognise the outstanding contributions and achievements of the citizens of the Paterson electorate. The nominees were Jeanette Antrum, Lincoln Blissett, Patricia Burke, John Chapman, Michael Diamond, Eric and Laraine Dickson, Kathy Dowling from Lorn Gallery, Peter and Betty Economos, Deborah Gilbert, Joshua Gilbert, Anthony Harkin, Carolyn Harris, Justin Holland, Heather Kelly, Amanda Kennett, Gwendoline Neil, Kim Pemberton, Trevor Robards, Lieselotte Seadon-Hall, Robyn South, Betty Tooth, Raymond Tucker, Isaac Upton, William Waldock, Kurt Warden and Judith Wilkinson. The winner of the 2008 Paterson Junior Sports Citizen Award is Lewis Dorney. Lewis is an exceptional horse rider, holding a swag of titles that make him the envy of other aspiring young riders. In 2006 Lewis was the ABCRA’s junior runner-up champion and he was junior champion rider in 2007. He won the junior rodeo’s highest point score at Wauchope earlier this year. The winner of the 2008 Paterson Sports Citizen Award is Fay Shacklock. Fay has committed over 27 years of her life to taekwondo. She also volunteered much of her personal time at her local PCYC and the Forster Neighbourhood Centre and assisted with the World Youth Olympics held in Sydney in 2007. The winner of the 2008 Paterson Junior Citizen Award is Jade Alexander. Jade is an enthusiastic, diligent student and excellent role model. Jade has given many hours to help with school fundraising events, with $3,000 to be donated to local charities. The winner of the 2008 Paterson Corporate Citizen Award is Nelson Bay Golf Club. The club went to extraordinary efforts in raising over $130,000 for our local community, in particular raising over $30,000 for the Gibson-Tarrant families, which were touched by tragedy in a house fire which claimed the life of dear little Taya Gibson earlier this year. The 2008 Paterson Citizen of the Year is Ron Pile. Ron is an inspirational volunteer and a true leader for the Bulahdelah Rural Fire Service. Ron was a founding member of the brigade when it started with no more than a lean-to shed. Ron has been on call for the Bulahdelah community 24 hours a day, seven days a week, for over 50 years. Ron has always put the community needs before himself. A special mention must also go to an exceptional nominee, Myrtle Rissler, who is the tender age of 95 years. Myrtle has been volunteering at Raymond Terrace St Johns Church of England for over 60 years and has been a member of the Raymond Terrace Senior Citizens Committee for over 20 years. Congratulations to all those nominees and winners. Your efforts are more than appreciated by the community of Paterson. 10952 10952 09:38:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —This week we observed our national day of remembrance for the many service men and women who left their homes and their loved ones to fight in a foreign land for their country. This year’s Remembrance Day also marks the 90th anniversary of the end of World War I, a war in which more than 60,000 Australians lost their lives—at Gallipoli, on the Western Front, in the Middle East, on the high seas and in the air—making their final resting places in foreign soil. In 2002 I had the privilege of visiting the Gallipoli Peninsula, where I visited the battlefields where many Australians fought and also the cemeteries where many Australians have been laid to rest. On this visit I was particularly struck by some of the photos that sat at the top of the tombstones. What especially struck me was how young some of these men who bravely fought for the country were. These young men paid the ultimate sacrifice on the battlefield, many of them never having the chance to fulfil their full potential or have a family. A further 156,000 men were wounded, gassed or taken prisoner. I think it is very important to remember some of these casualties as well. These figures are immense losses, and striking, considering that Australia had a population of less than five million people at the time. In my electorate, more and more people are participating in Anzac Day services and Remembrance Day services. This is in part due to the great work that the local RSLs do, and this includes the Christies Beach-Port Noarlunga RSL, the McLaren Vale RSL, the Morphett Vale RSL, the Willunga RSL and the Beachvale naval association, who do a great job in providing education to the wider community about the sacrifices that were made by the Australian service men and women. As parliament was sitting, I was unable to attend the Remembrance Day services that took part in my electorate in the McLaren Vale memorial park, the City of Onkaparinga Memorial Gardens and the Christies Beach-Port Noarlunga RSL. However, I am informed by people that did attend that these were very emotional and moving services. 11 November is an important day for Australians to remember and certainly, as I have also heard from my electorate, there were many services held in schools around my electorate. I think we need to remember the contribution and sacrifice of the Australian soldiers and their families, and this continues more recently in the sacrifices made by our soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq. Successive generations uphold the values for which these brave Australians fought and I think we need to acknowledge that the spirit and dedication in Australia lives on. (Time expired) 10952 10952 09:41:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 0 Mrs VALE —Before the last federal election, the electorate boundaries within New South Wales were redistributed and my electorate of Hughes was extended across the Georges River to include the city of Liverpool CBD and the suburbs of Liverpool and Warwick Farm. I would like to take this time to acknowledge that since the last local government elections in September this year the Liverpool local government area has had a new democratically elected council and mayor for the first time since the state government placed the council under administration in 2004. The city of Liverpool today is a vibrant city on the move. The current population is estimated to be over 155,000, up from 120,000 in 1996. Liverpool is also one of the largest growing local government areas in New South Wales. More than 56,000 new residents have made Liverpool their home in the last 10 years and population projections predict that Liverpool’s population will reach 260,000 by 2019. Liverpool is also a young and diverse city. The median age is 20 years, a third of the population is 19 years or younger, 38 per cent of the Liverpool population was born overseas and 62 per cent of the population speaks a language other than English. But because of its youth Liverpool has a strong family focus, with 88 per cent of people living in family households. Couple families with children make up 71 per cent of family households, with only 4.5 per cent of the Liverpool population made up of lone person households. I would like to congratulate the new Mayor of Liverpool, Her Worship Councillor Wendy Waller, and the new deputy mayor, Councillor Peter Harle, on their election. I would also like to congratulate the new Liverpool city councillors—Mr Ali Karnib, Mr Gary Lucas, Mr Ghulam Gillani, Mr Tony Hadchiti, Ms Nadia Napoletano, Mr Ned Mannoun, Mr Mazhar Hadid, Ms Anne Stanley and Mr Jim McGoldrick—on their personal commitment to serving the people of Liverpool and on their successful election to office. These new councillors represent the rich demographic diversity that makes up the city of Liverpool and that makes it such an interesting and dynamic place in which to live. I look forward to working with the new councillors for the advancement of the people of the shared representative area of responsibility that we have in the greater city of Liverpool. 10953 10953 09:44:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —Rockingham is home to Fleet Base West. Rockingham produced a proud son awarded a VC in World War II and we are home to many of the 2,000 young Australian men and women who serve in our forces overseas. We are home to some of the brave young men of Western Australia’s own 11th Battalion, whose distinguished service began when they received enemy fire as the first ashore at Gallipoli, providing cover for the Anzac landings 93 years ago. One of the tragic mysteries for Australia has been the disappearance of and the search for HMAS Sydney. Today we are closer than ever to discovering what happened on 19 November 1941 when all hands were lost, 645 brave men of the Royal Australian Navy. Sydney’s loss created a lifetime of mixed emotions in our community, the unending devastation to family and friends, lives destroyed and dreams of youth lost forever, and lifelong struggles over whether the Sydney would or should ever be found. It took some time for family members to know that HMAS Sydney was lost. Telegrams were being received as Pearl Harbour was bombed on 7 December. Ten weeks after that, Darwin was bombed. The war was at our front door. In Rockingham, Leslie Taylor told me about losing his 21-year-old brother, Able Seaman Kenneth George Taylor. In November 1941 Les was a 17-year-old serving with the coastal guns stationed at Rottnest Island. The loss of his brother was crushing. He knew the Sydney had gone down after a fierce battle but how could his brother have gone with it? Les says it left a hole in his life. Sadly, Les’s mother Charlotte, who clung to the hope of one day finding out what happened to her son, died just a few months before her 100th birthday. Les Taylor is 84 this year. He donated $100 towards the search effort when he heard they were looking for the Sydney: ‘I wanted them to find her,’ he said. Les describes the finding of the Sydney as the best day of his life. He described it as being a relief to know at last where they are. Barbara Woods was the 14-year-old little sister of Ray, who also served on the Sydney. Barbara remembers her mother getting the telegram. She remembers the confusion and the search for her 22-year-old brother. She remembers never having closure. Barbara told me of her sense of relief at seeing the pictures of the Sydney in the newspapers and on TV and of now knowing what happened to her brother Ray. War creates loss, uncertainty and unending devastation for families. It creates many stories like that of the Sydney. But for Les and Barbara 19 November 2008 has special meaning. Now they know what happened, where and how. In Rockingham on 19 November we will hold special commemorative ceremonies and also two public information lectures to describe to the residents of Rockingham, a Navy town, what happened that day in 1941—so not only will closure be created; the people will also have more knowledge about those events. 10954 10954 09:47:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I wish to raise the issue of Dr George O’Neil’s Naltrexone clinic and the dire need there is for urgent funding approval by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. As I mentioned in May this year, Dr O’Neil’s clinic does a magnificent job in producing implants, administering them and providing the vital follow-up services to help drug addicts and alcoholics reform their whole lives and become functioning members of society. The Minister for Health and Ageing has provided information on the current level of federal funding, which is about three- quarters of a million dollars. However, Dr O’Neil estimates that it costs $2 million to $3 million a year to produce the implants and treat the patients who come to his clinic not just from around Western Australia but from all over the country. Therefore, while the current federal funding is welcome it does not come anywhere near the true cost which Dr O’Neil and his staff have been underwriting for some years. But this much dedication to improving the lives of others does have its limits. Obviously, the approval of the TGA for the treatment is vital and hopefully will be achieved shortly. However, more funding is essential. According to the government’s first hundred days orgy of self-congratulation, the government announced $50 million in funding to each state and territory to provide additional drug and alcohol rehabilitation services to Indigenous communities. Given that many programs have not had the tremendous success rate that Dr O’Neil has, perhaps the money would be better used replicating Dr O’Neil’s programs. The Indigenous communities could shake off the scourge of substance abuse, the root cause of so many Indigenous problems, and the wider community would have better access to treatment as well. My challenge to the government is to stop thinking like process driven bureaucrats and look at the big picture. Here is a program which is successful, economically responsible and so, given the massive burden of substance abuse to our society, I say: ‘Bite the bullet, Prime Minister. Ensure the program gets the TGA’s seal of approval as soon as possible. Let us save more lives, save more families and communities, save more money from fewer crimes, fewer insurance claims and fewer demands on our health services, especially mental health. Show true leadership and put our money where it is shown it can do the most good.’ 10955 10955 09:50:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Trade 1 0 Mr MURPHY —This morning I give a brief history of a remarkable constituent in my electorate of Lowe. Jan Daisley is a finalist for this year’s National Disability Award. More than 40 years ago, during a routine medical procedure, Jan experienced a cardiac arrest where she suffered severe physical impairment. This included speech impairment, spastic quadriplegia and loss of sight. If this were not enough, Jan later fought breast cancer. Despite her multiple disabilities, Jan did not stop living or achieving. Moreover, Jan set about changing the way society thinks about people with a disability. Described as a social educator who has influenced many of her teachers, lecturers, carers, colleagues, family and friends, Jan has been active in focusing not on her disabilities but on the needs and rights of others with a disability. After years of rehabilitation, Jan was transferred to institutional care. It is where many spend the rest of their lives, but not Jan. After years of campaigning, she was one of few to be transferred to a relatively independent group home. As a life member of People with Disability, Jan has since advocated for the rights of others to live in the community. Jan has been a source of hope for others that relative independence can be achieved with the support of groups such as People with Disability and a change in the attitude of governments to provide appropriate accommodation and care. What is so remarkable about Jan Daisley is her spirit to continue fighting for her independence and her tenacity to seek a change in attitude of those who told her it could not be done. Jan is a university graduate with a Bachelor of Education (Habilitation). She has also been awarded the Carroll and O’Dea Scholarship for her efforts in raising critical awareness on community issues, particularly in the area of ethics. In her spare time Jan has written two books: I Hear More Than You See and Rebels with a Cause. Both books describe the challenges she faced living with her disabilities. There is no doubt that Jan Daisley is a truly inspirational human being. I have had the pleasure of knowing Jan for many years, and I am very proud to be her federal member. I congratulate Jan for her tremendous achievements, and I am delighted that her efforts have been recognised. On the International Day of People with Disability, I will be attending the gala dinner where the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Jenny Macklin, and the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, the Hon. Bill Shorten, will honour 15 extraordinary people for their contribution to society. I salute Jan Daisley and the other 14 finalists. They are truly extraordinary human beings. I wish Jan Daisley and the other nominees the very best of luck. They deserve it. 10955 10955 09:53:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I thank everyone for attending my maiden Main Committee speech. I rise this morning to talk about the transition period, with the change of government, between area consultative committee work and the Regional Development Australia model and both the frustrations and the anticipation during that 12-month period. In particular, I highlight two particular projects—one good, one bad—in regard to relationship with government. The first is a good news story: the Hastings Early Intervention Centre improvements. The facility will be opened on Friday. The renovations provide a larger classroom, parent therapy and meeting rooms, storage for toys, a nappy change area and kitchen facilities. The Australian government provided $158,897, which was pur towards the construction and fit-out of the project and the project audit. The upgraded facility will benefit the Port Macquarie community significantly by providing a facility which addresses intellectual, physical, emotional, social, speech and communication development for children in the local area. I would like to take the opportunity to thank a few of the partners. It has been a very good community exercise, not only by the committee and former committees and staff of the Hastings Early Intervention program but also by the Port Macquarie-Hastings Council, which did a lot of work. Several local bowling clubs, West Port and Port Macquarie City, provided support. Support was provided by a local credit union, Coastline, and by the Port Macquarie Panthers Club, and there was also in-kind support from King and Campbell. It is very much a good news story and I congratulate everyone involved. Now onto the bad news story. Through the Regional Partnerships program there was a period in the six months leading up to the last election when politicians were behaving badly. Handshakes were done for photos, fingers were crossed behind the back, and unfortunately good community projects were left swinging in the breeze. The Wauchope-Bonny Hills Surf Club is one example of that. They just had their 50th anniversary. They are desperately in need of a new surf club, a new building. It is a good project. It is a community facility, not just a local surf club. Unfortunately, despite handshake commitments pre-election, it is a project that government has not felt committed to fulfil, rightly or wrongly. I guess that is politics. I will continue to chase that project. I think it is a good community based project and does deserve the support of all three levels of government. I would hope, through speeches such as this and through lobbying, that the minister in particular can also see the benefit of supporting Wauchope-Bonny Hills Surf Club and similar projects in the Lyne electorate. 10956 10956 09:56:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I rise this morning to talk about a very special young man who lives in the electorate of Bonner. His name is Joshua Burton. Joshua is a sufferer of juvenile diabetes and he is also a youth ambassador for the Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation. Joshua and his family deserve to be praised on the public record because of their tireless work to raise the awareness that is needed around this terrible disease, to encourage more in our community to be aware of the significant impact that suffering from juvenile diabetes has on many young people in Australia today, and to support the foundation and many others who are trying desperately to find a cure for this life-threatening and debilitating illness. As many people are aware, we talk a lot about diabetes in our community today. We talk about it in the context of the need for a healthier lifestyle, changing our diets and being more physically active, as a way to prevent the onset of diabetes. Juvenile diabetes is often caught up in that discussion and that campaign, but juvenile diabetes is quite different. It is not a lifestyle caused disease; it is in fact a disease that we do not understand. If we did, we would certainly develop a cure for it. It is not because of the way these children live, it is not because of what they eat—it is a disease that they have developed from childhood and so it is one that they have no control over. We must as a community support the foundation and these young people and their families in looking for a cure. Unfortunately, there are around 1,000 young people—that is, children under 18—diagnosed each year with juvenile diabetes. It is something that we in our very modern and technologically and medically advanced society could focus more on, not just as a government but as the community, to try and raise the much-needed funds to find a cure. I had the privilege of participating in the walk for a cure event that occurred on 12 October. I was there with Joshua and his family, walking on a very pleasant and sunny Brisbane Sunday morning. This was a tremendous way for people to raise awareness about this very important foundation and the work that it does. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Did you beat Josh? HVR Rea, Kerry, MP Ms REA —No, I do not think I did beat Josh. I was too busy talking away and enjoying a relaxing walk through the middle of Brisbane. I also had the very pleasant honour of launching the walk and saying a few words about this very important issue before the walk started. Josh got to press the trigger and start the walk. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded. 10957 Bills R3089 10957 Debate resumed from 12 November, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor: That this bill be now read a second time. 10957 09:59:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I am pleased to speak in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. The Rudd government made a commitment to a fairer, more compassionate Australia, and since November last year we have been reshaping society on a number of fronts. I think it was the Hon. Paul Keating, the former Prime Minister, who said that when you change the government you change the country. We have certainly seen that in Australia and more recently, in the last couple of weeks, in the United States. It is amazing to look at what has happened in the United States. Today I will refer to a little bit of literature to illustrate how much things have changed in the United States. One of my favourite books is The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave by Frederick Douglass. If you look at when that book was written and then move through to one of my top five books, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn by Mark Twain, or Samuel Langhorne Clemens, you see in that narrative the way that Huck treats the slave Jim and how controversial that book was. It is obviously a great work of literature, but at the time, in the late 1860s and 1870s, it was quite controversial. I did my honours thesis on The Autobiography of Malcolm X, by Alex Haley. It is strange that you could have an autobiography written by someone else, but in the story presented by Malcolm X, or Malcolm Little as he was originally known, you see how the United States has changed its relationship with what they call the original sin—that is, slavery. The United States was based on slavery, despite the fine words in its constitution and in the Declaration of Independence. When we look at 2008 with Barack Obama being elected President of the United States, we see how much that story has changed. Surely that election in 2008 represents, more than any other, how when you change a government you change a country. Thankfully, that is what happened in Australia in November last year—we changed the direction of the country. I will now take us back to Australia in 2008 and the Rudd government. We are creating a new industrial relations system—a much fairer industrial relations system that is bringing fairness back to Australian workplaces. We are delivering a better, fairer deal for pensioners and carers, we are stepping up to our obligations to boost international aid and, through the bill that is before the House, we are putting an end to the harsh and unfair compliance system put in place by the Howard government for people receiving social security payments such as Newstart Allowance, Youth Allowance, the parenting payment or special benefit. The previous government’s welfare reforms were more about penalising non-compliance than encouraging compliance. Unfortunately, it seems to be true to form for the Liberals to be all stick and no carrot. They have no faith in an Australian’s capacity to hear their better angels. They are more interested in penalising people rather than appealing to their better nature. Unfortunately, the Howard-Costello government blindly pursued these reforms despite the warnings of numerous welfare agencies. The National Association of Community Legal Centres described the Howard system this way: … at the core of the regime is an illogical and counterproductive eight week no payment penalty. It will be applied not only when a person commits a third offence (such as failing to attend an interview or a training course), but also as an immediate cut in payments for a “more serious offence”, including: refusing an offer of a suitable job (without a reasonable excuse); resigning without a good reason; failing to participate in full-time “Work for the Dole”, and being dismissed from employment due to misconduct. For the first time this harsh no payment regime will apply to parents with children and people with disabilities. Back in June 2006, the National Association of Community Legal Centres also warned the coalition government that they would see a surge in no-payment penalties. Once again the coalition ignored the NACLC’s advice. I refer to an article on the ABC News website by Simon Lauder on Wednesday 19 December 2007, with the heading ‘No sound legal basis for Centrelink penalties: Ombudsman.’ The article says: The Commonwealth Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan— very well trusted and respected— says, people were effectively forced to breach their obligations because they could not lodge their regular paperwork while they were being investigated. “Once a participation failure was under investigation, in some of the complaints to my office Centrelink officers had refused to accept the continuation form, which meant that the person would certainly be in breach and unable to demonstrate their continued eligibility for payment,” he said. …            …            … “But it certainly put the person in a real quandary about how they could reconnect and get the payment and what the future held for them.” “These were people now not receiving any payment and clearly, in some instances, in quite distressing circumstances.” Unfortunately that meant that we had a tenfold increase in the last three years. In 2004-05, there were only 3,800 non-payment penalties. However, last year there were more than 30,000 non-payment penalties, double that of the previous year. These are not just figures and statistics; they are actually real, living, breathing people like you and like me, and as a result of these penalties many of them have suffered terribly. Homelessness Australia estimates that at least 30 per cent of people who had an eight-week non-payment penalty imposed lost their accommodation. In other words, last year more than 3,000 people would have ended up living on the street as a result of these penalties, and as anybody who has ever worked in or visited a homeless shelter knows this can begin a spiral that takes somebody’s life out of control and into a world where nobody ever wants to know them, a life where stench and the loss of dignity are commonplace. Many Labor MPs, as you know, Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, went to visit homelessness shelters between the election and the commencement of parliament. It certainly was quite an experience for me to return to a place that I used to take school kids to to help in the soup kitchen and to see, 10 years on, some of the same people and certainly hear some of the same stories and understand how horrible a life it is when suddenly you do not have a roof over your head. Those 3,000 stories, which I have merely touched on, must be quite horrific. This bill before the House introduces a fairer compliance regime. It amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to introduce a new compliance framework for around 620,000 people. The coalition system was more about penalty and less about support. However, the approach contained in this Rudd government bill is much more carrot and much less stick. Firstly, the legislation introduces new no-show, no-pay failures. If a job seeker fails to attend a required activity such as Work for the Dole training or to seriously complete a job interview, they will lose one-tenth of their fortnightly payment for each subsequent day that they do not attend. This does not affect payments such as rent assistance or pharmaceutical allowance but will apply to Work for the Dole supplements. Next, this bill retains connection and reconnection failures. This will apply when a job seeker, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend an appointment with an employment service provider or does not meet their Jobsearch requirements. There is no financial penalty. However, the job seeker must attend a reconnection requirement. If they fail to do so, they will incur a one-fourteenth reduction in fortnightly payment for each day that they fail to so comply. Further, eight-week non-payment penalties will be imposed for persistent and wilful noncompliance. This will only be as a last resort and accompanies a new, comprehensive compliance assessment. For example, if a job seeker refuses an offer of suitable employment, Centrelink will impose a serious failure. Also, if a job seeker misses three appointments or six days of activities such as Work for the Dole, Centrelink will consider whether their participation requirements are suitable, whether they should be referred for a job capacity assessment or whether a serious failure should be imposed. That is, we will look at the individual characteristics of the person in front of us. Obviously, with this personal touch comes dignity and the person is much more likely not to get into that spiral that I talked about of becoming just another homeless person. Nevertheless, a serious failure will result in an eight-week non-payment penalty. As I said, we have mainly focused on the carrot but there is still a stick to be used if necessary. The big difference between the new system and the harsh Howard-Costello regime is that a non-payment period is reversible, depending on the circumstances. Under the current system, once a job seeker receives an eight-week penalty, they are not required to have any contact with Centrelink for that period and there is nothing they can do but ride out the eight-week non-payment period. That is often a very traumatic time, when they must turn to charities for support—or, even worse, to loan sharks and the like to get them through, where they pay exorbitant interest rates. The government believe that job seekers receiving taxpayer funded income support should work hard to find work and that job seekers who refuse to do so should be penalised. But we also believe they should be given the chance to explain themselves and to redeem themselves. This is the fundamental difference between the Labor Party’s approach to humanity and the Liberal and National parties’ approach to humanity. I know this from having spent a lot of time working for one of the community organisations in my electorate, the Kyabra Community Association, which deals with people in housing stress or people who, just because of their refrigerator breaking down, can end up living in their car. Circumstances have got to that point. A simple little payment like that can trigger someone being in rental arrears. Once they are in rental arrears they are on the black mark list for tenancy and they cannot get a house. They end up couch-surfing or, if they have kids, living in their car. My electorate is a reasonably well-off electorate, but people still turn up at the Kyabra Community Association needing money for petrol so that they can drive on to another park. It is incredible. Every morning when I go for a walk around my suburbs, I see a homeless guy who sleeps in the street in front of the shopping centre in Moorooka. It is incredible to hear his story. He is still able to receive payments; he is definitely not starving or anything like that. He chooses to live in the outer suburbs rather than in the city, where it is a lot tougher on the streets and people get rolled a lot more. He is able to stay in the outer suburbs. That is why it is so important that the government get these policies right. The cruel policies that were put in place by John Howard and Peter Costello were not appropriate. They looked good for that little bit of public posturing that John Howard like to put out there to show how tough we were on ‘dole bludgers’. But, unfortunately, they had horrific consequences and destroyed people’s lives. The Rudd government’s approach is much fairer. What we need to remember is that the overwhelming majority of job seekers do the right thing. There are a few who deliberately rort the system, and they should be penalised, but it should not be presented as if all of the people seeking work are an evil underclass. This is especially the case with the tighter economic times in front of us, when we will be looking to blame someone. Certainly, members of my family have been unemployed. I have even been to a CES on occasion—not for very long. That was the good thing about being a teacher and a lawyer: there was always plenty of work around. However, the new system before us provides a safety net for vulnerable job seekers to ensure that if they do the right thing and meet their Job Search requirements their payments will be reinstated and they can stay on their feet. In line with this government’s priorities, this bill also contains particular measures to improve the compliance regime in the bush. As someone who comes from the country, I am particularly interested in how this applies. The previous government, the coalition, failed to stand up for their electors in rural and regional areas. That is why we saw so many Labor people whose electorates touch on the bush being swept into power in November last year—because the National Party had betrayed the bush. I remember the National Party when I grew up; they stood up for the bush. Now they are too closely aligned with the Liberal Party. In fact, in Queensland we do not even have a National Party anymore. We have the Liberal National Party, or LNP. In inner city Brisbane, in my electorate, I go to functions and there is a Liberal National Party councillor attending with me. It is quite strange. It is like being back in St George, really. The new system in front of us will ensure that Centrelink considers a job seeker’s individual circumstances. So we are going from having a sausage machine to treating people with dignity and as human beings. For example, if we are looking at a job seeker in the bush, we look at the availability of transport, which may impact on a job seeker’s ability to attend meetings and meet their participation requirements. It is one thing to say in the middle of Brisbane that you can catch the train or, in Melbourne, that you can catch a tram. For places like St George or Cunnamulla the nearest town is 300 kilometres away, so petrol—or even getting a car—is a significant consideration. That is why we have a much fairer approach to the specific job-seeking circumstances of people in the country. As we all know—or certainly everyone on this side of the chamber knows—the world has changed significantly, economically, over the last few weeks. The global financial crisis has meant that the floor has shifted for so many people and so many businesses. So many decisions that were made by people with the hope and optimism of the beginning of the year have changed significantly. So as we face these uncertain times as a nation, when growth is forecast to slow and unfortunately we might see a rise in unemployment, we need to make sure that, with the few levers the government has, we get the mechanism just right. Now, more than ever, we need to see a fair employment service that focuses on our most disadvantaged job seekers. I return to what I talked about at the start: how when you change a government you change the direction of the nation. I said that about the Rudd government. I also said that about the government of Barack Obama, who will be inaugurated as President on 20 January 2009. That will be 200 years after Abraham Lincoln was born, and I think that is the theme the new regime will be going for on that day. It is amazing how much things have changed since Abraham Lincoln made the Gettysburg Address, probably one of the most famous political speeches ever. It was a two-minute speech that followed a two-hour oration from someone no-one remembers. Some other politician had gone on for two hours, probably trying to filibuster or expand to fill the day—you know how politicians are asked to do that on occasion!—so everyone was dozing off. Then Lincoln got up and made that brilliant, incisive speech that defined what America was about. Now here we are, 200 years after Abraham Lincoln was born, with a black American President, Barack Obama, being sworn in on 20 January. I hope to be able to watch that on TV, although I think I might have a new child by then, so that might keep me busy—but maybe, hopefully, it will give me time to watch the TV. These are incredible times. As I said, it is amazing to see how times have changed, from the story of the life of Frederick Douglass, a slave who became one of the great African-American activists, through to The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn—written by a white person, but one of the most confronting books about slavery and probably up there with Uncle Tom’s Cabin, which I also think is a great work of literature though not of the quality of Huckleberry Finn—through to The Autobiography of Malcolm X. Incidentally, that is one of Barack Obama’s favourite books. It is not on many of the lists, where he goes through more mainstream literature, but he has said elsewhere that it is one of his favourite books. I am impressed by that. It is certainly a book that moved a lot of people, and the Spike Lee film is true to the book. To return to the legislation before the House, the change of government has changed the direction of policy and we can see that we have a much fairer employment service that focuses on our most disadvantaged job seekers. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—And I commend the member for his efforts. 10962 10:19:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —It is a great pleasure to rise today to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. I am not sure that I can quite follow the contribution made by the member for Moreton. It was quite an extraordinary piece! But I will do my utmost to talk to this very important legislation. This bill distinguishes Labor from Liberal. It distinguishes the conservatives from the progressives. It is an example of two different philosophies. The Liberals and the conservatives have always fundamentally believed that disadvantaged people have only themselves to blame and, therefore, the only way to help the disadvantaged is to punish them. The conservatives believe the only way to deal with the disadvantaged is to blame them, shame them and vilify them. Labor have a different view. We believe disadvantage arises for a multiplicity of reasons. We believe helping people with disadvantage makes us a stronger community. We believe the conservatives’ view of punishing the disadvantaged is not just old-fashioned but also totally counterproductive. It leads to demoralisation. It puts families at risk. It puts workers who deliver these services at risk. Ultimately, it costs us more as a society and it costs us more as an economy. Labor believe in justice and encouragement. Labor believe in providing fairness and incentives. And we believe in evidence based social policy. This bill redresses the failures of the current system imposed by a former, mean Prime Minister. The purpose of this bill is to ensure compliance through a more understandable and equitable means of encouraging participation. This legislation establishes a framework that makes job seekers more accountable for their efforts to find and keep a job but also provides encouragement and support along the way. Encouragement, support and accountability are the values of this bill. The Rudd government is introducing these measures as part of a $3.9 billion package of reforms to the Australian employment services to commence on 1 July 2009. This legislation provides a new compliance framework for approximately 620,000 people who receive Newstart allowance, youth allowance other, parenting payment or special benefit and have participation requirements. This bill will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to give effect to the measures announced in the 2008-09 budget. These reforms are critical because over the past 10 years employment services have been operating under a policy and administrative constraints that have failed disadvantaged job seekers in the extreme. Just over 10 years ago the unemployment rate was 7.7 per cent. Whilst unemployment is now around 4.1 per cent, a significantly higher proportion of job seekers are highly disadvantaged and long-term unemployed. The increased proportion of long-term unemployed is a direct result of the previous, conservative government’s flawed policies. I want to make a specific point here. Let us think about it. We have had a significant increase in the proportion of long-term unemployed when we have had the longest-lasting economic boom in the nation’s history. What an opportunity that has been missed. What sort of heartless policy did the previous government put in place? We had a unique opportunity of economic good times to help the long-term unemployed, and what did the conservatives do? They punished them. They created a greater problem than was required. The conservatives’ punitive social policy hurt the unemployed, and it has cost our society, I believe, dearly. People who, for example, suffer from mental health issues or other disabilities such as language or literacy issues have found it even more difficult to work, due to the nature of this current framework. The current policy has created a harder core of long-term unemployed. But it is not just the unemployed and the disadvantaged who have suffered under the conservatives—business has suffered, too. These policies and constraints have also failed employers who desperately need skilled workers to fill vacancies. Australia is experiencing skill shortages in a number of critical areas and is looking at a shortfall of up to 240,000 VET qualified workers by 2016. It is vital for our economy and the future of economic growth that unemployment services and the compliance regime that underpins them work. This legislation is not about providing a free ride. That is the rhetoric of the conservatives. That is the ugly myth that the conservatives promoted to justify their punishing regime. It is absolutely too true that Australians believe that if you are on taxpayer funded income support then you should work hard to find work. The first goal of the new compliance system is to ensure job seekers meet their participation requirements and make every effort to get themselves off welfare and into the workplace. Job seekers who will not look for work will have their support reconsidered, and this is one of the key differences between the old legislation and the new. The new system will give job seekers the opportunity to explain the circumstances that led to the breach. In the case of the alleged breach, a job seeker will be asked why they are not conforming. This has the effect of providing an opportunity for both sides to discuss the issues. It is an opportunity to get a better understanding of why the breach has occurred and to give the job seeker a chance to respond. Centrelink will use a comprehensive compliance assessment to determine whether there are good reasons for a job seeker to not be complying—for example, someone who is in stream 1 but has recently become homeless and should therefore be in stream 4. Where an eight-week non-payment period is applied, the new compliance regime will encourage job seekers to take responsibility for their actions and to re-engage. Redemption is often the turning point—it can be invigorating; it can reinstil the confidence to continue. By humanising the process and recognising the breach, both parties can go forward, instead of welfare organisations being left to pick up the pieces and the front-line public servants being left to deal with the rage through the process. Australians with the right support and encouragement are more likely to overcome an extended period of unemployment. The key is to get the positive outcome, to avoid a welfare mess. Madam Deputy Speaker, excuse me, I have to pause for a moment. I have a dry throat. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—That is perfectly all right. HW7 Cheeseman, Darren, MP Mr CHEESEMAN —The alternative is disengagement; a downward spiral of human misery; a costly welfare process. Of course, keeping people engaged also provides better access and a window of opportunity for welfare organisations and our employment service providers to use their professional judgement. Under the current arrangements, job seekers who have failed to take part in an activity or program miss at least a fortnight’s pay before action is taken. In other words, there is a problem—which may be for any number of reasons—yet, instead of support, the first thing a person would get under the previous regime was a kick in the guts. In many cases, that is goodbye to hope; that is a downward, sometimes irreversible, spiral—often a personal crisis, a mental health decline, a physical health decline. According to Homelessness Australia, 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. Let us pause and think about that: 20 per cent of people at the end of eight weeks of loss of payments lost their accommodation and had to go to worse accommodation. How is that good policy? Does this help people to get back to employment? Does it help families in distress? Does it help the children of these people? No. The penalise-first approach costs the individual and the community. It costs us in welfare, it costs us in health and it throws many people over to already overworked charity organisations. The new compliance arrangements encourage participation and re-engagement as quickly as possible, in stark contrast to the current system. The new arrangements strike the right balance between participation and penalties for those job seekers who do not comply. A key element of the new system is a similar work-like culture to employment cultures. I will finish at this point because my voice is gone. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I thank the member for Corangamite for his sterling effort. That was remarkable. 10964 10:32:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —While I say it is a great pleasure for me to speak on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008, I feel great sympathy for the member for Corangamite for the condition of his voice. This is a great piece of legislation. It is something that everybody in the community should be really proud of. I believe it is a great piece of legislation because it really restores some balance in the employment participation area. If there is one thing that Labor can be truly proud of with this it is that we want to strike the right balance between fair and decent participation for job seekers, the unemployed, so that they have access to the right job network type of system to make sure they have the tools at their disposal not only to look for work but to gain work and that those who do not participate or meet their obligations to the community are penalised in a proper and fair manner. I think that is a reasonable position to take. It is a reasonable position to strike a balance between encouragement and incentive, and penalty and punishment. I have to say that it is quite sad that, for the past decade or more, that just has not been the case. I say that is sad because I think it has actually provided a great disservice to fair dinkum job seekers who are trying to do the right thing. The majority of Australians understand quite clearly that if you are out of work you should genuinely look for work and find a job because it is always better to be in a job than to be unemployed. On our side of politics, from Labor’s point of view, we believe very strongly that people who can work should work, and they should always be actively out there contributing to society—contributing to the community, contributing to the tax system and playing their part—and that for those who do not, who would deliberately shirk their responsibilities, who for one reason or another do not meet their obligations, there ought to be some sort of penalty. We do not walk away from that. We do not walk away from the fact that those who deliberately abuse the system should be penalised in some way, punished in some way, because they are dependent on the goodwill of the taxpayer and taxpayer dollars. We do not make any bones about the issue of dealing with people who deliberately and repeatedly shirk their responsibilities, who do not meet their part of mutual obligation. They have an obligation to society to be out there and, if they cannot find work, to at least genuinely be looking for work or enter into training programs—to participate in the system. I think that is the bare minimum, the minimum requirement: that they actively seek employment or actively participate in training and actively engage with the requirements that they need to meet as put by their case manager or someone else. So let us be clear at the outset of the debate that this bill is not about somehow weakening or growing soft or taking just a lighter view. This bill is actually about fairness, about restoring balance, about doing the right thing. It is about doing the right thing for job seekers and it is about doing the right thing in terms of the taxpayer and the taxpayer dollars. But what is wrong and what is sad is when you have a government, the former Howard government, enter into arrangements where job seekers were either harshly penalised or otherwise harshly dealt with in a manner which did not encourage them to participate. You had a contrary, contradictory system, which implied that it was trying to get greater participation from job seekers yet instilled and compounded a penalty system which actually discouraged people from participation; it actually removed them from the system. So we had a situation where the former Howard government gave the impression to the community that it was out there doing its bit, that it was being tough on job seekers, those who are unemployed, but their policy and their punishment regime really did not encourage job seekers or in any way give people an incentive to participate. When, for whatever reason, people were breached, they fell through the system and their entitlements were removed for a period of eight weeks—nonpayment for eight weeks. What did it actually mean? It meant the government washed their hands of that person, completely washed their hands of them, and walked away from them. No longer was that person required to participate, no longer was that person required to connect, no longer was that person required to engage. It was merely a punishment system: ‘We will punish you by taking away from you any source of income that you have without consideration of its impact.’ But at the same time, which I think made it much worse, there was no compulsion from the government to require that person to do anything during that eight-week period. Where is the sense in that? If you are going to punish someone, fine; do that. Breach them, take away their payment, but do it in a fair manner and then require them to make amends, to rectify that position. Look at why they are in that position; what should they now be doing? You cannot just wash your hands of them and say, ‘Right, for eight weeks we’re not paying you; we don’t want to see you, we don’t want to know you; go and sit on your hands idly and do nothing.’ That was all that was required. That was all that the previous system contained. We on this side of the House have a different view, and we have maintained that view: people should participate. There should be incentives in place to make them participate and there should also be penalties in place for people who do not want to participate. I fear that, while that is common sense and that would make sense to people listening, it is not just about punishing someone; it is also about trying to address their behaviour. Perhaps there is a particular issue for them. But if they just do not want to work they deserve to be punished by having their payments removed for a period of time. During that time, people should be retrained or required to participate, not just disappear for a period of eight weeks. I will get into the detail of some of the impact of that policy of the previous Howard government, not only on the job seeker but also on the community, on the Job Network agencies and on the charitable organisations that look after people who cannot look after themselves or who find themselves in desperate circumstances. I think the great tragedy of the Howard government’s ideology on this was that it was just about punishment. It was about removing somebody’s income for a period of time. There was nothing else in the former government’s policy that encouraged people to do anything, bar sitting on their hands. The former government’s policy was: ‘We’ll take the money off you. Now go away; we don’t want to see you.’ That was the clear message and the clear policy. What we are doing today through this bill is finally restoring some balance between participation and penalty. We believe that both should occur and both should occur in a balanced manner. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill before us today is a positive step for welfare compliance. It is in stark contrast to what we saw from the now opposition for more than a decade. What the Rudd government has done is to introduce legislation that will give effect to measures that were announced in the budget, and they are designed to introduce a new job seeker compliance system. The changes are part of a broader scheme—New Employment Services, a new scheme that will begin on 1 July 2009. The reality is that the welfare penalty system, the punishment system, just did not work. It did not encourage anybody to seek work—in fact, it was a disincentive. If you think about it in practical terms as to what it would mean for those who may be doing the wrong thing—and there is always a bludger here or there, and they should be punished; we are not disagreeing with that—not everyone should be thrown into the one basket. If you are going to punish someone, do it with measure and do it with some recourse in mind—some sort of rehabilitation, some sort of avenue to say, ‘We’re going to do something extra. We don’t want to just continually punish a person over and over; we want to get them into a job. We want to get them to participate. We want to get them to contribute to the tax system.’ Shouldn’t that be the goal? Or was it the goal of the previous government, the Howard government, to simply punish people? ‘Blind punishment—outcome irrelevant.’ It is just about withdrawing their payment for a period of eight weeks. I am sure that some people who received a number of breaches and had their payments removed for eight weeks said, ‘I’m not happy. Whether I was in the right or in the wrong, my payment has been removed for eight weeks and I now don’t have to do anything. I can just sit at home.’ Maybe, out of spite, some of them did do that. ‘Stuff them all,’ might have been the view of some people, ‘If no-one’s going to require me to do anything during that period, I’m not going to.’ It is the wrong message. It did not carry with it any incentive and it was bad government policy, bad public policy, bad welfare policy. It was bad work participation policy, and the evidence of that is all around us. It is all around us in the simple statistics that come out of the Job Network and out of Centrelink. During the period of change when the Howard government introduced this penalty system, this punishment system, there was a doubling of the amount of non-payment periods from previous years. It seems that at the same time the punishment came in there was this zeal from the then government to enforce it even harder. The old system was a populist policy of ‘three strikes and you’re out’. That always sounds good. You can always carry on and hype it up. The old ‘three strikes and you’re out’ always sounds good, but what does it achieve? What does it do? What is the outcome? What is the intended public policy outcome from the government? I think I have some idea. Firstly, it was just about the politicking, because ‘three strikes and you’re out’ just sounded good. Who cares about the job seeker? Who cares about work participation? Did it achieve a goal; did it actually achieve an outcome? In public policy and in government, you should at least have some goals and outcomes to say, ‘We’re trying to achieve this end, we’re going to do it through this public policy and we’re going to penalise people along the way and reward people along the way.’ What was the intended outcome? One would have to assume that the intended outcome of a penalty system for job seekers not participating would be to encourage them to further participate, to actually go and get a job, and, if they cannot get a job, to attend training, to further attend courses or to at least participate, turn up to interviews and do all of that. Was that the outcome of their penalty system? No. In fact, there was no change; none at all. Participation rates did not go up, turn-up rates did not go up and the number of people actually finding more jobs did not go up as a result of this policy. So I think it is clear to anyone who understood it or who perhaps was impacted by it that in the end the government were not interested in actually getting people into jobs. They were just interested in penalising them because it looked good—‘three strikes and you’re out’, that sort of image. There are always a few who think you have just got to keep punishing people without a view to actually reforming some of their behaviour or actually getting them into a job in the first place, which might actually help. The previous government, the Howard government, also did very little to actually look at the specifics of the problems that people might have had, why they could not comply or did not comply. For a whole range of people there were some very serious issues. We know as a matter of fact, from a number of agencies, that around 15 per cent of those people who received an eight-week non-payment period and lost their income for eight weeks actually had a mental illness and really struggled. They really struggled with daily life and, for their troubles, the already complicated life and struggles they had were further complicated by having eight weeks—two whole months—of any income removed from them. No consideration was given to their plight. There were a further five per cent who were already in very unstable housing arrangements, which complicated their ability to turn up to a job interview or to participate in some way. And I have got to say this, even though it is pretty hard: the government did not care; they were not interested. It was never about trying to improve the lot of these people; it was just about punishing them and having this populist image out there of being tough—‘We’ll just keep punishing people’—but never really taking into consideration just what impact their policies were having on ordinary people. In the end, punishment for punishment’s sake is always bad public policy. Punishment should be about sending clear messages that people need to change their behaviour. If you can do that punishment in a measured way and escalate it up rather than have an all-in, all-out type method, then you have got some hope. The previous government’s policy was ‘three strikes and you’re out for eight weeks’, a non-reversible decision which left people in a position where they could not really alter what had taken place—whether they were right or wrong, and there would have been both. There would have been some times when they were in the wrong and deserved it and other times when they had some really genuine extenuating circumstances, but you could not do anything about it. Under our policy, it is an escalation process. We will actually work with that person. We will breach them and we will give them a penalty and we will punish them, but we will escalate it up. We will say, ‘Here’s your first punishment and it will be commensurate with what you have done. If you do not turn up for one day, you will lose one day’s pay.’ I think that is a fair thing. That is what we all expect in our working lives. I think that is what a fair Australian would expect: if you do not turn up for a day, you will lose a day’s pay unless you have got a very good reason—unless you are sick or there is some really good reason why you could not be there. And there are good reasons. Sometimes people cannot get there because their public transport fails them or their car fails them. We are not talking about wealthy people. We are talking about people who might be really struggling, and there are these circumstances. By escalating it up, you give people an opportunity. You say to them, ‘We’re going to punish you today because you have done the wrong thing, but we’re going to give you an opportunity to redress that. You have an opportunity to grow and learn, to participate and do the right thing by the community and the taxpayer by further participating.’ This legislation does that. It is measured, it is structured and it is about delivering an outcome that it is in the best interests of the two most important people in this debate—one, the job seeker, who needs to actually find a job; and, two, the taxpayer. They are the two most important people in this debate. It is not about populist policy. It is not about looking good or looking bad or ‘three strikes and you are out’ and other catchphrases. It is about actually delivering an outcome and making sure that those people who can work do find work and that, for the people who struggle to find work, we find the cause of that struggle. An effective use of taxpayer dollars means that, when we spend money on people looking for a job, we get an outcome. It is not just about penalties; it is not just about punishment. Punishment with no goal in sight is useless. We have the data and statistics on this: it did not actually effect any change. If the goal was to punish people to get them to change their behaviour, it did not work. It is as simple as that. Find anywhere where it worked. What we actually saw was a doubling, on average, if not more—and in my electorate of Oxley it went up to 109 per cent—of the breaching and penalty regime. It actually doubled. Was there a better outcome? No. That is unfortunate. I have to say that that is unfortunate because at least if the policy had worked you might be able to stand up and say, ‘I did not like the policy because I thought it wasn’t measured and scaled and a whole range of things. I thought it was punitive. But at least it did have an impact. At least there was a 50 per cent reduction and there was incentive for people and they were encouraged to go out there and find work.’ But the outcome was the opposite. It was a disincentive. Instead of re-engaging the job seeker, it turned the job seeker against the agency. It made it even harder for them to go out and find work. For eight weeks that person understood that they would not get one cent and it was irreversible. So what did they do? They went off and sulked and did nothing. They were required to do nothing. If the government had been serious, they would have breached them for eight weeks, taken their payment away from them for eight weeks and then said, ‘Now you will attend this or there will be further breaches. You now will participate and you will understand that you need to meet your obligations.’ But the government did not do that. Their policy was just about the punishment; it was not about participation, reconnecting or doing something for the taxpayer. As a taxpayer, I think there is an expectation that my tax dollars will be spent in a way that means they are not continually respent on the same problem because you cannot fix it. Fix the problem. Deal with the core issue. We are not defending anyone who is a shirker. If you are a shirker and you are not meeting your obligations, you will be penalised. Under our policy and legislation the penalties still exist, but they escalate through. We are going to give people opportunities. We are going to make sure that we work with them. We are going to make sure that, in the end, the goal is good public policy. It is about saving taxpayer dollars. It is about getting people into the workforce and making sure that they contribute to the tax regime in this country and to the community. (Time expired) 10969 10:52:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —It is certainly a pleasure for me to get up and speak today on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. I would like to commend the member for Oxley for his impassioned speech. He understands the nature of his electorate very well and how the current legislation has certainly had major impacts on electorates like Oxley. It is not unlike the electorate of Forde where we do have a lot of dislocation and problems that are enhanced by the draconian approach of the current legislation. It is important in the current economic circumstance that we encourage people into the workforce. This bill will encourage participation and compliance. This will be achieved by establishing a framework for a new compliance system that will make those who are seeking employment more accountable for their efforts to find and keep a job. This is very much along the lines of the policy of Labor governments generally and certainly the Rudd government in terms of a need for social reform. Looking at the previous government’s approach to this issue, I think it was just too hard. Our view, with the Labor Party’s very strong understanding of social justice, is to consider ways to support people who find themselves in the difficulty of being unemployed. The way to support people back into the workforce is not to have a penalty that is very hard and has major effects across the board. For electorates like Oxley and Forde, the current legislation is very city-centric. It does not understand or have consideration for the difficulty that people have in their mobility around an electorate such as mine. I have spoken many times in this House about far-reaching areas to the southern end of my electorate, and those who have heard me talk about Duck Creek Road before will understand that it is an area of extreme remoteness. There is no public transport and very poor road infrastructure. That has a major effect on how we apply legislation to support people to find a way back into the workforce. I think the Howard government became tired on a whole range of issues. This was one issue that they felt it was better to leave in the too-hard basket. Essentially, it left a whole range of people finding themselves dislocated in our communities. The Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 will amend the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 to give effect to the measures announced in the 2008-09 budget to support the new employment services, in particular the introduction of a new job seeker compliance system. The new compliance framework will apply to Newstart allowance, youth allowance for persons who are not full-time students or new apprentices, parenting payment for persons who have participation requirements and are not new apprentices, and special benefit for nominated visa holders. A key feature of the new framework is the no-show, no-pay penalty. This new penalty will deter noncompliance and encourage re-engagement. As I said, re-engagement is what this is all about—giving people opportunities to train their way back into the workforce. It applies to a job seeker who, without reasonable excuse, fails to attend an activity or a job interview or intentionally acts in a manner that is reasonably foreseeable which may result in an offer of employment not being made. The no-show, no-pay penalty will be equivalent to one work day of a job seeker’s basic rate of payment and any approved program of work supplement—normally 10 per cent of a job seeker’s 14-day instalment. When you compare this with the current eight-week, non-payment penalty, which is counterproductive and has wider impacts on society, it is clear that the new legislation will better incentivise job seekers, and that is really what this is all about. The bill contains several minor technical amendments designed to clarify and improve the operation of the current payment-pending review provisions, particularly in relation to the start date of penalties following the decision to apply a penalty. In his second reading speech the Minister for Employment Participation stated that the key reason why these changes are necessary is that the current compliance system has resulted in thousands of counterproductive, non-discretionary and irreversible eight-week, non-payment penalties. For the duration of these eight-week, non-payment penalties there is no requirement for the job seeker to look for work or to have contact with either their employment service provider or Centrelink. The consequence of this failed approach to compliance and an obvious defect in the system is the eight-week separation of job seekers from participation requirements, including looking for work, gaining skills or undertaking work experience. My background is as a TAFE institute director, a position I held for some time. Training was a very big part of our role in society—certainly for governments at all levels. In the years of the Keating government, training was a major focus. Essentially, training to a large degree has to be part of how we support people through these changes. The results speak for themselves. The former government system has failed on noncompliance. 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. If the current system were effective, it would have resulted in decreasing numbers of penalties because more job seekers would be participating. These figures confirm that the existing arrangements are just not working, particularly in an environment of strong employment growth. Certainly in South-East Queensland in my electorate it is quite difficult for large employers to get adequately trained staff. To have people falling out of the loop at a greater rate certainly rings the alarm bells. The change to the compliance system set out is part of the $3.9 billion package of necessary reforms to Australian employment services that commence on 1 July 2009. These reforms are crucial because in the last 10 years employment services have been operating under policy and administrative constraints that have hindered disadvantaged job seekers, their families and their communities. These policies and constraints have also failed employers, who desperately need skilled workers to fill vacancies. I have used the example of the electorate of Forde, but it applies generally to many parts of Queensland. Certainly in the resource rich areas of Queensland, where a lack of capable and competent people to perform tasks means that we have high demand, we should be able to channel people who are available into those job opportunities. In the last 17 years of economic growth we have had improved job prosects for thousands of people. On the other side of the coin, many others have had a bleak employment outlook. As I just mentioned, we are still experiencing skill shortages—something that was not addressed by the previous government—and this has been clearly identified by the Rudd government as our priority. There is a priority for training and support. The member for Oxley has made the point very well many times that this is about giving people opportunities. Without a doubt the best social security we can have in this country is through giving people job opportunities, a career path and the ability to increase their skills. The general wellbeing—certainly psychologically—of any person, and that person’s family and all of their contacts, depends on their self-reliance and independence, and their ability to look after themselves and to take advantage of great job opportunities without considering penalties simply because of their circumstances. The harshest element of the current system is the eight-week, non-payment penalty. It is not hard to envisage the situations that come out of eight weeks of non-payment—people unable to pay their bills or their rent. This can cause people to become destitute and dislocated, just adding to the potential for community stress and dysfunction. As I have mentioned before, in my electorate of Forde we have a major demand on rental properties. At one stage people had access to affordable rent and there were available rental properties. If you consider that people have no continuity in their income you can imagine the stresses of being unemployed. They may then be further concerned if a breach occurs—sometimes because they did not receive a letter or because a piece of information went missing. They were very much dependent on the administrative systems being able to accommodate and understand the processes. I am sure that the staff of Centrelink were very understanding of people and their situations, but at the end of the day they had very little latitude in terms of how they could ease the distress of people who, for whatever reason, may have breached a particular condition of their payments. As I said, not having the income stream for two months, and having people evicted, certainly leads to issues of hunger. While that almost seems, in this day an age, an anomaly in our society, I know, from the groups that operate in my electorate—I am sure it is the same in many other electorates—that much support goes to families who simply do not have enough food to put on the table. A large component of that is people who are not only unemployed but have, for whatever reason, been penalised for some form of noncompliance. We can see how this issue can contribute to the housing crisis and charities being overwhelmed by people needing food and clothing. As I said, the unfortunate part of our modern society is that there are people who are in all sorts of situations at different levels. There are people who have quite generous salaries and there are people who are simply not getting by, who are highly dependent on a government system. For that reason we should not be penalising people who find themselves in that situation—not to the degree of this eight-week arrangement. This legislation allows a more measured approach to people being penalised for noncompliance, whatever might have caused that noncompliance. It is an irony, when you consider the global financial issues that confront us now, that a major questioning at the moment is about executives on high salaries and benefits. As I understand it, one company in the US—a failed bank—had paid their top executive over $468 million over a period of 10 years, in salaries and bonuses. I remember that in the inquiry there was a great protest from that particular individual who said, ‘No, it wasn’t $460 million; it was only $320 million.’ It was an enormous amount of money. The reality is that people who were operating in that environment had major failures and were noncompliant in terms of the sorts of things they were doing and yet they still got a benefit. Yet the people who are least able to look after themselves in our society get punished in such a harsh way—through taking the very means of their existence away from them. The dependency that people have, in receiving those sorts of benefits, shows that this is not an adequate way to do this. A measured approach is certainly the way to approach it. According to Homelessness Australia, 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. These job seekers are some of our community’s most disadvantaged people. Against the issue of the excessive executive salaries that I spoke about, it just does not make sense that people are having their means of survival taken away from them when they are breached. This issue with job seekers is one that confronts us all. The first goal of the new compliance system is to ensure job seekers meet their participation requirements and make every effort to get themselves off welfare and into a job. As the member for Oxley said, this is about making people responsible for their actions. A system of breaching is an important part; it is part of the incentivising. But the harshness of the penalty has to be something that is very measured and I believe that this legislation will certainly resolve that. The current system provides little of deterrence or early intervention. A major concern is the lack of immediate consequence for initial failures to complete activities. It comes as one big wallop—and the eight-week breach of payments is a major wallop. An important element of the no-show, no-pay failure is to promote a work-like culture to employment services. If a job seeker does not attend an activity that they are required to attend without a reasonable excuse, it will result in the job seeker losing one-tenth of their fortnightly payment for each day they do not attend. This does not affect rent assistance, the pharmaceutical allowance or the youth disability supplement, but it does apply to any supplement the job seeker is receiving for participating in Green Corps or Work for the Dole. As is currently the case, access to healthcare cards and family tax benefits will not be affected. When the job seeker resumes participation, it will result in a resumption of payment. Resuming participation will result in resumption of income support. A no-show, no-pay failure means that noncompliance will have an immediate financial impact, but the extent of the penalty will be in the hands of the job seeker. Another key difference between the current and the new system is that in the current system a job seeker who gets an eight-week penalty must serve it no matter the circumstances or if they assume an activity. As I said earlier, this is draconian and certainly puts more pressure on the services, particularly the Centrelink staff who have to deal with enraged people. If you have ever looked at or joined the queue at a Centrelink office, or have an understanding of the frustration of people in this process, you will find Centrelink staff are very dedicated to their job—but it is a tough job. Adding this level of pressure is just not fair on those people who are working hard as servants of the public but are being berated by people who for some reason have been dislocated in the system. Under the new system, any job seeker subject to an eight-week, non-payment penalty for persistent noncompliance or refusal of a job offer can have their payment reinstated if they agree to undertake a compliance activity. This will generally be 25 hours a week of full-time Work for the Dole for eight weeks, but may include other similar activities as appropriate. We need to provide encouragement to people to engage with the system and get people back into the workforce. The electorate of Forde is part rural-regional and part metro. It has quite a diverse range of communities. The lack of services and public transport means that people have added pressure when they are looking for a job. It is necessary for our economy and future economic growth that we try to get people into the workforce, and it is important now, more than ever, in the current economic climate. The current global financial situation will put pressure on all areas. Employment will no doubt be a possible victim. Manufacturing industries are usually the first affected by slowdown or some cataclysmic financial event, such as what we are seeing in other parts of the world right now. The seat of Forde has some major industrial areas—the Yatala Enterprise Area being one. It is currently one of the largest industrial areas in the country. It also has a fairly large manufacturing base. They are continually looking for workers and people with particular skills. When there is a downturn, people in the manufacturing industry are usually the first to suffer. Contact made with my office about the system has been made by people who have been concerned about the way the current legislation has been enacted, and this is something that has been going on for many years. As a new member I very quickly became aware of the pressures that people found themselves under in dealing with the whole job-seeking arrangement. Of the areas in the south of my electorate, which I have said before are large areas for future growth, the area of Bromelton has been announced as a state development area, which means an area of development controlled by the state. It will be a major area of investment for infrastructure in building what will be the largest industrial centre in the country. Currently I have one of the largest areas of development, in the Yatala area, but for the future it is considered that within only seven or eight years there will be 8,000 jobs taken up by that particular development in the Bromelton area. The positive side is that, with the economy running at a certain level, there are huge opportunities in my electorate for 8,000 people in what will be service and manufacturing industries. Those people would also be victims of any major change in the financial circumstances. If, for whatever reason, bad times come, we must ensure that people who are locally and regionally based who do not necessarily have the opportunity to travel out of their areas will be looked after under our systems and ensure that they will not be penalised simply because of the circumstances of where they live and issues of mobility. As I have said many times in this House, my electorate of Forde at the northern end is only 40 kilometres out of the city of Brisbane. From that point to the farthest end, a distance of some 160 kilometres, there are seven or eight communities which are not serviced by adequate infrastructure or public transport. People who lose their jobs in regions of my electorate cannot necessarily afford to run the two cars that they need to get around the electorate. If they are out of work, a breach because of noncompliance for whatever reason puts them in an even worse situation. They do not have the opportunities that many people in the city regions have and I am sure that any member of this House who represents a country, regional or remote area will understand exactly what I am talking about. So, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker, for all of those reasons I commend this bill to the House. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—For the information of the House, having been called today at various times Mr Speaker, Mr Deputy Speaker, Mr Acting Deputy Speaker or Mr Deputy Acting Deputy Speaker, I note that the correct term is Deputy Speaker. 10974 11:13:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —Thank you for clarifying that vexed issue for us today, Mr Deputy Speaker! I rise in the chamber in support of the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008. This bill amends the Social Security Act 1991 and the Social Security (Administration) Act 1999 and principally concerns the introduction of a new job seeker compliance model. The bill will introduce a new social security compliance structure for approximately 620,000 people receiving Newstart allowance, youth allowance, parenting payment or special benefit for those who have participation requirements. The measures contained in this bill will restore balance, fairness and equity to the job seeker compliance regime. Not only will the compliance regime be made fairer but it will also function more effectively. Over the past decade the former Howard Liberal government presided over a harsh regime based on inflexible punishment of apparently non-complying job seekers. This rigid and increasingly flawed approach saw serious breaches punishable by an eight-week, non-payment period more than double from 1,600 to 3,200 people in the financial year 2007-08. Not only were noncompliers deprived of all financial benefit for that eight-week period but they were also effectively locked out of the job seeker system. There was no requirement for them to seek work at all during that period, nor was there any requirement for them to make contact with Centrelink or their employment service provider. Under the former, Howard government, this perverse compliance regime amounted to a double disincentive to good outcomes for the unemployed: the system punished noncompliers but did nothing to improve their chances or their likelihood of finding solutions. This system was a manifest failure, especially for the vulnerable and disadvantaged unemployed. The greatest tragedy was that, despite falling unemployment levels in the 10 years from 1999, the proportion of people on unemployment benefits for more than five years rose from 74,000 to 110,000. Many service providers and welfare agencies have reported that the system originated by the Howard government relies on a ‘penalise first’ approach that alienates noncompliers further from help. This system can also tend to exacerbate situations of severe personal crisis for vulnerable job seekers, including homelessness. Homelessness Australia has estimated that up to 20 per cent of people who underwent an eight-week, non-payment period lost their accommodation or were forced to move to less appropriate housing. I know this has been noted by many speakers before me. It is a point that is extraordinarily important. The current compliance system has resulted in many thousands of eight-week penalties which have produced no productive outcome. In addition, the breaches are non-discretionary and they are irreversible. Job seekers suffer an eight-week separation from their participation requirements, which produces no benefit to anybody. The bill before us today, however, proposes changes to the existing regime that will actually encourage participation. Participation is the goal of the new system proposed in this bill, and the measures contained within it will do much more to ensure compliance. The bill retains an appropriate balance between participation and penalties for noncompliance. This balance between carrot and stick is evident in the detailed provisions of the bill. To encourage a work-like culture in the provision of employment services, a no-show, no-pay arrangement has been introduced. Failure to attend a required activity, without a reasonable excuse, will see noncompliers incur a penalty of one-tenth of their fortnightly payment for each day of nonattendance. Failure to connect with a required job seeker activity, without a reasonable excuse, will invoke a mandatory reconnection activity. If this is not attended, it will cause a financial penalty of one-fourteenth of payment for each day missed. The eight-week, non-payment period penalty will be retained but only for persistent and wilful noncompliance, such as missing three appointments or six days of job seeker activities or refusing a suitable job. There is no room in this legislation for tolerating those people who deliberately rort the system. Once penalised, a job seeker will have to undergo an intensive compliance activity of up to 25 hours per week. Under the existing system, a job seeker need have no contact at all with employment services during an eight-week penalty period. In contrast, the new system requires them to actively look for work during that period, to take responsibility for their own action and to reconnect with the job seeker network. Another measure in the bill ensures that a job seeker can have their payments re-instated if they participate in a compliance activity. This could not happen under the old system, where the eight-week breach was irreversible. One of the significant differences between the old system and the new system is that job seekers will be asked, during their compliance activity stage, why they are not complying. They may, for example, have recently become homeless, a circumstance which can have devastating personal consequences and can materially affect a person’s ability to participate and seek work. Of course, the new arrangements contain hardship provisions that may be applied at all stages of this process. There is a strengthened safety net that protects vulnerable job seekers. The measures I have just outlined mean that the employment services bill brings into existence a strong but fair and equitable compliance regime. The stark contrast with the Howard government’s policies on employment services cannot be clearer. When the present opposition was in power, it had no concept of fair and reasonable reciprocity between job seekers and the government. On the contrary, its compliance system was harsh, inflexible and punitive. The facts are these. During the year 2006-07 there were approximately 16,000 eight-week non-payment penalties applied to non-compliant job seekers who had failed to show up for scheduled appointments. In 2007-08 this had doubled to around 32,000 eight-week non-payment penalties. The opposition’s position in relation to the treatment of Australians seeking employment is uncharitable and punitive. It is not only harsh policy but also a failure—a failure because, instead of decreasing the number of non-compliant job seekers in the network, this system doubled the numbers of disenfranchised and marginalised job seekers. These people had an eight-week breach slapped on them and had to find the means to live without any income support whatsoever. It is hard to believe that the numbers of people wilfully and deliberately thumbing their noses at the system could have doubled overall in the space of just a year. In my electorate of Robertson, over this period the rate of applied penalties rose by a staggering 79 per cent. The policy of the Howard government failed because the application of an eight-week non-payment period as a response to a technical administrative breach is fundamentally flawed. It does not recognise the wide variety of events that have led to noncompliance. It cannot recognise blameless noncompliance because the measure is mandatory and non-discretionary. Herein lies the fatal flaw. A punitive act employed as a means to ensure compliance fails when a large number of non-compliance situations arise from circumstances largely beyond the individual’s control. In simple language, there are situations where calling Centrelink is not the first thing on your mind. They are crisis situations that occur in life when you have little time to deal with anything but the immediate emergency. When a person loses their job or is hit by some other major catastrophe, this has a roll-on effect on the stability of their home and family. This can have serious, adverse effects on their self-esteem and their coping mechanisms as well as their ability to change their circumstances. There is nothing more time-consuming than being homeless, jobless or both. Living hand-to-mouth, moment to moment, borrowing cash from family or friends to see you through and putting in applications for rental accommodation in a market with vacancy rates of less than one per cent, as there are on the Central Coast—nothing can be more exhausting. Yes, there are circumstances when letting Centrelink know about your changed circumstances is the last thing on your mind. On the scales of justice, this noncompliance does not actually constitute a breach of the implicit social contract between you and the rest of society that you undertake when you receive participation payments as a job seeker. For those individuals who wilfully and persistently seek to dodge their responsibilities and refuse to participate in employment and employment-readying activities, the eight-week non-payment option remains. What will be interesting to see in the coming years is the number of breaches recorded for wilful and persistent noncompliance. I pause to consider the competing claims made by the parties in the parliament. Some honourable members have fallen into the trap of typifying welfare recipients, particularly many job seekers, as dole bludgers. I quote National Party senator for New South Wales John Williams from his maiden speech on 15 September 2008. He referred to some unemployed people as ‘simply getting a free ride on behalf of taxpayers of Australia, and it is about time they received a touch on the backside with a cattle prodder to get them off their butts’. This statement reveals simple and blunt language, of course, but also the prevailing attitude of the opposition. It is not a truthful or accurate portrayal. Is the senator saying that grandparents under the age of 65 who have primary care responsibility for their grandchildren are in fact dole bludgers? In my electorate I have spoken to members of the community who find themselves in difficult straits trying to juggle primary carer responsibilities with the obligations required by job-seeking appointments and interviews. That is not because they are lazy or wilfully avoiding responsibility; quite the opposite. These are individuals who have taken on a second parenthood when their own children, for whatever reason—be it death, mental illness or addiction—have become unable to parent their children. These grandparents have become full-time parents but they are not fully recognised for the role that they play. Meanwhile, they must keep up with the narrow and non-discretionary obligations placed on them by the current legislation. Relief for this group must be found. The legislation before us today goes some way towards providing room for circumstances such as these, but further work still needs to be done. The old and hackneyed stereotype that the opposition still holds about job seekers is just too simple and fails to really look at the circumstances that lead to individuals becoming chronically unemployed. Without intelligent examination of the socioeconomic, educational and health circumstances affecting people experiencing these difficulties, the opposition has systematically marginalised and derided large numbers of people. These are people whose only crime, perhaps, is having a mental illness or having experienced a life crisis with which they have failed to cope. The current employment services regime, put in place by the former Howard government, makes for bad public policy. It has led to mounting pressure on the charitable and community sectors, which are seeing the increasingly negative impacts of harsh policies as people pile into homeless shelters. Many who experience an eight-week non-payment period do not stay afloat. It is also recognised that the mandatory application of the eight-week non-payment period has increased the likelihood of individuals losing their current accommodation and standing a much higher risk of becoming homeless. The Welfare Rights Network has reported: The relationship between this penalty— the eight-week non-payment policy— and major dislocation, including homelessness, relationship breakdown, increased mental stress, illness, violence and crime is both categorical and direct. This is simply not acceptable. Government policy should never contribute to such outcomes. Policy should not be the device by which hardship becomes poverty and disadvantage becomes disenfranchisement. The Rudd Labor government is committed to social inclusion and a fair balance of mutual obligation that takes into account the full circumstances of the people involved. The previous government’s policy did not improve compliance for job seekers; it systematically failed to do so. Fear is not simply a motivator that will keep job seekers reporting to the employment services when life’s problems crash in upon them. The Rudd government is determined to do better. I quote Sally Sinclair, from the National Employment Services Association, who, on 24 September, said: A major improvement [introduced by the legislation] will be the introduction of Comprehensive Compliance Assessments to ensure that we have a safety net for vulnerable job seekers. These assessments will identify if a job seeker cannot comply as a consequence of complex life circumstances such as domestic violence, cognitive impairment and mental health issues, rather than being wilful in their failure. The government’s policy takes adverse circumstances such as these into account. It directs agencies to pause a moment and ask of job seekers: ‘What is going on? What are your circumstances?’ Not everyone on the dole is looking for a free ride. Many are experiencing personal difficulties. That is why the safety net is there. There is no doubt that there should be a reciprocal relationship between unemployed people needing assistance and society providing them with interim support. The terms of that support—where it ceases; what triggers can rightly show the intention, or lack thereof, of a job seeker—are all subject to debate. The government believes that the measures contained in this bill strike a sincere balance between positions. They do not deny the possibility of wilful noncompliance, but neither do they unjustly aggravate the dire circumstances of individuals caught in tough times who are just trying to find their feet. I commend the bill to the House. 10978 11:29:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Since the resumption today of this debate on the Social Security Legislation Amendment (Employment Services Reform) Bill 2008 I have been sorely disappointed at the presentations of government members. They failed in their addresses to look at the history of this issue, when breaching first began with the Hawke-Keating government. That government struggled with how to get unemployed people re-engaged in the workforce. That is what it was all about. The process of Welfare to Work was to get people re-engaged in the workforce. This has been a crucial issue for people, particularly people in my electorate, who found great difficulty in being able to cope with that which was put upon them, especially the punitive measures that affected women in rural areas. So what did we do? We did not just can what had gone on in the past. What we said recently was that we would go to Brendan O’Connor and tell him, with Salvation Army support, that we will get a group of people together and have a discussion, which we did. Everybody involved with unemployed people in the electorate of McMillan was invited to come to a forum. We had the forum and we put the issues that were raised in that forum to the minister. Some of this legislation has actually come out of the forum that we ran on behalf of basically rural women with regard to the effects on them in their given electorate. This has been an issue all the way through from the Hawke government to the Howard government. The intention of Welfare to Work was always well based, with the support and welfare of the unemployed person at its pinnacle. That is what the program was all about. These are minimal changes. What you have seen in the addresses today were attacks on the Howard government, basically for no reason, and an expression by every member that the actual program was correct—that the legislation was correct and that this is what we want to achieve. The new government is trying to achieve exactly what we were trying to achieve, just in a new way. Mr HAYES (Werriwa) 11:32:00 —I move: That further proceedings be conducted in the House. Question agreed to. 10978 Bills R3095 10978 Debate resumed from 16 October, on motion by Mrs Elliot: That this bill be now read a second time. 10978 11:33:00 May, Margaret, MP 83B McPherson LP 0 0 Mrs MAY —I rise today to speak on the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. At the outset, let me say that the opposition has a number of reservations about certain aspects of the bill. I shall elaborate on those reservations further in my speech. That being said, the bill is largely uncontroversial. It seeks to ensure that provisions of the Aged Care Act accord with changes in the aged-care industry and addresses gaps in the aged-care framework. Caring for older Australians is a huge challenge. It requires careful planning, appropriate funding and dedicated staff. It requires acknowledgement that the ageing of our population is undoubtedly the biggest social issue that Australia and indeed the developed world faces. The challenges are enormous, but even more challenging, I would argue, is the planning that must begin now in response to our rapidly ageing population. In September, the Productivity Commission released a research paper titled Trends in aged care services: some implications. It paints an alarming picture of the future of aged care in Australia. According to the paper, there will be a significant increase in demand for aged-care services over the next 40 years. The number of people aged over 85 is expected to increase fourfold by 2047. Today, approximately one in seven Australians is aged 65 years or older. That is 2.8 million people, or 13.4 per cent of our population. By 2050, the percentage of people over the age of 65 is expected to rise to one in four. The impact this will have on the aged-care sector over the coming years should not be underestimated. We live in a society that demands, and rightly so, that we take care of our older citizens and give them every opportunity and support to live with dignity and with respect. In order to achieve that, we as legislators must provide policies and legislation that give all Australians confidence that our aged-care sector is delivering the optimum level of care for all senior Australians who require it. That optimum level of care will need to become more diverse and deliver a more flexible service that will respond to the changing health needs of the aged. The former coalition government placed significant emphasis on wide-ranging reforms to deliver a high-quality, affordable and accessible aged-care system that met the needs and preferences of older Australians under the act. In her second reading speech, the Minister for Ageing correctly asserted that the aged-care industry has matured significantly since the Aged Care Act 1997 was first introduced under the former coalition government. With that maturity over the past decade, the sector has evolved from one where the owner of an aged-care facility also provided the day-to-day operation of the facility to one where increasing levels of investment in the sector are coming from larger corporate entities. There is no doubt that a consistent and modern regulatory framework must support this evolution in the industry. One does not need to be a particularly gifted prophet to predict that the aged-care sector in a decade from now will look vastly different to the aged-care sector delivering services today—and, of course, today’s aged-cared sector looks vastly different to a decade ago when the Aged Care Act was first introduced by the former coalition government. This bill before the House today will bring about greater consistency between the regulatory framework and contemporary business practices, recognising the change in business models over the last 10 years. The opposition supports the measures in the bill for clarifying and identifying key personnel and the role they perform within an organisation. This measure is about transparency and accountability of those delivering aged-care services to older Australians. Another measure that the opposition supports is the further protection of accommodation bonds. In recent years, there has been significant growth in the value of accommodation bonds held by aged-care providers. In fact, more than $6 billion is currently held by approved providers in accommodation bonds. I am sure members on this side of the chamber need no reminding that it was the Howard government who introduced the Accommodation Bond Guarantee Scheme in 2006, which guaranteed the repayment of bonds if a provider were to enter into insolvency or become bankrupt. The introduction of the guarantee scheme was a good thing, both for providers and for residents. Without a doubt it brought about greater confidence in the industry. The measures in this bill will further strengthen the protection of accommodation bonds by extending the scheme to include lump sum payments which are paid by residents to enter a facility that, at the time the payment is made, is not an approved provider but subsequently becomes an approved provider. Under the measures introduced in this bill, should that provider enter into liquidation, residents’ lump sum payments will be guaranteed through the scheme. This is an excellent measure and brings about more confidence for those paying those bonds. Another excellent measure in this bill is the aim to reduce the number of unnecessary assessments by aged-care assessment teams. There are some assessments, it is fair to say, that are either unnecessary or that are being reviewed too frequently. This includes the need for an annual assessment for residential respite care and approvals for high-level residential care. Given ongoing approvals are generally granted at the time of reassessment, it is unlikely that the person being assessed will no longer require these services. This measure is in fact aimed at streamlining assessments, reducing red tape and, hopefully, reducing waiting times for assessment of older Australians. This can only be a good thing, particularly as I know that in many areas waiting times for ACAT assessments can be weeks and sometimes even months. The minister has indicated in her second reading speech that following these amendments to the ACAT assessment process negotiations will commence with the states and territories to ensure that the greater efficiencies provided for in the bill will result in shorter timeframes for ACAT assessments. I hope the minister will report back to the House on these negotiations, as I can advise the chamber today that lengthy waiting times for ACAT assessments are causing unnecessary stress on our elderly residents. As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I do have a number of reservations with regard to this bill, which I would like to outline to the chamber. These reservations and concerns have in fact been raised with me by the aged-care industry. I think that it is important to advise the minister of the issues and encourage her to work with the aged-care industry to seek some positive outcomes to these concerns. There is no doubt that the aged-care industry is at crisis point, and providers around Australia are experiencing low and deteriorating financial returns. Given the funding constraints that providers are experiencing, it is extremely disappointing that section 22 is not being amended to address inequities in the system where a resident is assessed as being low care when in fact the resident is high care. Stakeholders involved in the consultation process of this bill were led to believe that these inequities would be addressed. Under the new aged-care funding instrument, aged-care providers are frequently finding that an aged-care assessment team’s assessment of a resident’s care needs do not reflect their true care needs—that is, many residents are being assessed as low care when in fact they require high care. The difficulty lies in the delay that a reassessment of a resident’s care needs takes. This reassessment by an aged-care assessment team—an ACAT team—can take a number of months. Hopefully that will be streamlined, but there are cases known to us where it can take weeks and even months for that reassessment to occur. During that time, however, the facility is only being paid a low-care subsidy, even if the resident is found to be high care. Upon reassessment, payment of the subsidy is not retrospective. What this means, in essence, is that providers in many cases are taking care of high-care residents but are only receiving a low-care subsidy until a reassessment has been undertaken. This non-retrospectivity of the level of subsidy paid is having a big impact on the bottom line of providers and needs to be addressed immediately. Another area which I have real concerns about is items that come under section 65 of the act. The clause introduces an unreasonable degree of subjectivity that I believe undermines the integrity of the act. Clause 65-2(c) widens the power of the department to enable it to impose sanctions on behalf of future aged-care residents. The department already has wide powers to impose sanctions where breaches have been found to have occurred. I am therefore at a loss as to why the bill seeks to insert a new clause which deals with future care recipients. Further, clause 65-2(da) of the bill introduces a new concept, which is the ability of the department to impose sanctions to act as a deterrent against future noncompliance. Again, this is of concern to me, as the amendment widens the secretary’s power to make a judgement about the use of sanctions as a deterrent to future noncompliance. Noncompliance occurs at a point in time. The power to impose sanctions as a deterrent against future noncompliance introduces ambiguity and complexity into the legislation. The subjectivity of the above two provisions introduces an amount of uncertainty that does nothing to strengthen the act in any way. I respectfully suggest—I ask—that the minister look at these areas of concern and engage in discussion with the aged-care industry to address these issues. Each of these issues has been raised by the aged-care industry itself, and they are issues, I believe, that should be considered as part of the inquiry by the Senate committee to which the bill has been referred. The safety and protection of elderly residents is of paramount concern to both providers and families of residents. The minister, in her second reading speech, alluded to changes to the aged-care principles under the Aged Care Act which directly address the safety of residents, and this is a measure the opposition supports. In fact, this measure strengthens the principles which were introduced under the former, coalition government. The detail of what is intended has not been provided, but I understand from the minister that these amended principles will be introduced on 30 November. Of course, the safety of residents should never, ever be compromised, and these principles will ensure that unsuitable people are not working with frail older Australians. For the record, I read a recent report from Aged and Community Care Victoria regarding the current system of police checks. A number of concerns were raised in the article about the current arrangement and the fact that it does not provide for continuous tracking of offences and that police checks only reveal a snapshot of the criminal history and do not give an ongoing, up-to-date record. There were also concerns raised about the variations in spent conviction schemes from state to state and varied definitions in categories of crimes and offences. I would ask the minister to consider the proposal from Aged and Community Care Victoria about whether or not a national system could be administered by one federal government department or agency to replace the current system of police checks. For the most part this bill is supported by the aged-care industry, but it would be remiss of me today not to highlight some of the concerns we in the coalition hold for the future of the industry and, indeed, concerns the industry itself has for its future. Despite the positive attempts at reform contained within this bill, I still believe there is a long way to go in reforming the aged-care sector to reflect the needs of our ageing population. The industry needs a bipartisan approach to deal with the range of challenges currently on the radar. I do not exaggerate when I say the aged-care industry is in crisis. Without the right approach to policy and legislation, without the right approach to addressing the needs of Australia’s ageing population over the coming years, the viability of the industry will be in extreme jeopardy. Many providers are operating in the red due to funding constraints. Only last month, Grant Thornton’s interim survey was released, and it showed that the return on investment of a high-care bed was 1.1 per cent and, because of the non-viability of the sector, industry is finding it difficult to attract capital. With regard to this bill, I believe there will be additional financial burdens on approved providers in complying with their new and amended obligations. This will act as a further deterrent of investor confidence in the industry. This is a very real concern, because we need to encourage providers to take up more bed licences, but the opposite is happening. Providers are walking away from the industry. They are returning bed licences and making decisions at a board level not to apply for further licences. There is in fact an undersubscription of those bed licences, and we saw that in the last funding round in Western Australia and Tasmania. A division having been called in the House of Representatives— Sitting suspended from 11.50 am to 12.06 pm 83B May, Margaret, MP Mrs MAY —In continuing my remarks on this aged-care legislation, a further factor in the decision is the volume of red tape, paperwork and compliance requirement which is taking the focus away from the care of Australians. I therefore urge the parliament to consider the extent to which the additional and amended obligations proposed in the bill will affect the ability of industry to provide the high level of care that older Australians expect. The Australian community take the care of our most elderly and frail very seriously. We expect older Australians to have access to high-quality and affordable aged-care services, but as staff are weighed down by paperwork the focus is taken away from care. In the coming years, the aged-care industry will need to respond to the changing health needs and longevity of Australians. As a country we will need to respond to the increasing number of Australians suffering from dementia. There will be a growing prevalence of comorbidity—people living with two or more diseases at the same time. The changing patterns of disease will create the need for greater diversity in the care needs of older Australians. But diminishing returns on investment may in fact see providers exit the industry and the needs of caring for older Australians will certainly suffer. Baby boomers will want more choice in the type of facility in which they want to invest or indeed spend the remaining years of their lives. As I said, the viability of the aged-care industry in this country is under threat. It is under threat at a time when the ageing of our population is growing at an alarming rate. The industry is facing numerous challenges to deliver first class aged care to older Australians. To meet those challenges, the industry needs confidence and assurance from this government that it is listening and will address the funding needs of the aged-care industry. At the end of the day, it is the frail, older Australians who are going to be affected. In closing, I do commend the minister today for strengthening the Aged Care Act 1997, but I urge her to work cooperatively with industry and indeed the opposition to develop policy that will sustain a healthy, vibrant industry that will meet the needs of our ageing population. It is imperative that a review of our aged-care regulatory and funding arrangements is undertaken as a matter of urgency. The opposition is not opposed to this bill. However, we reserve our opinions on a number of matters pending receipt of further information from the Senate inquiry. 10982 12:09:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I rise today to take the opportunity to support the Aged Care Amendment (2008 Measures No. 2) Bill 2008. This bill provides the most extensive changes to the aged-care regulatory regime in the last 10 years and it is the first broad set of changes for aged care under the Rudd Labor government. Older Australians deserve high-quality care regardless of whether they are in residential care or receiving community care in their own homes. Older Australians are and have always been an incredibly valued asset in our community. They have helped shape this country. They have shaped the composition of modern Australia, and they will continue to make a significant contribution to society with a lifetime of skills, knowledge and experience. This bill before the chamber today highlights how serious we are about older Australians and how committed we are to one of the major challenges faced by the nation—that is, protecting our aged and frail. I regularly take the opportunity, as I am sure most members do, to recognise the contributions of older Australians in our local communities not only to their families but also within the communities themselves. I encourage the participation by older Australians in various community activities. Only last month, I had the opportunity of presenting six community service awards to older Australians on behalf of my community of Werriwa. Between them, the six recipients clocked up almost 20 years of service to our community. Such an effort is more than worthy of recognition and appreciation. The award recipients were: Samuel Oliver, who was nominated by the Lurnea Adult Activity Centre; Alf Cooper, Elizabeth Henderson, Gwen Scherer and Dorothy Kerr-Lansom, who were nominated by the Pembroke Lodge in Minto; and Jean Cameron, who was nominated by the Campbelltown City Senior Citizens and Pensioners Welfare Club. Without these amazing people, so many things that we ordinarily take for granted in our communities would simply not take place at all. Whether it is organising the regular bus trips, organising activities and outings or working to assist in various charitable works in our communities, these things, unfortunately, fall to people in some cases who have the time but above all who have the commitment, wherewithal and ability to keep making these contributions. Like other members, I do try to recognise and honour that continued community activity by many of the older Australians in my electorate. By the way, they do not do it to compete for awards or honours. There is no fuss or fanfare about these people. They are very committed and they worked diligently to ensure that our communities are the better for it. This bill will go a long way to continuing to please and reward older Australians by amending the Aged Care Act 1997 and the Aged Care (Bond Security) Act 2006 to address current legislative inadequacies and maintain effective regulatory safeguards for ensuring high-quality care for our older Australians. In particular, these amendments will link approved provider status to the allocation of aged-care places directly linked to the Commonwealth funding. They will modernise the legislation so that it better aligns with contemporary business practices and applies to all approved providers regardless of their corporate structures. They will streamline the assessment of frail and older Australians to ensure that more timely, consistent and quality assessments are provided. They will ensure that any accommodation bonds or like payments paid by our older Australians for entry into aged care are fully protected under the Commonwealth bonds guarantee scheme, and they will make some minor operational changes to improve the administration of the legislation so that it operates in a more efficient and effective manner. The Minister for Ageing outlined in her second reading speech that the features of this bill are significantly different to what existed in 1997 when the Aged Care Act came into effect. A bit over a decade later, the sector has, quite frankly, evolved from one which was typically a one-site, one-service type where the owner of the facility was also the operator, to now one—and my electorate is no different to many others here—that is often a multi-site, multi-state and certainly multi-service operation using complex financial and legal arrangements. In other words, there are large business models underpinning these facilities. That is really what has eventuated over the last 10 years or so. The last decade has also seen a significant increase in the levels of investment in the sector from large corporate entities, where the owner and operator of the facility have distinct roles and distinct responsibilities which are often very separate. They cannot, in other words, be considered one and the same. Therefore, in many instances, the current business model that exists now does not actually lend itself to scrutiny of these complex corporate structures. The changes which are laid out in the bill are now very much intended to ensure that the regulations do keep pace with these changing developments within this industry generally. The bill is aimed at a range of people who are considered to be the key personnel for the proposed regulatory scrutiny. Currently, as the minister put it in her second reading speech, the existing legislation is aimed at those who pull the financial strings. But they may not necessarily be considered the key personnel. The amendments before us will ensure that an inspection of all of those who pull the financial strings and the relevant provisions apply consistently to all approved providers. The bill will provide better protection for residents and promote public confidence by increasing the capacity for the Department of Health and Ageing to consider the record of the related entity when making decisions about approvals. This is very important. It is not just about whether the entity has the ability to bankroll a development; it also goes to the actual record in service delivery. So it will assist people, not only the frail and the elderly but also their children who are helping to make decisions on their behalf in some instances, to see the company’s record of service delivery and therefore to judge suitability. I think that is also significant. From the department’s position, this will allow them to assess suitability by having regard to the delivery of service record of those who are seeking approval for these developments. Importantly, the bill also makes changes to the regulatory and administrative framework. The bill will make clear that only aged-care services are regulated under the Aged Care Act, removing uncertainty about which aged-care services are regulated by this legislation. This is necessary given contemporary developments. What we are now seeing—which, again, I think is pretty consistent across all our electorates—is that developers are sometimes developing aged-care retirement villages and disabled care all in the same development. That gives rise to a level of uncertainty as to the regulatory regime that actually applies throughout that total development and particularly how it impacts or does not fully impact under the Aged Care Act. These reforms all add up to greater confidence for aged-care recipients and their providers about their rights, obligations and protections that apply under this scheme of regulation. As the shadow minister indicated, she understood that these amendments had the support of industry. It is important to note that the changes outlined in the bill have been subject to significant consultation with the aged-care sector, largely undertaken through the Ageing Consultative Committee. In addition to the committee’s activities, there was broad consultation through the distribution of a paper prepared by the Department of Health and Ageing that resulted in substantial written submissions received from stakeholders that informed the development and finetuning of the complex legislative and policy reform process. I would like to spend a little time talking about some aged-care facilities in my electorate of Werriwa. Like all members, I visit aged-care facilities and these ones in my electorate operate at a very high standard and have a proven record when it comes to aged care. For instance, the Blue Hills Village at Prestons is a market leader in the field. They have a very close cooperation with their local community and provide high-quality service, particularly for veterans. Maurice Tulich is the CEO of the village and is a bloke I have known for many years. He is certainly committed to excellence. It is a family owned and operated business and continues a proud tradition of growth and change to meet community needs and market demand. He has just opened a new facility on the outskirts of Menangle in the electorate of my colleague the member for Macarthur. It is a state-of-the-art facility and one that we can be justly proud of in the south-west of Sydney. It was not all that long ago that the Minister for Ageing, the Hon. Justine Elliot, paid a visit to the Blue Hills Village to pay tribute to Ian Monro for his voluntary work with members of the community at the Blue Hills Village as well as the wider community of Prestons. The minister also went to the Frank Whiddon Masonic Nursing Home, Easton Park, at Glenfield. She met with residents at two of the facilities and gained a greater understanding about Masonic homes generally throughout New South Wales. Robert Hillier, the CEO, and his staff are highly trained and professional people. The significance of the Frank Whiddon Masonic Nursing Home is that it is the headquarters for all the Masonic homes operating in New South Wales. The minister was able to spend an hour or two with Robert and his staff discussing a broad range of issues applying to the industry. We are very fortunate to have people of that calibre in my electorate. Two other local aged-care facilities I would like to mention are Maple Grove at Casula, which is managed by Barbara Mullen, and Pembroke Lodge at Minto, which is managed by Joseph Zhou and the director is Lorraine Rushbrook. Lorraine only recently visited my office with a number of residents from Pembroke Lodge, ones we specifically recognised for their continued commitment to the community of south-west Sydney. Many people agonise over decisions to move their parents—or grandparents, in many respects; in my case, my parents—to a retirement community. As the previous speaker—the shadow minister for ageing—has said, a lot of this in terms of community expectations goes back to people seeking to have the standard of care that we want to afford our own parents, and there certainly are changes in expectations in that respect. The retirement community in Werriwa have excellent choices in terms of their retirement community providers. Before I finish talking about my local providers I should say—on behalf of the government but certainly on my own behalf—that there is a genuine appreciation for the time, the effort and the commitment that the wonderful staff of the community providers show and the dignity they provide in looking after the older Australians in my electorate of Werriwa. I will return now to what this bill is about. This bill comes about in the midst of a global economic crisis but, again, we are taking decisive actions to strengthen the Australian economy. This bill will make a significant amendment that will help protect the accommodation bonds of older Australians. By the way, as at 30 June last year there was $6.3 billion in bonds held under the guarantee scheme. Currently, under the accommodation bond guarantee scheme, repayment of the bonds is made only in the event of the provider becoming insolvent or bankrupt. As we have discussed over the last number of years, there are many business structures operating out there that simply being insolvent or bankrupt may not be the sole protections required in terms of these guarantees. Many have been put in, as I know myself, on behalf of parents and others, so a level of financial security is required. This bill will strengthen the protections of the bonds by ensuring that they are fully protected by the guarantee scheme, not just in instances of insolvency or bankruptcy, and therefore these assets will be protected. And, by the way, these are sometimes the assets of some of those most vulnerable in our society. The other proposed amendments concern police checks. At the moment, under the existing legislation, police checks are provided only for people who are working as staff with unsupervised access to residents. This government is committed to ensuring that older Australians in nursing homes and hostels receive quality care in a safe and secure environment. As such, the amendment before us will ensure that all persons working in these facilities, regardless of their activities, are obligated to undergo police checks. As I say, this will extend police checking to all staff, regardless of whether they are supervised or unsupervised. The only criterion is that they have access to residents. Further, the waiting time will be reduced for aged-care assessments by streamlining the assessments. During the consultation stage, as I mentioned a little earlier, it was identified that one of the major causes of discontent is the level of time it takes for an individual to be assessed by an aged-care assessment team. This is now going to be streamlined to best meet the needs of the people concerned and to ensure that the services being provided are the most appropriate. Nevertheless, the amendments to the bill will make the assessments more efficient and more effective. Finally, the bill will also provide for a more formal arrangement in respect of notifications of missing persons and for those notifications to be put through to the Department of Health and Ageing when residents are reported missing to police. This is to ensure that appropriate safeguards are put into a system so that, when a person has gone missing, appropriate action is being taken by the provider to ensure that, where possible, we guard against similar breaches occurring. Again, that is a significant measure of security. Over the next four years, the Australian government will provide more than $40 billion in funding to aged and community care, including $28.6 billion to nursing homes and hostels. As I said at the outset of the speech, this legislation provides extensive change, which is long overdue, to the Aged Care Act. More importantly, it is about protecting the most vulnerable members of our society: the frail, the aged, and the infirm. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Lindsay) adjourned. 10986 Adjournment Mr LINDSAY (Herbert) 12:30:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 10986 10986 12:30:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —In Australia, summer brings the start of the holiday season. Around our nation, families pack the car and head for the beaches or go camping in the bush. Throughout Australia there is the smell of sausages sizzling on the barbeque, sparking happy memories for many. However, for some, summer does not bring joy but fear, as it signals the start of the bushfire season. Last February marked 25 years since the catastrophic Ash Wednesday bushfires swept across South Australia and Victoria, tragically killing 75 people and destroying thousands of homes. Cockatoo, Belgrave Heights and Upper Beaconsfield, in my electorate of La Trobe, were the hardest hit areas, accounting for more than a third of all fatalities, with 27 people perishing in the intense blaze. The Ash Wednesday fires left an indelible mark on the community of the Dandenong Ranges. For many in summer, the smell of smoke or the crackle of fire evokes terror in their hearts. You can imagine the fear many felt when they learned of the Bureau of Meteorology’s grim warning that the Dandenong Ranges is at extreme fire risk this summer. The hills are experiencing their worst fire conditions in over 15 years—worse than the conditions of January 1997, when, tragically, three people were killed in Ferny Creek and more than 40 homes were destroyed in the Dandenong Ranges. The extreme dryness caused by the drought has made the hills a ticking time bomb—one spark could set them alight, with devastating consequences. Sadly, it appears that nearly every year we have some idiot going around the hills trying to deliberately start fires. Water storages have dropped in Melbourne from 40 per cent this time last year to 33 per cent now. For these reasons, it is essential that aerial firefighting helicopters known as the Erickson Air-Cranes be made available to the Dandenong Ranges. The Erickson sky cranes are the most effective tool in aerial firefighting, being able to draw water from water sources as shallow as 45 centimetres deep, able to refill in less than 45 seconds and able to carry as much as 10,000 litres of water per load. They are essential to the CFA’s firefighting efforts this summer. La Trobe is protected by some 27 CFA brigades. I am going to name them because they all do a magnificent job. They include Boronia, The Basin, Belgrave, Belgrave Heights and South, Beaconsfield, Upper Beaconsfield, Berwick, Cockatoo, Ferntree Gully, Upper Ferntree Gully, Upwey, Clematis, Selby, Sassafras and Ferny Creek, Olinda, Macclesfield, Emerald, Gembrook, Kalorama and Mount Dandenong, Menzies Creek, Narre Warren East, Narre Warren North, Kallista-The Patch, Officer, Pakenham, Pakenham Upper and Toomuc Valley. These brigades not only have fought fires in La Trobe but have also assisted with many fires right across the state of Victoria. I would briefly like to mention two dedicated local CFA volunteer members: Peter Marke, who incredibly is in his 50th year of service with the CFA and recently retired as captain of the Upwey brigade after 35 years of service; and John McLeod, who is in his 54th year of service with the Boronia CFA and received in 1990 the Australian Fire Service Medal for his dedication to the volunteer brigade. I congratulate them both on their commitment to fighting fires in the Dandenong Ranges. The dedication of our local CFA brigades has protected La Trobe for many years on many occasions. Many of our local brigades could not survive without the loyal volunteers who balance their commitments to volunteer firefighting with full-time jobs and family commitments. We must provide our CFA brigades with as much support as they need to fight bushfires. Each year, the Australian government leases several Erickson sky cranes such as Elvis and the Incredible Hulk from the United States to assist with firefighting. The sky cranes do an amazing job, and this year the Australian government has leased five sky cranes and I congratulate it for that. Two of those will be allocated to Victoria. What I am asking the government to do is to make one specifically available on stand-by for the Dandenong Ranges. The simple reason for that is that the Dandenong Ranges come second only to California as the most fire-prone area in the world. So, again, I call on the government to make a sky crane available on stand-by for the Dandenong Ranges. 10988 10988 12:35:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to inform members of a serious deficiency in medical services in my electorate of Robertson. Based on the Central Coast towns of Gosford and Woy Woy, Robertson is a rapidly growing region with a significant percentage of aged people in its population. Despite these facts, there is no public radiotherapy unit on the Central Coast to service the medical needs of my constituents, many of whom are suffering from debilitating and life-threatening cancers. To access public radiotherapy treatment, the people of the Central Coast have three options: firstly, they can choose to pay many thousands of dollars at a private facility in Gosford; secondly, they can choose to travel to the nearest public facilities at hospitals located in Newcastle or North Sydney; and, thirdly, they can choose—or, to put it more accurately, they are forced—to refuse treatment for their cancers. This is an intolerable situation that constitutes a serious deficiency in the public health facilities for many thousands of people. The Central Coast is part of the Northern Sydney Central Coast Health service area. By 2016, New South Wales Health estimates that there will be approximately 2,596 cancer patients in the area health service region. This amounts to a 30 per cent increase in the number of people requiring treatment for cancer over the period from 2006 to 2016. It is clear from these alarming statistics that something must be done to relieve the severe financial, emotional and practical hardships placed upon my constituents. A public radiotherapy facility must be built in Robertson. Sadly, there is distressing anecdotal evidence that some Central Coast cancer patients have been forced to forgo life-saving cancer treatment, thereby putting their lives at serious risk. Among the major reasons they do this is that either they cannot afford the costs of private treatment in Gosford or they cannot travel to North Sydney or Newcastle every time they need treatment. This is a scandalous situation that my constituents have suffered for too long. Compared to their neighbours in the northern Sydney section of the area health service region, the people of the Central Coast experience poorer health and have higher mortality rates. They have high rates of behavioural health risk factors such as smoking and obesity. Importantly, they also have poorer general access to health practitioners, to primary care and to diagnostic and specialist health care than their northern Sydney neighbours. The disparity between my constituents and the residents of the North Shore is nowhere more starkly illustrated than in the complete lack of radiotherapy services on the Central Coast. A single private radiotherapy service operates in Gosford. In-patients in Gosford Hospital have access to this service but there are many more cancer sufferers who are no longer in-patients who simply cannot afford to pay for treatment at this private facility. The alternative is to travel to hospitals in North Sydney or Newcastle, which are generally at least an hour and a half away on public transport. For many cancer sufferers, some of whom are desperately sick, this is not a desirable or even a possible outcome. Lengthy and frequent trips on public transport to and from treatment have a devastating effect on the finances, working routine, family life and emotional stability of these people. I intend to take whatever necessary steps there are to remedy this problem. In February this year I met with a local advocacy group that is campaigning for the establishment of a public radiotherapy unit to be located at Gosford Hospital, and I have spoken with them again today. My office has been alerted to instances of severe hardship suffered by local people trying to access radiotherapy treatment. One 67-year-old man was faced with a bill of between $3,500 and $4,500. He was unable to pay until a generous donor provided him with that money. The services of a radiotherapy unit are required for my electorate. I am determined that the healthcare needs of my constituents will not be compromised in the manner that they are being and have been for so long. I will be making the strongest possible representations to the Minister for Health and Ageing about this matter. The Central Coast must have adequate public radiotherapy services, and I will be fighting very hard to ensure they get them. 10989 10989 12:40:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —It is very important that as a nation this week we acknowledge the service men and women who have served this country particularly well. I would like to acknowledge all those involved between 1942 and 1943 on the Kokoda Track in what was one of Australia’s most significant and historic conflicts in any theatre of war. We should not forget the desperation of the early 1940s. Nazi Germany had conquered and was in control of most of Europe, and the Japanese had taken the Philippines and attacked Siam, Malaya, Hong Kong, French Indochina, the Dutch East Indies, Burma and Borneo. They had bombed the American fleet in Pearl Harbour; captured Singapore, taking 22,000 Australian troops prisoner of war; and bombed Darwin, killing 243 Australians. Japanese submarines had entered Sydney Harbour. In July 1942, Australia had only two militia brigades in Port Moresby. The Japanese were ordered to take Port Moresby overland from Buna and Gona. The port facilities would have provided an ideal base to attack Northern Australia and the US Navy in the Pacific. The inexorable, ruthless march south of the formidable Japanese imperial forces appeared to be all-conquering—they had not yet lost a battle in the strike through Malaya, Singapore and the Philippines. After Kokoda airfield was lost to the imperial forces, the only barrier between the Japanese forces in the north and Port Moresby on the south coast was the rugged, steep Owen Stanley Range. With our Allied forces fighting throughout Europe in various areas of engagement, the Australian and Papuan forces made a last, desperate attempt to repel the Japanese. They were outnumbered five to one by battle-hardened, highly trained forces and had to deal with malaria, tropical rains and diseases, mosquito infested swamps, stinking mud, leeches and searing heat and humidity, but the Australian troops displayed stoic defence, courage and determination, and their capacity to inflict as much harm as possible on the Japanese was assisted by the local Papuan people. Papuan porters, affectionately nicknamed ‘the fuzzy wuzzy angels’, provided the primary, essential transport of supplies and extracted the sick and wounded with great care in almost impossible circumstances. The fuzzy wuzzy angels’ bushcraft, knowledge of the land and unending assistance was invaluable to our troops. It has been stated that no known wounded soldier who was still alive was ever abandoned by the fuzzy wuzzy angels, regardless of heavy fire or extreme forms of conflict or conditions. At times, it would take up to six days walking through thick jungle to reach a hospital area. I would also like to take this opportunity to recognise the significant contribution made by the Salvation Army. The uncle of one of my constituents from my electorate of Forrest fought in the Kokoda campaign. He said that the dedication of the Salvation Army could also not be spoken of more highly. In his words: After meticulously preparing a camp invisible to the enemy and just when you thought nobody could see you, the Salvos would often tap you on the shoulder, having crawled through the bush to deliver you a cup of cocoa or something similar. Syd Heylen, from the 39th Battalion, said in an interview: Thank God for the Salvos. I know the nicest thing I ever had on the Kokoda Trail was a cup of tea given to me by the Salvation Army. And I hated tea that never had milk or sugar in it; this didn’t have any in it and I loved it, I wanted more. I had half a cup, that’s all they had. I never forgot that one. Major Albert Moore, the Salvation Army’s representative attached to the 21st Brigade, later wrote of his experiences: I look back on those days as among the greatest in my life, never again do I hope to hear the sighs of relief that I heard during those days, as men, utterly exhausted, weak, sick and wounded, would well nigh fall at our feet. Those words were from Major Moore himself. Six months of some of the bloodiest and most difficult land fighting of the Pacific war, including the battle of the beaches, ended on 22 January 1943. Australia lost 2,165 troops, and 3,533 were wounded. How many of the wounded would not have survived without the help from the fuzzy wuzzy angels and the Salvation Army is not known. This campaign forever sealed the relationship between Australia and Papua New Guinea. We should recognise sacrifices made by people who did so much for our forces and our country. The fuzzy wuzzy angels stood beside our troops on our sovereign soil and helped defend our country during such an important time. It is with great respect and gratitude that I acknowledge this week the efforts of all our Australian service men and women who have, and do, serve this nation. 10990 10990 12:45:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —Recently I had the privilege of attending the University of Queensland Ipswich Campus, where I met with Robert Bush PhD, Professor of Community Health Research, and Dr Kathryn Ahern, from the School of Nursing and Midwifery. The University of Queensland Ipswich Campus is the location of the Healthy Communities Research Centre, which was established in September 2007 and is an international hub for community health research. The centre arose in part from a population health profile of the Ipswich and West Moreton Division of General Practice, and I commend former CEO Kevin Pitman, who had the foresight to seek Australian government funding for that study, which was conducted by the Public Health Information Development Unit at the University of Adelaide, South Australia. The study established that the socioeconomic status of the Ipswich and West Moreton area was lower than Brisbane’s and also lower than the Australian average. There were more single-parent families and a high proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders, full-time secondary education participation was lower and more households were receiving rent assistance. Health indicators also showed the local community was more disadvantaged in terms of respiratory system diseases, asthma, circulatory system diseases, diabetes, injury, mental and behavioural disorders, musculoskeletal system diseases, obesity and overweight generally. Sadly, also, the number of smokers was much higher and people were more physically inactive. As a result of that study, the Ipswich Hospital Foundation decided to strengthen the focus of research in the local area and, with the participation of the University of Queensland, came up with the idea of the Healthy Communities Research Centre. It will carry out a longitudinal study that will be known as the Ipswich Study, examining health related projects and the interface between the various determinants of health using both longitudinal and comparative methodologies. It will be looking to integrate what should be done in terms of future growth in communities. This is being done because Ipswich will grow faster than any other area in South-East Queensland. Because it is also an area of low socioeconomic status, it is a perfect laboratory for this kind of study. People at the Healthy Communities Research Centre are very excited about this prospect because Ipswich is a mixture of urban, rural and cultural communities, with substantive changes taking place. So this rapidly changing environment will be the perfect catalyst for this type of study. Professor Bush said recently that the Ipswich study can become the hub around which an international centre for research on community health can be built. But, of course, it needs support. I am pleased to say that the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Queensland has provided funding of $300,000 to employ a research fellow for the study, Dr David Marshall, who joined the centre in July this year. However, the study also needs the support of the local community, not just of the council but of other partnerships, business and local, individuals and community organisations, churches, charities, the RSL and sporting and other community groups. It needs sufficient funding, both federal and state, as well as from the University of Queensland. The study will go a long way to assist the objectives of the state government’s South-East Queensland Regional Plan to secure well-designed, safe and healthy local communities. It will also encourage active community participation in these types of events, because we have to plan things properly. We have to plan our hospitals, our health services, our roads and our schools. Just south of where I live, 120,000 people will live in the Ripley Valley in the next 20 years. We have got to plan properly, and we need the research to be able to do that. The Ipswich Study is very important for this reason. I urge the local community, including the local council, to get behind this study. This is worthwhile and will create an international hub for future development. It will be great for South-East Queensland and great for Ipswich. 10991 10991 12:50:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —Governing is a serious business. Governing Australia is both a serious business and a distinct honour. Today in the parliament, however, the Rudd government trivialised the business of government and brought distinct dishonour upon itself. How and why did it do this? I am not sure why but I know how. Today in the House of Representatives, in our parliament, the Rudd government closed debate for members of the opposition on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Economic Security Strategy) Bill 2008 and cognate bills, legislation that seeks to inject some $10.4 billion into the Australian economy. The federal opposition supports the legislation. However, while it supports it, it also believes its members have the right to speak on the bill and to express their views. I, as the federal member for Ryan, have not had that opportunity today in the House of Representatives. I have not had the opportunity today to express my views and my thoughts on behalf of the people of Ryan. The Prime Minister has described the global financial crisis, which requires the leadership and the goodwill of all governments and of all peoples, as a ‘rolling national security crisis’. On this basis, I believe that not only government members but, indeed, opposition members should have the right and the opportunity to speak at length and in depth on the legislation. The legislation is important because it has invested and injected across the country some $10.4 billion of taxpayers’ money. It has invested this in a whole range of stakeholders, from pensioners to people in the Ryan electorate who are receiving family tax benefits. Therefore, I think that as the member for Ryan I ought to comment on the taxpayers’ contribution to the global financial crisis and redressing and minimising its impact on the Australian economy. The Rudd government was able to spend some $10.4 billion of taxpayers’ money because it had the surplus of the previous Howard-Costello government. Half of the surplus is now invested in the community—that is, some $10.4 billion of some $22 billion left by the previous Howard government. So, at the stroke of a pen, an enormous amount of money—in anybody’s language—has been injected into the Australian community. The people of Ryan will know that the federal opposition supports this action. I support it because it is seen to be in the interests of the Australian people. But, as the elected member for Ryan, I consider it my responsibility and indeed my duty to speak on behalf of the people that I represent, to speak on behalf of the people of the western suburbs of Brisbane, to give them my views and my concerns and to raise issues in relation to elements of the $10.4 billion. We remain a parliamentary democracy. When I was a member of the Howard government, opportunities for members of the then government and the then opposition to speak were of fundamental importance to me, and when I felt that those opportunities were not presented to members of the then government and the then parliament I raised it with those in positions of leadership. I am a firm believer in the democratic process. I would not be in the parliament without the mechanism of democracy that we have in this country, a mechanism we ought to cherish. In a week when we celebrate and honour Australian men and women who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the last 90 years in the name of freedom and under the Australian flag, I express my profound disappointment, as someone who cherishes the freedom and democracy of our country, at the government’s actions. As the son and as a grandson of people who wore the uniform in two theatres of war and in different times, in different generations and in different places, I express my deep disappointment at the decision of the government today in the House of Representatives to prevent members of the opposition and indeed some of their own members from speaking on this important bill. When the opposition is next in office I intend to maintain the position I have put. I believe that all members should have the opportunity to speak in debates on bills of profound importance, especially given that the world now confronts a global financial and economic crisis. Many commentators and experts say the world has not seen a crisis of such significance since the days of the Great Depression. I feel strongly enough on this to say shame on the Rudd government, shame on the Prime Minister and shame on all those who share this view. I will inform the people of Ryan of my position. 10993 10993 12:55:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —Last Tuesday, election packs were sent to the people of Geelong as part of the City of Greater Geelong Council elections. Can I start by wishing all the candidates in the council elections all the very best. I think running for public office at the best of times is a difficult task, but I have always felt managing the City of Greater Geelong is a particularly difficult task. Effectively, those people are being asked to fulfil a full-time position yet they are only paid a part-time allowance. I take my hat off to all those who are willing to have a crack at the council elections. What a council election does, as every election does, is afford an opportunity for all of those within the Geelong community to debate the big issues which are affecting our city. Can I say at the outset I think it is very important that the debate actually occurs, that we do have a discussion about the things which really matter to the people of Geelong. To that end, I would like to make my contribution to that debate here by talking about what I think is easily the biggest issue for the people of Geelong right now—that is, economic development. Australia’s economy has been in transition. The proportion of the labour force employed in manufacturing, say, in the seventies was about twice what it is now. We have seen no greater shift in that regard than the one that has occurred in Geelong. That has been exemplified recently by the decisions taken by the Ford Motor Company. Over the last 15 months, we have seen decisions resulting in 1,000 jobs being shed from the 1,900 strong workforce at Ford—and that will be completed in the next two years. No doubt those decisions have been accelerated by the current global financial crisis. Just as state and federal governments need to do, the council must respond to the events of the last couple of months and put in place a package which will help get the people of Geelong through the current economic crisis. At a council level, I think the structure around economic development is sound. There is a councillor who holds an economic development portfolio and indeed that has been Councillor Peter McMullin. He has done a wonderful job in that capacity with a number of initiatives. As he is not recontesting this election, I certainly wish him all the best for the future. In relation to the structure of the paid staff who underpin the council, I would make the following observation. The coordinator of economic development within the council, who is the most senior council officer solely responsible for economic development, reports to the manager of planning strategy and economic development, who in turn reports to the general manager of development sustainability, who in turn reports to the chief executive officer, who in turn reports to the council. Having so many layers between the key economic development adviser and the council means that the advice is diluted by the time it reaches council. It means that the ability to place pre-eminence on economic development, which at this moment in time is absolutely critical, is, in my view, being lost due to the current structure of the council. I think it would be far better if there were a dedicated economic development officer, who existed at a general manager level within the City of Greater Geelong, reporting directly to the CEO and having direct access to the council. In that way, you would have a much firmer basis of advice for the council. Both state and Commonwealth governments are acting fast at the moment in putting forward economic stimulus packages for our state and our nation to get us through this economic crisis. The council has to do that as well. In order to be able to act nimbly, swiftly and decisively on this, you have to have the appropriate staff structure underpinning the council to allow that to occur. I think this election affords a wonderful opportunity to discuss issues of that kind. For the new councillors elected there is a real opportunity for them to review the structure of the staff so that they can see whether economic development within the staff structure can be given a higher priority. I will finish the way I started by wishing members of the new council the best of luck. It will come into being at a very difficult time for Geelong, but it is also a time of great opportunity for its members to make a difference for their community. Question agreed to. 10994 13:00:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.00 pm 10995 Questions in Writing 10995 10995 342 10995 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 Mr Ian Macfarlane asked the Minister for Trade, in writing, on 22 September 2008: Will he give a commitment that workers in the automotive and textile, clothing and footwear industries in Australia will not be worse off as a result of the implementation of the ANZ-ASEAN Free Trade Agreement. 10995 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr Crean —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The ASEAN-Australia-New Zealand Free Trade Agreement (AANZFTA) will provide Australian industry with opportunities to expand their export markets in a more open trading environment. Improved export opportunities will be particularly apparent in industries such as automotive and textiles, clothing and footwear (TCF) where ASEAN’s tariffs are relatively high compared to Australia. Tariffs in ASEAN countries are generally in the following ranges: 10 per cent to 30 per cent for automotive parts; 30 per cent to 100 per cent for passenger motor vehicles; 5 per cent to 40 per cent for textiles; 5 per cent to 50 per cent for clothing; and 5 per cent to 50 per cent for footwear. AANZFTA will provide for the elimination of a very high percentage of tariffs in ASEAN countries, generally in the range of 90 per cent to 99 per cent of all tariff lines. Detailed information on outcomes, including for particular countries and sectors, cannot be released until the Agreement has been signed. However, significant liberalisation will occur in both the automotive and TCF sectors. The more open trading environment provided as a result of the FTA, together with the regional rules of origin which will govern trade under the Agreement, should encourage greater use of regional supply chains that should support higher productivity and greater innovation. Australia’s automotive sector already has a strong export profile and AANZFTA will provide new opportunities for the industry. Opportunities also exist for the TCF industry through reductions in tariffs in ASEAN countries. Australia’s TCF industry has undergone substantial restructuring in recent years and there should be opportunities for it to gain greater access to ASEAN markets for its distinctive and innovative products, such as technical textiles. The recently released “Building Innovative Capacity: Review of the Australian Textile, Clothing and Footwear Industries” report underscores that the industry’s future health lies in focussing on innovation and high quality textiles in a global market marked by diminishing levels of tariff protection. 10995 10995 350 10995 Georgiou, Petro, MP HM5 Kooyong LP 0 Mr Georgiou asked the Minister for Ageing, in writing, on 23 September 2008: What are the names and qualifications of the members of the Victorian and New South Wales Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees who prepared advice on the regional allocations of community aged care packages for 2007 and 2008. 10995 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs Elliot —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The names and qualifications of the members of the Victorian and New South Wales Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees (ACPAC) for 2007 are set out in the accompanying Table A. The names and qualifications of the members of the Victorian and New South Wales Aged Care Planning Advisory Committees for 2008 are set out in the accompanying Table B. Table A Aged Care Planning Advisory Committee – Victoria 2007 Name Membership Qualification Jill Linklater Chairperson Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing, currently the Director, Aged and Community Care Branch, Victorian State Office.  She also has a clinical background as a registered nurse and a Masters Degree in Health Administration. Lynette Moore Deputy Chairperson Executive Director, Alzheimer’s Australia (Vic). Chris Puckey Member Nominated representative of the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS). Gerard Mansour Member Chief Executive Officer, Aged and Community Care Victoria (ACCV). John Wise Member President, Council on the Ageing (Victoria). Rosemary Thompson Member Manager, Barwon Regional Aged Care Assessment Service. Dean Varndell Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Viv Sheperdson Member Nominated representative of local government Municipal Association of Victoria (MAV); Aged Services Research and Development Officer, Hobsons Bay City Council; Member, Western Aged Services Network. Robyn Pritchard Member Director, aged care facilitation with RSL Victoria. Ljubica Petrox Member Partners in Culturally Appropriate Care (PICAC) Victoria; Manager, the Centre for Cultural Diversity in Ageing.   Aged Care Planning Advisory Committee – New South Wales 2007 Name Membership Qualification Kathleen L Brewster Chairperson Currently serves on or has served, as President, Council of the Ageing (NSW); Director, NSW Council of Social Services; Member, NSW State Planning Forum on Veterans’ Aged Care; Co-chair, NSW Health ‘Chronic, Aged and Community Health’ Health Priority Taskforce; Member, National Consultative Committee on Ageing (NCCA). Jill Pretty Deputy Chairperson Currently serves on or has served, as Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Aged and Community Services Association NSW and ACT Inc (ACSA).  Ms Pretty is a registered nurse (RN), with experience in managing aged care facilities; former President of Australian Association of Gerontology (NSW); Member, NSW State Planning Forum on Veterans’ Aged Care; and Member, Australian Government Working Party for Development of Standards for Aged Care Accreditation. Madelon Heuke Member A retired registered nurse, Ms Heuke worked previously in residential aged care facilities as well as the NSW Confused and Disabled Persons Units Area Health Service providing dementia specific care to rural and Indigenous communities. Robert Pinchin Member Currently serves on or has served on the Ethnic Communities Council of NSW; Member, Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) Reference Group, NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (DADHC); Member, NSW Council of Social Services Aged Care Alliance; Member, Home and Community Care (HACC) Issues Forum. Clare Gardiner Member Manager, Aged Care Integration Unit, Inter-Government and Funding Strategies Branch, NSW Department of Health. Jocelyn Oatley Member Nominated representative of the NSW Department of Housing. John Wall Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Claudia Kennedy Member Nominated representative of the Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care (NSW). Paul Taranto Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing, Assistant State Manager, NSW state office.   Table B Aged Care Planning Advisory Committee – Victoria 2008 Name Membership Qualification Lynette Moore Chairperson Ms Moore is the Chief Executive Officer of Alzheimers Australia (Victoria).  She has extensive knowledge of aged care, has been an active member of aged care committees, including ACPAC, since 1998.  She was a member of the nine person ministerial taskforce oversighting the Dementia National Health Priority Initiative from 2005–2008. She was a member of the Community Care Coalition from 2005–2007. Maureen Flaherty Deputy Chairperson Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Ms Flaherty is currently the Director, Aged and Community Care Branch, Victorian State Office. Rebecca Chumley Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs, Ms Chumley is the Location Manager, Aged Care and Community Support Branch. She has committee experience on the Victorian Ex-Service Round Table on Aged Care. Christopher Puckey Member Nominated representative of Victorian Department of Human Services, Mr Puckey is currently the Manager Policy and Analysis, Aged Care Branch and has been the State Government nominee for several previous ACPACs. Derryn Wilson Member Nominated representative of the Municipal Association of Victoria, Ms Wilson has experience in Victorian local governments dating back to the mid 1970s.  She has also been a board member of Uniting Aged Care and was directly involved in the development of two of their aged care facilities.  She has been on numerous committees including overseeing the Office of the Public Advocate/Council of the Ageing (COTA) Elder Abuse project and the Premier’s Working Party on Domiciliary Services. Wendy Bateman Member Ms Bateman has previously worked as the State Manager of the Victorian and Tasmanian Branches of the Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency; as an Assessment Manager and an Aged Care Quality Assessor and a Charge Nurse at Elanora Nursing Home.  She has a Bachelor of Applied Science (Nursing) and a Certificate in gerontic care and has worked at Heidelberg Repatriation Hospital where she specialised in geriatric rehabilitation and neurology. Dr David Dammery Member Dr Dammery has a long history of practicing medicine and treating elderly patients in aged care facilities as well as in his practice.  He has been on the Medical Advisory Committee of a number of aged care services.  He has also had family members in aged care facilities.  He is a Local Medical Officer for the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Rebecca Eales Member Ms Eales has experience as a Social Worker with Ballarat Health Services Aged Care Assessment Service (2003-2006) and has contributed to her large knowledge of aged care issues in a rural environment.  She has professional experience with Community Health Centres where she has dealt with elderly clients and their carers.  She also has a consumer perspective with a relative experiencing community care at home and progressing into residential care. Gerard Mansour Member Mr Mansour is the CEO of Aged and Community Care Victoria (ACCV), a peak body that represents a significant proportion of the not for profit and profit sectors of the aged care industry.  Mr Mansour’s role involves promoting the provision of a flexible range of high quality service options for clients, residents and their families. Linda Muller Member Ms Muller is currently employed as the Manager of the Western Aged Care Assessment Service and prior to this was for nine years a Senior Project Officer for the HACC program with the Department of Human Services.  She has worked as Ethnic Liaison Officer at Hume Regional Aged Care Assessment Service.  She is a qualified nurse, has a Bachelor of Social Work, a Graduate Diploma in Social Policy and a Master of Social Work in Community Service Management. Ljubica Petrov Member Ms Petrov is employed as the Manager for The Centre For Cultural Diversity in Ageing and has managed the PICAC initiative in Victoria since its inception in 1998.  Ms Petrov has work and personal experience relevant to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders (ATSI) communities and has visited Frontier Aged Care services in Darwin and is involved in the identification of gaps, and the development of new resources pertaining to, the ATSI community.   Aged Care Planning Advisory Committee – New South Wales 2008 Name Membership Qualification Kathleen Brewster Chairperson Ms Brewster is currently employed with the Council of the Ageing.  She currently serves or has previously served, on committees including COTA (NSW), NSW State Planning Forum on Veterans’ Aged Care and National Consultative Committee on Ageing.  Ms Brewster is currently co-chair of the NSW Health ‘Chronic, Aged and Community Health’ Health Priority Taskforce. Hazel Bridgett Deputy Chairperson Ms Bridgett is the Coordinator of Legacy’s National Aged Care Forum, and as a Legatee on the Far North Coast understands the perspective of consumers from both the veterans’ and rural and remote special needs groups.  Ms Bridgett has extensive past and current experience in committee work at a national, state and area health service level, including membership of the North Coast Area Health Service Advisory Committee, and represents the Legacy Coordinating Council at meetings of the National Aged Care Alliance (NACA) & National Ex-service Round Table on Aged Care (NERTAC). Barbara Anderson Member Nominated representative of the NSW Department of Health. Claudia Kennedy Member Nominated representative of the NSW Department of Ageing, Disability and Home Care. Naomi Mulcahy Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs. Jocelyn Oatley Member Nominated representative of the NSW Department of Housing. Paul Taranto Member Nominated representative of the Australian Department of Health and Ageing. Margaret Kay Member Ms Kay is a qualified town planner, and is currently employed as the Senior Policy Officer, Ageing and Disability with the Local Governments and Shires Associations of NSW.  She has also worked in strategic planning with Catholic Healthcare and Aged and Community Services Association – ACT. William O’Connor Member Mr O’Connor is a former CEO of a rural community and residential aged care provider.  He has also served on and chaired the Southern Slopes Cluster Planning Group, and was a member of the Greater Southern Area Health Service Aged Care Planning Committee. Robert Pinchin Member Mr Pinchin is currently employed with the Ethnic Communities Council, and has extensive knowledge and experience in the delivery of aged care services, to people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including rural and remote areas, as well as an understanding of the consumer perspective.  He currently or has previously served, as a member of the Council of Social Service NSW (NCOSS) Aged Care Alliance; NSW HACC Issues Forum and Multicultural Access Project (MAPS); DADHC CALD Reference Group; Orana Far West Region Multicultural Services Network, and Multicultural Access Workers Network. Jill Pretty Member Ms Pretty is the Chief Executive Officer of the Aged & Community Services Association NSW & ACT Inc (ACSA). Ms Pretty’s demonstrated strengths include understanding provision of aged care for the veterans’, CALD, and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander special needs groups.  She currently serves or has previously served, on committees including the NSW State Planning Forum on Veterans Aged Care Services and Australian Government Working Party for Development of Standards for Aged Care Accreditation.