2009-03-12 42 1 4 REPS 0 0 2009-03-12 The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 2447 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 2447 2447 09:00:00 Mr FITZGIBBON,MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to add to an answer I gave yesterday. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The minister may proceed. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The minister is adding to an answer. My apologies; the minister did seek indulgence. Indulgence is granted. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I am loath to raise this point. I know the career of the Minister for Defence is in free fall, but indulgence is to be granted with the general support of the opposition in matters on which we are bipartisan. You cannot come into the House whenever you feel like it and ask for indulgence on matters that are controversial and partisan. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 83X Gibbons, Steve, MP Mr Gibbons —Learn to live in opposition. You lost the election; remember that. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —And learn to respect the order of the House, please. Indulgence is being sought; indulgence is being granted. I call the Minister for Defence. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —The opposition— 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business does not have the call. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to know on what basis you are granting indulgence to a minister for a partisan political point. There is no basis for indulgence to be granted and we will not support it. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER ——The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. Thank you for the assistance. I am not actually providing a ruling; I am giving indulgence, which is the prerogative of the chair, to the minister to add to an answer. I am providing indulgence. The minister has the call. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —I note that the Manager of Opposition Business now classifies SAS pay as a partisan issue. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Your performance is a partisan issue! 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister has the call. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition asked me a question on the financial disadvantage of SAS members. In particular, the Leader of the Opposition raised the following statement, which I made in the parliament on 25 February: No special forces soldier in this country has a debt against his name— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: under what standing order are you granting indulgence to the Minister for Defence? UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr Kelvin Thomson interjecting— 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The member for Wills is not assisting this situation. The minister has the call. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will begin the quote again: No special forces soldier in this country has a debt against his name because of the way in which Defence has implemented the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal’s decision—end of story. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Madam Deputy Speaker, I want a ruling from you. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —There is no standing order; it is in House of Representatives Practice. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —So your ruling is that the minister should have indulgence? 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —There is no ruling; it is from the House of Representatives Practice. Would you like me to read it? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Yes, I would. 10000 ACTING SPEAKER, The The ACTING SPEAKER —It says a minister may seek, and be granted, the indulgence of the chair. I have given indulgence. The minister has the call. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr FITZGIBBON —To take the opposition through this yet again, let me make this clear. On 24 February I told the House: I guarantee that no special forces soldier will be financially disadvantaged by the implementation of the independent Defence Force tribunal’s determination of March 2008. On the morning of 25 February, appearing before the Senate estimates committee, the Chief of Army said the following about his directive of 18 February to extinguish all the debts: It establishes a transition period during which no soldier will be financially disadvantaged until all proficiencies have been audited, deficiencies identified and adequate training opportunities provided to enable affected soldiers to demonstrate proficiency. This effectively removes any discussion about debt. There is no debt. Following the Chief of Army’s statement I then told parliament in question time: No special forces soldier in this country has a debt against his name because of the way in which Defence has implemented the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal’s decision—end of story. What the Leader of the Opposition, in his usual way, left out of his question yesterday was the rest of my paragraph. I will restate it for the record: That is not to say there is not some work to do. There is some work still to be done—in particular, making sure that they requalify for those allowances which now will be part of their more general remuneration. That is why I have engaged an independent auditor. 2448 Bills R4029 2448 Bills R4031 2448 Bills R4052 2448 Bills R4051 2448 Bills R4048 2448 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 2448 Committees 2448 2448 2448 09:07:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present the following reports, entitled Report 98: Treaties tabled on 26 November and 4 December 2008 and Report 99: Treaties tabled on 3 December 2008 and 3 February 2009. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —by leave—The reports review six treaty actions, including: the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; an agreement with NATO on the security of exchanged information; and two taxation agreements with the British Virgin Islands. In each case the committee has supported the proposed agreements and recommended that binding treaty action be taken. We have made an additional recommendation on the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. The committee considered two taxation agreements with the British Virgin Islands designed to assist in efforts to combat offshore tax evasion. These agreements are part of a suite of such agreements currently under negotiation by Australia and will facilitate the exchange of information relating to taxes and establish the allocation of taxing rights between Australia and the British Virgin Islands. The British Virgin Islands is one of 35 countries working with the OECD under the auspices of the Global Forum on Taxation to improve tax practices. It currently has a low-tax structure and is known internationally as a centre for incorporated offshore companies. These agreements will make it harder for taxpayers to evade tax and increase the probability of detection by allowing each country to request and receive certain information held by the other country. The committee heard evidence that the tax office expects to uncover tax evasion by Australian taxpayers using the British Virgin Islands, and that in the 2008 financial year about $2.2 billion came into Australia from the British Virgin Islands. The tax office intends to use the agreement to look for telltale signs of tax evasion such as a taxpayer using a credit card from one of these countries to repeatedly take cash at automatic teller machines in shopping centres. The committee heard that there were people doing up to 200 or 300 withdrawals a year of hundreds of thousands of dollars. Tax havens are one of the underlying causes of the global financial crisis. They contribute to a lack of transparency about who owns what. Taxpayers who pay their taxes voluntarily should not have to shoulder an additional burden to make up for those who do not. The Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities will further promote and protect the economic, social and cultural rights of Australians living with disabilities. The optional protocol allows Australians living with disabilities to lodge unresolved discrimination complaints with the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities once all domestic remedies have been exhausted. It also permits the committee to conduct inquiries into alleged grave or systemic breaches of the convention. The optional protocol will provide an additional layer of accountability to Australia’s antidiscrimination measures and demonstrate Australia’s confidence in its human rights record. It will promote the inclusion and participation of people with disabilities in all aspects of Australian life. Accession to the optional protocol is also consistent with Australia’s involvement in other treaties with external appeal mechanisms such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. Accession to the optional protocol places the rights of people with disabilities on an equal footing with the rights ensured by these treaties. In conducting its inquiry the committee heard from the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations (AFDO) that the process by which Australians will be able to make a complaint to the United Nations committee is not clear. The AFDO suggested that the government needs to make clear to Australians the pathway they would have to follow in order to make an appeal to the United Nations committee. To address this concern we have recommended that the government make advice available to Australians via the Attorney-General’s website—and I am delighted that the Attorney-General is in the chamber today—as to when and how a complaint could be lodged with the United Nations committee. The treaties committee considered that such an arrangement would ensure that Australians are aware of their options when making a disability discrimination complaint. The committee also considered the Agreement between the Government of Australia and the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation on the Security of Information. This agreement sets mandatory standards and procedures for exchanging classified information between the government of Australia and NATO. This agreement will strengthen the existing cooperative relationship between Australia and NATO and will aid current ongoing Australia-NATO operations, such as Australia’s military deployment in Afghanistan, by facilitating the sharing of classified information. It will also allow for a deeper strategic dialogue between Australia and NATO and increased cooperation on long-term common interests and issues. The agreement is one of 10 similar agreements entered into by Australia. These reports review six proposed treaty actions in total. The other treaty actions were minor amendments to the UNESCO International Convention Against Doping in Sport and the Agreement on the Conservation of Albatrosses and Petrels. I thank the numerous agencies and individuals who assisted in the committee’s inquiries. I thank the treaties committee staff for their efforts as well. I commend the reports to the House. 2450 Bills R4049 2450 2450 09:13:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, at the adjourn-ment of the House for this sitting, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration I indicate to honourable members that the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax, supports this motion. Question agreed to. 2450 Debate resumed from 26 February, on motion by Ms Kate Ellis: That this bill be now read a second time. 2450 09:14:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —As I was saying—I think about a week ago, when I was interrupted by question time—the Howard government’s 1999 legislation sought to amend the Higher Education Funding Act 1988 in order to make voluntary student unionism a condition of Commonwealth grants to higher education institutions. I ask the House: what is voluntary about this? It was compulsory to be voluntary! Where was the choice given to universities? The Labor Party respects university autonomy; the Liberal Party does not. The effects of Howard government legislation on students were both adverse and severe. Take the example of La Trobe University. Its Students Representative Council has advised me that in 2006, the last full year of the compulsory general service fee, the university collected just over $7 million from it. In 2007, the university provided a total of $3.3 million—so less than half of this—for the provision of student services on campus. As a consequence of this change, the La Trobe University student dental service, also used by students at RMIT Bundoora, was closed. The free legal service was taken over by the university and its operation changed. The SRC had also offered a free tax service for students—this was closed. The SRC had operated a second-hand bookstore for many years, which sold textbooks to students at well below the price of a new text—this was closed. Clubs and societies funding was cut by 25 per cent, student magazine funding was cut by 70 per cent and representation funding was cut by 80 per cent. I have no doubt that that cut in student advocacy was exactly what the Howard government, the previous government, wanted to achieve. As student organisations represent a source of criticism from time to time, the Liberal government had determined that they must be crippled and crushed. That is what voluntary student unionism was all about; it was not about some benign view of giving students a choice. By contrast, the National Union of Students and other student bodies had been highly critical of the previous federal Labor government over HECS and other issues. Nevertheless, the Labor Party—and this is one of the conspicuous differences between us and those opposite—is big enough to take criticism and big enough to tolerate dissent, and we did not try to kill off student unions. Liberal Party paternalism toward young people that says, ‘We know what is best for you; you cannot manage your own affairs’—that kind of arrogance and authoritarianism—shows a dislike of the pluralism and tolerance which, in the Labor Party’s view, makes us a richer, more diverse and more successful community. I am delighted to be given the opportunity to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 and to support it through the House. I hope that it makes its way through the Senate and becomes legislation as soon as possible. 2451 09:17:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I rise to very strongly oppose this piece of Labor Party legislation, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, which, of course, is a piece of legislation for its true believers, because most of them have come through this training school. Truth be told, that is what this is about—this is part of the Labor Party training school, and we will walk through that in a little bit more detail. We just heard the member for Wills, who is a longstanding member of this House, talk about how the previous government’s legislation was not about choice—it was authoritarianism, apparently, gone mad. Well, it seems to me that forcing someone to pay a tax or to be a member of the union would be closer to that than giving them a choice would be. We know what this is all about—this is about funding the next generation of Labor MPs and Labor activists. That is what it is about, and I refer to my home state of South Australia in that respect: I see the next speaker on the list is the member for Kingston, and a good member she is too, but she is a product of the Australian school. She, of course, was the president of the Flinders University students union; the member for Adelaide, who is the Minister for Youth, was the president of the student association for, I think, about six years. So this is all part of Labor Inc. What they do is have the compulsory union fee and get the next group of numbers into their faction and into their group. In South Australia that group is the SDA, run by Senator Don Farrell or, as the Advertiser dubbed him earlier this week, the ‘godfather’ of the Right in South Australia. They get their next group of people in so they can control the Labor Party—we saw last week the benefits of that for Mr Koutsantonis, who is now a minister in the state Labor government after many years of undermining the Premier of South Australia. He got rewarded because he is part of the faction that runs the state government; it is the same with the Minister for Youth and the member for Kingston. They have all been part of this training school. They started off at university in the student union—funded through compulsory fees—and had the activist training. It is all part of Labor Inc. So that is the motive of this bill: Labor Inc. need this bill because they need the next group of activists to be forced through their training school, and that is what it is all about—it is as simple as that. This is a bill to keep Labor Inc. going and to keep Labor Inc. moving forward, and we will see that in the future years. That is all the Labor members care about, and that is what this bill is about. Here are some facts about the voluntary student unionism legislation that was moved by the previous government. In 2004, $160 million was collected around Australia in compulsory student union fees. At the time, Labor claimed that over 4,000 jobs would go with the introduction of VSU, but that is a claim that just has not been substantiated. Labor has run a desperate scare campaign on this about services and amenities. You see the name of this bill: the student services and amenities and other measures bill. Of course, that is not what it is about; it is about a compulsory union fee to drag more people into their faction in the Labor Party so that they have got more control and so that they can dish out seats going forward. That is what it is all about and that is how they have operated for many years, particularly in my state of South Australia. They have the numbers in certain seats—the member for Adelaide, the Minister for Youth, benefited from that in the past and the member for Kingston is the same. So this is what this bill is all about—it is part of the Labor Inc. system of training the next group of activists. I wish to make five points in particular on this bill. The first point is that this is clearly a broken promise of Labor. Labor told the public before the last election that they were not considering an amenities fee. At a doorstop interview in May 2007 the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then education spokesman, said: … I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. I repeat: ‘So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.’ What do we see with this bill? We see the very thing that the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, the then shadow spokesman on education, said they were not contemplating. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation, the member for Melbourne, during a debate on the Higher Education Support Bill on 14 October 2003, said: The reality is that Australian students and Australian families have pretty much reached the limit of their capacity to contribute to their own education or their children’s education. The minister for finance was saying that we do not need more fees; we do not need more expense on young people going into university because it is hard enough as it is. The obligation on education providers to support student unions goes beyond what existed before the previous government legislated against compulsory fees and compulsory unionism. It was just another case of Labor misleading leading into the last election. We have seen a lot of that. We have seen it over the last couple of days with a promise, which has been broken, to the Christian Lobby regarding the funding of international abortions. We are now seeing the same with this bill. It is just another broken promise from Labor. We saw it with the great ads for the economic conservative who now is the great social democrat. It is a consistent approach. That is the first point: it is a clear broken promise, a clear breach of Labor’s undertaking. The second point is about unionism. The bill will effectively see the return of compulsory student unionism. The only political activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are support for political parties and support for election to a government body. This leaves out a whole range of political activities including funding campaigns against legislation and policy, potentially against political parties or for direct support of trade unions or any other organisation not registered as a political party. This fee is used for activists’ training, to boost the extra numbers at protests et cetera. This is an attempt to reintroduce a compulsory fee that will in effect fund the activities of student unions again. We hear much about the childcare services and so forth that this legislation is allegedly there to fund. That is simply not true. It is there to fund the student union slush fund, all part of the training of the next group of activists for Labor Inc. That is what this bill is all about. Student unions are not councils. Student organisations often argue that such a fee is equivalent to a local government charging property owners rates for the provision of services such as garbage collection and libraries. Student organisations are in fact more like a sporting club where members pay a voluntary fee in order to participate in recreational activities. So people will join if they wish to join, if they see a benefit in the service, rather than being forced into paying a fee which is then used for all sorts of activities, which people do not realise or indeed do not agree to. Rather than making a case for why people would want to join student associations, this legislation is about forcing them to. Labor know that, when people look at the options or the range of activities, most people choose not to join because it does not give them any benefit, so they have to force them. It is the lazy approach to unionism that the government are supportive of, because it boosts numbers and, as I said before, increases revenue for all parts of the training for Labor Inc. The third point is the financial burden on young people and students going to university. This fee of up to $250 slugs students at a time when the economy is already in decline, when people are finding it more difficult to meet their obligations. We heard Labor for 11 years carp on about the costs of going to university, the high cost of up-front courses and so forth. Now we see Labor adding another up-front fee that people have no choice about, with no option about whether they wish to use these services. They are forced to contribute to a whole range of political activities, all based on the Labor Inc. theory. The bill will impose a regressive tax on students which is indexed to inflation. The fee will therefore become higher each year. It is $250 now, but of course it will increase. It will increase the obligations on the next group of students coming through. Students often work in a number of jobs to pay for rent and other cost-of-living pressures, which of course is becoming more difficult as time goes on. We see a report today in the Australian in relation to my home state of South Australia, where the Restaurant and Catering Industry Association is predicting that wage costs will increase by 15 per cent. That will increase the pressure on the ability of those restaurants to employ young people. Many young people who go to university work part time in restaurants and catering organisations and if wage costs increase by 15 per cent, through Labor’s changes to industrial relations law, then we will see a substantial reduction in the number of young people who are taken on. That is a bad thing for students. At the same time, Labor is imposing a new tax, a $250 compulsory student union fee, on these same university students. So they are reducing employment options and imposing additional costs all for the purpose of the Labor Inc. organisation. In the case of part-time students and the 130,000 external students around Australia, many of them will never have the opportunity to use the services but they will be charged the fee. It is outrageous that students studying by correspondence should be forced to pay this fee, particularly if they never set foot on campuses. What about mature age students who work full time and attend night sessions or indeed study across the internet? It is simply a new tax to fund activities which people are not choosing to fund themselves, so they have to be compulsory to give the student unions the amount of money that they need to run the activities to train the next group of activists for Labor Inc. Students living on minimal budgets, who will have fewer chances for employment under this government’s approach to industrial relations law and the economy, will now be slugged another fee just to add to those pressures. This is bad policy, but it is designed wholly and solely for the political benefit of those on the other side. This is their training school. We have seen it in South Australia, where the Minister for Youth and the member for Kingston have come through the Labor training school and have been rewarded with their seats in the parliament for doing the right thing by the faction in South Australia. It is all part of the Labor Inc. system that brings them through. We have seen it in a whole range of activities in South Australia. Yesterday, there was a great spread in the Advertiser about the secretary of the SDA, the key union in the Right faction, with his love life posted all over the Advertiser—all part of the management of the faction, of course. This student union fee is designed to benefit that group of people. This is a bad piece of legislation. It is bad law. It is a new tax. That is simply what it is: it is a new tax benefiting those on the other side to help train their next group of activists. The fourth point is that this removes choice. The very basis of the VSU legislation was to give students choice about whether they wanted to use the services or not. What this fee, this tax, this compulsory unionism, is designed to do is to force people to pay this fee for the benefit of those on the other side. Students should not be forced to pay for services they do not want to use or have no intention of using. It should be a choice. It should be that if you need a service you pay for it to be delivered, rather than this approach from Labor, which is compulsory unionism. It is a new tax. Once again, this highlights a stark difference between those on this side of the House and those on the other. We believe very strongly in choice. We believe that, if students are given their right to choose what services they use, they will, and indeed they have been doing so over the last couple of years, since the beginning of the VSU legislation. But what Labor want—what those on the other side want—is a compulsory fee because it boosts the coffers of these union organisations to train the next group of activists for the future. We have seen a range of policies. We are starting to see a range of hard-headed Labor policies that they wish to implement, and this is one of them. We have seen already the flagging of the return to the old school hit list, which the Deputy Prime Minister is so enamoured of. She was a numbers person for Mark Latham, and that was a policy that Mark Latham pursued very heavily. Those on the other side do not understand the word ‘choice’; what they understand is ‘compulsory’, because it is for their political benefit, and that is what they are doing this piece of legislation for. In my fifth point I wish to make some remarks in relation to VSU, the legislation that the Howard government moved through about choice in universities. The VSU legislation is working. Student services are still going strong, and voluntary student unionism is clearly working. People who choose to join the union, who are activists already, do so. Those who do not choose to, the majority, are not forced to. That is the big difference, of course, between those of us on this side and those on the other side. The lazy approach to student unions is to force people to do so. The Howard government’s VSU legislation of 2005 has enabled students to save, on average, about $250 per annum, a real saving for someone who lives on a shoestring budget and who is now finding it harder and harder to get work because of the policies of those on the other side. They are now going to be slugged with an extra tax. There were real savings from policies implemented by the Howard government. It is a substantial amount of money. It would go towards their living costs—and this will take away from students’ abilities to fund entertainment and basics like electricity bills and rent. This is a bad piece of policy. It is a bad piece of policy designed for the benefit of those on the other side. Why? The motive is clear. Student unions provide the training ground for the next group of Labor activists. We have seen it in South Australia constantly, as I have referred to already. What the Labor Party want to do here is bring back the compulsory aspect of this fee because it increases substantially the amount of money that is used for a range of political activities; it is not used for what those on the other side purport that it is. I pay tribute to the Young Liberal student association for the information that they have sent out to members. It has been very well written and well researched. They are a group of young people who believe in choice. They do not want to be forced to be slugged with a $250 Labor tax each year. There are reduced employment opportunities for those young people in this current economic circumstance because of policies of those on the other side, and at the same time they will be forced to pay a new tax, a new tax designed to help the betterment of those on the other side in their political careers and to increase the size of their factions and the ability of their factions to have the numbers to control their state organisation and therefore the seats that they get to choose. We have seen it in South Australia. We see the great employment slush fund that occurs with ministers’ offices. The brother of the SDA secretary in South Australia is employed by the Treasurer, who is on the Right, and of course we have the member for Adelaide, who is part of that faction, the member for Wakefield and the member for Kingston. Then we have those on the other side who are part of the Left, run by the member for Port Adelaide. That is how the South Australian Labor Party work. They employ their own, and it is all through the training school of the student unions in the first place that gives them these numbers and that helps train them. That is what this is about. That is the motive of this bill. It is not for the benefit of the vast bulk of young people who go to university to seek to improve themselves for a future career and to get the education they require. It is about increasing the ability of the Labor Party to train the next group, to keep the numbers in their relevant factions so they have the ability to control their party. So it is a sad piece of legislation. It is true Labor legislation, of course. It will be sold in all sorts of positive terms and Orwellian speak about how important it is and how outrageous it was that the Howard government took away all sorts of services like child care, which of course is simply not true. This bill is about compulsory student unionism for the benefit of those on the other side, not for the students that they purport to represent. It is forcing people to dig into the limited resources they currently have to pay for activities they do not want. The only way those activities can be funded is by a compulsory fee. It is a bad piece of legislation. I urge the government to reconsider it. It is a broken promise. It will hurt young Australians, and I urge the government to reconsider. 2456 09:36:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, a bill that will amend the legacy left by the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism legislation of 2005, which saw the loss of various amenities and essential services to students. These are services that all students in our universities deserve and have every right to expect during their tertiary education. The review conducted by the Rudd government last year revealed that the effect of the VSU introduced by the previous government was that somewhere in the vicinity of $170 million was stripped out of student services and amenities across this country. This $170 million stripped out of university funding by the previous government resulted in a widespread decline in, and in some cases the complete closure of, health and counselling services, employment, child care, welfare support and advocacy services applied on various campuses. It is not surprising that the review exposed further damaging facts. It found that students were often paying considerably more for access to what were often reduced services, and that a number of institutions had been forced to redirect their funds because they actually believe in looking after their students and providing these services. The member for Mayo, who is leaving the chamber at the moment, may not have looked at this and would be surprised to know that a number of academic institutions redirected their funding to ensure that these essential services were maintained for students. That funding was stripped away from funding that would have ordinarily been applied to research and teaching services at those institutions. In response to the review promised at the last election, the Rudd government introduced this bill, which is aimed to restore the student union services and advocacy representation on campuses. This is not a return to compulsory student unionism. I listened intently to the comments of the member for Mayo and, if you stripped from his 20-minute contribution his concerns about a return to a breeding ground for potential Labor candidates, there was precious little he had to say. He certainly did not talk about anything to do with his own education, about what applied in terms of student services in tertiary institutions then. I am sure that if he had been even half truthful in all of that he would have indicated that he actually participated in and benefited from those services. I invite every other member from the opposition, when they make their contribution today, to relate their experiences when they were at university. Don’t forget that just about everyone who is going to pop up in this debate will have gone to university, and will be tertiary educated. Not too many tradesmen are going to stand up and lecture us on VSU today, let me tell you. If you strip away from the diatribe we were just subjected to the comments about student unionism being simply a breeding ground for Labor politics, he flies in the face of just about every academic institution that participated in the review of the VSU legislation. This was in my opinion the most severe anti-student legislation that has ever been introduced into the parliament. It was driven by an ideological obsession of the previous government, and that is what this government is moving to correct. This government is remarkably skilled at trying to undo the harm caused by the prejudice of the previous Howard government. We are fixing the ineptitude that has come through their prejudiced position, as amply demonstrated in terms of the VSU legislation itself. We on this side of the House are taking a balanced approach to ensure that student amenities and services, access to independent democratic representation and advocacy are secured now and into the future, and that this is done in a balanced way. The Liberal Party to date have consistently refused to acknowledge the devastation and the retrograde aspects of their scattergun approach to university education, particularly to university support services for our students. I do not want to keep harping on the comments of the member for Mayo—I do not think he needs the publicity—but, if you listened to his contribution, it is not surprising that they have got it wrong on this bill. He claimed this bill is all about compulsory student unionism. Nothing could be further from the truth. I would like to make it clear that the member for Mayo had nothing to say and that his contribution was all about student unionism simply supporting a breeding ground of Labor politics. I notice that the member for Higgins has walked into the chamber. No doubt he will be able to indicate to us his involvement in student unionism during his earlier years. This government is not reinstituting compulsory unionism; it is looking to those essential services, those conditions which are necessary and which are expected. I have a daughter who went through the University of Western Sydney. I know how much she required various services that were provided. She went through under the regime of student contributions. I was very proud when she was awarded a degree. She did not get it in placard waving or anything else like that; she became a teacher and has for the last 10 to 12 years been out there teaching in high schools in my local area. I look on her time there, as no doubt she does, in terms of those services that were provided—in student assistance, photocopying, the occasional university sporting activity—being essential for university life. It does not behove us to sit down here and try to extrapolate this piece of legislation into something that is either pro or against compulsory union membership. Do not forget where this debate on VSU originated from. This was the forerunner to the application of the anti-union forces which were mustered under the Howard government. This was just being consistent with their general approach to unionism. Because student unionism had ‘unionism’ in the name, they thought that they should follow on and do what they had tried to do to the working men and women of this country, extending that to students at each of our academic institutions. We are about a decent education, restoring important student services and ensuring that students have appropriate representation on campuses. In order for our students to have greater and better opportunities to pursue their dreams, we must have good and fundamentally sound education facilities and students must be able to participate. Unlike the previous government, we are committed to world-class universities. They will play a crucial role in the future economic development of this country. There is absolutely no question about that. We must invest in our education, including our tertiary education. Our kids that are going through that are our future. In the contribution I made yesterday in relation to the government’s general contribution to education, I think I mentioned something about the $14.7 billion now going through the economic stimulus into schools. This does things apart from delivering direct employment in that respect. What I tried to indicate at that stage, as you might recall, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, is that an investment now in school based education is an investment, quite frankly, in the economic growth of this country within 10 years. If we are going to be a smart nation, we have to be prepared to make those contributions. We have to be prepared to ensure that those students coming through are adequately provided for. This piece of legislation is seeking to address the harm that was done by the previous government in respect of those students pursuing tertiary education. Sadly, my electorate does not contain a university campus within its boundaries. My boundary stops at the front door of a university, so quite clearly, whilst I do not have the university in my boundaries, a great number of students who go to the University of Western Sydney’s Campbelltown campus come from my electorate, and those who are not from my electorate are from my neighbour’s electorate in Macarthur. So this university is well positioned for us to see what it does. As I have said, I have a daughter who has graduated from that university. The University of Western Sydney serves a very large and diverse area. Apart from its Campbelltown campus, there are another five campuses operated by that university throughout greater Western Sydney. Presently, I think it has about 35,000 or 36,000 students in all. Interestingly, in its submission to the report The impact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students, the University of Western Sydney reported that the introduction of voluntary student unionism had had a disastrous impact on it, with the loss of $9 million in student service fees, representing a significant challenge to the nature, organisation, financial viability and traditional models of student representation in the University of Western Sydney. The university, it claims, was hit particularly hard by VSU because of the multicampus network that it operates through its six campuses, providing various services across each of those facilities. The imposition of VSU immediately undermined the capacity of the university to implement, develop and deliver quality services to students right across the board in each of those six campuses. Student services at the University of Western Sydney that have been particularly severely impacted by VSU include the provision of the shuttle bus, which was cancelled. By the way, not all of those campuses are located on a rail line, so the shuttle bus was particularly important. That was cancelled. Clubs and societies are greatly reduced. Social sport and organised sport were certainly reduced. Campus life activities were significantly reduced as a consequence of VSU. This might not seem a lot to members on the other side of the House, but it is to students on a tight budget. Bear in mind where we are located in Western Sydney, out of the metropolitan areas of Sydney. Most of those students are on a tight budget out there, and most of the families who are helping to support those students are on a tight budget. These student services meant quite a lot, and I can verify what they meant for my own daughter, who graduated from UWS itself. The University of Western Sydney also noted that it provided assistance to fund key services that were determined to be essential to student needs. It said that it had actually diverted some of its funding that would otherwise have gone into teaching-related and research-related services. Where the university has deemed that services are essential, it has had to pick up that financial slack out of its own particular university funding to ensure that those services were maintained. In particular, the university says that those services that were maintained included welfare, case work, direct support for students via the student associations and commercial services, primarily food and beverage services. It also had to weigh in to help support some of the sport and leisure services that operated on each of its campuses. Those were funds which were diverted from teaching and research activities and redirected into these services because staff, from the Vice-Chancellor down, deemed these to be essential services for those students who are participating in studies at the University of Western Sydney. These arrangements, quite frankly, are just not sustainable into the future. We have to at least have a positive view about what is essential and what we should be doing to ensure the welfare of these students not simply at the University of Western Sydney but undertaking tertiary education across the board. After looking through a handful of the 162 submissions that were received by the inquiry, I found that almost all of them concluded that the abolition of student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact being on smaller and regional universities like the University of Western Sydney. Many universities, not surprisingly to those on this side of the House, have put forward the view that VSU has resulted in a lessening of the vibrancy, the diversity and, to some extent, the attractiveness of university life. I cannot verify that because all of my study at university was done part time, but we need to realise that vibrancy and diversity are important in ensuring that students enrolled at our universities complete their courses. That is important not simply for the kids that are actually going there but for the overall economy of this nation. We need to have the best minds graduating and applying their skills to improve the economy of this country. This bill will provide an opportunity to enhance the on-campus experience for University of Western Sydney students through the growth of student clubs and special interest groups, as it will in all tertiary institutions. It will enhance the provision of specialist support services such as childcare facilities and welfare services for those in need, as well as improving university services such as food and beverage across all campuses. It will improve the representation of students in university affairs. What it does not do is divert funds from these bodies to political parties. I hate to disavow the contribution of the member for Mayo, but none of what he had to say was related to this bill. Universities are working with student representatives and student bodies to establish new student organisations, which will commence shortly. These will be properly run organisations where students have a voice and can participate in their universities. The single student representative organisations will provide an independent and effective voice for the 35,000 students undertaking undergraduate and postgraduate degrees at the University of Western Sydney. The member for Chifley has just walked in to the chamber. I note he has a campus of the University of Western Sydney in his electorate. These measures are for students of the outer metropolitan areas of Sydney who not only attend university but want to participate in and be part of the fabric of university life. I am delighted to be in this place to support this legislation because I know it is valued not only by the Campbelltown campus of the University of Western Sydney but by the campus in the electorate of Chifley and by all tertiary institutions. I call on members opposite, who claim they have a commitment to higher education, to do more than simply dwell on their past evils against unionism, whereby they sucked up VSU, and look at what we can do to facilitate better representation for students into the future. 2460 09:56:00 Costello, Peter, MP CT4 Higgins LP 0 0 Mr COSTELLO —I will not be supporting the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I congratulate the previous member for his speech but, although it was well argued, I did not find it at all convincing. His entreaties at the end for the opposition to reconsider its position will be largely unsuccessful. I suggest to him that he in fact reconsider his position on this legislation. He also asked me to set out my own experiences and views on student unions, which I am quite happy to do. As a student who went to university in the mid-1970s, I found it was a condition of enrolment to join a student union. Until you had joined the student union and paid the union fee, you were ineligible to enrol. Like every other student who wanted to get an education, I joined the student union. In fact, you actually had to produce evidence that you had done it—a receipt for your fee—before you were admitted to the university. There was no choice about it, so I, like every other student who wanted an education, joined the student union. I soon became aware, however, that the student unions were thoroughly unrepresentative of student opinion. By and large, they were run by a small minority of students with a very left-wing outlook on life. The student unions were dominated by various communist subfactions and anarchist groups, many of the leaders of which are now members of the Labor Party, having moderated in their old age. As a student leader, I began organising against the left-wing control of both the local student union and the Australian Union of Students. One of the issues that shocked me and shocked student opinion back in those days was the virulent anti-Israel stance that was taken by the left-wing students and the left-wing student unions. In 1975 they passed resolutions saying that the Australian student movement would not recognise the state of Israel, that they would organise boycotts of the state of Israel and that they would not travel to Palestine ‘until the Zionist entity is overcome’. That was the position of the compulsory student union, to which we all joined and paid our compulsory fee. What concerned me in relation to those student unions was that although we were all forced to join them, and we were all forced to pay fees to them, very few students ever voted in student elections—which was how the left was able to capture and maintain control of those organisations. I ran for election myself in order to oppose the left’s control of the student unions, and I was successful. At that time, I thought that, if we were all forced to join these student unions, we should at least all be forced to vote. I believed that compulsory membership and compulsory voting might do something to actually moderate the extremism of these student unions. For a while I actually flirted with, and supported, compulsory voting in student elections. But, in 1978, a student by the name of Robert Clark took a case, which was successful, against the Melbourne university SRC. The Supreme Court found that all of the students, at that university at least, that were being forced into the student union had been forced in illegally—that, in fact, the university had no power to actually require membership of a student union as a condition of enrolment. And so, at that university at least—and it probably would have applied at any other campuses had it been challenged—the university had been unlawfully forcing people into a student organisation and unlawfully extracting money from them. This raised the whole issue of what should be the principled position in relation to student organisations and student fees. Rather than making membership and voting compulsory, in 1979 I decided that voting should be voluntary and membership should be voluntary. I believed that rather than go down the compulsory path we should go down the voluntary path. The argument that I used then, and believe now, is that a student union is a lobby group. It lobbies the university on behalf of students. It lobbies the government on behalf of students and if you believe in that kind of lobbying activity—and many students do—then you should join it. But, if you do not, there should be no compulsion, just as there should be no compulsion on a returned serviceman to join the RSL. If you believe in the RSL—that it lobbies successfully for conditions for returned servicemen—then join it. Just as the NRMA lobbies on behalf of motorists, if you believe that it is doing a good job, join it and pay the fee. A student union will be lobbying the administration for student services or it might be lobbying the government for increases in Youth Allowance. If you believe that it is doing a good job or you want to support it in doing that, join it. Pay the money. But why should there be compulsory membership, or a compulsory fee paid, to what is essentially a lobby group? The only argument that I have heard to try and defend the in-principle position is that a student organisation is somehow like a government. We all have to pay taxes to a government; therefore we all have to pay fees to a student union. I do not think it will take too much persuasion for the House to recognise that a government is qualitatively different to a student union or a student organisation. What characterises a government is sovereignty. The government has sovereignty within its area of constitutional responsibility. And, because it has sovereignty, it has a compulsory taxing power. A compulsory taxing power goes with the sovereignty. But a student union does not exercise sovereignty. It does not exercise sovereignty over people’s lives. It does not exercise sovereignty in a particular area of constitutional responsibility. It is a lobby group and, as a lobby group, it ought to be entirely voluntary. We have no choice whether or not to live under the Australian government or a state government, and it exercises a taxing power because it permits us no choice—quite properly. But a student union is not comparable in any material respect, and therefore membership ought to be voluntary. I have no objection to anybody who chooses to join. I would say: ‘Good on you. Get involved. If you think you can make a positive contribution, do so.’ But why should those students that do not intend to do so, and those students who never go near it, have to pay a fee? Why should they have their choice fettered in that particular way? I do believe in fee for service—where students want to use a service that is provided by some kind of student organisation. Suppose they want to eat in a cafeteria; then they should pay for the cost of their meals to that student union. Suppose a student union provides sporting facilities and a student wants to use those sporting facilities or to join a sporting club; then they should pay a fee for the use of those sporting facilities or to join that sporting club. But, for the student who chooses not to exercise their right to buy the meal or not to exercise a right to join a club or not to go near the sporting facilities, they are receiving no service and they should not be charged a fee for service. A fee for service, as the phrase implies, is where you pay for the service that you receive. But why should those who do not receive the service—who exercise their freedom not to do so—pay a fee? What this bill is designed to do, of course, is to collect a fee from people who choose not to use a service, or who would otherwise choose not to pay a fee because they do not like the service. It imposes a fee on those who do not value the service or do not think the fee gives them value for that service. It takes away their freedom of choice. It takes away their power as a consumer. It takes away their right to join, or not join, the lobbying activities. This is all about extracting fees from people who would not voluntarily choose to pay them. As such, it is most obviously a tax. I do not think there can be any argument other than that this bill is imposing a new tax on students. This parliament is being asked to give universities the power to tax students $250 a year from 2010 and rising thereafter. I assume that most, if not all, of the universities will impose that tax and they will therefore raise around $200 million of new taxation from students. Incidentally, the next time you hear the Labor Party say, ‘We are worried about the debt levels of students,’ just remember that the Labor Party is authorising a new tax on those students. Thankfully, we may say, they can add it to their HECS liabilities. So let us just remember that this parliament is being asked to authorise universities to impose a new tax which can be added to HECS-type liabilities of students throughout Australia. Let me make this point: this new tax which is being imposed on students is entirely in breach of the ALP’s promises before the election. As the Parliamentary Library reports in its Bills Digest: In the ALP’s white paper on education, shadow spokesperson, Jenny Macklin, proposed that the provision and funding of services would be formulated through … negotiations … and that ‘the financial imposition on students will not increase’. Well, the financial imposition on students will increase. It will increase for every student enrolled at a university that takes up the taxing power of $250. Stephen Smith, following the ALP national conference in May 2007, said: The funding of those services has been a matter of conversation between me and the Universities. I believe that the Commonwealth, the Government of the day, has a responsibility, together with the Universities, to fund those services … Who did he say would be funding it? He said it would be the Commonwealth together with the universities. There was no suggestion that there was going to be a compulsory tax and that the students would pay. In fact, Macklin explicitly promised that ‘the financial imposition on students will not increase’. We are hearing a lot about mandates in this parliament at the moment. I think the Labor Party won a mandate to not increase liabilities on students. And since the Labor Party is into the business of claiming mandates, where is its mandate for a new $250 tax on students? This is a breach of the promise that was made before the election. This is without any authorisation from the electorate. This is a new tax on students and it is forcing people to subsidise services that they do not want. The government would have you believe that none of this money can be used for political purposes because it bans the use of this money being given to political parties or in campaigns to seek political office. How naive is that? You cannot give it directly to the Australian Labor Party, but can you give it to the Australian Labor Party supporters club at the university? HWA Rishworth, Amanda, MP Ms Rishworth —No. You can’t. CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —You can’t. That is banned, is it? It cannot be given to the Australian Liberal Students Federation, which is a club at the university? 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —Who’d want to? CT4 Costello, Peter, MP Mr COSTELLO —Is that banned too? I think you ought to read the legislation very carefully. You will be getting up for the next speech, no doubt, Member for Kingston, and will take us to the section which prohibits any money being given to a student club on campus, I presume. You have alleged that it is banned. It is not. The ban is in relation to candidates sitting in political office or gifts to political parties. What about the AUS resolution of 1975 to campaign against the Zionist aggressor? Would money be forbidden for use in that campaign? No, of course it would not. Would it be forbidden, for example, to organise a student demonstration against a G20 conference in Melbourne? We read in the papers today that the Prime Minister is going to go off to the G20 with his plan to save the world. Many people will remember that the G20 held its 2006 meeting in Melbourne. I was the chair of the G20 at the time, and an organisation known as Stop G20 was formed. It had its training days at the RMIT Student Union. It drew its activists from universities both in Sydney and in Melbourne. It engaged in violent demonstrations in the street against the G20, I know not why. In the course of those violent protests, Constable Kim Dixon of the Victoria Police was hit by a barricade thrown by student activist Julia Dehm. Constable Kim Dixon has subsequently had to retire from the Victoria Police force and Julia Dehm has been convicted and given a community service order. Another student on charges is awaiting trial: a man by the name of Akin Sari, who smashed a police vehicle. The student unions have given money to fund his defence. I ask this question: is there anything in this bill that would prohibit the compulsory taxes levied on students being given in legal aid to demonstrators who demonstrate against the G20 or go to political demonstrations? Of course there is not. So it is quite feasible that these compulsory fees collected by way of a tax, which will be used for student services, which will be used for legal aid and which will be used for training days, could be used for demonstrations against the G20—where policewomen doing their duty are injured and where public property is vandalised. It is quite feasible. There is nothing at all in this legislation that could stop that. It does not even make a pretence of trying to stop that kind of activity, because, at the bottom of it, this is all about imposing a new tax to try and provide services for which people would not ordinarily want to pay. The Howard government did actually provide some money after it brought in voluntary student unionism to provide, particularly in rural campuses, sporting facilities and activities. There is no reason at all why this government, if it really believed this was absolutely essential to education, could not provide finance for limited non-political services. The Howard government provided $100 million. If this government says, ‘Well, we are being careful with taxpayers’ money’, my view would be that it is a little late for the Labor Party to start getting worried about taxpayers’ money now. They have actually spent $52 billion in new discretionary spending since the budget. They have actually authorised $200 billion of new borrowings. After the Howard government got out of a net debt of $96 billion, it has all been re-borrowed in the last 12 months. I would think of the taxpayers, but I would have thought of the taxpayers a little earlier than this legislation. Poor old Mr Tanner is lying awake at night worrying about the debt. The funny thing is that he did not have to lie awake and worry about the debt when he was elected. It is only since he was elected that the debt has been re-borrowed. Maybe he should have had a few sleepless nights before he borrowed it rather than after he borrowed it. This is a new tax. It is a compulsory tax. It does not prohibit political activity, and it should not be introduced. The Labor Party does not have a mandate for it; it is in breach of assurances which they gave before the election and it should be defeated. 2464 10:16:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise to speak in favour of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. It was very interesting to hear the member for Higgins recount his university days. Fortunately, I am able to provide a more contemporary picture of what university campuses were like in the late nineties. I was involved in the provision of services on campus as part of the Flinders University student union. We were a group of students, many not aligned to any political party, who were trying to do the best for their students and trying to provide the best services on campus. We heard the member for Higgins talk about how you cannot be compelled to join a lobby group. I put this question to the member for Higgins: when he was compelled to join the Law Society, did he organise and rally against that to make sure that was voluntary? I think the answer to that is ‘no’. We have heard many of the previous speakers, including the members for Mayo and Higgins, talk about this as a choice. We hear a lot about choice from the Liberal Party. The message I have for the Liberal Party is that you cannot just put the word ‘choice’ in a piece of legislation and expect people to buy it. Nothing says that more clearly than ‘Work Choices’. The legislation in front of us today is very important in restoring basic services to university campuses. They are essential to support students while they study. Unlike what previous speakers on the other side have suggested—that we are just bringing back something—we are in fact fulfilling one of our election commitments, which is to provide a new way forward to ensure that basic services are provided on university campuses and that students have a voice in their education. During my years at Flinders University I enjoyed a vibrant campus culture, but I also valued the very important services such as the Flinders Employment Service. Like many students, I had to work part-time jobs while studying to make ends meet. It was the Flinders Employment Service that helped me find many short-term jobs that fitted in with my uni break. They actually liaised with employers to make sure that they understood the requirements that my university course had on me as well as the requirements that the job would have on me. This was very important. Things like the employment service, child care, counselling and academic advocacy are all examples of services that have helped many students continue with their university studies when things are particularly tough. Voluntary student unionism, introduced by the previous government, has led to the decline in the availability of and access to these types of services—especially when students need them most. It is not just the Labor Party, as the opposition would have you believe, that believes and has seen this. Consultations with students, universities and other stakeholders undertaken by the Minister for Youth painted a very dark picture indeed. Those consultations revealed just how devastating voluntary student unionism legislation has been to Australian universities. It is estimated that $170 million has been stripped from the funding of services such as health, counselling, employment, child care and welfare. These are services which are fundamental to the wellbeing of students and of vital importance to students to navigate their way through university. In addition, voluntary student unionism drastically undermined the opportunities for students to engage in sporting and cultural activities to the extent that the Australian Olympic Committee noted a direct negative impact that voluntary student unionism has had on sporting participation in this country. Examples of how university life has been hurt have also been illustrated to me by my constituents. Aaron is one of my constituents who was studying at Flinders University before and after voluntary student unionism was introduced. Aaron commented to me that he has really noticed that there are fewer clubs and fewer societies. There is no discount food option, the child care centre has had to close and the student newspaper, with 40 years of history—the Empire Times—has been forced to shut down. Many of those in the opposition have criticised this legislation before us today, but they did participate in a lot of the things that benefited from compulsory student unionism or the student union fee. They got to participate in and benefit from all these sorts of things, and now they are directly trying to stop others—new students—from also benefiting from these things. Aaron does remember that it was hard to find money to pay his student fee at the beginning of the year, but he said that now he really has noticed that missing value. The impact of the dwindling services at university has been felt most acutely in outer suburban universities like Flinders University, near my electorate, and also on rural and regional campuses where many students have no alternative place to go for these basic services such as health services, and where university clubs were really the lifeblood of the community. It is very disappointing that the Liberal Party still does not seem, with all this evidence, to understand the impact that the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation had on our universities. They continue to argue that the VSU system created a system where no-one had to pay for anything they did not use. However, they are blind to the evidence that the costs for these services have just been transferred onto the universities. This is clearly illustrated in the submission by Universities Australia, which shows that VSU forced universities to cross-subsidise these essential services from other parts of their already stretched budget and also remove money from teaching and research just to ensure that these basic services were funded. Therefore, every student, along with the Australian taxpayer, has been footing the bill for these services at universities. In response to this accusation from the previous government, we are not skimping on our election commitment. We went to the election with very clear guidelines, and we are not reverting to the old compulsory student unionism. What we are saying is that universities will be allowed to set a service and amenities fee, capped at $250. Universities will have a choice of what fee they set and put to students. However, no student will be required to join any student organisation. Providing this flexibility to universities will provide a balanced and practical approach that ensures student services and representation are secured into the future but will not—unlike what the opposition would have us believe—compel any student to join an organisation they do not wish to join. Importantly, under the legislation, universities for the first time will be required to implement national access to service benchmarks, as well as national student representation and advocacy protocols, to ensure that students do have a voice on campus. The national access to service benchmarks set standards for the provision of information on access to services such as welfare and are similar to the current requirements for international students. The representation and advocacy protocols provide a framework through which an independent voice of students in university governance can be assured. A mechanism to consult with students and provide structures that allow students to represent themselves will ensure that universities will provide services that students actually need. We all know that universities do their best to provide services that students need but, without listening to students directly, they will not necessarily get these services right. This will be very important to ensure that the services that universities provide are actually what students want and need. Finally, on this point, I want to emphasise the inherent value of democratising our public institutions and how important it is that we reflect our democratic values by ensuring that people have an opportunity to participate in the decision making that affects them. This will be very important with these protocols. Although this bill is about supporting democracy in our community, what we are proposing is something that is very apolitical. The new provisions prohibit the fee being spent to support any candidate for any level of office. It will be clear in the guidelines limiting the purpose for which these fees can be used. In addition, the bill does not allow student service fees to support political parties through campaigns and activities on campus. There have been very many legitimate concerns—and this is probably the only legitimate concern that the member for Higgins raised—about the up-front service fee being a barrier to students attending university. This is a legitimate concern. The Rudd government has made it clear that we want to make access to universities equitable. Therefore, the provision has been made for the first time that, if a university chooses to charge a student fee, eligible students will have the option to take out a HECS style loan which will allow students to defer this payment under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, thus ensuring that any up-front fee charged by the university will not be a financial barrier for students starting university. This bill not just supports students on campus but also includes a number of other measures that include enhancing the privacy rights of Australians who apply to university, by ensuring that the roles and responsibilities of tertiary admission centres are recognised in the legislation. Currently tertiary admission centres are not referred to in the act. Some of the amendments before us today will make sure that admission centres—often students’ first contact with the tertiary education sector—are held to the same standards and duty of care as offices of higher education providers with regard to the processing of students’ personal information. Another measure introduced by this bill is the provision for increased flexibility under the VET FEE-HELP scheme. I would like to take this opportunity to point out that it is this government that is committed to skilling our nation, and this is one of many measures that this government has committed to in order to increase skills and training around Australia. The Council of Australian Governments has set a target of doubling the number of diploma and advanced diploma completions by 2020. The legislation before us today will help us achieve this goal. This government is committed to skilling up the Australian workforce. While the previous government failed in so many ways, it is this government that is investing for the future. Evidence of this government’s commitments was displayed just last week in my home state of South Australia, where the federal government delivered $40 million over four years to boost the skills and qualifications for around 12,000 South Australian jobseekers in key sectors that are needed in our economy, such as health, community services, agriculture, engineering, mineral exploration and defence. These places are part of the Australian government’s Skilling Australia for the Future initiative, and this program is part of the Australian government’s commitment to provide an additional 711,000 places by mid-2012 to ensure that Australians develop the skills they need to be effective participants in, and contributors to, the modern labour market. In addition we are investing in higher education infrastructure, through the Education Investment Fund. The Rudd Labor government is committed to investing in and reforming the university sector rather than leaving it to wrack and ruin. Flinders University, in my electorate, has welcomed the injection of capital funding provided to them in the budget last year. This bill is one of many initiatives that reflect the government’s continuing commitment to education. This bill ensures that higher education opportunities in this country are accessible to everyone, that training opportunities are not restricted due to cost and that universities have the services that students need. This bill presents a balanced and practical solution to the decline in student services at universities and in diploma and advanced diploma enrolments in the vocational education and training sector. The passage of this bill is central to the future of our universities and training programs. Accordingly, I commend the bill to the House. 2467 10:31:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I am disappointed that the member for Higgins has left the chamber. I note with some amusement that, having chosen not to speak on too many pieces of legislation, he chose to speak on this bill. He was quite noteworthy in previous times. He was a student at Monash University and served on the student association. Clearly on numerous occasions—including in print in the august journal Lot’s Wife—he has put forward the view that compulsory student unionism should be kept for the future. I am disappointed he is not here, so that we cannot ascertain why he has had this change of heart since he was a student—which, I admit, was a long time ago—and now sees compulsory student unionism as an issue. Mind you, we are not arguing that this is about compulsory student unionism; this is about student services on campus. If we called student unions ‘Student Corporations Inc.’, the Liberal Party and the Nationals would never have an objection to it. A union is a group of people—how bad is that? There is overwhelming evidence that the former government’s voluntary student unionism legislation has resulted in serious cultural and academic damage to Australia’s higher education sector. That is very evident in my electorate of Chisholm, which is home to two of the leading universities in Melbourne and in Australia—the Melbourne campus of Deakin University and the largest campus of Monash University, at Clayton. We also have one of Australia’s leading TAFEs, at Box Hill. The VSU legislation was introduced by a government that was on an extreme ideological crusade. The VSU legislation was met with heavy criticism and opposition from universities and the ALP at the time of its introduction in 2005. You need only listen to the speeches of those opposite to know that they have an ideological bent on this. I sat through the speech by the member for Mayo. He indicated that student unionism is all about ‘Labor Party Inc’. I think they are just sore because the Liberal Party never succeeded on campus—but actually, when I was at Monash, the Liberal Party controlled the student union. So I think it is just sour grapes from the member for Mayo that he never managed to outdo the Labor Party on campus. But that is not what student services are about. That completely and utterly misses the point of what these services provide. The student associations and staff at both Monash University and Deakin University in my electorate were involved in the national demonstrations against the introduction of VSU. These institutions are magnificent institutions that provide their students with first-class educational outcomes underpinned by strong student services. Only too aware of the dangers posed by VSU, both institutions opposed its introduction. The reasons for opposing this legislation have been played out on a practical level in the years since VSU became law. A 2008 review of the impact of VSU found that the legislation has had a detrimental effect on essential student services at all Australian universities. VSU swiped $170 billion from universities, leading to a decline in—and, in some instances, the loss of—essential services such as child care, health care, employment and welfare services and independent advocacy in relation to academic matters. What has rubbed salt into the wounds of students is that, in an attempt to soften the impact of the legislation, universities have had to redirect funds from their research and teaching budgets to fund services and amenities that would otherwise have been cut. So, at the time the previous Howard government was slashing away funding from essential services at universities, the universities were again having to redirect much-needed funds from teaching and research into the provision of student services. The quality of educational outcomes for students attending universities has suffered directly as a result of VSU. Speaking about the impact of VSU, the President of the National Tertiary Education Union, Dr Carolyn Allport, said: The loss of student services in the university sector has been endemic, with essential health, welfare and academic advocacy services being reduced or abandoned in every university in the country. It is a fact that the introduction of VSU has seen the demise of a number of elected student organisations, with many only just surviving. Dr Glenn Withers, the Chief Executive of Universities Australia, the peak body representing the Australian universities sector, is even more blunt in his assessment of VSU: Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to reduce the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism legislation. The negative impact of the government’s anti-student organisation legislation has been felt severely across universities in Victoria, particularly in my electorate. Deakin University is a relatively young university, having been established in the seventies, and its Melbourne campus is located at Burwood in my electorate. Deakin has one consolidated student association, the Deakin University Student Association, which will continue to operate as an independent student-controlled entity in the post-VSU environment. DUSA is a unique entity. It does not belong to the National Union of Students. It is proud of its independence and has struggled through this time to maintain it. Although it has managed to retain some of its independence, DUSA has become reliant on direct funding from the university to supplement its commercial revenue and the small income from voluntary contributions from students. The NUS has found that Deakin University has been hit hard by VSU. Prior to VSU, Deakin was collecting $5.8 million from general service fees, with $4.8 million going to DUSA and $1 million kept by the university administration to run some core student services directly. After the passage of the VSU legislation, a voluntary fee of $40 per semester was collected in 2007 from 17 per cent of students, for a premium membership discount scheme. The university used its own revenue to provide in excess of $2 million of funding in 2006 and a further $1.5 million in 2007 and 2008. DUSA has been forced to substantially reduce staffing levels as a result of the lost revenue since VSU. Staffing levels have been cut. This has led to a significant reduction in the professional support available to DUSA and its volunteer student representatives. Opportunities for students to obtain casual employment on campus with DUSA have also diminished. DUSA’s academic rights advocacy services are now only available to the minority of students who have paid the voluntary membership fee. In all this debate, it has been overlooked that one of the vital services provided by these associations is assisting students through some of these academic processes. I was never involved in the student union when I was on campus, but I was the student representative on the arts faculty board for many years. This was the august institution that decided whether or not you were going to be expelled from the university. We sat through some horrible cases of students terrified and not knowing what to do or how to go about things. They would not let mum and dad come to their hearing because that would just be too embarrassing, but they did not know that they could get support and services. Often we would start the hearing and then find out that they had not had any support or services. We would then direct them to the wonderful assistance they could get through the student union to explain what academic process meant or to explain what plagiarism was. There were some kids who had got to uni and did not actually know what that was. The support and services were really important. There were some kids who were going through some horrendous things in their personal lives and they needed that support and those services. A lot of times, if they got the support and services, it ensured that they were not excluded from university, they could resit subjects and they could continue with their academic life. I know of one case—and I will not mention the person’s name—where, if it had not been for these services, we might have missed out on having a fantastic researcher in this country because of a slip of the tongue. I think people overlook those vital services that are needed. Funds have been allocated for basic maintenance of sporting and recreation facilities, but no major maintenance, upgrades or expansions have been possible since 2005, other than through grants won as part of the VSU Transition Fund. Most of those went to regional campuses, which was fair enough. So the Burwood campus severely lost out. Their sporting facilities were terrific and their sporting prowess was great. A lot of that has been lost. Services and activities such as multicultural days or cultural events, legal advice, book subsidies, emergency loans, printing and binding services, tenancy advice, the international student family network program, the student leadership program, free or subsidised sporting equipment, elite athlete funding and the distance student support hotline have been terminated under VSU. Other services have been reduced, including student social and networking events, student magazines and newsletters, and financial and administrative support to clubs and societies. Deakin has indicated that it perceives that the effectiveness of student representation under VSU has eroded to the extent that it is looking to hold its own elections among the student body to fill vacancies on some university committees rather than relying on DUSA representatives. The university knows it needs student reps on these things and it has actually said, ‘We will facilitate it because we want the voice of students heard.’ Monash University is one of Australia’s most respected tertiary education institutions. As a former student, I have spoken about it many times. I attended Monash University as an undergraduate and the University of Melbourne as a postgraduate. The member for Casey, when he gave his speech and I was in the chair, abused my position and verballed me on a couple of occasions about what I would perceive, as a former student at Monash. Then he talked about his wonderful experience at Melbourne. What he forgot to mention was that Monash University at Clayton is in the middle of nowhere. It is in a great big paddock in the middle of nowhere. It is not like Melbourne university or Sydney university—there are no shops down the road. There is nothing down the road but a great big freeway. Once you arrive at campus, you are there; you are hostage to the campus and hostage to the services on the campus. You cannot wander off to get a sausage roll down the road because you would have to catch two buses and a train or you would have to have a car and you would have to give up your car spot and maybe not get it back again. Not all campuses, even ones in metropolitan areas, are actually in the middle of services. You rely on what is available on campus. Most of you have probably been out to Clayton in various capacities. If you have not, you should go out there. The university is a huge edifice in the middle of nowhere. It does great things and provides great services, but it has to because there is literally nowhere else to go. The structure of Monash is very complex, reflecting the original Clayton campus merger with several other major campuses in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The NUS has indicated that Monash, like Deakin, has had its student services and amenities deteriorate since the introduction of VSU. The pre-VSU revenue from the amenities fee was $13.5 million. Following VSU, the university set aside $4.55 million from its teaching and research funding to support core activities and amenities that its student services are now unable to support due to a lack of resources. The university also increased many of its user-pays charges, such as those for parking permits, shuttle buses and academic record transcripts, in order to provide further subsidies for student services. The increase in parking fees at the Monash campus in Clayton caused uncontrolled anxiety. It is almost impossible to get to Monash by public transport. There is no major train service in and out. I have spoken on that on numerous occasions in this place. You are reliant on the bus service or driving. So it was a huge impost, not only on the students but also on the staff. The staff had to pay for parking permits too, and it became a huge impost upon everybody. It is ridiculous in this day and age that, by these means, we are actually taking away opportunities for higher education in this country. We are righting that wrong today, hopefully. Students could opt to purchase a Monash community card to obtain a 20 per cent discount on these user-pays charges and other commercial services. These user-pays charges and the community card generated a further $2.1 million in 2007. The community card was discontinued in 2008. VSU has had a visible impact on students through the general reduction in services and representative activities. There has been a substantial increase in user-pays charges for parking permits and academic transcripts and the introduction of a fee for previously free intercampus shuttle bus services. This has actually seen people drop out of courses and discontinue. Many full-time jobs have been reduced to part time, which has reduced the hours that some services are available to students. Orientation weeks in 2007 and 2008 were noticeably underresourced because student organisations simply lacked the financial capacity to offer new students the orientation experience of previous years. O weeks are vital to ensuring that first-years, who are coming onto a big campus where they might know no-one, are able to hook in with people. There is a big dropout rate from first year in university due to loneliness, because people just do not know anyone. The O weeks and those services and those support organisations ensured that students, coming from very different backgrounds, might meet somebody and actually have a friend. There is nothing worse than wandering round a place thinking, ‘Who am I going to have lunch with?’ O weeks provided a terrific service in that regard. There have been serious shortfalls in the capital development and maintenance needed for Monash sport facilities and there has been a loss of staffing for the Transport Office, the Indigenous office and research and policy support at Monash-Clayton. The examples of Deakin and Monash are reflective of the wider impact VSU has had upon all universities right across Australia. They demonstrate that it has been students who have been forced to pay the price for the removal of government support for services and amenities on university campuses. That is why this government is committed to this amendment that is before the House today. We are delivering on an election commitment to rebuild vital university student services and to ensure students have access to independent, democratic student representation. Since being elected in late 2007, the government has proven it is committed to introducing significant reform to the Australian education sector. This legislation signifies another important step towards the government commitment to revolutionising the Australian education system. This bill represents a government moving on from the past and advocating a balanced, practical and substantial solution to rebuilding student support services. We will introduce national access to service benchmarks, which will relate to the provision of information on, and access to, services such as welfare and counselling services in line with current requirements for overseas students. Overseas students have been hit hard by the loss through VSU. There has been almost nothing to replace what was lost. Again, this is a group of students who are often isolated, do not have support and need that vital support that they got through the university sector—particularly in the area of housing but also in the areas of counselling, welfare and just emotional support. These benchmarks and protocols will be supplemented by the provision of universities having the option of setting a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250. A rigorous set of guidelines will ensure that this fee can only be used on a specific set of services and amenities. Individual universities will decide whether they implement a fee and, if so, they will also determine the level of that fee up to $250. That is, universities themselves will have the final say as to whether there is a compulsory fee. It is not a return to compulsory student unionism whereby a student must be a member of a student organisation. Instead, the focus of this bill is to allow universities to provide an adequate level of service and amenities to students—allowing access to student representatives that is independent of the university’s administration. Some may try to argue that this fee imposes an unfair burden on students—that those universities which choose to set a compulsory fee are being inconsiderate of the fact that those students have little disposable income. This is an illogical argument and is simply erroneous. Included in this bill is a provision whereby eligible students have the option of taking out a loan under a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program. This allows students to pay off their student amenities fees in a gradual fashion upon finding full-time employment at the completion of their studies. Aside from this, the introduction of VSU by the previous government has resulted in universities around Australia losing close to $170 million in funding. As I have stated, this means that students have already paid the cost of VSU with many university services and amenities being substantially reduced or cut. Students have also been hit with increased prices for child care, parking, books, computer labs, sports and food. They have also suffered from indirect costs, with the universities redirecting funding of research and teaching budgets to fund services that otherwise would have been cut. The student amenities fee will therefore help to rebuild important student services and amenities. An important component of this bill is the fact that it encompasses new provisions that prohibit the fee being spent on supporting a political party or candidate for election to a Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or to local government. I have actually been critical of student unions in this place before for inappropriately using their funds towards campaigns that were not supported by the student body at their universities. I have gone on the record and said that use of those funds in some of those cases was inappropriate. This legislation actually puts in place that that cannot happen. So, with respect to the hypocrisy coming from the other side about ‘Labor Inc.’ and our training ground, this is not the case. This is about vital support services on campus so that university is more than just an educational experience; it is a life experience. You want to go to university to actually experience everything it can have to offer. The reduction in these services means that you do not have that experience at all. A higher education provider must also impose this prohibition on any person or organisation to which it pays any of the fee revenue. Under this strict provision, universities will have responsibility for ensuring these guidelines are adhered to. Any breaches result in serious consequences, including the option to revoke a university’s approval as a higher education provider. The government has received an overwhelming positive response to this new legislation from those closely involved in the higher education sector. Tertiary institutions were significantly burdened by the imposition they faced as a result of VSU. This legislation seeks to address these problems by providing universities with greater choice in terms of how student organisations are resourced. The coalition of leading Australian universities, the Group of Eight, stated: The Federal Government’s decision to allow universities to support essential student services through the collection of a modest fee is a sensible compromise that will enhance the quality of Australia’s higher education system. The reforms I have spoken of today are part of the government’s commitment to ensuring that higher education is central to the development of Australia’s best and brightest. The government will continue to work with universities and student associations to foster a mutually beneficial relationship, resulting in better outcomes for all involved. This bill takes a sensible and pragmatic approach to the issues of student representatives and services and amenities. It redresses the devastating effect of VSU on the cultural underpinnings of Australia’s higher education providers. It receives my full support and that of many within my community and my electorate, and I commend the bill to the House. 2473 10:50:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this morning to make a contribution on this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I particularly want to focus on the constituency I represent in this place and the impact that this bill, if it passes both houses, would have on the children and the families of rural and remote Australia. The aim of this bill is to allow universities to charge up to $250 per student prior to students being able to gain access to a course at university. I have had experience with this, with my children, who are all university educated. We had to pay those fees up front on behalf of our children. Because they did not live near the university, they had to leave home—we were more than 600 kilometres away from the university they attended. Unless they paid those fees, they could not commence their course. I repeat that: unless they paid those fees, they would not be given access to that course to which they had gained entry at university. This applies not just to my children but to many, many—in fact, all—students. It is really just like the old union approach: no ticket, no start; no pay, no course. That is what it was like. That was the first fee you paid and then you got access to the university course to which you had gained access. Quite clearly, this government is breaking a commitment that it gave to the people of Australia prior to the last federal election. There was no mention prior to the last federal election of this being a compulsory fee or of the reintroduction of a fee that would be charged to students. In fact, the government is breaking faith with the people of Australia. It did not give this commitment. It is a broken promise. It is a tax on students and it is a new tax. But we have come to see that with this government in the way it dealt with its commitments prior to the election and in the way it has governed in this place since the election. I want to talk a little bit about the impact that this legislation would have on rural and remote students. My own children had to leave home to gain access to further education at a university which they had gained access to. I know from going to many speech days in my electorate, and from representations from families and meetings with people socially and in the street, how people struggle to gain the best access and opportunities for their children’s further education. I also know the pride that they have in their own children when they graduate from high school and go on to postsecondary education. People from all walks of life—from the professions to people in business, people on the land, single-income families and single mothers—come to me on this issue. I have spoken to these people and I know just how they struggle, whether they are professional families, small business families or single-income families, and how they work hard to support their children to gain access to education, which they have to leave home for, unless they are going to do it externally through distance education from the university. I point out to the House that there are some 130,000 students who are studying externally at universities today. Often those students are doing one subject per semester, perhaps holding down a part-time job or a full-time job but wanting to better themselves. Those 130,000 students who do not walk through the gates of the university but who study externally will have to pay this tax. We have heard from the other side of the House, from Madam Deputy Speaker Burke—and I have a lot of time for the Deputy Speaker; we share a lot in common, because we occupy the chair that you are now in, Madam Deputy Speaker Vale, and we have responsibilities in that chair. We heard her talk about how her university seemed to be in the middle of nowhere. It is on the fringe of the city; it is not in the middle of nowhere. All of the students I represent have to leave home, and they are not from the middle of nowhere. They are from five to six kilometres up to 1,000 kilometres, or even further, away from the nearest university. In fact, from the east to the west of my electorate is some 1,800 kilometres. So students coming from the most remote communities have a long haul to get through the doors or the gates of a university. They have an added cost to get to university if they are going to leave home. There may be airfares, bus fares, train fares or whatever, but there are many costs for those families for their students—their children—to gain access to a university. When you look at the participation rates in post-secondary education of children from families in rural and remote Australia, compared to the participation rate of those families who live in metropolitan Australia, you have to say it is almost a shame on this parliament. You ask: why is the participation rate in post-secondary education by students from rural and remote Australia so low, compared to the participation rate of students from families who live in our capital cities or in our regional towns where there are university campuses, where they can live at home with their families and study daily by travelling to the university? They may choose to live on site at a college or perhaps rent a flat nearby, but they have that choice, whereas students in my electorate and in rural and remote Australia do not have that choice. Currently, there are some 130,000 students from rural and remote Australia. Most of those who are studying externally will never see the benefit of the services that the so-called $250 per year amenities fee will, under this legislation, supposedly enable universities to provide. I spoke a moment ago about people from rural and remote Australia. I want to spend a couple of minutes on that, because they are not wealthy people. Look at the socioeconomic barometer, if you like, of people living in rural and remote Australia—whether they are professionals, work for the local council or have a small business—compared to the median family income of those in our capital cities and regional cities where there are universities and you will see it stands in stark contrast. Students from a median family income background from rural and remote Australia who seek to go away to university are certainly at a socioeconomic disadvantage within their families before they start to gain access to postsecondary education. I want to touch on the issue of postsecondary education in a broader context because the government seems to think that all students who leave high school will go on to university. What about those students who go on to TAFE college and, in the case of my electorate, to ag college? There is no such concern about their possible need for amenities at those ag colleges or TAFE colleges. This is targeted at universities. Why? The prior speaker spoke about the facilities that are provided on the university campus, which she described as ‘in the middle of nowhere’, and many on the other side have described some of the circumstances of universities in the capital cities and the seats they represent. I visit ag colleges and TAFE colleges, and I do not see the students coming up to me there and saying, ‘We want to organise ourselves because we want to have a say in what is provided at this ag college.’ They do not complain to me about the fact that there is not public transport for the ag college at Dalby, for instance. They know there is not public transport there, but it is not an issue. They know that that is the circumstance of the access arrangements to the ag college there in Dalby, in Longreach or in Emerald or wherever there are pastoral and other agricultural colleges. These ag colleges and TAFE colleges stand in stark contrast to our universities when it comes to those basic amenities, but they seem to cope. It is not an issue for them. So why is it an issue for the universities? It is only because the Labor Party want to impose a new tax which they did not tell the Australian people about prior to the last election. As I said, I visit ag colleges. They have sporting fields. They have sporting teams. That has been provided by the college. Maybe there is a fee to join voluntarily the local rugby club or another sporting activity that may be associated with the college, but it is a voluntary thing. If they do not have something and they want to add more facilities to a campus, be it a TAFE or an ag college, they go out and do a bit of fundraising. They might run chicken raffles. They run raffles of all sorts to raise some extra money to improve those sorts of amenities that might otherwise not have been provided by the TAFE college or the ag college. They seem to survive, but it is still voluntary. That is the fundamental point: it is voluntary. What this bill will mean is that, before a student gains access to the course at university for which they have qualified, they will have to pay a tax. It is the old union movement at its best: no ticket, no start; no pay, no access to the course. My own children went through that. Until we abolished it under the Howard government, I know there were many single mothers in my electorate and people doing a subject per year, wanting to better their educational opportunities and their opportunities in life, studying externally, who had to pay that before they would even be sent the course notes. That is a disgrace, but that is what will happen if this legislation passes both houses. It will happen. No matter how many times the government comes into this place and says, ‘No, there are going to be provisions for that not to happen,’ we know from past experience what operated before, and it will happen again. It will disadvantage the most disadvantaged in Australia, and those are the students from rural and remote Australia who have to leave home to gain access to full-time study. They have to leave home to gain access to the university, if that is where their education is taking them. I want to touch on another element of the issues relating to rural Australia and remote Australia—that is, the assistance provided through the Commonwealth and state governments to geographically isolated students. I know this is not directly related, but it makes the point about access to education for those people who live away from places where the access is just down the road or in the city or is based on subsidised urban transport routes. It is about that word ‘access’. There are students out there who are gifted and talented, and those students do not get any additional assistance to help them because they are gifted and talented. These are students who have a capacity to go on to greater things merely because they are gifted and talented. I ask: why is it that these students are not receiving the same support as other students? We ought to acknowledge that those who are gifted and talented do need to be recognised and do need to get additional assistance to gain access to the support that will enable them to make the most of their gifts and talents. I do not support this bill. I would support a grant program such as we had under the Howard government—after we abolished this dreadful student union fee that had been for so long hanging over the heads of students across Australia and particularly rural and remote Australia—that is targeted to meet the needs of universities where they can identify a need. In many ways, the parallel would be the IOS Program that we had as a government, which went to all schools. There was up to $150,000 per school to make an investment in the school, provided that you had the participation and support of the P&C—the involvement of parents and citizens, or parents and friends, in the decisions as to where that money should be spent. So I would support a grant program and I think what we had in place was the right way to go. It was targeted and would meet the needs of universities, be they in regional Australia or capital cities. I support a grant program but I do not support a compulsory tax that would hit not only students from capital cities but also the most disadvantaged students in Australia, and it would be another tax on those families from rural and remote Australia who struggle so hard to save to ensure that their children can gain access to the best education they can afford. I oppose the bill and I look forward to seeing what the Senate will decide, because this is yet another broken promise and a new tax being introduced by this Labor government. 2476 23:08:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I ask: how did it come to this? I thought we had seen an end to compulsory up-front fees at universities. I thought we had embraced a user-pays attitude where if you want to use a service then you pay for it. Yet the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 will see a return to those days when the many subsidised the few users of these offers on campus. I know that university students would recall that in 2005, when the legislation supporting voluntary student unionism was being considered here, Labor fought to make sure that every student had to be a member of a student union. They wanted students to pay for the political activities of unions and they wanted students to subsidise a lot of services that those same students would never use. That legislation was passed and the removal of up-front fees did occur. Since then Labor in its 2007 election campaign was very clear on the matter. In May 2007 the then shadow minister for education stated that he was ‘not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee’. I will say that again: not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. Yet this bill before the House today has in its title ‘student services and amenities’. Perhaps the former shadow minister, now Minister for Foreign Affairs, would say that he never said anything about a student services and amenities fee. Nevertheless, it is clear that the current government took nothing to the election on this matter and therefore has no mandate for this legislation. I go further to say that not only did the government deny that it had an agenda then but it misled the Australian people. In August 2008 a number of ministers were asked about this matter. The theme seemed to be that, in contrast to the pre-election position of no amenities fee, the post-election position was not to reintroduce compulsory student unionism. Some may say that there is a difference and that maybe the amenities and services fee is not the same as compulsory student unionism. But, as I will explain, you do not need a university education in animal husbandry to know that if it walks like a duck and it sounds like a duck then it is a duck. I will say this right at the start: this matter is about choice. On this side of the chamber it is about struggling students choosing whether or not to take up the option of using various amenities or services and paying for those services. On the government side it is about forcing struggling students to pay an up-front fee. It is about the government forcing tertiary students to subsidise services, a range of options that they will not use and do not wish to use. This is the difference between us: choice on our side, no choice on the other side; a Liberal Party on this side that took a burden away from students, and over there a Labor Party that will reimpose another tax on students at tertiary institutions. While it was a long time ago, I do recall my time at university and I remember the compulsory student union fee that I never had a choice in paying. I never had anything to do with the union representatives and in fact did not know anyone who knew even a single student union representative. I never had anything to do with them. That being said, I did participate in intervarsity rowing. I remember paying a fee and costs for a very quick season of around four weeks. It was similar to my annual fees at my normal rowing club, so I do not recall any great subsidisation by the student union. I also say that the boats within the university rowing club were not as good as those of the outside rowing club. The point is that I really wonder where the money we used to pay then went and what it was actually spent on. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Political campaigns. HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr SIMPKINS —Political campaigns, I hear the interjection, and I am sure that was the case. I would also say that I have no objection to any student representative body. What I do think is worth remembering is that the voter turnout in student representative elections would demonstrate the true depth of interest and therefore the level of representation that actually exists. There have also been suggestions that the priorities of some student unions have been misplaced, with funds being channelled away from services that have some validity and towards pet projects of the elites of the student unions. An example is the student union of RMIT, which favours funding its anticapitalist radio show Blazing Textbooks over an advocacy service. That student union would prefer to broadcast shows about teacher strikes in Puerto Rico and anarchist approaches to education rather than fund services that might actually have some value to the vast majority of students. It is little wonder that such a small proportion of students have any involvement in voting for these so-called representatives. I turn to the issue of services that have apparently collapsed as a result of VSU. I found out on the 3CR radio station website that there are apparently only two student unions in the country that are self-funded: the University of Western Australia and Murdoch University, both in Western Australia. It should be remembered that students were supported with VSU by the former Liberal government in Western Australia, the Court government. That created an environment of self-sufficiency that appears to have endured. One can ask why the membership of the student union at UWA is one of the highest in the country at around 60 per cent and why it is also self-funded. Perhaps it is about relevancy and efficiency. When an inefficient organisation with questionable relevance struggles to exist without subsidy, they should firstly look to themselves for the fault. As Shakespeare wrote in Julius Caesar, ‘The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars but in ourselves.’ Maybe the student unions should be a little self critical before they look for others to blame. It is no wonder that the national union of socialists, or rather the National Union of Students, has such trouble with the user-pays principle. ‘Accountability’ seems to be a bit of a foreign term in some spheres. But this is not about ideology, at least not on this side; this is about value for money and, as I said before, choice. We should also consider information that appeared in the Monash University Annual Report of 2004. That report showed how the $428 amenity fee was disbursed. Maybe we should consider a picture of the average sort of university student: 19 or 20 years old, male or female, single and with no dependants. I think we can probably say that that is still the descriptor for the vast majority of our university students. We know that students use the cafeteria or equivalent. I would say that there would not be a university student who has not gone into the university cafeteria at some point. It is important to look at that annual report from Monash University and at how much of the $428 went to food service and subsidies: 28c out of $428. Moving on, most students probably would not need child care, yet of that $428 $10.80 went to child care or childcare subsidies. That is not a whole lot of money there; it does not exactly have broad appeal, but it is not a huge slice of the overall $428 cake. I know that most of my university friends would have undertaken some form of sport. Of that $428, the annual report attributes just $22 to sport and $13.28 to clubs—again, not a big amount. But what is clearly of concern is the fact that well over half of that $428 compulsory amenity fee was for administration costs—$238. That represents a substantial amount of money for which there is no real explanation of how it was used and for which, certainly, any form of justification is not apparent. I reiterate the point: of all the uses of a struggling student’s limited resources, why is the Rudd government imposing $250, to be indexed, rather than adopting a user-pays system? There is, of course, no consideration of a student’s capacity to pay or whether a student can even use the services, which is an issue for students such as distance education students or those who work during the day and attend evening classes. Of course, the Rudd government is willing to loan the struggling students the money, but, unlike course fees, the use of amenities does not help generate a capacity to achieve a higher income. It is possible to estimate that some $250 million could be generated by this tax imposition. While $250 per student may not seem a lot of money to the members opposite, it is significant for those struggling students. Again I say: if a student chooses to use a service, why not let the user pay? Let the service providers be competitive. Let them try to attract interest and users rather than just being given money under the legislation without basic competitive and effective operations. I say again that this argument is not about ideology. If student unions or student representatives wish to protest about political matters, they should not be funded by struggling students to do so. They can attempt to raise funds themselves, but not with an imposed fee upon other students to help them. The reality is that there is nothing in this legislation that prevents the fees being diverted to a student union political activity. Yes, the government may say that it cannot be used to promote a candidate or party, but there is nothing about using money to promote causes which can be political in their nature. We all know that, for instance, left-wing, socialist groups pursue their agendas on campuses. Anyone who has been to a university knows that. Sometimes some of those agendas, unfortunately, even include anti-Semitic activity. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts may even find protests about his promise to take the Japanese whalers to court or perhaps about AFP raids on Sea Shepherd being funded by these amenity funds. I would like to see the rules which say that amenities fee money cannot be siphoned off for political campaigns, and I would like to see evidence of a robust regime that can guarantee that it does not happen or that, if it does, judicial action will be pursued. I will conclude by saying that this bill should not have been brought before the House. It would not be here if we were to believe the member for Perth, who said in 2007 that there would be no amenities fee. Yet this bill now seeks to amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for just such a compulsory student services and amenities fee. These are fees that will be imposed regardless of a student’s ability to pay. It does not seem to matter how you are studying—distance education, correspondence, part time or full time. Whether they are from a low socioeconomic background or otherwise, students will have no choice. It should be pay as you go for the services you want, require and do not mind paying for, rather than paying for everyone else’s use of services you do not require and for causes you do not support. Many students belong to various associations or organisations that are off campus, and they exercise a choice by paying a fee to belong to those clubs or groups. The fees that are going to be imposed as a result of this bill are supported by the Prime Minister, who once called the level of student debt in this country a ‘national disgrace’. Funny how things have changed now! This $250 fee is an additional burden on students at this time, and they cannot afford it. Many students are already working multiple part-time jobs in order to meet their costs, and the answer is not to defer this fee and add to their HECS debt. Put quite simply, if students do not wish to provide their own time or money in support of a service or activity then it is wrong to compel them to do so. This removes choice on where students spend their money for the services that they are entitled to. I believe that this is $250 that could be better spent in other areas that have a direct benefit to students’ education itself rather than paying for someone else’s priorities. This bill signifies a broken promise by the Labor Party, this bill rejects the right of choice, this bill rejects our belief in freedom of association and this bill I reject. 2479 11:21:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —I rise to support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. There are many differences between the two sides of the House in the area of education, but this is a particular area of difference. Our side of the House believes that the education experience is more than just sitting in classrooms and reading textbooks. At university, in particular, it is a much broader experience. In order to maximise the capacity of Australian students to enjoy that broader experience, the adventurism of the former government’s voluntary student unionism needs to be overturned, and this bill does quite that. The Rudd government has a commitment to education that has not been seen in this parliament for many years. The core focus of the government is to build a stronger and fairer nation. We know that education is the best route to the empowerment of individuals, the broader community and our nation. We also know that we need a more skilled population to meet the competitive challenges that Australia will face in the future. The current climate that we are enduring makes that even more of an urgent priority than before the onset of the global financial crisis. The education revolution has a very significant number of important facets and it is important, in setting out the context of this bill, to run through them quickly. One of the most pleasing aspects of our education revolution from my point of view is the focus on four-year-olds. We now know that the most important time for a human being’s brain development is the first five years. This government brings a focus to four-year-olds’ education and development that has never existed at the Commonwealth level, and I am very proud of that. We are doing a range of things in order to improve the curriculum and make it more consistent, particularly for high school students but also for primary school students, and to lift the rate of maths and science education in this country. We have undertaken a range of primary and secondary school initiatives, including computers in our schools and, very pleasingly, the trades training centres. I was pleased to learn that, in addition to the Seaton High School trades training centre that was awarded in the first round of this program, Le Fevre High School, Ocean View College, Paralowie R-12 School and Parafield Gardens High School, all of which are in my electorate, have been awarded trades training centres under the second round of this incredibly important program. There is massive infrastructure investment going on or starting under the Building the Education Revolution part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan which will revolutionise the infrastructure in many schools which have not had significant investment for many, many years. Most recently, we have seen the Deputy Prime Minister’s response to the Bradley review, indicating quite clearly that this government believes that significant reform to our tertiary education sector, particularly the universities sector, is needed in order to provide a platform for that level of education well into the future. As I said at the opening, this bill reflects our view that education is more than just a classroom and textbook experience, particularly at university. The key component of the bill that I want to address cleans up the mess left by the previous government’s adventurism in student services on university campuses. The quality of campus life—and this is a simple matter of fact—has been significantly degraded by the introduction of voluntary student unionism by the previous government. We have seen—and I happened to turn the television on to watch the member for Higgins’s contribution to this debate—so many on the other side, including the previous speaker, fighting the fights of the past. There have been so many recitations of the bad old days, when the Australian Union of Students used to donate money to the Palestinian Liberation Organisation or some other organisation overseas. That may or may not be the case—I was not around at the time; frankly, even when I was at university I did not participate in student unions, although I was happy to pay the fee—but it is simply an inadequate response to this government’s genuine attempt to deal with the mess left by voluntary student unionism on campuses and to deal with the needs of 21st century students, who have not been able to enjoy the sort of campus life that most members of parliament in this House were able to enjoy prior to VSU. What are student unions? Student unions have a very proud history in this country. Many of the key student unions at the older universities predate the Commonwealth. The Sydney university union was founded in 1874, Melbourne’s was founded in 1884 and, in my city of Adelaide, the Adelaide University Union, of which I was a member for some years, was founded in 1895. They have a very proud history of providing support services, advocacy, cultural and sporting activities, as well as giving our educated youth a democratically elected voice on political issues, which seems to be the point that so grates the other side of this House. There may or may not have been controversies, particularly back in the seventies and early eighties, but for over 100 years it cannot be argued that this sector of the education community did not provide a very important platform for a well-rounded educational experience in universities. Student union fees paid by students over that period of time enabled independent representation for academic matters, such as disciplinaries, enrolment issues, university structure, intellectual property and such like, to be provided to students. They enabled students to access services, including child care, academic counselling, financial counselling and international student services, which I will address in a few minutes. They enabled students to access cultural and sporting activities by involving themselves in clubs that very significantly enriched campus life. Perhaps most importantly but less tangibly, they enabled students in one discipline to network and interact with students in other disciplines, enabling them to broaden their minds and their campus experiences and to form friendships and networks with people from other professions and other disciplines. It fostered talent in the arts, without which we would not have had Monty Python. As I said earlier, there is a very significant body of evidence that sporting activities on our campuses play a very important part in making Australia the great sporting nation that it is. All of that takes money. Without student services fees of the type that this bill contemplates, you need, as the previous speaker said, a user pays system. We reject the idea of a user pays system in this area. In some areas it is appropriate, but in this area of policy we reject that idea because we know that a user pays system, by definition, results in disadvantage for less financially secure students. An alternative to user pays, which we have seen a bit over the last several years, is that the university itself must find the money to provide those services and opportunities to students—which means redirecting funds which would otherwise be used in areas such as teaching or research. Otherwise, services simply cease to exist, and there is much evidence to show that significant ranges of services have ceased to exist since the adventurism of the previous government. In about April of last year, DEEWR released a summary report on the impact of VSU on campuses around Australia. Over 160 written submissions were received by that review, as well as consultations occurring in all capital cities and a number of regional centres, particularly university regional centres including Ballarat, Armidale, Townsville and many more. Frankly, that report makes for very depressing reading. Those on the other side of the House, who, as I have said, by and large enjoyed a campus life that did have that rich array of services—and many of whom participated in the political activities underwritten by those fees as far back as the seventies and perhaps some of them even earlier—and who now oppose this bill, should hang their heads in shame in reading that report and in looking at the campus life that is presented to students under a VSU regime. The University of South Australia, which has a thriving campus in my own electorate of Port Adelaide, raised about $4½ million in fees from student union membership pre VSU—not just that campus but the university across South Australia, which is the largest university in that state. The funds contributed by the university since VSU amount to about $615,000. The evidence from that review showed that the services and representation that have been lost to students under VSU include student employment services, access to loans and accommodation, a childcare subsidy, accident insurance, legal advice, tax advice and many, many more. At Adelaide University, which I attended for some years, money raised through student membership pre VSU was about $3½ million, compared with about $50,000 post VSU. Among the many impacts experienced at Adelaide University, we have seen a significant decrease in levels of engagement with the community, a loss of welfare and advocacy staff at the student union, and a report of increasing isolation among international students. This is a point I want to take up very briefly. One of the great success stories of Australia in recent years has been the significant uptake of Australia as the destination of choice of international students. I was very pleased to see a media release by the Deputy Prime Minister in recent weeks that showed that in 2008, for the first time ever, Australia had over 500,000 international students enrolled in its education institutions. That is not just universities, but a very significant number of those students are studying at our universities, contributing significant funds to our university sector and significantly enriching the campus life and campus experience of Australian students as well. Over 100,000 of the students enrolled in Australian education institutions in 2008 came from China. This is a wonderful success story. One of the things that make Australia such an attractive destination of choice for overseas students, and for the families that sponsor them, is the rich campus life that we have had for over 100 years and which has been so shamefully attacked by the previous government. Flinders University, the third university in South Australia, had to find $1 million to compensate for almost $3 million that was raised prior to VSU. Sixty clubs, and 11 sports and rec clubs, have shut down since VSU at that university. Student representative bodies—they previously numbered six—have been reduced to one. The union has lost education, research and advocacy officers as well as their international student support officer. They have had to close the occasional childcare centre. They have had to close the student newspaper—and I know many of the members of the press gallery started their journalistic careers in student newspapers. They have had to remove various honorariums that applied. Across Australia, Madam Deputy Speaker, the introduction of VSU— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —You should pull him up for that! 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The member for Port Adelaide has the call. HWK Butler, Mark, MP Mr BUTLER —I apologise for reflecting on your feminine side, Mr Deputy Speaker! Across Australia, VSU has cost students at university campuses close to $170 million, and it is students over these years that have suffered that loss directly or indirectly. I just want to talk, very briefly, about sport. The Australian Olympic Committee, in the review that I referred to earlier, talked about the impact on sports generally but cited rowing—which is a popular sport in this place—as an area where some 80 per cent of national rowers have a connection with a university club. Evidence in that review showed that there has been, since the introduction of the policy of VSU, a 17 per cent reduction in student participation in sport. There are 12,000 fewer students participating in sport at university than was the case before VSU. The Olympic committee provided evidence to that review along these lines: Given the importance that the university sports system has on elite level sport, these trends will have a direct and real impact on Australia’s ability to maintain its hard won international standing in sport. I also want to address briefly the scare campaign being run by the other side about the reintroduction of compulsory student unionism. The government is not changing the prohibition in the Higher Education Support Act which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. New provisions prohibit the fee that universities are now able to charge being used by a higher education provider to support activities which support a political party or candidate for election to Commonwealth, state or territory parliament or local government. Further, this prohibition must be imposed on any person or organisation to which the higher education provider pays any of that fee revenue. There is no freedom of association issue here, let us be clear about that. Rather, it is about a collective contribution for the provision of services which this side of the House see as being an inextricable part of higher education campus experiences. This is about a collective contribution that spreads the cost in an equitable manner and ensures the survival of those services. This is not a novel concept. For the first time, this bill will ensure that higher education providers receiving funding for student places under the Commonwealth Grants Scheme must meet national benchmarks in relation to the national access to services and national student representation and advocacy protocols. Higher education providers must ensure that students are provided with information and access to basic support services of a non-academic nature. The providers must ensure that students have an opportunity to participate in university governance structures through democratic representation as well as access to independent advocacy services. Those benchmarks are to be developed in consultation not only with the university but also, importantly, with students. To further improve the quality of these services and campus life generally the bill also permits universities, from 1 July this year, to implement compulsory student services and amenities fees capped at $250 per student per annum, which, as best my memory serves me, was about the union fee that I paid in the late 1980s. It is a fee, which is indexed annually, to provide services and amenities above and beyond the national benchmark standards that I just referred to. There are specific services that that fee can—and can only—apply to: food and beverages, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care, housing, employment and financial services, visual arts, performing arts, debating, libraries and reading rooms, student media, academic support, personal accident insurance, orientation information and support services for overseas students. Those are the purposes to which that fee can be put and it can be put only to those services. It is hardly the basis for a socialist revolution. Equitable access is a major focus of this government in education generally and in this area in particular. Eligible students will have the option of taking out a HECS style loan to cover this fee, to be called SA HELP. Guidelines under the provisions will also ensure that part-time students are not forced to bear more than their proper share. This is a practical, balanced approach to reinvigorating our campuses and ensuring that students have access to vital support services without terrifying those opposite, with their hysterical reaction to the ‘u-word’. There are many, many third-party endorsements of this bill that range across higher education providers, student advocacy bodies and many more. I do not propose to go through all of them, but I have noted that the Group of Eight supports this bill, as do Universities Australia and the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations. As I said earlier, the Australian Olympic Committee endorses it, as do Australian University Sport and many, many more. David Barrow, a very talented young man who is now President of the National Union of Students, has urged Senate support. As he has explained it: These guidelines rebuild and protect the life enriching experiences and crucial support services fundamental to a university experience … particularly at regional campuses. This bill rights a significant wrong perpetrated by the previous government on young Australians, when most of the members of that government were able to enjoy the rich, full and diverse campus life that was underwritten by over 100 years of university unionism. This restores vital student services and will protect representation and advocacy rights in a fair and balanced manner that will benefit students without imposing a financial burden at a time that they cannot afford it. I commend the bill to the House. 2484 11:41:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 is very important legislation because it goes far further than just the simple issue of a services fee. It goes to the very heart of the ability of an individual to choose. It goes to the very heart of proper funding for universities, particularly regional universities. The coalition opposes this legislation for a number of reasons. It opposes this legislation because it is undemocratic, because it is nothing more than a tax on students and because it is the first step in returning down the rocky road to compulsory student unionism. As members would be aware, the coalition introduced voluntary student unionism back in 2005. The voluntary student union legislation opposed the use of the higher education providers as fee collectors. It opposed a compulsory payment of a fee to a student union and it opposed the listing of items on which any fee could be spent. The 2005 reform provided students with the fundamental right to choose whether they wanted to be a member of a student body and, at the same time, it gave the student unions the opportunity to be more representative of the wider student community. Just 15 months into the term of the Rudd government, we have now got the return down that rocky road to compulsory student unionism. It is important, when one considers the Labor Party, to look at what they do and pay very little attention to what they say. Prior to the 2007 election we had the then shadow minister for education, the member for Perth. He had a range of things to say about VSU. He said: I am not considering a HECS style arrangement. I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. So there we had it from the then shadow minister for education. His words were: ‘I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.’ And what happens? Fifteen months into their term we have good old student unionism back on the agenda. That was only in May 2007, so Labor went to the last election with no policy to abolish voluntary student unionism, no indication that hundreds of thousands of tertiary students were going to be slugged with a new student tax. Yet here are in early 2009 and compulsory fees are on their way back, the student unions are back in town and all of those things which they spend money on will be back in vogue very, very shortly. This legislation attacks a fundamental right and that is the right to choose—to choose whether you wish to purchase a particular service and therefore pay a fee for that service, as opposed to Labor’s approach of levying students for services which they may not want and certainly do not wish to buy. The Rudd government wants to take us back to an era when you were compelled to pay a fee regardless of whether you used that service or not. Importantly, these new fees will apply regardless of whether the individual has a capacity to pay. It is a tax which will hit low-income earning students, it is a tax which they will struggle to pay and it is a tax which has no place in our current system. As I said earlier, it is a matter of properly funding universities, not taxing students. In the 21st century, where human rights are front and centre of the daily news agenda, it is breathtaking that this government can legislate to make it compulsory for struggling university students to pay additional fees for services they probably do not need. Where is the consideration of student rights? I would have thought that a very basic right for a student who is gaining an education, who perhaps will become a leader in whichever field they choose to go into, is to at least be entrusted to make their own decisions on which services they want to buy and which services they do not. It is a fundamental right to choose, as opposed to press-ganging students into paying fees. None of this was on Kevin Rudd’s watch because we have a proposal before us today that comes from another era. It comes from bygone days, if you like—the bad old days where students were slugged a fee, money was diverted to student unions and it was used for many purposes with which those students did not agree. This is old Labor at its best. Whilst it is appropriate for the House to debate the principle of compulsory fees, we should not forget the financial costs involved here. The government like to call these new charges a fee but really it is nothing more than a tax. We have a stark contrast between the opposition and the government: the opposition stands for lower taxes and the government stand for higher taxes. We see this new fee as just another Labor tax. Not only are they running up huge deficits before our very eyes, they are also increasing taxes on those who can least afford to pay. Since the Rudd government were elected in 2007 we have seen ministers sneakily increasing charges in a number of sectors. Diesel prices were increased on transport operators through the effective increase in the excise on fuel and the government increased charges on the tourism industry at a time when international tourism is collapsing. When regional areas, which are so very dependent on tourism income, most needed it, what did the government do? The government actually increased the taxes on the tourism industry. True to form, they are continuing that trend and are now going to increase the tax on students. These charges amount to an extra impost on either individuals or the business sector. The government can call it whatever they choose—a charge, a duty—but, whatever they want to call it, it is a tax. No matter how they window-dress it, it is just more of Labor’s increased taxes. Student union fees are no different—they are an additional tax on students who do not have the capacity to pay. They will have to pay for it even if they study externally and even if they never actually put a foot on the campus. They will still have to pay the tax if they only attend night classes and have no need for the student services. Effectively, they will have to pay regardless of whether they have the capacity to pay. Certainly, the students that I speak to from Southern Cross University in my electorate are very concerned at this additional burden. They are very concerned at the fact that it is difficult enough to raise the funds to get through a university course without being slugged for an additional $250 for services they may not wish to buy. This tax will hurt students with low incomes the hardest. Many students will struggle to pay their way, yet they are being lumped with this tax. As I said earlier, it is really about proper funding of universities. Let us fund the universities adequately to provide the services which are important, not tax the students for services they do not wish to buy. Like so many things that the members opposite do, one should never listen to what they say but rather look at what they do. This certainly applies to this piece of legislation because this legislation provides that funds raised from the compulsory fee can be used for services which will be detailed in the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines. Furthermore, higher education providers will need to comply with the Student Services, Amenities, Representation and Advocacy Guidelines. The real concern here is that the detail of these guidelines will not be debated in this parliament. According to the legislation this will be finalised after the bill has been passed. So parliament will not get to scrutinise what these fees will be spent on. It will actually be done after this bill is passed. Of equal concern is that the final guidelines will be determined by the federal Minister for Education. That is right, the federal Minister for Education—none other than the member for Lalor—will have the final determination as to what those fees can be used for. It is akin to putting the fox in charge of the henhouse. The member for Lalor will be in charge of deciding how these compulsory fees can be used. She expects us to trust her that she will not allow these funds to be diverted to some ratbag student union organisations. She would have us believe this $250 tax on students will go towards providing ‘vital services’—that is what she would like us to believe. We all know what the reality is here. If you look at the draft guidelines—and I emphasise the word ‘draft’—for these services, there is a long list of services: food and beverages, sport and recreation, health care and housing. There are in fact 17 uses in all that the original fee can be used for. But tucked away among these clauses are some very interesting items. One is student media. That is essential—to have our students paying for student media. What exactly is student media and how does that actually benefit students? You could understand that a student coming to a campus may enjoy visiting a cafeteria, but perhaps they may not necessarily agree with a production on the life and times of Karl Marx, or the benefits of communism or whatever it may be. What does student media mean? One does not have to be a rocket scientist to know that that is the green light for distributing propaganda by the student union. Just above student media, on the list at No. 10, is ‘audio visual media’. One can only speculate that that would have a similar use. Student unions, in particular, have a poor record when it comes to truly representing the views of students. Usually the student union is hijacked by radical individuals who have their own political agenda. I am reminded that in the past the Australian Union of Students—as has been mentioned by other members—has had links to organisations such as the PLO and the Communist Party of Malaya. I know that they are really acting in the best interest of students by diverting funds in that direction! It has also been brought to my attention that the current student union at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology produces a radio program on 3CR called Blazing Textbooks—a show which promotes itself as providing an ‘anticapitalist perspective on current issues’. I do not know how funding of such a program is actually benefiting many students who just want a cappuccino down at the union or just want to get a cheap meal. This is hardly a good use of funds. In a modern democracy such as Australia, how can the student union justify such an expense on Blazing Textbooks, talking about an anticapitalist perspective? How does that benefit students? The student may well think that the capitalist perspective is an appropriate perspective. I certainly agree with those students who do. How does this program benefit students? The answer is: not much. It is quite clear that you could drive a horse and cart through the guidelines. They are vague. Whilst they seem quite reasonable on the surface, there is ample scope for student funds to be diverted for purposes which are certainly inappropriate—diverted for purposes which those who are paying the funds would not agree with. In conclusion, when members consider this legislation, they should ask themselves: what type of message are we sending to our next generation by compelling people to pay fees for services they do not want and have no intention of using? We on this side of the House believe in the ability of markets to provide. We on this side of the House believe that, if a student union was to provide a quality service at the right price, students would of their own volition purchase those services. We do not believe that they should be compulsorily required to pay for them. We do not believe that they should be compelled to pay a particular fee so that the market has no place in the transaction. If student unions were providing what students wanted, they would have a large membership, they would have a strong membership and the various facilities that they offered would be well patronised. What we are seeing here is a failure of service delivery by the unions not meeting the needs of the people whom they are supposed to represent. It is a principle very dear to this side of the House that, where there is a market in operation, that market allocates resources appropriately and that market would result in students being able to choose. We believe that students know how best to spend their money. We believe that students are the best people to decide where that money should go. We do not believe in Labor’s new student tax. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the 21st century. Certainly, I will be further voicing my strong opposition to these proposed changes. 2488 11:56:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009, and I thank the member for Cowper as we do not get too many laughs in this place. I have to say that this sort of parody that we have just seen—of communist values and reds under the beds, and student services and politics about to take over the whole of the nation—was somewhat amusing. This debate, to some extent, has been a bit of a parody of the different values held by different political parties. Listening to the speeches by the member for Higgins and also the member for Mayo, it seems to me that there are some battles from their student union days that those members are still fighting. I regret that they feel that they need to bring those battles into this place. The issue that we are facing here is a lot more complex than what happened in the 1970s or even what happened more recently in student politics. It is about what is happening to the life of regional campuses—in my own instance—and what is happening to student life across this country. It is a really important debate. I also note with some irony that the very issues that are raised by the member for Higgins, which are about his student days when he had these huge fights within the student union movement at Monash University and how terrible they were, are the very things that probably have made him the person that he is today. The fact that he is here in this place able to debate, excited and interested in politics and passionate about ideas, is one of the very things he got from participating in a student union on the Monash campus. I find it ironic that those members who oppose Left ideas see that that is the very reason to be opposing student unionism. Student unionism’s history comes very much from Oxford debating societies. They were about the contest of ideas. That is what student unionism is about across campuses in Australia. It is about the contest of ideas, providing people the opportunities in student life to debate, to think, to challenge, to be able to come up with their own solutions to problems, to participate in all sorts of things that they may never get the opportunity to do once they have finished university and they have happen to them what happens to many of us. We have mortgages and jobs that do not allow us to participate in the richness of those sorts of ideas as much as we would like to because unfortunately real life takes over. It is really disappointing that this debate to some extent has come down to a parody of Left versus Right ideals, because that is not what this debate is actually about. It is about the richness of student life, the provision of student services on university campuses and how we best go about doing that. I have been a university student at a number of different campuses across the state of Victoria and also here in the ACT. Obviously the student union received part of the fee that I paid, although I was not part of the union. However, I never begrudged paying a fee, which I had to at all of the university campuses I was on, because, whilst I did not necessarily need to use all those services, I did acknowledge that there were students who did need access to advocacy, child care, legal services, accommodation services, assistance to work and welfare and counselling services. Whilst I may not have needed to access those particular services, I did not begrudge the many students in very different circumstances to me who did need to access those services. I did not at all begrudge paying for them. This bill recognises the detrimental effect that the Howard government’s voluntary student unionism bill has had on university campuses across this country. The current bill reflects a balanced approach to delivering vital amenities and services to university students. During the 2007 election campaign, I committed to those in my electorate to being part of a government that recognised the importance of having access to vital services on university campuses. Through this bill, the government is delivering on that commitment. I would like to acknowledge the work of the member for Adelaide for acting on this issue quickly and on the basis of broad consultation across the country. The Minister for Youth met with higher education stakeholder groups in my electorate back in February 2008 and she listened to views about how to fix the problem caused by the Howard government’s abolition of funding for student services. In my electorate, there was representation from the University of Ballarat, the Australian Catholic University, Aquinas Student Association, the Committee for Ballarat—a group of businesspeople in my electorate—the University of Ballarat Student Association and our local government, the City of Ballarat. The consultation with stakeholders found that both locally and nationally student services and amenities were eroding from campus to campus. The review found that this impact was no more evident than in regional and rural Australia. People and communities from rural and regional Australia are of equal importance to our nation’s future and yet this current situation has depleted services on campuses in my own electorate to unsatisfactory levels. As part of the review, the University of Ballarat, which is home to the majority of higher education students in my electorate, stated in their submission: While the current services appear to be at least marginally sustainable, the ongoing maintenance of these services is subject to a significant overhead subsidy from the University. If this position is continued— which it has been— the university community will suffer from an inability to provide new or enhanced services. The Australian Catholic University, which has a regional campus in Ballarat, stated in their submission: Student Association reserves and University funding have been used to maintain essential services in the short term. This model is not sustainable past 2008. The Committee for Ballarat in their submission stated: We are concerned that the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism (VSU) has had a marked effect already on the provision of services, representation and amenities at the University of Ballarat’s regional campuses and the local regional campuses of ACU and UM— the University of Melbourne. I reiterate that the Committee for Ballarat is a group of businesspeople in my community. The submission went on to say: We are convinced that unless the present, early, damaging trends are arrested and reversed very soon, then longer lasting and deeper damage will be done. We urge that remedial action be taken as a priority, in consultation with these universities. We have heard from many universities, student bodies and other stakeholders over the course of the minister’s consultation, and one thing is evident: student life and related communities are suffering from the Howard government’s determination to shut down student services. They are suffering because students today do not have the same basic services and amenities that they did in the past. I spoke in this House in 2005 against the Howard government’s attack on vital student services. My position has not changed. I am glad to be part of a government that is making a commitment to reinvigorating university life in this country. Those members opposite did not listen to our warnings back in 2005 about what would happen to universities and university campuses across this country. Now universities across Australia have suffered for their ignorance. The previous government’s approach was to rip away those basic services that are of most importance to students. It is extremely apparent that they have achieved their expected outcome. Students who attend regional universities predominantly come from regional and rural areas. These students have been hit hard. Regional universities and their broader communities have also been hit hard. At the University of Ballarat since the introduction of VSU these are some of the things that have happened. As of this year, the student association no longer provide legal services to students on campus. Instead, they have students who sacrifice time away from studying to support other students because this is the only support that exists. Independent student advocacy has gravely diminished due to the lack of funding and resources that were delivered to the student body. Advocacy and leadership at ACU is unfortunately heading in much the same direction. In their submission to the review, ACU stated: Students have lost the capacity to fund staff to support their leadership, planning and management of student affairs. It is no longer possible to pay an allowance to student office bearers who frequently forgo part time work to make the contribution to student affairs. This has made the recruitment of office bearers more difficult. Without adequate funding the voices of students are not being heard and they are not being represented on university bodies. The majority of university students across my electorate are the first generation in their families to go to university. Many of them come from lower socioeconomic backgrounds in rural areas and the big jump from secondary education to university life can be very daunting. In the past, student bodies have acted as the main point of contact, a friend to speak to, a support network and an overall body of representation for these students. At the University of Ballarat, the student body has closed the campus shop that assisted students by subsidising the cost of food, drinks and other essentials such as toiletries, stationery and other grocery items. Now students who are already on restricted budgets are spending an increased percentage of their weekly budget at the now university-run cafe. On-campus child care is no longer subsidised, which has forced prices to come into line with those commercial operators across the region. Financial services, such as emergency funding for students doing it tough, have also been stopped. Clubs and societies on campus have had funding dramatically restricted and they now receive only minimal administrative support. In the past two years alone, the number of students involved in volunteering with clubs and societies at Ballarat campuses has more than halved and is continuing to disappear because they are not provided with the support they need. Even the number of volunteers participating in the student body as a whole has dramatically decreased. This is shifting university campuses into ghost towns. The student interaction is diminishing as students race off university campuses between lectures as the social community is almost nonexistent on campus. Without clubs and societies, students find it increasingly difficult to network, find lifelong friends and, as a result, many become isolated during their studies. This is particularly the case with regional campuses, where a large number of students are attending university away from homes, often some distance away. To quote the University of Ballarat Student Association president, ‘It is now just a bare bones operation and it is only going to get worse under these circumstances.’ It is the intention of this bill to change this. This government wants to start the turnaround by rebuilding the spirit of university community and by having students involved in clubs and societies again. We want student bodies like the University of Ballarat Student Association to have the financial support they need to run services on campus. As I have signalled to the university’s vice-chancellor, it is certainly my hope and my expectation that the University of Ballarat Student Association be able to continue to operate on the campus. The Rudd government is committed to ensuring students at university have access to vital amenities and services. As part of this government’s plan we seek to implement National Access to Services Benchmarks relating to the provision of information on and access to student support services such as health and welfare services. As part of our plan we also have moved to introduce national student representation and advocacy protocols, which I will touch on a little bit later. This bill also allows for higher education providers, from 1 July this year, to choose to implement the compulsory student services and amenities fee. This fee will go a long way to providing further quality services on top of the benchmarks and protocols. This fee, capped at $250 per student per annum, will go a long way to assisting in the provision of amenities and services. There are a number of things I would like to discuss in relation to this fee. The first point I would like to make is that we on this side of the House understand that many higher education students are doing it tough. We do understand that the direct impact of the Howard government’s removal of funding of vital student services is that many costs for students on university campuses have actually risen. I think that is something that members of the opposition appear not to have taken into account in their opposition to this bill. Childcare costs are no longer subsidised and they have gone up. Textbooks are also putting pressure on students’ pockets. Getting involved in on-campus events and sporting activities is always assessed by students on the basis of how much money they have for any given week, and many of those clubs and societies are now no longer able to provide free entertainment or free services. Paying for food is also at the forefront of students’ minds on a daily basis. Let me not forget the indirect costs that have arisen from the Howard government’s VSU. Universities are taking money away from various operational budgets to fund the gap that exists because of VSU for vital services on campuses. We do recognise that many students are doing it tough. That is also why we provided in this legislation for eligible students to have the option to receive a loan for this fee. If students cannot afford to pay the student amenities fee they can choose to receive a loan, and this bill establishes a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program. Secondly, we have announced the Student Services and Amenities Fee Guidelines to give all stakeholders a very clear understanding about how this fee would be spent. The government wants this money spent on vital campus student services. We want to see the return of basic student services and amenities. Let me quickly go through those. They include food and drinks, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care and welfare, employment and career advice, financial services, and several others. Every one on this list is as important as the next. What are not on this list are political activities. They are not something that can be funded via the student amenities fee. I do note with some irony, however, that in its ham-fisted attempt to shut down anti-Howard government activity on student campuses—because that is what VSU really was about—the previous government managed to get many regional student associations in regional areas such as my own, not known for their radicalism, politically active for the first time. The student association at the University of Ballarat does not have a history of being politically active at all and now the former president is actually a member of my staff. He has never been involved in the Labor Party ever before. I am very grateful, because he is a terrific member of staff. There has been talk from those opposite that this bill introduces compulsory student unionism, and that is simply not the case. Students still have the option of being a member of the campus student body. If students choose not to sign up then that is absolutely fine. That is something that they choose either to do or not to do. The government believes students should be given choice about membership of on-campus student bodies and this bill delivers on that belief. Section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act forbids universities from requiring students to become a member of student bodies. Through this bill there are no changes to this section of the act. We do not want students forced to join student bodies but we do want students to have adequate services and amenities. That is why with this bill universities that choose to implement the fee will be able to start charging $125 for the second half of 2009. This will deliver sustainability and structure to universities before campus services and amenities deteriorate any further. Now is the time for action and now is the opportunity for members of parliament to promote positive change and to reinvigorate the life of our universities. Many of the members opposite seem to be stuck in the past and seem to be fighting some old student political debates. The proposal in this bill is not a return to the past; what it is is a balanced approach to try to make sure that university campuses are reinvigorated and that university life and university services are provided to students. I certainly invite those members in the other place who are going to be voting on this bill to think long and hard about what they intend to do. As I mentioned earlier, without adequate funding, student voices are not being heard across university campuses. In this bill we have announced National Student Representation and Advocacy Protocols to provide a solution to this problem. Having independent advocacy in our society is part of the Australian way of life, yet only now do we have protocols that outline how higher education providers are to provide independent advocacy for students throughout our higher education system. I want to see a process to democratically elect student representatives on university campuses across Australia and I want to see a system that allows the elected representatives to establish advocacy services for all enrolled students. There are also two other measures in this bill I want to briefly touch on. They include amendments to the act to ensure that tertiary admission centres conform to current legislative and privacy requirements. At present TACs do not have the same status and duty of care as other offices of higher education providers when handling students’ personal information. We have sought in this bill to ensure students’ privacy is maintained under the Higher Education Support Act by acknowledging the role of TACs and recognising their responsibilities in this legislation. The final measure that I want to support in this bill is our proposal to support students wanting to study in the vocational education and training sector. In her second reading speech Minister Ellis outlined that student numbers in publicly funded diploma and advanced diploma courses have declined steadily across Australia since 2002. I would also like to note that, in my own state of Victoria, the number of students in publicly funded diploma and advanced diploma courses has declined from 64,800 to 58,900 in 2007—a drop of over nine per cent. Our measure removes a significant barrier to students wanting to study diploma and above qualifications in the VET sector. Prospective students can now access training for diploma and above qualifications without worrying about upfront fees. If we are to move forward as a nation into the future, we need to invest in our human capital, and education is at the forefront of this investment. This bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to expand the VET FEE-HELP scheme and to subsequently significantly increase the number of Australians completing diploma and advanced diploma degrees. In supporting this bill, I am supporting a balanced approach to reinvigorating universities and to securing vital services and amenities. The bill supports students having access to independent and democratic representation and advocacy. I would like to reiterate the importance of the bill in assisting universities and students in regional university campuses like those in my electorate. Finally, I want to reflect on a comment by the Committee for Ballarat. In their submission they say: The more distance one is from a capital city, the less likely is completion of a degree or higher qualification. This is a major lost opportunity for regional and national development. VSU adds a serious other dimension to this issue. If there are already core issues damaging rural and regional students’ participation, then adding another damaging effect—the minimisation of amenities, services and representation—then participation and success rates for this group is even more vulnerable. That is what the previous government did and we are reversing that trend. (Time expired) 2493 12:17:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I congratulate the member for Ballarat for her contribution to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. I think she encapsulated some of the very real issues that are out there. On the point that she made about regional universities at the end of her speech, I was at a conference yesterday where that was discussed, and the vice-chancellor of the Ballarat university was one of the speakers. There are some very unique issues for regional universities and the various cost structures et cetera. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise a staff member of mine who has been running my Tamworth office, at both a state and federal level, since 1991—Mr Leigh Tschirpig. He is not in this building very often but I thank him for the work that he has put in over all those years and I hope that he is with me for a few more. As the member for Ballarat commented—and it has been quite extraordinary listening to this debate—a lot of people still seem to be at university even though they are in this parliament, and they are reliving some of the crimes that they committed during their student days. That is all very nice but after university you have to grow up a bit. In a parliament, particularly, we have to look at how services are provided to our young people. I listened to the member for Higgins and I have heard various comments on both sides of the parliament. It seems as though the old debates have never left them—the Rights and the Lefts and the indifferents. I was at university for four years and I was probably one of the indifferents who was not involved in student politics terribly much, but I appreciated the opportunities and some of the services that were there, that others were using and that I occasionally had to use. One of the points that I would like to make concerns the voluntary student unionism issue that was raised a few years ago when the government abolished the mandatory student unionism arrangements. At that time, I moved an amendment that removed the capacity for political activities to be funded through the general fee. I have heard many members of the coalition, and some members of the government, saying today that they are in support of the general thrust of services being provided to students, but they are not in support of money being used to fund political activities. Neither side supported that amendment of mine in 2005 and, as I read this bill, it precludes the use of the general service fee for political activities, but most of the debate has been about old political activities. The member for Ballarat made a very important point in terms of the member for Higgins’s contribution about where he honed his skills in political debate because there was a capacity at university for people to have different views and to have the time and the capacity to debate those views and argue for their particular causes. I do not have a problem, even if some of that money did happen to leak into that area, because universities really should be about not only learning how to be an engineer or a doctor, but learning other life skills as well. It should be about having the capacity to access various services if they are required. I have had two children go to university and hopefully another one will attend next year. Hopefully they will not need some of these services at university that may well help them with legal, housing or social problems that they may have difficulties with. But, if they did, I would be more than happy to make a contribution so that those services actually do exist in universities, particularly in our country universities where the students may well be many hundreds of kilometres away from their relatives. So I do support the legislation today and I find it a bit odd that neither side supported essentially the same legislation by way of amendment back in 2005. I believed then that what the government was doing, because of members of the former government reliving some of their university days, was throwing the baby out with the bathwater. They wanted to starve any political activity at university, which I would disagree with anyway—I think that is, as I said, part of what we should be doing at university. We need people to engage in the political process not starve their access to it. But, even given that issue, there was the capacity to ban the use of the general fee for political activities and still provide the other services that this legislation in fact brings back into play. I would also like to congratulate those people who played a role during the 2005 debate. It was a very close debate and the numbers were very tight in the Senate. I would particularly like to recognise Tom O’Sullivan, Greg Harris, Steve Griffiths and, more recently, Don Knapp for their advocacy on behalf of student activities, particularly some of the student sporting activities, and particularly for their concern for the impact on country universities. I would like to single out Senator Barnaby Joyce as well. Even though he is going to be a candidate against me at the next election, I have to recognise good when good is seen to be done, and I congratulate Senator Joyce for the stance that he took when the voluntary student union debate was on. I know at the next election when we are head-to-head we will have some common ground in some of the issues that we have fought on in the past and I look forward to sharing that time with him and reminiscing about our camaraderie in some of the issues, this being one of them. I was also interested to hear the member for Cowper, who, in his deliberations about people making their own choices— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —It is an important issue, he says. He must be still supporting Work Choices. He made a statement which I found a little bit at odds with what actually happens on the ground—that university students can decide how best to spend their own money. In a lot of cases it is not their own money. But the alcohol industry does quite well out of quite a lot of them, I think, and in some cases we should have services there because quite often they will perhaps not have the money left over at the end of the week to access the services that they may not have thought that they would need. I think that is part of a caring society—to make sure that we look after the provision of services to those kids who may not have that capacity after a big weekend. The other issue that I would like to raise briefly is the issue that the member for Cowper raised in relation to the guidelines in this legislation. I think he used the term: ‘You could drive a horse and cart through them.’ It reminded me of the Regional Partnerships arrangements that the member for Cowper was part of in this particular parliament. It was quite obvious that the guidelines that had been designed under that arrangement were designed to have a horse and cart driven through them. Members of the recent inquiry, and the minister for regional services, who is with us today, would be well aware of the issues in the Financial Management and Accountability Act—the breaches that actually took place and are recognised by the Audit Office. A coalition member starts criticising guidelines, when some of the breaches—of their own guidelines—occurred on their watch! Competitive and neutrality issues, a whole range of issues in terms of accountability, were breached. As I said earlier, even if there was some leakage into student activities of a political nature—and I do not think this legislation will actually allow it; maybe I am wrong—I would have thought that is something that we should actually encourage at university and make people think about the structures that are out there. Yesterday I was with the vice-chancellor of the Ballarat university and members of the National Tertiary Education Union from all over Australia, who were representing some of the specific regional issues as they saw them. I should not let this opportunity go by without raising a couple of the issues that were raised. It is obvious that in country areas a much smaller percentage of country children go to university. The other figure that was quite revealing was that those who do come from the country and go to a country university tend to work in the country. From time to time we have heard the debate from those who have been educated in country areas about medical schools and the retention rate of doctors et cetera. There is more than enough evidence to suggest that, even though there are cost disadvantages not only to the students and the parents of children at country universities but to the administration, we must make sure that we maintain proper expenditure in those areas so that those young people will learn their skills in the country and return to the country with those skills in the future. I talked about the arrangements for doctors. We are very pleased that the University of New England has a medical school where you can see those very things happening as I speak. One of the other issues raised—and I am pleased to see that the minister responsible for a lot of the training activities is here as well—which really does need to be looked at in terms of the future of young people at university is the youth allowance. Young people often do not go to university the year after school because their parents cannot afford it, in some sense, so they go out to work and then meet all the guidelines to be able to access the youth allowance. I am not suggesting that everybody should go to university straight after school but I think we are developing a framework that now makes that almost the norm rather than the exception. We have to have a close look at the way in which those guidelines are put together. One of the other things that were mentioned at yesterday’s conference was that to encourage people to go to country universities there may well be a need to reduce the HECS debts that are repaid on the conclusion of the degree. I bring those few points to the debate and in conclusion say again that I support this legislation. I think what occurred in 2005 was unfortunate for student activities, particularly those in the country, and it was driven by an ideological perspective in that a lot of people who are still in this place were reliving their university days and settling old scores. That was unfortunate because they overlooked the very valuable services that were being provided. As I said then, and say again now, we all hope that some of these services are not needed by our children, but if those services are not there they cannot be accessed. I am more than happy to make a contribution for those people who may need those services into the future, particularly for those in regional universities where they may be many hundreds of kilometres from their families. Debate (on motion by Mr Gray) adjourned. 2496 Bills R4067 2496 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland. Bill read a first time. 2496 2496 12:33:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Policy Setting In 2005 a centralised background checking service was established in the Attorney-General’s Department as part of a wider initiative to strengthen aviation and maritime security. This service—known as AusCheck—was created to help the aviation and maritime industries, in particular, to identify high-risk individuals who should not be granted access to secure areas of Australian air and sea ports. It began operation in September 2007. The main purpose of this R4067bill is to amend the AusCheck Act 2007 to provide the capacity for additional schemes under the act to be carried out for national security purposes. The existing act only permits AusCheck to coordinate background checks for the purposes of the aviation and maritime security identification card scheme. Policy Objective The AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009 will expand the range of background checks that AusCheck is able to undertake. This will provide the legislative authority to enable AusCheck to provide centralised background checking coordination for the Commonwealth in relation to a wider range of national security regulatory schemes. Background checking for national security purposes offers a tool for meeting national security policy objectives, including coordinated and enhanced background checking regimes related to high-risk industries, and greater consistency in control of hazardous substances. No requirement for any person to actually have a background check will be imposed as a result of the amendment to the act; it will simply provide a framework to facilitate the extension of AusCheck’s background checking functions, in addition to those already provided for aviation and maritime transport. If the government wishes to use the AusCheck national security background check in a new context, it will separately develop the legislative or other regulatory provisions that establish the requirement for the check. The bill simply paves the way for AusCheck to take on additional background checking functions under future legislation. The AusCheck Act has been in operation for just over two years. During this time the service has gained wide acceptance across the Australian aviation and maritime industries, and has achieved real results in improving the speed and consistency of background checking. Existing aviation and maritime clients report that not only is the AusCheck background checking system faster; it reduces administrative costs as fewer resources are required to chase outstanding applications or reconcile complex billing arrangements. Other amendments in the bill will authorise and protect biometric information about an individual where this is required in order to complete a background check. In conducting criminal history background checks it is sometimes necessary to confirm the identity of an individual so that police services can distinguish between people with the same or similar name and date of birth. In these circumstances, it may not be possible to complete the background check unless the identity of the individual can be confirmed through the provision of further identification information such as fingerprints. The amendments are intended to ensure that if AusCheck is required to facilitate the provision of biometric information to the relevant police jurisdiction, then this information will be afforded all of the additional protections given to other AusCheck personal information and not be available for any purpose other than a further background check. This is intended to reflect the purpose of collecting this information in the first place, which is the verification of a particular individual’s identity. As a consequence of the inclusion of a capacity to conduct national security background checks, the bill also includes amendments to the provisions that give authority for AusCheck to provide an online verification service. The online verification service is currently restricted to verifying aviation security identification cards and maritime security identification cards. With the addition of a national security background check, this authority will be consequently expanded so that an online verification service may be used to verify other types of authorities that may be issued indicating that a person has undergone a national security background check. Conclusion In conclusion, the positioning of AusCheck as a centralised background checking service for the Commonwealth is in keeping with the public’s expectation that adequate cost-effective security arrangements are in place. Greater access by Commonwealth agencies to AusCheck’s resources reduces duplication of effort where individuals require background checks for different purposes, and this will develop a more consistent and reliable approach to national security background checking. The amendment to the act provides the legislative framework for more efficient background checking schemes. The amendment is necessary to provide legislative authority for those processes and to provide appropriate protections for the information that will be collected and stored by AusCheck. This amendment is another important step in improving national security generally. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2498 Bills R4065 2498 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr McClelland, for Mr Debus. Bill read a first time. 2498 2498 12:39:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I am pleased to introduce the Customs Legislation Amendment (Name Change) Bill 2009. On 4 December 2008, the Prime Minister released the government’s National Security Statement, which was read in the House. The statement outlined the government’s national security policy and vision for a reformed national security structure. In the statement, the Prime Minister announced that the Australian Customs Service is to be renamed the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to better reflect its new role of being the lead Commonwealth government agency on maritime people-smuggling issues. In conjunction with partner agencies, it will do this by: coordination of intelligence collection across government; analysis of intelligence gathered on people-smuggling ventures and networks; coordination of surveillance and on-water response; and engaging internationally with source and transit countries to comprehensively address and deter people smuggling. This bill will amend the Customs Administration Act 1985 to change the name of the Australian Customs Service to the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service. The bill, in conjunction with those other measures, will make a significant difference to national security and in particular enhance border protection, and it will make consequential amendments to a number of other acts to also reflect the name change as part of the operation of these reforms. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2498 Bills R4068 2498 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O’Connor. Bill read a first time. 2498 2498 12:43:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The amendments proposed by this bill will help people who lose their job, and others applying for income support who have limited assets, to access income support more readily by lifting the liquid assets waiting period thresholds. The proposed changes will affect people applying for Newstart allowance, youth allowance, Austudy and sickness allowance. In determining whether and when a person can start to receive income support payments, Centrelink consider the liquid assets that person has available to them. Liquid assets are generally sources of money available to a person at relatively short notice. They include cash on hand, shares and debentures and term deposits. It does not include superannuation or termination payments that have been or are going to be rolled over into superannuation. Currently single people cannot receive income support payments until they have less than $2,500 in liquid assets. Single people must wait a week for every $500 they have over $2,500 up to a maximum of 13 weeks. Couples, or people with dependants, are not eligible to receive income support until they have less than $5,000 in liquid assets. They must wait a week for every $1,000 they have over $5,000 up to a maximum of 13 weeks. These thresholds are a consequence of a savings measure taken by the previous government in the 1996-97 budget to further restrict access to income support payments. This savings measure, which took effect from September 1997, halved the liquid assets waiting period thresholds from $5,000 to $2,500 for singles and from $10,000 to $5,000 for couples and people with dependants. These thresholds have not been changed in over a decade. At the time the previous government made these savings measures, they were roundly criticised by welfare and church organisations and peak representative bodies, as well as by the then Labor opposition. The measures were seen by many as harsh, regressive, unnecessary and without genuine foundation in policy. The previous government ignored the concerns raised about this issue throughout their years in office. This bill effectively reverses the decision of the previous government taken in the 1996-97 budget. It will restore the pre-1997 threshold amounts so that single people with liquid assets of less than $5,000 and couples or people with children with liquid assets of less than $10,000 will not have to serve a liquid assets waiting period. These thresholds will apply for a two-year period from 1 April 2009 to 31 March 2011. A review will take place in a year to consider the effectiveness of the thresholds proposed by this bill. The review will include consultations, which is in stark contrast with the approach taken by the previous government in 1996-97 when it decided to reduce the thresholds. When the previous government made their regressive changes, we told them it was unfair. It remains particularly unfair in the current economic circumstances to make people, many of them unemployed for the first time, jeopardise their ability to meet their ongoing financial commitments. The government’s decision to reverse the position of the previous government by doubling the liquid assets waiting period thresholds is an appropriate response to the extraordinary nature of the current economic circumstances resulting from the global financial crisis. In keeping with the government’s commitment to fairness, the bill also excludes the surrender value of life insurance policies from the definition of liquid assets. The surrender value of a life insurance policy is the amount an insurance company will pay an insured person if they cancel the policy voluntarily—that is, before they die. It is, in effect, the person’s equity in that insurance policy. Presently, people who hold life insurance policies that have a surrender value are expected to cash in their policy in order to support themselves before being able to access income support. Cashing in the surrender value of a life insurance policy disadvantages the policy owner as the surrender value is generally well below the amount paid in premiums. The person’s family or other estate beneficiaries may be further disadvantaged in the future by no longer having life insurance cover in the event of the person’s death. In effect, this penalises people who have taken responsibility for their family’s future. It is unreasonable to expect a person to realise the surrender value of their life insurance policy in order to support themselves while they serve a liquid assets waiting period or before being able to access the severe financial hardship provisions that enable access to income support. The proposed amendments will exclude life insurance policy surrender values in calculating any applicable liquid assets waiting period or determining severe financial hardship for the purposes of eligibility for income support. This amendment will ensure that people applying for income support are not disadvantaged by having to cash out their life insurance policies before they can access income support. Australians who apply for income support will still rely on their own resources before seeking assistance. The measures in this bill balance this with fair and reasonable access to income support for people facing the difficult circumstances of unemployment during the current global financial crisis. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2500 Bills R4069 2500 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner, for Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 2500 12:49:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —by leave—I present a copy of a draft shareholders agreement by Mallesons Stephen Jaques. 2500 2500 12:49:00 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. Today I am introducing a bill to facilitate the establishment and operations of the Australian Business Investment Partnership Limited (ABIP). The government is establishing ABIP in partnership with Australia’s four major banks as a temporary contingency measure to provide refinancing of loans relating to commercial property assets in Australia where finance relating to those assets is not available from commercial providers—other than ABIP—and the asset is financially viable. This initiative, announced by the Prime Minister and the Treasurer on 24 January 2009, is necessary because of the current unprecedented global economic conditions. It is another demonstration of the government acting in a timely, practical and decisive way to help protect the Australian economy in the face of the global financial crisis. ABIP is an important and sensible measure to facilitate the continued flow of credit in the private sector, and assist in ensuring that the Australian economy is as well placed as possible to face the consequences and impacts of the global recession. The government is aware that establishing ABIP and providing finance to the commercial property sector is not without risk. The commercial property sector can be particularly vulnerable in a downturn in the economic cycle. That is why a range of safeguards have been put in place to limit the risk to taxpayer funds. These safeguards include: ABIP’s prudent lending criteria; appropriate provisioning by ABIP for any bad and doubtful debts; the requirement for unanimity of decisions of the ABIP board to enter financing arrangements; and the requirement that the four major domestic banks maintain their exposures to commercial property assets that ABIP lends to. The global financial crisis raises the possibility that some financiers, particularly foreign banks, may reduce their level of financing of viable Australian businesses. Many foreign banks are facing difficult circumstances in their home economies and may look to reduce their lending commitments and exposures generally, which could create a liquidity shortage, or a ‘funding gap’, in the Australian economy. This potential funding gap could result in financing being taken away from good Australian businesses that require this funding to invest in growth and jobs. To maintain liquidity and continued financing, any gap in financing will need to be sourced from elsewhere, such as from Australia’s four major domestic banks. However, it would be difficult for these banks to fill any funding gap that may arise on their own. Accordingly, government action is required. The generally highly leveraged nature of commercial property assets makes this sector particularly vulnerable to a liquidity shortage. It is also important to note that foreign banks comprise around a quarter of the commercial property exposures in Australia. The commercial property sector is an important part of the Australian economy, and provides employment for a large number of Australians as well as opportunities for small and large investors, including superannuation funds. Around 150,000 people are employed in the commercial property sector in Australia, many of whom are tradespeople, such as plumbers, electricians and carpenters. Further, other businesses—both large and small—provide goods and services to the sector. A funding gap that arises in the commercial property sector could result in distressed asset sales and an exaggerated decline in commercial property prices, resulting in prices falling below the underlying long-term value of those assets. This could also negatively impact on the ability of businesses to continue to borrow at current levels. It could have general adverse implications for the operational expenditure and growth plans for business generally, not just those in commercial property, and possibly spread to the rest of the economy, constraining general bank lending. Without action, a combination of weak demand and tight credit conditions brought about by the global financial crisis could see significant job losses in the sector with consequent effects on jobs and businesses in other parts of the economy. This government will not sit idly by and watch jobs, investments and small and medium sized businesses wiped out by fluctuations in global credit markets. It is against this background that the government and Australia’s four major banks have decided to establish the $4 billion Australian Business Investment Partnership. ABIP’s purpose is to help fill the gap left by the possible withdrawal of commercial lenders, particularly foreign banks, from Australian businesses. ABIP will be established under the Corporations Act 2001 and will be a public company limited by shares. The shareholders of ABIP will be the Commonwealth of Australia (Commonwealth); and Australia’s four major domestic banks—the Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd, Commonwealth Bank of Australia, National Australia Bank Ltd and Westpac Banking Corporation. The Commonwealth will have a 50 per cent shareholding in the company and the four major banks will each take a 12½ per cent share. The government and the four major domestic banks will each provide initial loan funding to ABIP, as well as an amount for ABIP’s working capital. The government will provide $2 billion and each of the major banks will provide $500 million. Accordingly, on its establishment, ABIP will have access to $4 billion in undrawn loan facilities, less an amount for working capital (expected to be $4 million). It is important to note that the financing provided by the four major banks will not be government guaranteed. If ABIP requires additional financing beyond the initial $4 billion contribution, it will be able to issue up to $26 billion in debt to raise that additional funding. However, it will only be able to issue such debt with the unanimous agreement of all shareholders. This could provide ABIP with up to $30 billion in financing. ABIP will only issue debt when the initial $4 billion loan funding provided by the government and the four major banks has been exhausted. In order to ensure that debt issued by ABIP is sufficiently attractive in the market, it will be government guaranteed. Accordingly, this debt will attract an appropriate fee (on a sliding scale, up to around 150 basis points) to be reflected in the pricing of the issue. The level and timing of the fee will need to be unanimously agreed by shareholders, and will have regard to risk and liquidity factors and general market conditions at the time any such debt is issued. Under Australia’s prudential framework, as ABIP issues debt the banks’ contributions could be increasingly treated as equity by the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority, as a result of the greater value of loans issued by ABIP. This would have an impact on the banks’ own lending more generally, which would be counterproductive to the purpose of ABIP to facilitate credit flows. Accordingly, to limit this impact, a small proportion of the government guaranteed debt that ABIP may issue (up to around five per cent) is likely to be subordinated to the initial $4 billion of loans. The Commonwealth will receive an appropriate return on the subordinated debt. Applications for financing will be assessed in accordance with ABIP’s lending criteria. These lending criteria will be appropriate, prudent, and broadly consistent with the lending criteria of the four major banks. They will be determined unanimously by all five shareholders. ABIP will only provide funding for commercial property where the underlying assets, and the income streams from those assets, are financially viable. To provide a broad indication, the types of commercial property assets that ABIP may consider providing financing to include, but are not limited to, retail shopping centres, commercial office buildings and industrial property. Property located outside Australia, land banks, speculative development assets and rural property would fall outside the scope of ABIP’s lending criteria. Further, to protect the interests of ABIP shareholders, any major domestic bank that is an existing participant in a financing arrangement before ABIP, must maintain at least their existing level of financing in percentage terms. It is important to note that ABIP will operate in a commercial manner with directors subject to the Corporations Act. Reflecting this, if a loan becomes impaired ABIP will undertake normal enforcement procedures to protect its investment. ABIP will also be structured to allow sufficient flexibility to provide financing arrangements in other areas of commercial lending, if circumstances necessitate and provided those arrangements are agreed unanimously by ABIP’s shareholders. At this point, it is worth re-emphasising that ABIP is intended and designed to address a potential liquidity problem—not a creditworthiness problem. It is not the intention of the four major banks that have put their funding into ABIP, nor is it the intention of the government, that ABIP will support problem assets. It is simply not within ABIP’s scope. To ensure that ABIP has a high degree of accountability and governance, the government will apply special features to ABIP. In relation to the structure and operations of the ABIP board: the board will be comprised of representatives from the government and each of the major banks, with the board chaired by the government’s representative; board resolutions, apart from those relating to loan enforcement, must be unanimous; this provision protects all shareholders by ensuring that commercial property assets are only supported where all directors consider that the asset is commercially viable; and resolutions on loan enforcement may be passed by four of the five directors. However, the director nominated by the Commonwealth must be one of the directors supporting the resolution. To ensure there is sufficient parliamentary scrutiny and accountability for the government’s investment in ABIP: the directors of ABIP will be required to give the minister a copy of ABIP’s financial report, directors’ report and auditor’s report for each financial year; the minister will have to table the reports in each house of the parliament; and ABIP will also be obliged to provide its shareholders with any other information the shareholder may reasonably require. Additional measures the government is imposing on ABIP are that: ABIP’s auditor will be the Auditor-General; and the directors of ABIP will be required to establish and maintain an audit committee, that must be constituted consistently with the arrangements for audit committees of wholly owned Commonwealth companies. The shareholders of ABIP will enter into a shareholders’ agreement which will outline, among other things, the operation, control, management and funding of ABIP. To provide greater transparency for ABIP’s operational arrangements this agreement, and any amendments to it, will be made public as soon as practicable after it is entered into. I am tabling the draft shareholders’ agreement today. Arrangements to deal with conflicts of interest, as well as the confidentiality of sensitive information obtained by ABIP, are also set out in the shareholders’ agreement. The shareholders’ agreement will provide for provisioning for any bad and doubtful debts within ABIP and the distribution of profits. ABIP will adopt a cash flow provisioning policy which reflects an appropriate, but conservative, approach. The provisioning arrangements that will apply are that: until an aggregate of $500 million has been borrowed from ABIP, a cash flow provision of 50 basis points will be applied; and once more than $500 million has been borrowed from ABIP, a dynamic provisioning policy will be adopted to take account of economic conditions and risks at the time. Profits from the financing operations of ABIP will be shared proportionately, commensurate with the initial loan funding. Profits available for distribution will be paid as half-year and full-year dividends. To remove any uncertainty about the operations of ABIP, the ABIP Bill specifically authorises the shareholders agreement, and the activities undertaken by ABIP, its shareholders, directors, officers, agents and employees in the furtherance of ABIP’s objectives, to be exempt from the competition provisions of the Trade Practices Act. As previously noted, this is a contingency measure to address a possible temporary problem. In that context, ABIP will only be able to enter into new refinancing arrangements of commercial property assets for two years from the date of its establishment. Furthermore, if credit markets improve so that ABIP is no longer required the government will seek to wind it up as soon as possible. The establishment of ABIP is another government initiative to insulate the Australian economy and protect Australian jobs from the impacts of the global recession. As I have previously highlighted, this initiative is a contingency measure that the government is putting in place to address liquidity problems in the commercial property sector, should they arise. It is the government’s hope that such liquidity problems do not emerge. This would mean that ABIP would not have to step in and provide financing, and potentially may never have to write a single loan. However, the government is also realistic, and is prepared to put measures in place to meet the challenges head on, and support the flow of credit to good Australian businesses and therefore support the jobs they provide. The alternative is to do nothing and to simply carp from the sidelines while Australian businesses and jobs are sacrificed to the global recession. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2505 Bills R4070 2505 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner, for Mr Swan. Bill read a first time. 2505 2505 13:02:00 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. This bill will provide the Australian Business Investment Partnership Ltd with an exemption from a requirement for it to hold an Australian financial services licence (AFSL). Under the Corporations Act 2001, an AFSL authorises a company or its representatives to provide financial services to clients. Without an AFSL, a company generally cannot carry on a financial services business. A company will provide financial services if it: provides financial product advice; deals in a financial product; makes a market for a financial product; operates a registered scheme; or provides a custodial or depository service. The Australian Business Investment Partnership (ABIP) will be providing refinancing for loans relating to commercial property assets in Australia where finance relating to those assets is not available from commercial providers (other than ABIP), and the asset is financially viable. ABIP will also provide financing arrange-ments in other areas of commercial lending if circumstances necessitate and those arrangements are unanimously agreed to by the members of ABIP. Whilst the statutory concept of providing a financial service in section 766A of the Corporations Act would not extend to the provision of credit per se, it is arguable that activities of the Australian Business Investment Partnership that may be incidental to its provision of credit would constitute providing a financial service within the meaning of section 766A of the Corporations Act. Requiring ABIP to obtain an AFSL for its borrowing and lending activities would be disproportionate given the sophisticated nature of its possible client base and the limited scope and duration of its activities, noting that: ABIP will only have five shareholders; ABIP is only intended to lend for two years; and its functions are limited by the proposed legislation providing for its incorporation. In that context, it is appropriate for there to be an exemption from the AFSL requirements in relation to any activity of Australian Business Investment Partnership Ltd which constitutes the carrying on of a financial services business in this jurisdiction under subsection 911A(2) of the Corporations Act 2001. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2505 Bills R4073 2505 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tanner, for Mr Bowen. Bill read a first time. 2506 2506 13:05:00 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. I am pleased to present a bill that demonstrates the government’s pre-election commitment to undoing the damage done by the previous government’s changes to the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 (the Electoral Act) and moving Australia’s electoral laws and processes towards the world’s best practice. The measures contained in this bill deal with the controversial area of political donations and election funding.  The urgent measures contained in this bill are also part of an extensive—that is ‘extensive’, not ‘expensive’; as the Minister for Finance and Deregulation I am very concerned about things that are expensive—review of electoral laws that had been previously foreshadowed by the government in early 2008. This process includes the development and publication in December 2008 of the first green paper on electoral reform entitled Donations, funding and expenditure. The submissions from the public in response to this green paper have recently been received and published and the process of considering these submissions is now underway.  The measures contained in the bill incorporate not only the measures in the bill that were rejected at second reading in the Senate but also the measures that were foreshadowed to be included as government amendments to the bill in the Senate in response to the October 2008 advisory report from the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters (JSCEM). There is also a further minor amendment to the categories of ‘electoral expenditure’ against which public funding can be claimed following an election and after consultation in the Senate. Before turning to the contents of the bill I want to take this opportunity to explain why the government is proceeding with the bill at this time despite the action taken in the Senate. The government is committed to restoring the integrity of our electoral processes and systems. The contribution of the JSCEM following public hearings has provided further assistance in achieving this goal. The opposition in the Senate have claimed they support campaign finance reform, but have stalled the passage of the bill based on a claim that legislation in this area should encompass all of the complexities that relate to the donations, disclosure and the funding of political parties. However, any such legislation in response to the first green paper will clearly not be straightforward, given the need to balance a range of complex factors including consideration of expenditure caps on candidates and political parties, possible further restrictions on donations, determining the proper rates of public funding and taking into account the constitutional freedom of political communications that has been outlined by the High Court in several decisions. The development of a legislative model that fits the Australian context and the expectations of the Australian community will clearly be a major task. However, to delay the measures contained in this bill now in anticipation of more complex legislation later will merely ensure that the federal election system remains mired in the past while community concerns about the system of political donations are ignored. It will send the message that the parliament and the political parties both believe that it is permissible to exploit the system and to continue to hide donations. The measures contained in the bill need to commence at the start of a financial year. Otherwise a range of complex transitional provisions will be required. The government wants to pass the bill this fortnight so that these measures can take effect from 1 July 2009. The opposition, based on their vote in the Senate, would clearly prefer the measures to never come into operation. The Australian community would have every right to be concerned about any delays in the passage of this legislation or its failure to pass at all. The bill that I present today deals with six major issues. The first group of measures reduces the disclosure threshold for donors, registered political parties, candidates and others involved in incurring political expenditure from ‘more than $10,000’ (indexed annually to the CPI) to a flat rate of $1,000. The aim of this measure is to provide transparency and accountability in the donations and expenditure received or incurred by key participants in the political process. The reduction from the current high level of $10,900 that increases annually with indexation each year to a flat rate of $1,000 greatly extends the transparency of our system and ensures that the scope for any undisclosed gifts will be reduced. The second group of measures reduces the current time frames for the making of returns and the disclosure of gifts and expenditure relating to an election by individual candidates and members of Senate groups and donors who make donations within the election period from the existing 15 weeks to a period of eight weeks after polling day. In terms of political parties, associated entities, third parties and donors more generally, the previous returns that were required to be provided to the Australian Electoral Commission once every 12 months will now be required to be lodged once every six months. The existing time periods for the lodging of these returns (which are presently 15 weeks for donors, 16 weeks for registered political partes and associated entities, and 20 weeks for third parties who incur political expenditure) will all be reduced to eight weeks. These changes will ensure that the Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has in its possession details of gifts, revenues and political expenditure that are more timely and up to date. The publication of this information will also be more timely and will enable the Australian community to fully examine the financial dealings of the main players involved in the political process and to scrutinise the sources of any donations that have been received. The third group of measures contained in this bill addresses a loophole in the existing donor disclosure laws. One mechanism that is currently available to donors who do not wish to have their identity disclosed is to make multiple donations just below the threshold to the various branches and divisions of the same political party. This bill will remove the loophole, by using an existing definition of ‘related political parties’ found elsewhere in the Electoral Act, to ensure that donations to different branches of a political party are treated as donations to the same party. This will mean that a donor will need to disclose where he or she has made donations totalling $1,000 or more to any combination of the branches and divisions of the party, and in this way it will inhibit the unaccountable practice of donation splitting. The fourth group of measures in this bill deals with the complex issue of the receipt of gifts from foreign companies. This was one of the issues that was addressed in the September 2005 report of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters entitled The 2004 federal election. There has been considerable concern that large overseas companies may be able to exert influence through the making of significant and often unreported gifts and donations. The measures in the bill make it unlawful for registered political parties, candidates and members of a Senate group to accept gifts of foreign property. The bill also makes it unlawful for other key players in the political process, such as associated entities and third persons to receive overseas gifts that are used solely or substantially to incur political expenditure. The policy intent is to ensure that the source of all funds that are used for political purposes is clearly identified, to enable the AEC to have jurisdiction over those donations and to enable the Australian public to scrutinise any possible impact that such donations may have on political decision making. The fifth group of measures aims to close another loophole in the Electoral Act. Currently section 306 of the Electoral Act prohibits the receipt of anonymous gifts above the threshold by registered political parties, candidates and Senate groups. The original bill included measures that extend the current prohibition on accepting anonymous gifts and donations to all anonymous gifts to these entities and to cover associated entities and other third persons that use those funds for political purposes. The revised bill that has been introduced today includes measures that respond to the recommendation of the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that there should be a $50 exception to the prohibition on the acceptance of anonymous gifts. The basis for this recommendation was to remove an onerous record-keeping burden in relation to fundraisers such as raffles, trivia nights and street stalls. The revised bill includes two measures based on the type of activity or event. The first relates to a public activity, such as a fete, where people passing by might, for example, place a donation in a bucket. The second relates to private events, such as a trivia night or paid dinner, where attendees might donate small amounts of money. At both of these activities, the receipt of an anonymous gift will be permitted where required records are kept of the activity, the persons collecting the gifts and the total amount raised. For private events, the total amount raised as anonymous gifts may not be more than an amount calculated by multiplying $50 by the number of people who attended the event. The bill also contains similar measures that apply to third parties who incur specified political expenditure above the threshold in a reporting period and extends the $50 exception on accepting permitted anonymous donations that are collected for political campaign purposes. The bill also provides that anonymous donations that are collected in excess of the $50 exception, or that are unable to be returned, are to be paid to the Commonwealth. The sixth group of measures is aimed at addressing the possibility that some candidates and other groups may obtain a windfall payment of election funding as a result of running for office. This measure will give effect to the government’s announcement that any payment of election funding should be tied to actual ‘electoral expenditure’ that has been incurred. The policy intention behind these measures is that candidates, registered political parties and Senate groups should only receive the lesser amount of either the electoral expenditure that was actually incurred in an election campaign or the amount awarded per vote (currently approximately $2.24), provided at least four per cent of first preference votes have been won. The existing quantum of funding remains unchanged, but the new claims process will require the agent of the candidates, registered political parties and Senate groups to lodge a claim specifying all or part of the ‘electoral expenditure’ incurred in an election campaign for which they wish to receive election funding. This new claims process will still enable claims to be lodged and paid at a 95 per cent level soon after 20 days of polling day, thereby mirroring one of the existing entitlements, with the remainder able to be paid after the final vote count. The joint standing committee made a recommendation that three additional categories of ‘electoral expenditure’ should be permitted to be claimed for the reimbursement of public funding. The new definition of ‘electoral expenditure’ contained in this bill adds to the existing categories in subsection 308(1) with five new categories. The new categories cover the rent of premises used for an election campaign, the employment of additional election campaign staff, the hire and lease of office equipment used for an election campaign, the costs of running and maintaining that office equipment and travel costs (including accommodation) that could reasonably be expected to have been incurred in conducting an election campaign. Similar to the existing seven categories of ‘electoral expenditure’, these new categories only apply to expenses incurred during the ‘election period’ (which is the period between the issuing of the writs for an election and the end of polling day). In addition, all of these new categories are subject to a purposive test that requires the claimant to establish that the expenditure was incurred ‘for the primary purpose of conducting an election campaign’. A further requirement that applies to these new categories of ‘electoral expenditure’ is that the expenditure cannot be claimed if the costs are already being met by the Commonwealth through existing allowances and entitlements, other than those relating to remuneration. To ensure the AEC can implement and enforce these new laws, the bill introduces a range of new offences to the reporting and disclosure regime and generally increases the levels of penalties in the Electoral Act. The existing penalties in the Electoral Act have largely remained the same as when introduced in 1983. The increases involve larger fines for providing false or misleading information as part of a return. In relation to claims for election funding, the levels of penalties have been substantially increased to reflect the seriousness of the crimes and the amount of public funds that are paid following an election. Following the November 2007 election nearly $50 million of public funding was paid to candidates, registered political parties and Senate groups. To have only the existing fines, of $10,000 or less, as the maximum applicable penalties fails to address the risks and potential criminality of false claims. In addition, the bill extends the existing recovery powers in subsections 306(5) and 306A(6) of the Electoral Act for anonymous gifts and loans to the new prohibition on overseas gifts and other unlawful anonymous and undisclosed gifts. The government, unlike the opposition, is committed to restoring the integrity of our electoral processes and systems. We believe that the urgent measures contained in this bill will significantly enhance the transparency and accountability of funding and donations to registered political parties, candidates and the other key political players in Australia. We have taken the step of introducing the bill into the House today, after its rejection by the opposition in the Senate yesterday, because these measures are urgent and should commence from 1 July 2009. Introducing the bill into the House today is also a second chance for the opposition. The opposition should accept this second chance, and pass this bill, demonstrating that they share the government’s belief that our electoral system should be based on the principles of integrity and transparency. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Hunt) adjourned. 2510 Committees 2510 2510 1000 Moyland, Judi (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. JE Moylan)—Mr Speaker has received advice from the Chief Government Whip that he has nominated Mr Murphy to be a member of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in place of Mrs Irwin. Mr BYRNE (Holt —Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade) 13:17:00 —by leave—I move: That Mrs Irwin be discharged from the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and that, in her place, Mr Murphy be appointed a member of the committee. Question agreed to. 2510 Bills R4050 2510 Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Shorten: That this bill be now read a second time. 2510 13:18:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —When I was last speaking on the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009, I pointed out the stark contrast between the opposition and the government in relation to the way we have treated seniors, pensioners and carers. The position we have had from this government is one where we have made positive and genuine contributions to their wellbeing, knowing that they have been doing it tough in the economic climate that we are in. This is in stark contrast to the position that we have had from the opposition benches. There was the confected anger some months ago demanding that pensions be increased, that ‘something had to be done about the pensions’ et cetera, continually going on, trying to make a cheap political point. In fact, with the passing of time we can see that it was a desperate last gasp from the former Leader of the Opposition to try and hold onto his position, and that was all it was. There was nothing more to it than that at all. What we have seen since that time and since the passing of that particular opposition leader—they have moved on to another one—is that the support that was there initially for the government’s stimulus package in October, which provided some welcome relief to pensioners and carers, has been walked away from by the opposition. It is suddenly something that is no longer good. It started as a position of support. They then got to a position where they had some doubts about it, and they have ended up in a position where they are just outright opposed to the stimulus package that was introduced. On this side, we are firmly there with seniors. We are firmly there supporting seniors and making sure that they are looked after in our communities, because they play such an important role in our communities. When I was speaking last time, I was going through some of the important roles that they play in my community in Dobell and just how important they are for the community there on the Central Coast. I mentioned the important role that the Toukley Senior Citizens Centre plays. That was the largest senior citizens centre group in the Southern Hemisphere and had at its height around 6,000 members. Today it has slightly less than that, but it is a tremendous senior citizens centre where people are involved in all sorts of community activities, keeping their minds lively but also contributing positively to the community at Toukley and on the Central Coast. From about the age of 17, I have been actively involved in Meals on Wheels. While I was 17 and doing it, the majority of people who have been involved in Meals on Wheels are, again, seniors. They are older Australians who in most cases are no longer working, and they make a tremendous and active contribution to the wellbeing of others in communities all around Australia by giving up their time so that they can help those who need assistance more than themselves. It is a tremendous role that these senior citizens play. On the Central Coast we have no shortage of senior citizens who are involved in the Meals on Wheels organisation. It is something they should be congratulated on and admired for. Seniors in my community also play a tremendous role in developing business and helping the local economy. The business enterprise centre, something that this government funded from the Commonwealth for the first time, is something the previous governments totally ignored even though they said they were for business and they were for small business. In my electorate, where small business employs vastly the highest numbers of people, the former government was found wanting in relation to its support for the business enterprise centre. Nonetheless, what we find at the business enterprise centre is that there is an extremely active program of mentoring. The mentoring that takes place comes from senior citizens in the community, many of whom have had extensive time in business, who are prepared to give up their time on a voluntary basis so that they can help contribute to growing businesses on the Central Coast. Businesses are the lifeblood of the economy in many regions around Australia, and particularly in my area. It is a vital contribution that they make. Going to some points in the legislation, a key point of this legislation is that it enables income for seniors to be treated similarly. It is important that this takes place, that there is a similar assessment in relation to the way in which we treat people. If we look at the background of this Commonwealth Seniors Health Card, it was introduced in 1994. It was initially intended to assist those people who did not qualify for an age pension due to lack of residence qualifications or the value of their assets. In 1999 eligibility was based on an adjusted taxable income test to allow more people to qualify for the card. Adjusted taxable income comprises the following: taxable income, which includes superannuation income streams from untaxed sources such as defined benefit scheme pensions; net rental property losses; targeted foreign income; and employer provided fringe benefits. The current qualifying income limits for the cards are less than $50,000 a year for a single person and less than $80,000 a year for couples combined. Indexation of these income thresholds was abolished by the previous government in 1999. The Seniors Health Card entitles the holder to discounts on prescription medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, bulk-billing with participating doctors and reduced out-of-hospital medical expenses above the threshold set through the Medicare safety net. In some cases, the card also gives access to local, state and territory government and private provider concessions, such as discounted transport, education and recreation. At the Commonwealth level, cardholders are entitled to certain cash payments—notably the Seniors Concession Allowance, which was increased from March 2008 to $500 a year and is now at $514, paid quarterly, as part of the government’s delivery of its election commitments. This is a government that is delivering for seniors; a government that is delivering for pensioners. Cardholders also received an Economic Security Strategy payment in December 2008, valued at $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples combined. We have legislation that is important to be passed. There is a stark contrast between the position of the government in relation to seniors, carers and pensioners and that of the opposition. We have the opposition adopting its policy based on party room politics as to where a particular argument will get them on the reshuffling and continuously moving opposition front bench—and as to which particular leader they are going to back this week. In contrast, on this side of the House we have government policy that firmly and clearly has the interests of pensioners, carers and seniors front and foremost in terms of the way in which we proceed on these issues. I commend the bill to the House. 2512 13:26:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —To follow on from some of the comments of the honourable member for Dobell, he talks about a stark contrast. In relation to this bill there is a very stark contrast, and that is that the government of Australia, his government, will rip the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card off 22,000 Australians. That is the stark contrast. As the member for Dobell leaves the chamber, I say to him: will he go to the Toukley Senior Citizens Club and will he explain to all of those people in the Toukley Senior Citizens Club who lose their Commonwealth Seniors Health Card why he has voted for 22,000 of them to have their card taken away? This bill, the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Amendment (Commonwealth Seniors Health Card) Bill 2009, in essence proposes to introduce an income test that will now include income from superannuation and include income that is salary sacrificed to superannuation in the income assessment. As the shadow minister for superannuation, I have to say that it beggars belief that the Australian government would be undermining Australians putting money into superannuation, but that is what they are doing through this bill. The Australian government are effectively saying to Australians, ‘If you put money into superannuation, if you are prudent and if you save for your future, we will punish you by moving the goalposts, taking away the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.’ So no longer are the Australian government saying to the Australian people, ‘Please do what you can to save for the future; please do what you can to make yourself prosperous for the future so that you can have a good standard of living in your retirement.’ The government are no longer saying that. What they are saying is, ‘If you put money into superannuation and if you earn money from that superannuation investment, we are now going to punish you by taking away Commonwealth rights under the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card.’ It beggars belief that any government would ‘disincentivise’ Australians to provide for their future. Why would they do that? Why would the Australian government say to the Australian people, ‘Don’t worry about your future anymore, because if you have been prudent enough to do that, we’re going to punish you’? What this bill will do if it is passed is to take away the concession card from 22,000 senior Australians. That in itself is a considerable concern, of course, but what is even more concerning is that, really, I think it is obvious that this is only the thin end of the wedge, because in relation to superannuation there are very interesting developments happening right now, and superannuation is a key part of this bill. Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I know that you are very supportive of superannuation and that you will find it very difficult to justify to the seniors in your electorate why this government is taking away the Commonwealth seniors health card from them. We see this as very much the thin end of the wedge, because, in relation to senior Australians—in particular, self-funded retirees—and the whole issue of superannuation, we read this morning in the media that the government are now considering axing the superannuation co-contribution scheme that helps low-income Australians. Why on earth would they also want to punish low-income earners? We have this piece of legislation wanting to punish senior Australians, and the government is thinking about axing superannuation co-contributions for low-income earners. Not only that; the government is also contemplating increasing taxes on superannuation investments across the board. It is a very concerning development that the Kevin Rudd government is, all of a sudden, starting to punish Australians for doing the right thing. For years and years, this parliament and governments of all political persuasions have encouraged Australians to invest for their future. That has been a very central bipartisan approach. Governments of all persuasions have wanted Australians to set aside funds for their future. That is a good and prudent thing to do, and it is a wonderful thing if an Australian can work throughout their life and provide for their future by themselves. It is a marvellous thing. But here is a bill before the parliament today that is now going to punish people for having done the right thing. What needs to happen is for the government and the Prime Minister in particular to come into the parliament today and guarantee that no senior Australian is going to be worse off into the future, because we have these very concerning emerging developments happening in relation to senior Australians in and around the area of superannuation. The pension review is also going on. We hear of very concerning developments coming out of that about what the government might have in mind in relation to many aspects of the pension. We need to make sure that no Australian is going to be worse off under this government going forward, and that is something that I think should concern all of us. One of the main aspects of this bill is in relation to the threshold limits that are being adjusted. At the moment, threshold limits are $50,000 for singles and $80,000 for couples living together. This refers to adjusted taxable income and does not include non-taxable drawings from a superannuation fund on which contribution tax was paid when the funds were being accumulated. If this bill goes through the parliament, those threshold limits will remain the same and superannuation drawings from a tax fund will remain untaxed, but those drawings that people have taken will be added to a person’s adjusted taxable income for the purpose of assessing eligibility within the threshold limits. This is at a time when all superannuants across Australia have been suffering average annual losses of up to 20 per cent, and in some cases more, so people’s savings have been plummeting. At a time when people are losing money on their superannuation investment, the best that the Australian government can do is to come into the parliament and introduce a bill that is going to punish and slug 22,000 senior Australians even more. Talk about a double whammy! On the one hand you have people losing money on their investments because of what has been happening, and on the other hand the government is now going to rip away some entitlements from them. This is a double whammy—two things happening at once. What is concerning is that many of the affected Australians will have planned their retirement in a very prudent and methodical way. They may have got professional advice on what to do. What do we find now? The goalposts are being shifted without any proper explanation. Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will know, like me, that there was no discussion of this whatsoever prior to the last election. So the goalposts are now being moved, and they are being moved for very hardworking people. These are people who have worked hard and who deserve certainty in retirement. I do not believe that they should have to put up with government changes that effectively alter their eligibility for essential services at a whim. This is a government that introduces these bills out of the blue and, at a whim, takes away the entitlements of 22,000 senior Australians who are suffering, as I say, because their superannuation investments are down. Their investments are not attracting the returns that they were whilst the coalition was in government. I think that, as I mentioned earlier, there is something more sinister going on here from the government. This is a total affront to superannuation. This is a complete reversal of what has been a bipartisan approach over many, many years which has sought to promote the need for Australians to invest in superannuation. But now, all of a sudden, we have this change of approach from the government which is extremely concerning. There will be some very real impacts as a result of this bill. Let’s look at some of the entitlements that seniors currently get under the Commonwealth seniors health card. If we look at prescribed pharmaceuticals under the PBS, Commonwealth seniors health card holders pay $5 per script. After this bill, they will lose that and they will have to pay $31.30 per script. If we look at the PBS safety net, with the Commonwealth seniors health card a senior reaches the safety net threshold when he or she has paid a total of $290 for scripts, and prescriptions after that are free. Now, without a health card, the safety net threshold rises from $290 to $1,141, after which a fee of $5 per script still applies. There is the seniors concession allowance. When they have the health card, a senior is eligible to receive an annual allowance of $500 to assist with payments for essential services for which pensioners are granted concessions. After 1 July this year, if this bill goes through, many seniors will lose that entitlement. There is the seniors bonus payment. Currently, Commonwealth seniors health card holders will receive a lump sum payment of $500 in 2009. If they lose their health card as a result of the eligibility changes in this legislation, they will not participate in any further bonus payments. There is the telephone allowance. Currently, Commonwealth seniors health card holders qualify for a telephone allowance of $88 per year for a residential service. If you do not have the health card anymore, you will not get that $88. There are a whole range of benefits that are going to be impacted. I think it is interesting to ask the following questions: why would the Rudd government take away benefits to help seniors pay for prescribed pharmaceuticals? Why would they want to punish seniors and take them out of the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme safety net? Why would they want to take concession allowances away from seniors? Why would they want to take away bonus payments to seniors? Why would they want to take away telephone allowances for seniors? Those are the questions that the Prime Minister needs to answer. It is all part of, as I say, the very worrying development in and around the area of superannuation and senior Australians which is taking place at the moment. We have serious issues emerging about what the government intend to do in relation to age pensions going forward. They have now flagged the axing of the superannuation co-contribution scheme. They are now saying that they are going to increase taxes across the board on superannuation investments—right at the time when people who have been doing the right thing with superannuation are being punished because of what has been happening across the globe. The government are going to take them and rub their nose right in it. The government’s policies and this bill will make it even worse for these people. I think it is interesting to stand back and ask: what has happened since the government came to office? There are a number of things that have happened since the government came to office. The economy has gone backwards since Labor came to office. Since Labor came to office, unemployment has risen. Today we hear that unemployment has risen substantially, to a four-year high. More people are out of work and, at the same time, the government is introducing these types of bills to punish people. Since Labor came to office, consumer confidence has collapsed. Since Labor came to office, business confidence has plummeted. Since Labor came to office, industrial disputes have increased. Since Labor came to office, taxes have increased. We hear that there is going to be even more tax now on superannuation going forward. Since Labor came to office, the budget has turned from a healthy surplus to a massive deficit. Since Labor came to office, the level of wealth of Australian households has experienced a significant decline. Since Labor came to office, Australia has been driven further into debt each and every day. You could even add that, since Labor came to office, the Prime Minister has spent more time out of the country than in it—all at a time when senior Australians are being greatly impacted in terms of their savings and the work that they have done over their many years to save so that they can look after themselves. This bill will hit self-funded retirees most hard. Self-funded retirees are people who have done everything possible on each and every day of their working lives to save, to do the right thing, so that they could be self-funded. Self-funded by definition means ‘without the government’s assistance’. The Commonwealth seniors health card is an initiative that was put in place to support these people and other senior Australians. It is there to help these people who have done the right thing and who have been doing the right thing for years and years. Why would any Australian government turn around and, at the drop of a hat and without any explanation at all, introduce this bill, essentially out of the blue, out of nowhere, with almost no consultation whatsoever? This government is saying: ‘If you take drawings out of your superannuation fund’—in other words, if you actually do get any positive returns from your superannuation fund—’we are now going to add that to any other income, and we are going to punish you by ripping this health card away from you if you now go over this threshold.’ These are people who are drawing money out of their savings over years and years, and we are going to punish them. I say to the older Australians who are going to be greatly impacted by this: do not be fooled, because this is only the start. This is only the thin end of the wedge. Do not be fooled that the Rudd government is going to just stop here because, if the Rudd government can rip away the Commonwealth seniors health card from 22,000 senior Australians, they will not stop there. They will play around with all the limits, thresholds and parameters of one sort or another across the entire social security system. And watch what will happen: they will start to tweak all of this in order to start knocking people out one by one, and it will be like a domino effect. So, to those senior Australians who are going to have their Commonwealth seniors health card taken from them, I say to them: we will fight this. We will oppose this bill. We will not stand by and let the Rudd government just rip your concession allowances, your telephone bill allowance, your concessions in relation to prescribed pharmaceuticals and your senior bonuses away from you. We will not allow the Rudd government to just stand idly by and do that. We will oppose this bill. We will argue against this bill. This is not right. It is morally wrong. This bill is morally corrupt. It is the wrong thing to do. I call upon each and every member of the Australian Labor Party to stand up in this parliament and justify how something can be taken away from 22,000 senior Australians. Why would you be taking away something, at this time in particular, after everything that has been done by the Labor government since they have been in office? The economy is going backwards. Every day more Australians are losing their jobs. Look at today’s unemployment figures—a four-year high. And what you mob are going to do is just take away this card from 22,000 Australians. It is deplorable. It is wrong. It should not happen. Australians should be encouraged to save for the future, and they should be given incentives to save in their superannuation—(Time expired) 2516 13:47:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I think I have some homework to do. I think I am going to have to look at the budget that was handed down by the Treasurer in May 2008 to see if the member for Aston was in the chamber. Then, when we passed the legislation governing the Economic Security Strategy, I am going to have to look to see if the member for Aston was in the chamber. Then, when we passed the legislation concerning the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, I am going to have to look to see whether the member for Aston was in the chamber, because I do not think he actually heard anything about what we are doing for self-funded retirees and pensioners in the legislation that we have handed down—in the budget, the Economic Security Strategy and the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It seems to have passed him by entirely. He does not seem to understand any of the assistance we are providing for our senior citizens, but I know that the 14,714 people in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland who are 70 years of age and older have benefited enormously by the Rudd Labor government’s initiatives. I say to the member for Aston, who talks about morality and ethics and the like: is it morally right to treat the income of someone who receives income from a superannuation fund differently to someone who actually worked with their hands or worked in an office and earned income that way? Under the coalition’s perspective, policies and philosophy, one senior citizen in Australia should be treated one way but another Australian, who works in an office or with their hands and earns income in that way, should be treated differently. Are we talking about one standard for those who are comfortable—or even well off—and one for those who are doing it tough? Is that the philosophy that the member for Aston thinks we should adopt in 21st century Australia? Is that what he thinks is ethical or moral? I think it is fair, just and equitable to treat income—from whatever source a person receives it—in the same way. And that is what this is about. It is about refining the adjusted taxable income test for the Commonwealth seniors health card to make it fairer—to ‘treat similar sources of income in a similar way’, as the member for Maribyrnong, the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services, said in his second reading speech on 12 February 2009. The Commonwealth seniors health card is, I think, supported by both sides of the House. It is a just and equitable idea to help our senior citizens. It is available to all Australians over pension age—65 for men and 63 years and six months for women—who are not receiving an age pension and who have adjusted incomes of less than $50,000 a year for singles and $80,000 a year for couples combined. It has a number of implications if you are in receipt of the Commonwealth seniors health card. Let us look at the qualifications to get that. We will need, as well, to look at the history of the Commonwealth seniors health card. To qualify, as I have said, there is an income test, and there is another $639.60 per year that is added for each dependent child. Having children is not confined these days to people in their 20s and 30s. We have senior citizens who have children these days as well. They must not be also receiving an income support payment from Centrelink or the Department of Veterans Affairs, and they must be an Australian resident or a Special Category Visa holder. So there are certain qualifications to get a Commonwealth seniors health card, and what we are doing is adjusting the income test. It is a good thing for constituents in my electorate and elsewhere to get one, because it provides access to concessional pharmaceuticals under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. It also provides for bulk-billed GP appointments and that is a help for those people who, as they get older, suffer from illness and infirmity and the travails and troubles of senior years. It also provides, through the Medicare safety net, for a reduction in the cost of out-of-hospital medical expenses above a concessional threshold. We also, in some instances, see additional health, household, transport, education and recreational concessions which are offered by states and territories to those people receiving a Commonwealth seniors health card. So it is a good and helpful thing for those people who are in their 60s and older to have. The Commonwealth seniors health care card was introduced in 1994 by the Keating Labor government and was initially intended to help those who did not qualify for the age pension due to the lack of resident qualification or due to the value of their assets. It was to help our older Australians in those circumstances. In 1999 the eligibility for the Commonwealth seniors health care card was based on an adjusted taxable income test to allow more people to qualify, but the indexation was abolished by the previous government in 1999. So let us not get too sanctimonious about how much was done under the Howard years to help our senior citizens, because that government abolished the indexation of the income threshold. Let us not get too proud about the record of Mr Howard and his government in that regard. The current qualifying income tests for the card are less than $50,000 a year for singles and less than $80,000 combined for couples. At the Commonwealth level, if you get a Commonwealth seniors health care card under the Rudd Labor government, you will qualify for certain cash payments, notably the seniors concession allowance, which was increased from May 2008 to $500 a year by the Rudd Labor government and is paid quarterly as part of the government’s delivery of election commitments. Commonwealth seniors health care card holders also received, as I said before, moneys in the Economic Security Strategy. In December 2008 they received $1,400 for singles and $2,100 combined for a couple. The budget measure announced in May 2008 introduced a similar treatment test, if I can put it like that, for those people earning an income and claiming the Commonwealth seniors health care card. Currently, if you receive income from a defined benefit scheme—for example, ComSuper for a public servant or some of the state government funds—it is treated as income. But income from a private, retail or industry based superannuation fund or from accounts based pensions are no longer taxable and so they are not counted as income for the purpose of the Commonwealth seniors health care card. But if you work in an office, work outside with your hands, do a bit a relief teaching, help out with the council or do other sorts of work in the retail sector, your income is taken into consideration, so you are disadvantaged. We on this side of the House do not believe that is fair. We do not think that is equitable. So with this bill we are going to change the income test to include income from a superannuation income stream with a tax source and income that is salary-sacrificed to superannuation. That is what we are about to do to make it fairer in all the circumstances. Income salary-sacrificed into superannuation is already assessed as income for the age pension but not for the Commonwealth seniors health care card, so we are bringing the entitlement and qualification for the Commonwealth seniors health care card into line with the age pension. For all those opposite who seem to be worried about this aspect: where was their bill before November 2007? Where was their legislation to amend the taxable income test in respect of the age pension? If they are so concerned about what we are doing now, what did they do about the qualification for the pension in relation to this prior to November 2007? The answer, of course, is that they did not do anything about it at all. The truth is, they can prognosticate over there and pose and claim that they are standing up for our senior citizens, but the reality is that they did not do it—and that is the truth. It was probably coming in the 13th, 14th or 15th years of the Howard government. That is when it was probably going to happen. The Australian government, the Rudd Labor government, is supporting self-funded retirees through this very difficult time. In reference to the failure of the member for Aston to actually acknowledge any of these sorts of things, they are amongst those millions who will benefit through our $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. Self-funded retirees who paid their tax in 2007-08 and, as a result of their investments or other income, earnt less than $100,000 will get the tax bonus. If they earnt less than $80,000, they will get up to $900, so they will get funding. As well, if they are part pensioners and they paid even $1 in net tax last year, they will receive the $900 tax bonus. About 290,000 older Australians, including self-funded retirees and part pensioners, can expect to receive the tax bonus—something that the Rudd Labor government is doing but those opposite did not have the wit or wisdom too. This is important for my constituency in Blair and it is important across the whole of Australia to help pensioners, seniors and those who are self-funded retirees. In December the Economic Security Strategy payment of $1,400 for singles and $2,100 for couples was made available to age pensioners and self-funded retirees who have a Commonwealth seniors health care card. Did the coalition support that? They supported it, they opposed it, they equivocated and now they criticise it. That is their position. Four out of every five of the 2.8 million older Australians 65 years and older benefited from the Economic Security Strategy. What has the Rudd government done with respect to superannuation draw down requirements? The Rudd government has suspended the minimum draw down requirement for account based superannuation pensions for the second half of this financial year. That means that in the 2008-09 year draw down requirements will be reduced by 50 per cent, and that will help. That is responding to what the self-funded retirees are saying, to what they are concerned about. They are concerned that they will have to sell their investment assets and realise losses in a depressed market. So the Rudd Labor government is listening to what they are saying, listening to their concerns and acting on them. Also, in relation to the age pension, many self-funded retirees have seen a fall in their investment income and they are now eligible for a part pension. The age pension is important. It is a fundamental social equity provision supported by the Rudd Labor government, and we are doing this. Since mid-October 2008 there has been a substantial increase in the age pension claim rates. We have seen a rise from about 3,500 a week in mid-October to about 5,500 a week in December 2009. That is the Rudd Labor government caring for our senior citizens. There were 4,608 pension claims lodged in the week ending 16 January 2009, and we remain committed to comprehensive reform, be it in terms of the aged care system— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Blair will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 2519 Ministerial Arrangements 2519 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today as he is attending the G20 finance ministers meeting in London. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would have thought that is the proper place for finance ministers to be. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Veterans Affairs will leave question time early today to attend a wreath-laying ceremony with the Iraqi Prime Minister at the Australian War Memorial. The Minister for Defence Science and Personnel will answer questions on his behalf. 2519 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 2519 14:01:00 2519 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to today’s news that unemployment has reached a four-year high, with nearly 600,000 Australians out of work; that another $26 billion is to be borrowed to fund his misconceived Ruddbank venture; and that a fourfold increase in the number of days lost to industrial disputes was recorded in the first year of his government. What does the Prime Minister have to say to working families now that he has delivered this terrible trifecta of higher unemployment, higher debt and more strikes? How much closer are we to the Rudd recession? 2519 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As the head of the IMF said yesterday, we are confronted with a global economic recession. A term which he has used to describe it is ‘the great recession’, from which no nation—including Australia—is immune, as reflected in the increase in unemployment in the numbers produced today. From the government’s perspective, the loss of any job in Australia is the loss of one job too many. We do know that, had the government sat back and done nothing and just watched, the unemployment numbers produced today would be much worse. I also say to the Leader of the Opposition that, while it may not fit his political script, the unemployment numbers across the rest of the world today bear some taking into account. Across the OECD, the 30-member Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the January unemployment figure was 6.9 per cent. Of the major seven economies in the world—the G7—it was 6.8 per cent, in the European Union it was 7.6 per cent and in the euro area it was 8.2 per cent. If you go to individual economies, the unemployment rate in Canada was 7.2 per cent, in Germany it was 7.3 per cent and in the Irish Republic it was 8.8 per cent. If you turn to other economies, the United Kingdom was 6.3 per cent, as most recently produced, and the United States was 7.6 per cent. I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that this is a global economic recession with implications for economies right across the world. If the honourable member were to pay attention to those individual unemployment numbers from each of the major economies around the world, he would see that Australia’s economic stimulus strategy is having an effect in reducing the overall impact of the global recession on Australia. As I have said to this House on a number of occasions, no government can stop a global economic cyclone from coming across our shores, but a responsible government seeks to reduce the impact of that damage on Australia’s workers, Australian businesses and Australian families. That is the responsible course of action. The alternative course of action is to sit, wait and see, and do nothing. That is what is being recommended by those opposite. 2520 2520 14:04:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the parliament on developments in the global economy and its impact on unemployment in Australia? 2520 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Bonner for her question. If we look at the release of further economic data from around the world, it paints a fuller picture of the extent of the global economic recession and the contributing elements to it. Yesterday it was announced that China’s trade surplus narrowed to $4.8 billion in February, approximately one-eighth of the previous month’s surplus. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What about Australia? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In 2007-08, China was Australia’s largest trading partner and Australia’s second largest export partner behind Japan. The shadow Treasurer interjected before, ‘What about Australia?’ If I am talking about the state of the Chinese economy and the state of Chinese demand for imports from around the world, and if Australia has as its second largest export market the People’s Republic of China, I would have thought that even the shadow Treasurer could have concluded it was of some material relevance to jobs in Australia. But, again, that does not suit his political strategy. Service exports to Australia have grown at around 26 per cent since the start of the decade, as one simple indication of the significance of the Chinese economy to employment in our country. Furthermore, we have seen reports of a fall in Australia’s thermal coal prices, with prices down 44 per cent on last year. Again, I would draw the shadow Treasurer’s attention—given that he regards this matter as irrelevant to jobs in Australia—to the following possibility: as a result of that, earnings from coal and iron exports could decline by up to $35 billion from 2008-09 to 2009-10. That is sucking out $35 billion from the Australian economy. Therefore, you are faced with a very clear alternative: either you sit back, watch, wait and see, do nothing and seek to take political advantage from a global economic crisis—which is the political strategy of those opposite—or you engage in an economic strategy to reduce the impact on Australia. This government’s resolve is to engage in such a strategy. Of course, other governments around the world are engaged in similar strategies. Again, I would draw the House’s attention to the statement on Thursday of last week by the Chinese government that it had announced a projected deficit in its budget of 950 billion renminbi for 2009, a deficit of some three per cent of GDP for 2008. This is the highest fiscal deficit since 1979, including the deficit following the Asian financial crisis. These are the global economic realities with which every government around the world, including Australia, has to contend. Our strategy is straightforward: firstly, to stabilise Australian financial markets through the provision of our bank guarantees; secondly, the immediate stimulus through the provision of payments to pensioners, carers, farmers and others who need support, and through that the provision of support for the retail sector in Australia and the 1.5 million Australians who are employed in the retail sector; and, thirdly, longer term economic stimulus. That is the government’s strategy; that is the one that we are embarked upon. I would simply say this to those opposite as they ask one politically driven set of questions after another: why do they have any problem with such a basic proposition that, as the rest of the world goes into recession, Australia is somehow not immune from world events, that it will affect Australia? Believe me, it will. How could they possibly disagree with a basic proposition like that? There will be an impact here in Australia and there will be an impact around the world. Therefore, that underpins the necessity for us prosecuting a strategy to deal with these circumstances. In recent times we had a statement to this effect—and I quote the member for Higgins because he is a person of some relevance to recent debates within the Liberal Party. In 2002, the member for Higgins said: But the idea that somehow Australia is immune from world events, that the rest of the world can go into recession and it won’t affect Australia, believe me it does. That was the member for Higgins as Treasurer of Australia in 2002. Let us just look at what was happening in the world in 2002. What was world growth in 2002 when the member for Higgins was Treasurer and saying that Australia could not be immune from world events as the rest of the world goes into recession? World growth was 2.8 per cent in 2002 whereas, today, according to the IMF and the World Bank, growth in the world will be less than zero. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In terms of the management of the House, yesterday the Prime Minister broke his own world record on the length of his answers— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —by his12 minutes and nine seconds answer to a question— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It seems that the member for Sturt and all those opposite are simply provoked by a presentation of the truth, because the truth to which I refer was uttered by none other than the member for Higgins, the Leader of the Opposition in waiting. In the events of 2002, the member for Higgins said that Australia could not be immune from global economic developments as the world goes into a recession. He said so when global growth was at 2.8 per cent. These days, it is running at less than zero, according to the World Bank. He said so when US GDP growth was running at 1.3 per cent in the June quarter of 2002. US GDP growth is now running at minus 1.6 per cent. He said so when unemployment in the United States was running at 5.8 per cent in May 2002. These days, it is running at 8.1 per cent. Under those circumstances, which were considerably less stressed globally than they are today, the member for Higgins, on behalf of the Liberal government at the time, said, ‘The idea that Australia was somehow immune from these world events, that is just fanciful.’ I would draw those opposite to a close and careful study of the member for Higgins’ observations in times when we did not have a synchronised global economic recession, the great recession which we are now presented with the challenge to deal with. This government is getting on with the job. We have a strategy in place to reduce the impact on Australia. Those opposite have a political strategy, instead, just to take political advantage from the crisis. The contrast to the Australian people is absolutely clear. 2522 2522 14:12:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a comment he made on 14 October 2007 and I quote: When it comes to an unemployment number with a three in front of it, we believe that is a right goal for Australia too. How will the Prime Minister reduce the unemployment rate from 5.2 per cent to a number with a three in front of it, or is high unemployment the inevitable outcome of the rising risk of the Rudd recession? 2522 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —It is good to see that the Liberal Party focus groups have been at work, as they seek to again take political advantage of the global economic crisis when the government is seeking to implement an economic strategy to reduce the impact of that crisis on Australia. I would say to those opposite: reflect on the unemployment numbers in every significant economy in Europe that I referred to before. I would also say to those opposite: when it comes to dealing with the challenge of unemployment, you can either engage in the political rhetoric to which those opposite are now committed or you can get on with the job of doing something about it. This government has a clear-cut economic strategy. Firstly, we have sought to stabilise domestic financial markets by providing a guarantee to all Australian deposit holders, despite the fact that those opposite refused to provide such a guarantee, despite having received warnings over multiple years to do so. Secondly, we have provided direct stimulus to the Australian economy which has been supported by every peak business organisation in the country. The only organisation opposed to it is the Liberal Party. Thirdly, we are engaged in the direct implementation of short-term infrastructure building—in schools, in housing as well as energy efficiency in Australian owner-occupied dwellings. Those opposite, it seems, stand opposed. What continues to stun me is this: when this government implemented its economic stimulus strategy last October, the strategy which the Leader of the Opposition, or the temporary Leader of the Opposition, said that he supported at the time, for reasons of absolute political convenience, three months later, he turns around and says that he opposed it all the time. Well, I would say this to the Leader of the Opposition: one thing people require in politics, one thing people require when faced with a genuine threat to Australia’s national economic self-interest, is consistency of policy and consistency of approach. On these things, we cannot see a skerrick of evidence on the part of the Liberal leader. 2522 2522 14:14:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations. Will the minister update the House on what measures the government has taken to assist Australians who are made redundant? 2522 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 Leichhardt for his question. I know that, like me and like other members of this House, he would be concerned to see Australia’s rising unemployment figure of 5.2 per cent. We know that figure means many Australians are hurting. The government has been upfront with Australians that our economy would not be immune from the impact of the global financial crisis and global recession—the ‘Great Recession’. We have been clear with the Australian people all along that it would impact on Australian jobs. That is why we took decisive action to stimulate our economy and support Australian jobs through the more than $10 billion invested in the Economic Security Strategy last year—initially supported by the Leader of the Opposition but now opposed by him—and that is why we took further action with the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, a plan to support jobs, which was opposed every step of the way by the Liberal Party. As the Prime Minister has made clear, unemployment is rising around the world. If we look at the US, for example, we know that its economy has an unemployment rate of 8.1 per cent, the highest in more than 25 years. And we know that 4.4 million jobs in the US have been lost since the US recession began in December 2007. In the UK the figure is 6.3 per cent and in the European Union the figure is 8.2 per cent. These are deeply concerning figures. And today’s figure of 5.2 per cent in Australia means there are Australians who have been made redundant and need our assistance. In these circumstances the government has acted quickly to provide additional services to people who are made redundant and need support. Just today my colleague the Minister for Employment Participation introduced legislation to reduce the liquid assets waiting period for those seeking income support, doubling the threshold for singles to $5,000 and for couples to $10,000. That means people who find themselves newly unemployed will not have to run their savings down before they can access benefits. Our new $3.9 billion reformed employment services stream will begin on 1 July to provide more flexible job services to Australians who need those services. Last month the Prime Minister announced a new commitment of nearly $300 million so that newly retrenched workers can gain immediate access to more intensive and personalised employment services. In addition we have moved to provide new incentives to assist out-of-work apprentices. We know that in economic downturns we find ourselves in a situation where businesses tend to invest less in skills and training. When economic growth returns, everybody is crying out for skilled labour, and the lack of skilled labour ends up being a capacity constraint on growth. To assist those apprentices who may find themselves out of a trade, there are new incentives for employers and group training organisations to offer them an opportunity to complete their apprenticeships. In addition the Australian Apprenticeship Access Program will be expanded with a $30.2 million investment to provide at-risk job seekers with the support to undertake an apprenticeship or training. From this week, the $950 training and learning bonus will also be available to provide an additional incentive for social security recipients to return to education and training. The government cannot stop the global economic cyclone that arises from the global financial crisis and the global recession, but we can act to cushion Australian workers from its worst impacts and provide them with the skills they need for the future. 2523 2523 14:19:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the acting Treasurer. I refer to the Treasurer’s press release of 8 December last year, in which he said: Families and pensioners will start receiving their payments today from the Rudd government’s $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy to strengthen the economy in the face of the global financial crisis and create up to 75,000 jobs. Given that 80,000 Australians have lost their jobs in the last two months, what bang for the buck did taxpayers get for their $10 billion Christmas cash splash? 2524 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —The first point I would make in response to this question is that my recollection is that the particular strategy that the member for North Sydney is referring to is one that was supported and voted for by the opposition. The second point is that the implicit point in the member for North Sydney’s question is based on a core fallacy, which yet again demonstrates that the member for North Sydney needs to take some economics lessons. The fallacy is that, when the government takes some kind of intervention to boost aggregate demand in the economy and thereby boost employment, nothing else is happening in the economy in the meantime. Of course, there are huge downward pressures on the Australian economy from the global financial crisis and the ensuing recession that has emerged. So the inherent fallacy in the position being taken by the member for North Sydney is that other factors are completely ignored. I will run through some of the indicators in the December quarter accounts which just illustrate what has been occurring in the Australian economy. There has been a huge reduction in business inventories and a dramatic increase in household savings rates, both of which indicate that the shock to confidence in this country and in most other developed countries that occurred in the early part of the quarter, particularly in the wake of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy and all of the events surrounding that, has had a very significant impact on economic activity in this country. The member for North Sydney would prefer to ignore that. He would prefer to sit and wait. The Liberal policy is: ‘Let’s just see what happens. Let’s not do anything. Let’s not take action to ensure that we get payments moving into the economy’—payments which, Mr Speaker, I would remind you went to pensioners, to carers, to veterans and to families, and payments which were supported by the Liberal Party. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Bowman is warned! YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —As has been indicated by people such as the chief executive of Woolworths, those payments help to sustain economic activity. They are continuing to help sustain economic activity and they are continuing to flow through into the Australian economy. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —I seek leave to table the Treasurer’s press release where he says it would create 75,000 jobs. Leave not granted. 2524 Distinguished Visitors 2524 14:23:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon Senator Obert Gutu of the Parliament of Zimbabwe. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2524 Questions Without Notice 2524 2524 14:23:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Will the minister update the House on government support for pensioners and on any responses? 2524 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Longman for his question and particularly for his very real concern for the 28,000 pensioners in his electorate. He understands, unlike those opposite, that these are very, very hard economic times for Australia’s pensioners. While there is more to be done, the government has certainly made a start. We have made it clear to Australia’s pensioners that we do intend to introduce long-term pension reform in the upcoming budget. Our Economic Security Strategy payments were a down payment on that long-term pension reform. I will just remind those opposite that the Economic Security Strategy payments went to four out of every five Australians aged over 65. I have to say it is becoming increasingly difficult to know what on earth the position is of those opposite. We remember when the Economic Security Strategy was announced the Leader of the Opposition came out straightaway and said he supported it. Then, a couple of days afterwards, he said he wanted to change it. Then he voted for it, and now it seems that they oppose it. It seems that they did not want those four million pensioners to receive a down payment on long-term pension reform. Just this morning we have discovered that the odd couple, the members for Sturt and Warringah—they seem to have finally buried the hatchet— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —In each other! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Which one’s Felix and which one’s Oscar? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —He’s Oscar! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —I don’t think there’s any doubt who Felix is! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —I’m getting quite a lot of help from behind me, Mr Speaker! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —I am sorry to say that they were both out and about whipping up sentiment because some of these payments have gone to pensioners living overseas. Let me just remind each and every one of those opposite that we have 22 social security agreements with overseas countries and 10 of those were announced by Liberal governments— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —And I said that the member for Sturt was warned! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —As every member of this House should know, migration is a much valued part of Australia’s history, culture and, of course, economy. Until this morning, these international social security agreements were considered to be bipartisan policy. Now we see that the Liberals opposite want to axe them. Why would that be the case? You only have to ask yourself the question once. For base political reasons, of course. These ambulance chasers opposite— Opposition members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Behind you! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There is an ambulance chaser in the House, but not on this side of the House. I ask the minister to withdraw the suggestion that anyone on this side of the House is an ambulance chaser. If she wants to talk about ambulance chasers, she can look behind her. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt does test the tolerance of occupants of the chair. But, ignoring that, I will make a very serious point about the matter that he has raised. People can go through the writings on practice and events that have occurred in this chamber before. Expressions should be thought of in the context in which they are used. By the interjections that the member for Sturt raised, he has highlighted the problems that there have been with that term in the past, because it has been taken as a very serious, literal accusation. On this occasion, I think that this was an expression used in the hurly-burly robustness of this chamber. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Often that might be open to the chair, but on this occasion I do not think that it is required, because it is the context of the use of the expression that is important. Otherwise, the past practice of the House, which was to have a list of words that were automatically ruled out, would have continued. But that is not the case. I take it that the member for Canning, because he has some experience in this matter, is going to speak further on the point of order. I will allow him a short contribution. I know I will get criticism for this, for not keeping an open mind, but I am not sure that it will change my attitude on this occasion. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: in order to be consistent, because I had to withdraw the term when I used it to refer to the Deputy Prime Minister, I would ask that the term be withdrawn by the minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will resume his seat. That is why I have tried to give a fuller explanation than I usually do of the ruling that I have made. It is very important that the context of the situation be taken into account. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Further to the point of order, Mr Speaker: the minister was hardly using it as a term of endearment, was she? Given that she was not using it as a term of endearment, it should be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah will resume his seat. I thank him, actually, for the words that he has used because they will be well remembered on both sides. But even in that case—whether they are terms of endearment or not—this is hardly the chamber for faint hearts. Expressions have been used that are robust. Again, I underscore the fact that the context is important and, whether people believe it or not, in the first case, which the member for Canning has raised, it was the literal use that was the objectionable aspect. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: I understand the point you are making but, with due respect, there are a number of people on this side of the House, former solicitors and barristers, for whom the term ‘ambulance chaser’ is very deeply offensive. I am one of those, as is the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and as are others. For that reason, regardless of the context, the accusation that we are ambulance chasers I find deeply offensive and, as such, I am asking you, for the benefit of the House, to ask the member to withdraw the remark. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The very point that I am trying to explain to the chamber is that I believe the use of the expression by the minister was in the context of all members, not members by their past professions. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah does not have the right to enter into a debate with the chair whilst he does not have the call. I do not think that is very helpful and it is not endearing at all. I am explaining that referring a remark to a group of politicians in a political sense is different to directing an offensive remark to people because of their profession. I suggest to the member for Warringah that he might like to read—and I will assist him by offering him a copy—about practice in the past, because I find it slightly surprising that somebody who has been here as long as he has does not understand that that has been the practice of the House for many years. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —To go back to the issue at hand: until this morning these international social security agreements would have been considered bipartisan policy. Given the comments made by both the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt this morning, I say to those opposite that they now need to explain to the 388,000 pensioners from overseas who live in Australia, whether they are Greeks, Italians, Americans— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat—her seat. The member for Warringah will resume her seat—his seat. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I admit that this is taking terms of endearment a bit far. I am trying to get around to punishing the member for Sturt. He will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for Sturt then left the chamber. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member for Warringah is seeking the call I will give him the call, but it has to be a point of order. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —It is a point of order, Mr Speaker. She is making a very serious charge against members of this House without providing any evidence to sustain it, and I would ask her to table the comments that she feels prove the point that she is trying to make. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order but there are devices of the House that the member can use at the end of the response. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —As every member of this House should know, these incoming pensions provide a very significant boost to our economy. The arrangements in fact mean that $1.6 billion comes into Australia from overseas pensions compared to around $517 million in payments going to pensioners overseas. So, in net terms, our international social security arrangements deliver more than $1 billion to the Australian economy each year. Of course, it is not just pensioners living overseas whom those opposite want to get stuck into. We already knew that the opposition’s theatrics on the pension last year were just a political stunt, but last night in the parliament we had the member for Warringah making absolutely crystal clear what the opposition’s position on a pension increase actually is. Let me read what the member for Warringah last night said: … the ability of the government to afford this kind of generosity towards pensioners is under enormous question. In other words, the opposition do not support any increase to the pension. It demonstrates just how completely out of touch the member for Warringah is. We of course all know how bored he is with the job. We all know that the member for Warringah does not think he is in the main political game. Here is a wake-up call to the member for Warringah: if you want to be in the main political game, you cannot be asleep in your office. 2527 2527 14:37:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, given the $10 billion Christmas cash splash failed to prevent negative growth in the December quarter, given it failed to create 75,000 jobs as you promised and that now the unemployment rate is at its highest level in four years, I ask you: whatever happened to working families? Are they just a jobs consequence of the Rudd recession? 2527 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —One of the things that working families are interested in right now is the protection of their redundancy arrangements. One of the things that working families are interested in is practical action to support jobs. One of the things that working families are interested in is whether there is a practical strategy at work to support stimulus in the economy of the type this government has embraced. This party in government supports proper protections for Australians in the workplace. Those opposite have supported, through legislative action, the stripping away of protections—all effective protections—from workers in the workplace, including redundancies. In the current economic environment, for those opposite to be out there defending Work Choices, which stripped away basic protections such as redundancy payments, I believe is a matter on which they stand condemned. The question on the part of those opposite, including the member for North Sydney, goes to the impact of the Economic Security Strategy. I would say to the member for North Sydney, who was at the time the Leader of Opposition Business, that the Leader of the Opposition said, last October: … we’re not arguing about the size of the stimulus. We support these measures and we are particularly pleased about the measure, the payments to pensioners. What did the member for North Sydney say then? Did he oppose it? The Leader of the Opposition followed that up by saying, on 14 October: … we are not going to argue about the composition of the package or quibble about it. It has our support. What did the member for North Sydney say then? I am waiting. Did he object? Last year, when the Leader of the Opposition was asked the question, ‘Would the stimulus package work?’ he said: Whether it is enough to make a difference, only time will tell. In other words, he was saying: ‘Should they do more?’ ‘Yes, we support it,’ he said last year. ‘Oh, and you should think about doing more,’ he said last year. Turn the clock ahead to this year and now he says, ‘You’ll remember that last year we said that the economic stimulus strategy would not be an effective fiscal stimulus.’ I just draw the line under all of this for the benefit of those opposite. In the midst of a national economic crisis, people want leadership which is consistent. Those opposite, last October, out there on the doorstep, were saying that they supported every element of the economic stimulus strategy; and today, in a complete 180-degree turn, they say they have always been opposed to it. I say this to the member for North Sydney, who understands full well the complete cartwheel which they have turned on this entire question: he knows that the reason his question is not taken seriously in this place is that they have no consistency underpinning it. What Australians expect of the opposition is to engage in a serious debate about the national economic self-interest of Australia—a legitimate debate whereby we in Australia, through the government, seek to reduce the impact on working families which has been hit upon them by the global economic cyclone. Those opposite have one position one day and another position on another. The member for North Sydney was so courageous at the dispatch box just now, with a booming voice of conviction—a conviction which he fundamentally contradicted but three months ago. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —For the Prime Minister, I seek leave to table his Treasurer’s press release saying that the $10 billion cash splash would create 75,000 jobs. Leave not granted. 2528 2528 14:41:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 Mr ADAMS —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How is the government’s Nation Building and Jobs Plan helping farmers? Why is it needed? How has it been received? 2528 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Lyons for the question and acknowledge his strong engagement with primary producers in Tasmania. One of the important things about the Nation Building and Jobs Plan is the way in which farmers are able to receive cumulative payments. Today a number of them will start receiving for their families either the back-to-school bonus or the single-income family bonus, and as at 24 March the farmers’ hardship payment will start making its way through. It is important to acknowledge that the payments that go through here meet demands that have been made in this chamber for some time. You will find that members on this side of the House have talked for a long time about the challenges that occur for farmers in their electorates. I will read from a media release that one member of this place put out last year: Country Australia is in urgent need of a massive economic stimulus package as a direct result of the prolonged drought and the chaos on the global stock markets. Disturbingly, the person who understood the problem and called for that stimulus package then came in here and voted against it. Should we maybe say, ‘Well, it’s somebody who put out the media release and didn’t really understand the needs of farmers’? Maybe. It was the shadow minister for agriculture who made those statements and then came in here and voted against it. It is not only the frontbench. It would be unfair to only blame the frontbench members of the Nats. We have had things said by backbench members. The member for Gippsland is a great source of material. In a speech about drought, he said: Money is going to be needed for basic survival … I believe our challenge with EC funding is to support these farming families to basically get them over the hump, knowing full well that they will prosper again on the other side when the rains come. Listen to this: This is not welfare or charity; it is an investment in the future of our nation’s productive farming enterprises. We agree. The country Independents agree. The members on this side agree. The difference, of course, is that the Nats were sufficiently out of touch with the bush that when proposals were put in front of them they voted against them. If you look over your shoulder to the country Independents, you will find two of the most popular members of this chamber, who began their political careers the same way as the member for Gippsland. They began their political careers the same way as the member for Calare. They began by joining the National Party. They are now some of the most popular members in this chamber—because they left the National Party. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. In this dorothy dixer, the minister was asked about the jobs plan. He has not made one single reference to how one single job has been created— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. The question went on to refer to how the plan had been received. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —In trying to understand why on earth they would be doing this, why on earth they would be opposed to plans that, in advance of them being brought forward, they were calling for, the only thing you can work out is that they are all trying to second-guess and arrive at the same position as the member for Higgins. The member for Higgins was on the Alan Jones program this morning, and it is always— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It may surprise the minister that the point of order is the matter of relevance. He ceases to be relevant, if he ever was. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cowper will resume his seat. I will listen very carefully to where the minister is going. The minister shall respond to the question. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —And we found this morning on the Alan Jones program how the plan has been received in the view of the member for Higgins. It is always a challenge in an Alan Jones interview how many words you get in, and the member for Higgins did pretty well. Alan got 860-odd words in; the member for Higgins, 1,300—quite an achievement on that program. But the two words that never appeared during that interview, the two words that were never said during that interview at any point, were ‘Malcolm Turnbull’. The two words that do not appear— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. This answer from the minister is as relevant to the question as free trips to China might be relevant to the question. I would ask the minister to get back to the question he was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question, but— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —My tolerance, and the risk of getting favourable responses to points of order, is not helped by the advice that I seem to get when people sit down and continue on. I indicated to an earlier point of order about relevance that in the crafting of the question there was reference to how the plan had been received. I also indicated that I would listen carefully to the matters that the minister had got to and was now raising. I will continue to listen carefully. As I have indicated before—again, if people would like to read Practice—under different administrations, very applicable suggestions by procedures committees have been ignored, and so, in the circular fashion of ‘what comes around goes around’ in this place, I think that that is what we confront at the moment. The minister has the call and he is responding to the question. I will listen carefully to the matter that he is putting, and the matter must relate to the question. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —The package and the reception of it on the Alan Jones program this morning go to the ongoing challenge of those opposite to actually support something that they called for. When the problem started, they were calling for precisely this sort of assistance, and it is very difficult to work out why on earth, when it comes to it, they are unable to support the package and the payments that are now being made to help some of our most needy people and to help as well boost economic activity at a time of global recession. Within that, we now count down to 25 May. If we make it to 25 May, as we look at how this program has been received, on 25 May the record of Alexander Downer will be safe as the shortest ever period as Leader of the Opposition, and then— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will resume his seat. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister has resumed his seat. 2530 2530 14:50:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 Mr KEENAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain why there has been a 400 per cent increase in days lost to strikes in the first year of his government? 2530 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As those opposite will fully understand, the government is in the process of changing Australia’s industrial relations laws. Furthermore, those changes in large part depend on matters which have yet to be determined in the House and in the Senate. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Stirling has asked his question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I would have thought that those opposite—reflecting, as they are seeking to do, on the question of the future industrial relations laws of Australia—would bear in mind exactly what might be the future course of action and passage through the Senate. Again going back to what was said today on the Alan Jones program, the member for Higgins, the next Leader of the Opposition, said that if this legislation— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked why there has been a massive increase in strikes in the first year of his government. He is now seeking to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is 38 seconds into his answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of industrial disputation, the honourable member will be fully aware that substantive changes to industrial relations laws in this country are pending the passage of our legislation in the Senate. That is the first point. The second is this: the destination of the legislation in the Senate is a matter which has not been resolved within the Liberal Party. Thirdly, the alternative leader of the Liberal Party, the member for Higgins, said today that this legislation— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order, again on relevance. This was an issue about strikes and the increase in the number of strikes and the Prime Minister should address the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I am referring to the fact that industrial disputation is subject to the industrial relations laws of the time and general economic circumstances. Secondly, those opposite have not yet given their consent in the Senate to the passage of this government’s industrial relations reforms. Therefore it is entirely material that when the alternative leader of the opposition was asked this morning whether this legislation should be rejected in the Senate he answered: Well, this legislation in the form that it is should not be passed. In other words, what the alternative leader of the opposition is now saying definitively is that those representing the Liberal Party in the Senate should block this legislation. The Leader of the Opposition currently, the member for Wentworth, has basically engaged in a strategy where their policy on industrial relations so far in the Senate is one of duck and cover; that is, ‘Let’s not tell anybody what we are going to do should amendments be rejected in the Senate.’ That is their position. The person who has given definition to this is the next leader of the opposition. 2531 2531 14:53:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 Mr BUTLER —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Does the government agree with suggestions that removing workplace rights from workers would be good for the Australian economy? 2531 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Port Adelaide for his question and for the assistance he has been providing me on procurement issues. One of the perennial themes of Australian politics is a conservative holy grail position of deregulation of the labour market. We can go all the way back to Stanley Melbourne Bruce and the dog collar act. Every time we have a conservative government in this country, one of its key principles is to seek to deregulate the labour market. The core theme that is always advocated by the conservative parties in these circumstances is that if employers are allowed to pay people what they like, treat them how they like and sack them when they like then that will create more jobs—there will be more jobs if employers are able to treat working people as if they were machines to be discarded or to be paid at whatever level they like. This is an age-old debate. I well remember being in this House seven, eight and nine years ago, well before Work Choices, and hearing people on the other side argue that because unemployment at that time was lower in the United States therefore the less regulated labour market in the United States was clearly superior and Australia should deregulate its labour market. Of course, they went a bit quiet subsequently because the unemployment rate in the United States went up, with no change in the regulatory regimes in either Australia or the United States. They moved on to other issues. But always the theme is the same: the answer to the challenge of creating jobs is to remove the rights of working people in the workplace. That is always the policy from the conservative parties. The truth is that the factors that influence the creation of jobs in our economy are overwhelmingly determined by one key factor, and that is demand—that is, the purchase of goods and services in the economy. That is what drives the creation of jobs in an economy. There are other issues but that is the dominant issue. That is why the government is focusing its economic strategy, in the face of overwhelming negative pressures from overseas, on creating jobs and on generating economic activity. The opposition is currently very confused about its position on this issue. But I am pretty confident they will default to their core beliefs—they will default to their core position—because there is one person in the parliament who has consistently advocated this position of a free market for workers, a free market for bodies in the labour market. That person strongly supports returning to Work Choices—strongly supports turning the clock back to the 19th century, amongst other things—and that person is the member for Higgins. The Liberal Party and the opposition do not yet know where they stand, though I am prepared to take a guess where it will be. But there is one person in the opposition who certainly knows where he stands, and that is the member for Higgins. In 2005 on these issues he told the Age: We should be trying to move to an industrial relations system where the predominant instrument is the individual contract. He is still trying. We do not know what the member for Higgins is on about with his ambitions at the moment. I have known him for a very long time, longer than most of you characters have known him, and I cannot work him out. Has he got a cunning plan? I am not sure. I knew him when he was in the Labor ranks. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I would hope that the minister would be the first minister to be relevant to the question in today’s question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Cowper will resume his seat. The minister will respond to the question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —The member for Melbourne Ports and I have got long memories about the member for Higgins. I suspect that the excruciating pantomime that we are currently all being exposed to—it is pretty excruciating for the Leader of the Opposition but it is, sadly, excruciating for the rest of the general public as well—is something we are going to have to put up with for a while. Maybe it is the member for Higgins going through some kind of public therapy process: all his angst and his bitterness being taken out. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Even on the most extended version of what is relevant, this is entirely irrelevant to the question of the job losses in this country. On a day when unemployment— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. The minister will relate his material to the question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —The Liberal Party does face some big questions, but ultimately it is all the same question. The question of who should be leader is the same as the question: is the Liberal Party committed to bringing back Work Choices? GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Speaker, the minister has defied your order to be relevant to the question. He has defied you. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I can understand why the National Party does not want to talk about Work Choices. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The minister will bring his answer to a conclusion. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —There is a core question here. It has been a fundamental political debate in Australia for many years, and that is: are we to have protection of workers’ rights in the workplace? That is the question you have to answer and, if the member for Higgins is the leadership solution for the Liberal Party, we know what the answer will be. JT4 Bailey, Fran, MP Fran Bailey interjecting— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Again, I do not wish to highlight the fact that the member for McEwen makes comments without getting the call. But, in response to her, at the point in time when there was outrage—to great decibels—on my left, actually the minister was being absolutely relevant to the question, but I doubt whether anybody on my left could have heard it. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will get to the next question when I feel like it. Again, if the member for North Sydney wants to make a point of order, he can get on his feet to make the point of order, because otherwise the comments that he makes—and he can tell me that he is making them to other people—are simply disorderly reflections upon the chair. 2533 2533 15:01:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I refer the minister to the fact that Canada, Italy, Israel and the United States have all withdrawn from the Durban Review Conference due to concerns that it will be used as a platform for rampant anti-Semitism. Why has the Australian government not withdrawn from this conference? 2533 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is an important issue. The first Durban conference, which was a conference against racism and in favour of antidiscrimination, took place in Durban in 2001. The then government ensured that Australia was represented through the then Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade, the former Minister for Health and Ageing Kay Patterson. At the conclusion of Durban I, my predecessor, Alexander Downer, the Minister for Foreign Affairs, issued a statement saying that a number of good things had come out of the Durban conference but that the Australian government was concerned about the anti-Semitic and anti-Jewish sentiment also expressed at that conference. As a consequence of that, until the middle of February no Australian official took part actively in the preparations for Durban II, which is a conference that will take place in Geneva from 20 to 24 April next month. On 16 February, as a result of like-minded nations including the United States and the European Union doing so, Australian officials took part in the preparatory or working group proceedings to see whether it was possible for the text which had been circulated to be improved. That did not prove to be the case. As a consequence of that, we saw the United States, a few days subsequent to those working group proceedings, indicate that unless improvements could be made to the text it would not take part in the conference. There are two nation-states who have indicated they will not take part in the conference under any circumstances: Israel and Canada. Two other nation-states, the United States and Italy, have indicated that, unless qualitative improvements are made to the text, they will not attend the conference either. As I have indicated publicly and privately over recent days and weeks to those people who have raised it with me, unless we see qualitative improvements made to the text Australia will not be attending either. The process we are following is this: the Russian chair of the working group has indicated that he is proposing to effect a revised and much shorter text by 16 March. We will carefully examine that revised text if it emerges. The working group is proposed to reconvene, from memory, on 4 or 6 April. The Australian government will give very careful consideration to what, if any, changes are made to the text to see whether it is appropriate for Australia to participate in the conference. If we form the view that the text is going to lead to nothing more than an anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic harangue and an anti-Jewish propaganda exercise, Australia will not be in attendance. We have ample time to make that judgment. We will give the working group every opportunity to revise the text in a qualitatively improved way to ensure that that does not happen, and we will make our judgment at a time of our choosing when we have given all nation-states concerned the opportunity to add qualitatively to the text to enable it to form the proper basis of debate at the conference. If it does not form such a basis, we will not participate in an anti-Jewish, anti-Semitic propaganda exercise. 2534 2534 15:05:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 Mr BRADBURY —My question is to the Minister for Housing and the Status of Women. Will the minister explain to the House what this week’s ABS housing finance data tells us about the impact of the Economic Security Strategy and how the government is supporting the housing industry for the long term? 2534 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms PLIBERSEK —I want to thank the member for Lindsay for his question. Yesterday’s housing finance data shows that first home buyers are playing a very big role in the housing market these days. First home buyers now make up 26½ per cent of new home buyers. In fact, since October last year loans to first home buyers have averaged more than 12,100 a month compared with an average of around 9,000 a month before the introduction of the first home owners boost through the Economic Security Strategy. That is a 30 per cent increase that can be attributed directly to government action in introducing the first home owners boost and, of course, lower interest rates. That is obviously having a very significant effect across Australia. I am happy to report to members that the member for Lindsay has told me that in his electorate there has been a 175 per cent increase in sales at the Ropes Crossing development. From May to October, first home buyers accounted for just 13 per cent of sales in that development. But from October to February first home buyers have accounted for more than half—55 per cent—of buyers in that new development. Lend Lease, the developer of the estate, have put on 36 extra full-time employees to deal with that extra demand. The member for Lindsay has also told me that Ralph Saporito of Glenmore Park Realty told him that home sales have picked up 20 per cent in his local area since the announcement, that that is mostly made up of first home buyers and that houses that are going onto the market in the member for Lindsay’s electorate that are worth less than $400,000 a year are selling within days of going onto the market. The government’s housing response to the global financial crisis has been in two parts. The first part, through the Economic Security Strategy, is the first home owners boost, which is helping young people into the housing market. The second part, through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, sees direct investment in Defence housing and in social housing over the next couple of years. Indeed, last week I announced the allocation of $400 million for repairs and maintenance of public and community housing. This $400 million, as members will remember, was originally designed to bring up to 2½ thousand homes back into the public housing pool, homes that were either uninhabitable now or that would shortly be because of their very poor condition. The great news is that the states and territories have come back and told us that, instead of being able to fix 2½ thousand homes, they can fix more than 10,000 with this new money. A total of 10,648 homes will be saved from becoming uninhabitable and will be returned to the pool of public housing. New bathrooms, new kitchens, rewiring, plumbing, retiling, new driveways—all of that new work—will extend the lives of many of these homes by 15 to 20 years. On top of the almost 11,000 homes that will be returned to the pool of public housing, another 38,000 homes will have work done to them. So almost 50,000 homes right round Australia will have work done by electricians, plumbers, tilers and carpenters. All of the work done by tradies and their apprentices, as well as all of the materials that are needed to do that work, will have obvious economic stimulus effects right across Australia. There is another stage to our work in housing: new construction under the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. We are looking at 2,300 homes in projects that the states and territories have had in the pipeline—on the drawing board, with plans drawn up and council approval—but have not had the money for. Those properties will go ahead as the next stage. Beyond that is the third stage: $5.3 billion of new investment to build new homes. Tradespeople right across the country will be building those homes. What is even better is that much of this building will happen in cooperation with private developers. A lot of these private developers in ordinary times would not be working with state departments of housing. In these times, when it is so difficult to get financing for major construction activity, the fact that state housing departments will contract with these developers for presales in their developments means that many developments will actually go ahead when they might not otherwise have been able to proceed. Yesterday I received the first state of supply report from my National Housing Supply Council. It reminds us that Australia is still undersupplied with housing. After 10 years of neglect from those opposite, we are still short of housing. It is going to take all of our efforts to make sure that we keep those tradespeople and apprentices in the building sector so that when the global financial crisis eases and access to finance is easier they can kick off their work at a higher rate once again. Our efforts will support continued building through this global financial crisis. They will support employment for tradies and apprentices right around Australia. Of course, our efforts will also put roofs over the heads of some of our most vulnerable Australians, including homeless Australians, who we are determined to assist. 2536 2536 15:12:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Defence. I refer to the minister’s statement to this House on 25 February: No special forces soldier in this country has a debt against his name because of the way in which Defence has implemented the Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal’s decision—end of story. I ask the minister: is it a fact that on 5 March, eight days after he made that statement to parliament, the defence department deposited a five-figure sum into the bank account of an SAS soldier for wrongfully deducting pay and forcing debt repayments on him? Isn’t it the plain fact that the minister has come into this parliament both yesterday and today refusing to stand by that statement of 25 February because what he told the House on that day was not true? 2536 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP Minister for Defence 1 Mr FITZGIBBON —Once again, I directed that recovery action be stopped. The Chief of Army directive of 18 February effectively extinguished all debts. I always acknowledged that there was a chance that discrepancies would still appear in the very complex and large payroll system. That is why I have engaged an independent auditor to get to the bottom of this and to identify whether or not the directives were properly followed through and whether any such discrepancies still exist. Why have I done that? So we know what we are dealing with and we can deal with all the problems. 2536 2536 15:14:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport. Will the minister update the House on any further evidence of the need to secure the future of university student support services? Opposition members interjecting— 2536 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms KATE ELLIS —I thank the member for Kingston for both her question and her passionate advocacy on behalf of both students and universities. I note that those opposite, almost on cue, jump to the ideologically extreme battles of the past when we, on this side, are talking about a new and balanced way forward to rebuild services and amenities at our universities. We do this because we on this side know—and have long argued—that it is all students who are paying the price of the extreme legislation of the previous government. It just so happens that we do have new evidence to back this up. It is not just the students who are paying an extra $800 a year in child care at UTS, or those who are paying an extra $200 a year at Monash University, or those students who can no longer access sport, catering and welfare services. It is, in fact, all students who are paying the price of the previous government’s approach, because it affects efforts to deliver quality teaching and research, to reduce class sizes and to attract overseas students—which we know are all critical to sustaining Australia’s workforce and our future productivity and economic growth as a nation. I was asked for new evidence— HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden is warned. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —I can report that last week, the chair of Universities Australia, Professor Richard Larkins, stated that the previous government’s legislation had: … directly impaired our ability to deliver quality education and research … He further stated: We had to use money [set aside] for research and teaching and use it to support the student experience on campus. These concerns, though, were further echoed by the University of Sydney when it said, in its submission to the Senate inquiry, that ‘the university has been forced to redirect university funds to support the student experience’. We have also heard from the Australian Technology Network of Universities that reduced services are a significant threat to the level of international enrolments. Those opposite are so engaged in the arguments of the past that just earlier today— Opposition members interjecting— DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —No, I would like you to listen to this. Just earlier today, we had the member for Higgins, in his comeback speech—in his big contribution to parliamentary debate—put forward the argument that you should vote against this legislation— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —I rise on a point of order. Yet one more minister needs to be brought to order on the question of relevance. If the answer to every question is Peter Costello, then I suggest that they are simply not being relevant. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. There is no point of order. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —I thank the member for Mackellar for that contribution. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will return to the question. DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —Thank you, Mr Speaker, I will do that now. My point about the outdated argument that those opposite were making is that the argument being put forward by the member for Higgins earlier today was that you should vote against this because in 1975 a now defunct organisation passed a number of resolutions which he thinks is the current argument to be reading to the House. In contrast, we are talking about a new system moving forward. As stated, we have also heard from the Australian Technology Network of Universities that reduced services are a significant threat to the level of international enrolments. So all of this hampers our ability to deliver world-class universities—all because those opposite went too far. Now, despite the evidence, they will not admit to the damage they have caused—so they are in denial and voting against it. Can I also add that it is completely absurd and disingenuous for those opposite to shed crocodile tears over this capped and deferred $250 fee. We all know what you did when in government. We all got to see as, time and time again, you massively increased fees on students, you slashed support to students and you shifted the burden onto the shoulders of these same students. These same members opposite are now purporting to be so concerned about the financial plight of students that they voted against the $950 training and learning bonus to be delivered to all eligible students. I think we can all see the hypocrisy on show there. In contrast, we are taking action. We are proposing— 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —I rise on a point of order. It would save the House time if the minister just tabled her essay. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. The member for Casey will resume his seat. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Bronwyn’s was better! DZU Ellis, Kate, MP Ms KATE ELLIS —Yes, we preferred the member for Mackellar’s contribution, but thank you. In contrast we are taking action. We have delivered a new system. We are looking forward, and the opposition should get on board and do the same because it is critical to securing the future of our universities and the contribution that they make to our economy. 2538 2538 15:21:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to Peter Costello. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will come straight to his question. The member will refer to members by their title and he will not tempt fate because it might be attempted to be answered. The member for New England has the call. He will come to the question. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order! The member for New England has the call. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the eligibility of farmers to the $900 cash payment which is part of the economic stimulus package. Prime Minister, are you aware that some farm families who do not have a positive taxable income and are not currently receiving exceptional circumstances payments will not be eligible for the $900 payment even though they earn less than the $80,000 threshold outlined in the package? Prime Minister, given your government’s obvious glee at my confused cockies corner comrades on their lack of support for farm families, will you resolve this anomaly and assist these people? 2538 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for New England for his question, and I appreciate the way in which he represents the interests of his constituents and, more broadly, the interests of farmers in rural Australia who are doing it tough through a combination of drought and the impact of the global economic recession, the ‘great recession’. The honourable member rightly raises the question of possible anomalies around the schemes which have been announced. It is for that precise reason that the government, in putting forward its program, also indicated that there would be an administrative scheme to deal with anomalous cases. Administrative payment schemes are common features for acts providing for lump sum and one-off welfare related payments. The purpose is to enable payments that are similar in purpose to those provided for in the act to be made to people who have missed out on the act payments due to unforeseen circumstances or unintentional limits in the operation of the act. This not something new; it has been done, I am advised, on previous occasions as well. Therefore, in the case of farmers to which the honourable member refers, I would strongly recommend that he advise those farmers to correspond, either through the member or directly to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, to seek to have these individual cases resolved on an individual administrative basis. Furthermore, I would say to the honourable member that on top of the farmers hardship bonus—which, as he rightly indicates, has been voted against by every member of the National Party in this place, and they know in their hearts that it was the wrong thing to do, but they still went ahead and did it—eligible farmers are also eligible for $900 if they have children who receive FTB part B and for a $950 back-to-school bonus for each school-aged child if they are eligible for FTB part A. I draw that to the honourable member’s attention. Finally, what I would say to the honourable member is that, more broadly, the government is seeking to support families in rural areas who are dealing with the extraordinary circumstances which still prevail in many parts of the country through drought. Over $1.1 billion has been committed to exceptional circumstances assistance this financial year. As at 31 January 2009, there were approximately 19,630 farmers and 1,000 small businesses in receipt of EC income support. There are currently 71 EC-declared areas covering 49.1 per cent of Australia’s agricultural land. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for New England for his question, and I contrast it with the interjections just received from the member for Murray. I would have thought that the member for Murray, representing a rural area, would have stood up for her constituents, would have stood up for farmers in her area and would have voted for these payments we are making to farmers in these distressed circumstances. Within her electorate, I am sure, the member for Murray would pretend every day of the week that she is out there, concerned about the interests of farmers. But when the rubber hits the road in this parliament, when she was asked to vote on the simple question of: ‘Are you going to provide support for more than 20,000 farmers to receive this farmers hardship bonus’, what did the member for Murray do? She voted against it. That is where the rubber hits the road. The member for New England voted for these measures. I have referred to the ways around the circumstances which he described. Each member of the National Party and each member of the Liberal Party representing a rural area has voted against it—and they should hang their heads in collective shame. 2539 2539 15:27:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister inform the House about what the Australian Federal Police are doing to support policing in Iraq? 2539 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr DEBUS —Today I had the pleasure of visiting the Australian Federal Police forensic facilities with the Prime Minister of the Republic of Iraq, His Excellency Mr Nouri Kamel al-Maliki. The Australian government has committed itself to provide continuing assistance to Iraq, which has the purpose of ensuring that credible institutions can be built and maintained to serve the Iraqi people. Of course, the Iraqi police service is an important example of one of those institutions. Some very significant research which has been conducted over recent years by the Australian Federal Police has revealed quite extraordinarily high correlations between the existence of the rule of law on the one hand and human development and economic prosperity on the other in countries around the world. That research very clearly demonstrates what common sense would suggest: that security and public order are critical to the success of emerging and developing states like Iraq. Australia is one of several donor countries now providing assistance to Iraq, along with the United States, the United Kingdom and the European Union. No matter what country they live in, people deserve the protection and security of a strong police force. That role is provided by the AFP with integrity and with professionalism in our own country, and that is why the government has entrusted the AFP to provide support and training to the Iraqi police service. Over the next three years the AFP will conduct training programs for over 240 members of the Iraqi police service, training especially designed to meet their particular needs. The program includes courses in advanced crime scene investigation, bomb data awareness, high-tech fingerprint chemical analysis, laboratory management, forensic biology and, not insignificantly, police leadership. The first officers from Iraq arrived in January and, over the course of the program, they will be drawn from right across that country. During their three-month course they will have the opportunity to broaden their skills through access to the specialist knowledge and experience held by the AFP. Indeed, the AFP’s expertise in forensics, in particular, is recognised around the world. Training is conducted at the National Centre for Forensic Studies and the Canberra Institute of Technology. After visiting Iraq in 2008, the AFP noted that their forensic laboratories were well equipped and that they might benefit from additional training that would build on their existing capabilities. As part of this program participants will benefit from leadership training at the renowned Australian Institute of Police Management. The aim of the program is to build strong relationships of trust between our two countries, and that does fulfil an important commitment made by the Australian government to the people of Iraq. 2540 2540 15:31:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 Mr LAMING —My question is to the Prime Minister. I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to comments by the Queensland Premier yesterday where she stated that federal funds to Queensland would be ‘at risk’ if Labor lost the upcoming state election. Can the Prime Minister confirm the statement that Queensland projects are under threat? 2540 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I say to the member for Bowman that the risk to federal funds for Queensland lay with his opposition in voting against the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. I would suggest to the honourable member that he ‘fess up to his constituents that he voted against the school modernisation program for every primary school in Bowman and every secondary school in Bowman, against social housing in that part of Queensland and against energy insulation in his electorate as well. I think the monumental hypocrisy of that question being asked by a member who voted against the program is beyond all proportion. 2540 2540 15:32:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 Mr PERRETT —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister outline the government’s record road and rail infrastructure investment in Queensland through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan and any obstacles it may be encountering in delivering it? 2540 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Moreton for his timely question. The government is investing $26.4 billion—Commonwealth funds on the table—for our nation-building program. There will be record investment in road and rail projects right around the nation. In Queensland alone, that investment is worth some $6.5 billion. It is on the table through a memorandum of understanding with each of the state and territory governments. Every state and territory government has signed up to the nation-building program. Because Queensland is in election mode, it is unable to at the moment, but the Bligh government has indicated that it would sign up and therefore get Labor’s record $6.5 billion of funds for road and rail in Queensland. The Leader of the Opposition in Queensland, Mr Springborg, said last week that he would honour the offer that was there and sign up and be part of the plan. But, of course, this lasted two days, and then he made a demand: ‘We don’t want $6.5 billion—we want half of that amount for Queensland.’ He said he would sign up if he got the same offer that Queensland got under AusLink under the Howard government—half of what the Rudd government is offering Queensland. We offer twice the capital injection, and the Leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland says no. We have got on the table $1.14 billion for the Dinmore to Goodna section of the Ipswich Motorway—up to 1,000 construction jobs—and the Leader of the Liberal National Party says no. We have got on the table $455 million for the upgrade of the Pacific Motorway—up to 500 construction jobs—and the Leader of the Liberal National Party says— Government members—No! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —We have got on the table $55 million for the Douglas arterial—up to 200 construction jobs—and the Leader of the Liberal National Party says— Government members—No! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —No! We have got $300 million on the table for the upgrade of the Mains and Kessels roads intersection. The Leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland says— Government members—No! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The Prime Minister went to this road in the electorate of Moreton and made that election commitment. Last week Mr Springborg went to the same venue and said that it should not proceed and that they would intervene to stop the federal government spending federal funds to build roads in Queensland. What they do is— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Douglas arterial is in my electorate and Anna Bligh has said no. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! There is no point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —One of your best, Pete! The fact is that the Bligh government have said yes to partnership with the federal government in road and rail and nation building. But the Queensland opposition have said that they want a carbon copy of the Howard government’s plan from 2007, which is to have an election commitment cancelled on the Mains and Kessels intersection, to go back to the drawing board and to do nothing—just like when it comes to economic policy. They have one thing in common with the federal opposition, whether it is the Liberal National Party in Queensland or the Liberals or the Nationals or whatever they are called here: their strategy when it comes to nation building, when it comes to jobs and when it comes to economic stimulus is to do absolutely nothing. 2541 2541 15:37:00 Schultz, Alby, MP 83Q Hume LP 0 Mr SCHULTZ —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer the minister to the government’s recent debt package which included funding for maintenance of Australia’s national highways. As minister with responsibility for Australia’s two major links between Sydney and Melbourne, is the minister aware that the New South Wales government has approved BHP Billiton mining for coal under the southern rail line in the Hume Highway but refused to guarantee that mining will not cause subsidence damage, even though BHP has predicted damage will occur? Minister, isn’t the government’s debt package really targeted at fixing the ongoing damage caused by the actions of state Labor governments? 2541 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —What a confused question from the member for Hume—a confused question from a confused opposition when it comes to nation building. He asked me questions about the Hume Highway. I will tell the honourable member about the Hume Highway. We are investing $950 million on the Hume Highway, a record investment. I have visited the Hume with the member for Riverina, inspecting the works of the Rudd government on the Hume Highway— 83Q Schultz, Alby, MP Mr Schultz —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point order centred on relevance. The question was asked about mining under the Hume Highway and subsidence. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member, in his question, had a preamble. So far, the minister has been relevant to the question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I got asked about the Hume Highway and I am answering about the Rudd government’s proud record of record investment in the Hume Highway—just like we have record investment in the Pacific and the Bruce highways. In May, I will be visiting the Hume Highway to open a number of projects with the member for Riverina—who has a much more constructive attitude towards that important highway than her colleague the member for Hume. 2542 2542 15:40:00 Ellis, Annette, MP 5K6 Canberra ALP 1 Ms ANNETTE ELLIS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister outline to the House the government’s action on alcopops and any obstacles in its way? 2542 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Canberra for this question. She, like many members on this side of the House, has a keen interest in making sure that our alcopops measure is passed by the Senate next week. I can update the House that the public hearings that the Senate has been conducting into this measure have now been completed. We look forward to the report in the coming days. But what was very clear from the evidence that was given over the last two days is that the health experts—including public health academics, the doctors and the AMA—have all sided with Labor, with our government, in supporting this tax and arguing that if it was removed it would be a retrograde step. The only people who are on the other side of this argument are the Liberal Party and the distillers. The Liberal Party have been going around pretending that, if this measure is not passed, the money will be able to go off to some worthy cause of their choosing when in fact the clear legal obligation, if this bill does not pass the Senate, is to have money go back directly to the very distillers and distributors who are making and selling these products to our young people. The distillers, of course, are pretending that they do not want the money back. But what has been interesting—although DSICA, the advocacy body for the distillers, said this in August last year, they said it in February and they said it yesterday—is that we now have evidence that one of the major members of DSICA in fact has made clear that they do want to the money back if this bill is not passed and that DSICA has been trying to hoodwink the public, in the same way that the Liberal Party have been trying to hoodwink the public. If they vote against this measure and it fails in the Senate, hundreds of millions of dollars will go back directly to distillers and their distributors to sell even more of these products. Not only has DSCIA refused to tell the public—it was not made clear until it was uncovered in the Senate inquiry yesterday—that Bacardi Lion, one of the big producers of alcopops, has said that they want the money back if the tax is not passed in the Senate, but, in fact, we find out that DSICA actually wrote to each and every one of their members—to each and every one of the distributors—last year providing advice to them about how to protect their rights to get a refund in case this matter failed to pass the Senate. This is exactly what they have been lobbying for. All of this has been a pretence. From the very beginning, the Liberal Party, including the Leader of the Opposition, has pretended there is not a binge-drinking problem. We have seen the shadow minister pretending the money is going to back to some worthy cause, rather than to the distillers, when we know that that is the truth. And we have had the distillers themselves pretending they do not want the money, while at the same time they are writing to their members, arguing for them to keep receipts and be able to claim refunds, and ignoring the fact that one of their significant members actually disagrees with them. What we have seen is just a complete shambles from those opposite. They have not understood that there is a big community problem here and we are trying to tackle it. They are just a mess. The rest of question time has been evidence that the Liberal Party has no idea any longer of what they stand for, who they stand for, who is leading them, what leadership there is or even what the law will be if this bill does not get passed. It is about time the Liberal Party admitted that they are just a lost cause, got out of the way and let us pass this bill in the Senate and get on with our good, health related prevention measures. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 2543 Personal Explanations 2543 15:44:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Most grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —In answering a question today the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs claimed that members of the opposition were against the social security agreements negotiated with various countries around the world. This is absolutely untrue. We are against the government’s stimulus package but we are not against those agreements. 2543 15:45:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr JOHN COBB —Most grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr JOHN COBB —Earlier today the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry knowingly misrepresented a statement I made in a press release on 10 October last year, in which I called for a massive economic stimulus for the irrigation industry to help productivity and maintain jobs at a time when Australia was heading into recession. I did not, as the minister erroneously and knowingly said, call for a general stimulus such as the government’s $10 billion package and $42 billion package. 2543 15:46:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Most grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —In question time today the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs suggested that I had this morning cast doubt over the efficacy of the 22 social security agreements that we have around the world. In fact, I said that we should have brought forward tax cuts to be spent in Australia rather than paying cash to people overseas who will not spend it in Australia. And, in fact, I helped negotiate the social security agreement with Greece. 2543 Miscellaneous 2543 15:47:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I wish to make a statement. It is likely that this statement will be of some interest to members, given the importance of Hansard in making us sound a lot better than we really are. This week a highly valued and respected member of Hansard, Mr Trevor Fowler, will retire. Over an uninterrupted and distinguished career spanning more than 30 years, Mr Fowler has provided non-partisan and impartial advice and service to both houses of parliament and to parliamentary committees. Trevor moved to Canberra, from Melbourne, in February 1979 to become a Hansard reporter in the provisional Parliament House. He was one of the parliament’s first stenographic machine shorthand writers. I am advised that, since then, with the exception of the day his son was born, Trevor has been in attendance for every scheduled sitting day. Trevor progressed through the ranks to become a Senior Editor, a Principal Editor and ultimately the Director of Hansard Operations. He has been instrumental over the years in training many shorthand writers and editors and has been a regular lecturer for foreign and local parliamentary study groups and delegations. Trevor has been an admirable representative of the Department of Parliamentary Services and Hansard, always going out of his way to ensure that visitors have a positive experience and leave with a good understanding of Hansard operations in the Commonwealth jurisdiction. Trevor is a longstanding member and supporter of the Shorthand Reporters Association of Australia and for many years has been an office holder of that professional body. Trevor was a charter member of the Lake Tuggeranong Lions Club, established in 1994, and since that time has been heavily involved in the ongoing operation of several major Canberra events, including the Canberra Times Family Fun Run, the Canberra Times Outdoor Art Show and the Tuggeranong Homestead Community Markets. This community service balances out the only bad trait that he has in coming from Melbourne, and that is being a supporter of Collingwood! That will be a very damaging comment for me, being from a northern suburbs seat! In his long and successful career, Trevor has seen many changes in the way the Hansard is produced, but, no matter how the service has been delivered to the parliament, Trevor has always been highly professional and courteous. We wish Trevor well in his retirement. 2544 Miscellaneous 2544 15:49:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: I wish to make some brief comments about the retirement, announced today, of Mr Mike Taylor AO, the Secretary of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. For more than nine years, Mike Taylor has served the Australian government and, through it, the Australian community with professionalism and passion. To his great credit, Mike Taylor embodies the finest traditions of the Public Service. He has faithfully served the minister and the government of the day. He served the Howard government well and he has served the Rudd government well. During my tenure as minister, Mike Taylor has been integral in overseeing the establishment of the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the establishment of Infrastructure Australia, the establishment of the Australian Council of Local Government and the establishment of the Office of Northern Australia. He has also ensured the smooth rollout of our nation-building program and the development of Australia’s first ever long-term plan for aviation. I wish Mike well in his new career and I am certain that I speak on behalf of all members of the House in suggesting that there is no doubt that he will continue to make an outstanding contribution to our nation. As political representatives, we must always remember that we rely upon the Public Service to deliver the programs for which governments are elected to a majority position in this chamber. Mike Taylor represents the finest traditions of the Australian Public Service, and I look forward to continuing to enjoy his company and friendship on both a professional and personal basis. 2545 15:51:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, can I join the Leader of the House in paying tribute to Mike Taylor on the announcement of his retirement. I thank the minister for making reference to Mr Taylor’s long service. Mr Taylor was actually secretary of my department for most of the time I was a minister. He came in initially as secretary to the department of agriculture. He moved to the department of transport and, about six months after that, I became the minister for transport. So we became very good friends. We are only a few days apart in age—which I perhaps should not confess to on this occasion!—and we travelled quite a bit around the world together. He is an extraordinary person to travel with. He is hyperactive in every sense and there are always things happening when Mike is around. I thought that his appointment added a great deal to the Commonwealth Public Service. He came from the Victorian Public Service, so he had a good background in administration of government departments. He had been working in rural industry organisations in Victoria before he went into the Public Service in Victoria, so he had a good background there too. As a Commonwealth public servant, he had the trust of the states, which was very important in many of the negotiations that were underway at the time. I was pleased when the new federal government offered him another term, which he accepted, although that term is now only going to be quite a short one. Mike Taylor commuted from Melbourne for most of his time in the position, and that was an extra burden. He is a good friend. He has made a very worthwhile contribution to the Public Service in Canberra. His public life has been recognised with the Public Service Medal and quite a number of other honours. I think that the whole House and indeed the processes of government, both at the Com-monwealth level and in Victoria, are indebted to him for his contribution. My very best wishes go to Mike and his wife, Eve, and his family on his retirement. I am sure that Mike will not stand still—he is not the sort of guy who is capable of standing still—and that he will continue to make a significant contribution to public policy in the years ahead. We wish him good health and every happiness for whatever the future may hold. 2545 15:54:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, can I, as a person who, as a minister, also had association with Mike Taylor, endorse the remarks so far made. I will not delay the House further, but I endorse what has been said from both sides. 2545 15:54:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence, just very briefly—because I am conscious of the hour—could I just support the comments made so far. Mike has been a friend of mine for over 30 years. I worked with him as an agricultural economist in the Victorian departure of agriculture. From day one, he was obviously going to be a leader in the Public Service. He is an outstanding Australian. He is actually a constituent of mine now, which makes this even more special. He is a great personal friend. Throughout his career he has made an enormous contribution to Australia and Australian public service. I congratulate him on that and wish him all the best. 2546 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:55:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings. 2546 Matters of Public Importance 2546 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Stirling proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of Government policy to address increasing unemployment. 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— 2546 15:55:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Since 1 January this year, 80,000 Australians have lost their jobs. That is well over 1,200 jobs lost per day. This catastrophic figure confirms the Deputy Prime Minister as the Australian empress of unemployment—a minister who inherited the best employment outlook of any minister in the postwar period but who has started to comprehensively squander the legacy that she inherited. This is a minister who is obsessed with rewriting Australia’s employment laws, to create an industrial utopia policed by Sharan Burrow, but who displays no concern for the rising tide of unemployed under her watch. Worse than being unconcerned about this issue, the government is taking actions that will make this issue much, much worse. The Senate is currently discussing laws that will radically change Australia’s industrial relations system. If the laws are kept in their current form, they will make the unemployment problem worse. They will throw more Australians onto the dole queue. Labor needs to listen to this side of the House. Those on the other side of the House remain the experts on industrial relations. It is mother’s milk to them. They live it, they breathe it. But we on this side of the House, in the Liberal and National parties, are the experts on employment. We are the experts on creating jobs. We understand how jobs are actually created in Australia, and that is why, in the years of the Howard government, 2.2 million jobs were created. We understand that those jobs were created by allowing the private sector the latitude to go out and do what it does best, and that is create employment. What the government does not understand is that everybody in this country cannot be employed by the public sector. It is the private sector that creates jobs, and it needs to be given the tools to do so. I want to run through some of the changes that we would like to see within this legislation. We want those changes to do two things. Firstly, we want them to draw Labor back to the policy that they took to the people prior to the last election. It was a very detailed policy and it outlined things that they would do and things that they would not do. Secondly, we would like the changes to take out the worst job-destroying aspects of the Fair Work Bill—the things in the bill that go too far and the things that are going to make what is a very difficult employment situation in Australia much, much worse. The first amendment that the government must accept is changes to their right of entry regime. Labor made very explicit promises before the last election that they would not change right of entry in Australia. I will go through what the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations has said, because it is very instructive. The Prime Minister and his minister for employment said, prior to the last election, in a joint press release: Federal Labor will maintain the existing right of entry provisions … Right of entry rules remain. Julia Gillard said on 28 August 2007: We will make sure that current right of entry provisions stay. We understand that entering on the premises of an employer needs to happen in an orderly way. We will keep the right of entry provisions. On 28 May, after the election, in a speech to Master Builders Australia, she said: We promised to retain the current right of entry framework and this promise too will be kept. Finally—and this is without a doubt my personal favourite—the minister said, on 7 October 2007, speaking specifically about her promise to keep right of entry laws in place: If you’d like me to pledge to resign, sign a contract in blood, take a polygraph … give you my mother as a hostage, whatever you’d like. She said would be delivering the policy as outlined. Later on she went on to reiterate that the current right of entry laws would be maintained. Yet we find in this bill that the rights of unions, firstly, to enter a workplace for discussions and, secondly—and I think even more appallingly—to access the records of non union members are greatly expanded. The bill, as it currently stands, allows union officials to view any record, including the records of non union members, when they are investigating a suspected breach of the law in relation to one of their members. These records could include deeply personal records. They could include salary details, pay rates, super fund contributions, warnings, medical certificates, disciplinary interviews, licences, criminal background checks, garnishee orders, family support payments—anything that could possibly be recorded in someone’s employment file. The current provisions, the provisions that the government promised they would keep, restrict union officials to looking at the records of union members only. We believe, on this side of the House, that all employees have a right to privacy; they have a right to have their private information respected and they have a right to control who views their employment records. These records do contain personal and sensitive information and I would urge the government to reconsider their ill-founded provisions in this bill that allow union officials access to such private information. There is absolutely no basis for a union official to be given such privileged and special powers. We will make sure that appropriate checks and balances remain, and we will move amendments to this bill that ensure that union officials can only see the records of a non union member when specific permission is given by that employee that their records may be viewed. The second amendment that must be accepted is in relation to the right of entry that a union official may have to the workplace for discussions. As I said, Labor were explicit in the promise that they made about right of entry. This promise has proved to be false and empty, because the new bill massively expands the right of unions to go into workplaces. The current law, the law that was promised to be kept, restricts access to unions who were party to the industrial instrument, such as an award that covers the workplace. The government promises that, under Labor, all workers will be free to decide whether or not to join and be represented by a union or to participate in collective activities. That is an important principle, and it is a principle—a principle of freedom of association—that is supported by this side of the House also. We believe that employees in a workplace should have the right to choose who represents them and the extent to which a union may be involved in their workplace. We believe in giving employees choice and in respecting their rights and decisions. Our amendment to the Fair Work Bill will allow employees to democratically decide if they want a union in their workplace, and which union that would be, before entry can occur. This would apply in a workplace where there is currently no union presence or where a union other than the existing union wants to enter. I turn now to one of the other most outrageous breaches of Labor’s commitments from prior to the last election. This is in the area of compulsory arbitration. Labor explicitly promised there would be no compulsory arbitration under their industrial relations system. This promise has proved to be completely false, but I will remind the House about what Labor said prior to the last election. Minister Gillard, on 30 May 2007, speaking to the National Press Club, said: Under Labor’s policy, there is no automatic arbitration of collective agreements. Our policy clearly states that no one will be forced to sign up to an agreement when they did not agree to the terms. The policy explicitly said: Good faith bargaining does not require bargaining participants to make concessions or to sign up to an agreement where they do not agree to the terms. Yet what we find in the bill is the ability of Fair Work Australia to compulsorily arbitrate differences between parties when they cannot reach agreement themselves. Of course, they do not call it compulsory arbitration—it is called ‘workplace determinations’, but it is exactly compulsory arbitration by any other name. If parties who are negotiating an agreement cannot agree on terms that are suitable to them both, then they can walk away and they can rely on the safety net of awards and the National Employment Standards, which is a comprehensive safety net. If you are negotiating to agree then that should mean exactly that. It should mean that parties can search for common ground and find areas in which agreement can be reached. This bill provides that, where agreement cannot be reached, those parties can be forced to make an agreement by Fair Work Australia. Negotiating an agreement is about trying to find areas on which you can agree. If you are going to be forced to make that agreement then that is not bargaining at all. That is compulsory arbitration. There is a very strong safety net of awards and of National Employment Standards in this country, and that would be an appropriate basis for employees to go back to if an agreement cannot be reached. We propose to strip out these provisions in the bill and to hold Labor to account for the promises that they made to the Australian people prior to the last election. Perhaps some of the worst job-destroying aspects of this bill are things that Labor refused to mention in their policy but that then turned up in their legislation. On greenfields agreements, which are the agreements that an employer can make when they are starting out a new site—such as a new mine site, for instance—Labor did not make one mention in their policy of the onerous, restrictive and complex greenfields agreements provisions that have found their way into the bill. These new provisions make it virtually impossible for new projects to commence without the approval of union officials. Often such greenfields agreements are made in circumstances where time is critical. This bill requires that the maker of one of those agreements needs to notify all possible unions who may cover the members at any particular site. This might be 10 or 12 unions, depending on what the actual site is. So if the union choose to negotiate with the employer, once they have been notified, they must be recognised and an agreement must be reached before a project can go ahead. Basically, what the government is saying is that, if agreement cannot be reached, any of those union officials can hold up a new project from starting. This knowledge could of course be exploited to extract conditions that would not normally be offered or bargained in more neutral circumstances. This is a blatant free kick for unions. No business will be able to start up unless unions give the green light for them to go ahead. That means that in my home state union officials such as Joe McDonald or Kevin Reynolds will have the power over new projects starting up. Why would we give such power regarding when a business can start to these officials? The coalition propose that the existing provision that requires unions to be notified be removed. Labor never took that to the people prior to the last election, and, again, we will be holding them to account for the promises they made. I now move to the transmission of business provisions, because they have been radically altered in the bill. Again, Labor made no mention of these in their policy platform prior to the last election. The bill proposes a totally new approach to the transmission of business with a new concept called ‘transfer of work’. There is now a requirement in the bill that if employees are transferred in a business then the instrument that underpins them is ongoing; it is in perpetuity. It cannot be changed. That means if a business has uneconomic industrial arrangements, which is not competitive, and if those arrangements have contributed to that business failing then the new owner of that business cannot change those arrangements. What they will of course do, and what they have been given an incentive to do, is sack the existing workforce. Why, in this economic climate, would we have provisions that give someone the incentive to sack the existing workforce if there is a transfer of a business? The only way that an employer could avoid taking on this instrument is to get rid of the workforce. This provision is bad for industry and it is bad for the people who are employed in industry. The existing act strikes the right balance in this regard. It states: If employees are transferred then the existing arrangements would only be operative for the following 12 months. Within that time the new owner could reach agreement with the employees and, after 12 months, that agreement would cease to apply. If an agreement could not be reached then those employees would revert to the safety net. These changes to the transfer of business provisions are anti jobs and they discourage a new business owner from keeping existing employees or transferring them to their new entity. The coalition propose to keep the existing law. It is a law that has worked well and it is a law that allows Australians to keep their jobs when a business is transferred. In the short time available to me I want to refer to the unfair dismissal laws. Every Australian working in small business knows and understands that these unfair dismissal laws stop small business employing more people. The Labor Party do not understand it, and how could they because none of them have ever worked in a small business? They do not understand the pressures that small business is under. We will change the Fair Work Bill to ensure that small business still has incentives to employ more and more Australians. Why does the minister for employment bother to keep that particular title? She has lots of other titles; she is the Deputy Prime Minister. Why bother keeping the title of minister for employment when she continues to preside over a system with catastrophic consequences for Australians who are currently in work. (Time expired) 2550 16:10:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Employment Participation 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I rise to respond to the comments made by the member for Stirling on this matter of public importance. He may be the member for Stirling, but the contribution he made was certainly not a sterling effort. Throughout the 15 minutes allocated to him, the member for Stirling, the shadow minister for employment, supposedly responsible for employment, did not go to what the opposition would do to assist Australian workers who may lose their jobs through no fault of their own. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! The member for Stirling was heard in silence. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —For 15 minutes we heard a rationalisation by the opposition as to why they support Work Choices and why they will continue to do so. But what we need to know, when the Senate deliberates and decides, is where the opposition will be on this very important area of public policy. Whilst the member for Stirling went through all of the industrial relations ideas—few though they are—of the opposition, he made no mention of what the opposition would do to assist in providing opportunities for workers to keep jobs and indeed to find jobs. Before I go through all of the initiatives of the government in response to the global financial crisis, can I just take issue with the comments made by the shadow minister in relation to the unfair dismissal laws. On 13 December last year, the Leader of the Opposition said: … I believe—as would most economists—that unfair dismissal laws add to the cost of employing people— We disagree with that, but that was his view. But he went on to say: … nonetheless Labor took a proposal to change the unfair dismissal laws to the election and won … And further: So we must respect that. The Leader of the Opposition is on the record as saying he must respect the mandate of the Australian people provided to this government to rid this country of Work Choices and to provide fair and balanced laws in the area of industrial relations. He made that commitment. We will now see whether in fact he will be rolled by the member for Higgins and others in the party who are acolytes and who will never be anything other than supporters of Work Choices. I will just go to those things that have been attended to by this government since the start of the global financial crisis. As soon as the effects of the global financial crisis were known to this government, we responded. Firstly, we secured depositors’ money throughout the country and therefore we ensured there was confidence in the financial system. That was the first act taken by this government. That was quickly followed by the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy that would not only provide payments to people who were in need but also provide the requisite economic stimulus to the economy that would support jobs and provide opportunities for Australian workers. That occurred last year. What has happened since then? We announced the $6.4 billion car plan, providing support for a very important part of the manufacturing sector in this country. That was followed only recently by the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan. That will support the construction and maintenance of more than 9,500 schools across this country. It was opposed by those opposite. Every one of the members of the opposition voted against support for students, support for farmers, support for workers and support for the unemployed who are undergoing training. That is a shameful act and, indeed, they should hang their heads in shame. The opposition needs to stop being a rabble, stop being self-absorbed and stop being reckless and irresponsible when it comes to the Australian economy. I need to tell the opposition today that real leadership does not mean having two leaders; it means having a position and sticking to that position. It means working with the government in assisting us to provide opportunities for Australian workers and opportunities for business in order to get ourselves out of this crisis. We know that there are effects that will unfortunately be inflicted upon many Australians. We have been up-front from the beginning and said that there will be a rise in unemployment as a result of these effects. The Prime Minister has likened it to a cyclone. We have said that we will do everything we possibly can to cushion the blow of this particular economic recession. As we know, this is the largest global economic recession since the Great Depression, so we need to do those things. We have actually been making decisions. What have those opposite done? They voted against every initiative taken to support Australian workers, Australian farmers and, indeed, others in our community. Recently, on 24 February, the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and I announced support for retrenched workers. We know there are going to be job losses. One job loss is one too many, but we need to make sure we put in place services that support those people in their hour of need. So we announced a $298.5 million package to provide personalised and intensive assistance to those retrenched workers and their families in order to ensure they are provided with assistance as early as possible and they can get themselves back into the workforce. That particular initiative was very much welcomed by employer bodies and others in the community. In response to that particular initiative, the Business Council of Australia said: Business Council of Australia … welcomes the announcement by the federal government of immediate assistance for workers facing unemployment as a result of the global economic downturn. …                …                   … The longer a person stays out of work, the more difficult the task of returning to employment can become. Australia’s very important employment body, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, also supported the initiative. They said that the announcement would: … help the new unemployed bounce back into the job market. So they supported our position in relation to retrenched workers. The Australian Industry Group also supported the announcement. They said: Ai Group strongly endorses the decision to provide immediate employment services to retrenched workers … AiG also said: The sooner retrenched workers are re-engaged with the workforce or given training appropriate to their circumstances the better it is for both the individual concerned and the economy as a whole. The peak employment service provider also supported the initiative by the federal government to help retrenched workers in this very difficult time. What has the opposition done? They voted against these initiatives; they do not support the initiatives we are giving to retrenched workers. They should hang their heads in shame. It is an outrageous approach by those opposite. But should we expect any different? The last thing we will ever do is to listen to the member for Stirling and others give us a lecture on how to help workers. The architects and the advocates of Work Choices want to lecture us on how we should help workers in this country. The last people we will ever listen to are the opposition trying to provide advice about how to help workers. What we know from this MPI today is that the opposition is seeking to find its way, to reposition itself, to be able to say: ‘Because of this or that circumstance, we might have to reconsider our position on Work Choices.’ They might say that they will get rid of the name, but the elements that they are concerned about in the government’s bill are the main elements that have always been the substance of Work Choices. They are going to—by whatever means—find a way to bring back the most extreme legislation that has inflicted itself on workers across this country. I also think that the member for Stirling has a hide to say that we did not consult the Australian people. Before the 2004 election, the then Prime Minister, Prime Minister Howard, did not make mention of one element of Work Choices. What happened after the 2004 election? After the 2004 election, they inflicted the most extreme laws of industrial relations. They rammed it through the House of Representatives and down the throats of men and women of Australia who work in businesses across the land. That is what happened, so the last thing we need is a lecture from the member for Stirling on consulting with the Australian people. Conversely, we consulted widely prior to the last election; we informed people what we were to do. We have a mandate from the Australian people, and the opposition had better start thinking about recognising this and respecting this. In December, the Leader of the Opposition said that he respected that. He said that he respected the fact that we won the election. He said that he respected that unfair dismissal laws were part of our commitments. I assume from that—if he respects the fact that we won the election—that they will be supporting the Fair Work Bill. That is what we would hope, but it seems to me that the member for Higgins has clearly got more influence inside the opposition’s party room than the Leader of the Opposition. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —You are more obsessed by the member for Higgins than I am, Member for Stirling! I think it is quite interesting that the member for Higgins has more influence over the outcomes of the Liberal Party than the Leader of the Opposition. That is the reality. We know that the opposition is a rabble at the moment. We have not seen such a rabble for such a long time. As I said before, what the opposition have to understand is that real leadership is not having two leaders. The fact is that they have to start thinking about the policies, they have to start thinking about what mandate this government has in the area of industrial relations and they also have to start respecting that the government is taking action swiftly to ensure that it protects Australian workers. We know they wanted to blame the Deputy Leader of the Opposition. She got sacked. They brought back the member for North Sydney as shadow Treasurer. They had sacked the first minister for Work Choices and brought the member for North Sydney into that role. The fact is that Hockey might be the jockey but it is still the same old horse. The opposition are a rabble. They do not have one position on anything. The member for Stirling spent 15 minutes reading an essay to the parliament, and in everything he said in relation to employment there was not one mention of what the opposition would do to help Australian workers. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —Why don’t you mention jobs? 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Mayo might not get a chance to mention anything shortly. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —What we have done is move quickly to support our financial system. We introduced the $10.4 billion Economic Security Strategy. We announced the $42 billion Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which was opposed by every member opposite. We have also initiated a $6.2 billion plan to help the car industry, a very important initiative. What have the opposition got as an alternative? They have no alternative. They have no plan, they have no idea, and the only jobs they talk about are those jobs inside the party room. The member for Casey was once in this portfolio but he took a position that was not one that the now Leader of the Opposition supported, so he was pushed down the rungs. He might come back, because we know who his best friend is; we know whose apprentice he is. What the member for Casey wants is for the member for Higgins to come back so that he can get his old job as shadow minister for employment. I suggest to the member for Stirling that he should hope that the member for Higgins does not come back, because there is no doubt that the member for Casey would take the member for Stirling’s job. E0J Keenan, Michael, MP Mr Keenan interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! The member for Stirling was heard in silence. 00AN3 O’Connor, Brendan, MP Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I was almost falling asleep when the member for Stirling was speaking. That is the only reason that he was heard in silence. These are very serious issues and it is quite concerning that every time unemployment rises in this country the opposition relish it. Every time we see another worker lose their job, the opposition seem to be happy about it. There is nothing more galling than seeing the opposition happy to see Australian workers out of jobs. But you know what? We do not expect anything different, because they are the advocates for and architects of Work Choices and they will always be the advocates for and architects of Work Choices. They need to start to come up with some concrete proposals to help Australian workers, to help Australian business and to help this economy. Instead, all we see is a self-absorbed opposition with two leaders, no resolution on policy, no resolution on leadership and no resolution on helping jobs and helping Australians who are doing it tough in very difficult economic circumstances. I ask members opposite to start doing their job as an opposition. (Time expired) 2553 16:25:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I note that the minister limped over the line there. I notice that the members opposite are leaving. They are all for jobs, all for talking about how they are going to get people sacked in restaurants up and down the Central Coast. They are the jobs that they like to talk about. But the jobs I want to talk about are the jobs being lost in this country under this government. In particular, I want to talk about the fact that the government think the job is done when they have made an announcement. Whether it is promises of funding, promises on housing or promises, most importantly, on jobs, Labor think the job is done when the announcement is made. Last November I was in the Great Hall with some 500 mayors and the Prime Minister stood in front of those local government mayors and he waved $300 million around. He waved it around in front of their faces and demanded that they go—just like he demanded that the people of Australia went out with the cash splash they got before Christmas—and spend, spend, spend. If there was any doubt about when they should start, the Prime Minister dispelled it when he said: By immediate, I mean immediate. It means now. It is ready to go now. Coalition probing by Senator Payne in Senate estimates revealed the following. Within three months of that announcement, how many funding agreements had been signed? How many cheques had been sent to these more than 500 mayors? A hundred? No. Fifty? No. One funding agreement had been signed in three months. But we have had an absolute torrent of media statements, with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government parading around the country saying, ‘We’re giving money here and we’re giving money there.’ But they forgot to send the cheque. The problem the government have with this—and it is outlined by councillors to me every day—is that they have chosen to adopt the most bureaucratic process possible to spend this money. They said they were going to do it according to the financial assistance grants, where an allocation is made and the cheque is sent. They do it every year. But on this occasion they said, ‘No, this is the allocation.’ The cheques should have been on the mayors’ desks on the Monday when they got back after they were promised them the previous week but, no, they said, ‘You can spend it in this way and you have all got to send your applications here to Canberra, because the bureaucrats here in Canberra and the minister know better than every single mayor in this country where this money should be spent.’ So what we saw was delay, bureaucratic delay. The Australian Council of Local Government made suggestions. They said: ‘Look, just tell us how to spend it. We are governments. We are not small organisations; we are governments and we are accountable for our money. It needs to be transparent and we will spend it properly.’ But no, the government did not trust them. They said, ‘No, you have got to spend it all in here and we will change the guidelines about two or three times, and when we are finished with that maybe we will send you a funding agreement.’ This money is supposed to be spent by 30 September and it has all got to be out the door by 30 June. They have spent more than three months in a bureaucratic process which is crippling a stimulus that was supposed to happen. That stimulus is not happening under this program because they simply cannot get their act together when they make an announcement about jobs. The jobs simply do not come. So the question to the Prime Minister is: if ‘now’ means now for jobs, when does ‘now’ mean now, given we are still waiting after three months? 2554 16:29:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP 1 0 Mr BUTLER —It is a pleasure to have the last 40 seconds or so in this debate. We welcome a debate on economic management on this side of the House because, frankly, the record of those opposite was one of living high on the hog in the good times with no investment for the future. It was the good fortune of the longest-serving but laziest Treasurer in the Federation’s history to preside over an economy made strong and competitive by the hard work of the Hawke and Keating government and to have the good luck to be in the right place at the right time, when China and India were— Debate interrupted. 2555 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 4.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 2555 2555 16:30:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —The Illawarra community has recently been rocked by the devastating news about the loss of 281 jobs at two local Pacific Brands plants, at Bellambi and Unanderra. The Prime Minister described the news as distressing and devastating, and one can only imagine the gut-wrenching impact on the workers and their families. I had previously met with the workers at the Unanderra plant, who, after many decades of loyal service and experience, now find themselves redundant through no fault of their own. Tomorrow evening, at the initiative of my colleague the member for Cunningham, we will have a local forum with the workers from these two plants, prospective employers, Job Network agency providers and other service providers in the region. We will meet with them and hopefully go through the process of trying to match employment opportunities with those redundancies. Of course, we are all concerned that, as a consequence of the global recession, unemployment projections are continuing to rise, most recently with a projection of about seven per cent unemployment at a national level in June 2010. That is why the Rudd government has committed $42 billion to the Nation Building and Jobs Plan stimulus package. We need to stimulate demand in the economy and we need to bring forward major infrastructure investment to help generate employment opportunities. Of course, it is exactly that stimulus package that was opposed by the opposition and, more recently, has been the subject of the derisive comments about the so-called cash splash. I want to say that the cash splash has, in fact, had some positive and beneficial outcomes in the Illawarra region. I believe the government’s actions to date, which have led to greater disposable income, particularly for those struggling in a difficult financial climate, have encouraged positive developments in our local tourism, hospitality and accommodation sectors, all of which reported increased patronage over the Christmas-January period. The state government’s investment in the new Sea Cliff Bridge and the associated marketing and promotion of the Grand Pacific Drive have been a focal point in generating renewed and increasing tourist interest in our region. I want to acknowledge, in particular, the efforts of Tourism Wollongong and the unfailing dedication of Greg Binskin, Jim Eddy and their staff. They have had the vision and are now seeing positive outcomes in the tourism sector. As I said earlier, our major local attractions are recording positive and record numbers of visits. For example, the Jamberoo Action Park saw 150,000 visitors in January, and daily attendances exceeded 9,000 over the Australia Day long weekend. Minnamurra Rainforest saw five per cent growth in January, and Symbio Wildlife Park had record attendances as well. Our local Wollongong Science Centre and Planetarium reported a 15 per cent increase in visitors. The popular Skydive the Beach had a 40 per cent increase in skydives in January. Very interestingly, 35 per cent of them were by international travellers. Our famous latest attraction, the Illawarra Fly Treetop Walk, takes visitors along the picturesque Illawarra Escarpment and offers panoramic views combined with the beauty of our local rainforest. Investment in 600 new hotel rooms over the past decade has added diversity, with the local icon the Novotel Northbeach Hotel being a popular drawcard for international visitors. In 1999 accommodation takings were $42.7 million. By 2008 that had grown by 70 per cent, to $73.3 million. About half of all visitors to Wollongong eat out at the area’s restaurants, some of which, as we know, have won prestigious awards. In all, our region now boasts more than 4,000 tourism related businesses, and they are an important element of job opportunities in our community. More than 2½ million people now visit the Illawarra each year, which adds more than $400 million to the city’s economy on an annual basis. Tourism locally has been a positive success story during these difficult economic times. Years of hard work by Tourism Wollongong, combined with the impact of the stimulus package and the greater recourse to disposable income for many people, have been taken advantage of, in that many more people are now travelling to see the beauty of the Illawarra region. 2556 2556 16:35:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —I rise to speak on the persecution of people of the Baha’i faith in Iran—in particular, the seven believers who have been incarcerated in Tehran’s Evin prison for eight months. Article 18 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion … Here in Australia, section 116 of our Con-stit-ution prohibits the government controlling or mandating a particular religion. However, such is not the case in Iran. On 18 February this year, I met with two representatives of the Bayside and Glen Eira Baha’i com-munities, Mr Murray Davies and Ms Niloufar Zamani. Mr Davies and Ms Zamani shared with me what they called ‘the con-tinuing abuse of the fundamental human rights of the Iranian Baha’i community’ and what they saw as ‘a renewed wave of per-sec-ution and control similar to that which occurred in the 1930s in Nazi Germany’. Founded in 1844, the Baha’i faith is the youngest of the world’s independent religions. Today the faith has more than five million believers. The largest population of Baha’is live in India, numbering around 2.2 million. The next largest population exists in Iran, at roughly 350,000 people. Since the establishment of the Islamic Republic of Iran in 1979, the Baha’i community has suffered the effects of a systematic campaign orches-trated by the Iranian government. The gov-ernment’s aim is to eliminate the Baha’i com-munity as a viable entity in Iran, despite Iran being the birthplace of the faith. To begin, the Iranian constitution does not recognise the religion. Baha’is are not permitted to meet, to hold religious ceremonies or to practise their religion communally. Holy places, shrines and cemeteries have been con-fiscated and demolished. According to Amnesty Inter-national, hundreds of Baha’is have been executed for refusing to recant their faith and embrace Islam. Since the election of President Ahmadinejad in 2005, dozens more have been arrested. Amongst those who have been recently arrested are seven leaders of the Baha’i organisation known as Friends of Iran. The organisation is believed to have served as an ad hoc coordinating body representative of Baha’is in Iran, apparently to the full knowledge of the Iranian government. Rec-ently, however, the government labelled the organisation illegal and arrested its seven leaders—one in March 2008 and the other six in May 2008. They are expected to go on trial shortly on charges of espionage for Israel, insulting religious sanctities and propaganda against the system. Amnesty International considers the charges to be politically motivated and those held to be prisoners of conscience, detained solely because of their conscientiously held beliefs or their peaceful activities on behalf of the Baha’i community. The accusation of spying has been used as a pretext to persecute Baha’is for more than 75 years. They have been accused of being tools of Russian imperialism, British colonialism, American expansionism and, most recently, Zionism. The seven imprisoned leaders are being held in section 209 of Tehran’s infamous Evin prison, run by the Iranian ministry of intelligence. After eight months, no evidence has been brought to light by the prosecutors. The five male detainees are said to be held together in one cell of about 10 metres squared without any beds. All have been permitted access to relatives but none has been granted access to their lawyer. The lawyer is said to have been harassed, intimidated and threatened since taking on the case. The trial is expected to take place shortly in the Iranian revolutionary court. If convicted, the seven will face lengthy prison terms or even the death penalty. This is not the first time the plight of the Baha’i community in Iran has been raised in this House. In 2006, the members for Macmillan, Boothby and Stirling, with strong support from the other side of the House, spoke with heavy hearts as they recounted stories of persecution passed on to them from their local communities. As they did then, I today call on the Australian government to continue to raise this matter with the Iranian embassy and urge the immediate and unconditional release of the seven prisoners. I appeal to authorities to ensure that the seven prisoners are protected from torture and other ill treatment and to ensure that they are given regular access to their relatives and lawyer. Finally, I implore the Iranian government to stop persecuting the Baha’i people and allow their citizens the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. 2557 2557 16:40:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —The recent appalling fires in Victoria, not to mention the floods in Queensland and New South Wales, prompted the highly respected Professor Tim Flannery to write a worrying article in the Fairfax press about the continuing and growing risk of the effects of global warming. In that article he called for urgent action to reduce emissions to forestall an even worse situation in the future. I have previously reported that an eight-metre increase in sea levels could occur suddenly if the West Antarctic Ice Sheet collapsed, which is possible if average global temperatures increase by two degrees above pre-industrial levels. In 2007 the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned that we have a less than 10 per cent chance of avoiding such an increase in average temperatures within the next 10 years. Even though the level of risk of the collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is uncertain—it may be large or small; we do not presently know—the geological evidence shows that it has happened in the past. If the West Antarctic Ice Sheet does collapse, the consequences would be completely disastrous. Amongst the immediate effects would be the flooding of ports, the collapse of trade and the severing of communications—for example, road and rail links on the New South Wales coast and at Sydney Airport. There would be hundreds of millions of refugees looking for new homes as low-lying areas flooded around the world. This risk alone should be enough for policy makers to make serious preparations for such an event and for governments to force rapid reductions in emissions. Despite these warnings we now hear that a senior member of the Queensland National Party is once again attempting to mislead us by putting forward statements that are not supported by the truth. Referring to the evidence for the effect of carbon dioxide emissions on climate change, the honourable senator was reported by the ABC on 8 March as saying: … that debate is open. You will get a body of scientists that say it is and you will get an equal body of scientists who say it isn’t. If the honourable senator were to investigate this matter more carefully, he would in fact find that, overwhelmingly, reputable scientists would not support his position. The honourable senator was evidently speaking for the Leader of the Opposition when he said that the coalition should oppose the emissions trading scheme. Popular science journals such as New Scientist and Scientific American constantly report that highly respected scientists are most concerned that the world’s governments have yet to appreciate the urgency that the growing tide of evidence provides and that action is far behind what is needed to arrest the measured rates of change of rainfall distribution and temperatures. At least the Rudd Labor government is far ahead of the former government’s position on this very critical issue. On a brighter note, President Obama has recently appointed four eminent scientists to top administration posts. John Holdren, a former President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and a leading expert on climate change, has been appointed as science adviser and as director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Professor Holdren will also direct the President’s Council of Advisers on Science and Technology. Joining him as co-chairs of the council will be Nobel Prize winning scientist Harold Varmus, a former director of the National Institutes of Health, and Professor Eric Lander, a specialist in human genome research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Jane Lubchenco, another leading climate change expert, will lead the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which oversees ocean and atmospheric studies and does much of the government’s research on global warming. These appointments are a major change from the Bush administration’s policy of hostility towards science, and I have no doubt we will quickly see important announcements on measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Dr James Hanson, Head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, warned at a briefing to the House Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming in June last year, that the ‘elements of a “perfect storm”, a global cataclysm, are assembled’. The Opposition’s position on what has the potential to become an existential crisis should be seen for what it really is—a cynical attempt to make political capital out of an unfolding catastrophe. 2558 2558 16:45:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —Between 2002 and 2006 in the four main local council regions in my electorate of Swan, there were just short of 5,000 alcohol-related hospitalisations, costing the community over $23 million. Binge drinking is clearly a major problem within my electorate and, unfortunately, these numbers are replicated across the country. Binge drinking costs families. Two of my sisters have died as a result of excessive alcohol consumption, one as a direct effect and one indirect. Binge drinking reduces life expectancy. According to the National Alcohol Strategy, alcohol related death accounts for four per cent of the total cost to life and longevity. Binge drinking costs society—it takes hospital beds from those who may need them, it causes crime, it creates road accidents, and it reduces productivity in the workplace. It affects families and communities Australia wide. I would also like to add that I have friends who are licensees and members of the AHA who I know support responsible drinking. This is the culture we need to promote: responsible drinking. Both sides of the House have said that binge drinking is a problem, and I believe that all members would genuinely want to change this part of our culture and make binge drinking unAustralian. Given this, I was disappointed upon receiving a letter recently from a Mr Don Frayne of Swanbourne. Mr Frayne drew to my attention a recent insert in the West Australian newspaper from an organisation called Games World. This insert, which I hold in my hand today, contained adverts for all sorts of family and children’s board games. However, it also contained an advertisement for two drinking games. The game I want to focus on in particular is a game called Pass-out, which costs $29.99. The advertising says, ‘Complete a tongue twister, a dare, or take a drink! Gallons of fun for your next party.’ It is marketed as, ‘The world’s best selling adult drinking game.’ It defies belief how a game called Pass-out can be sold, let alone advertised, in this country. We had the Minister for Health and Ageing in this very place this afternoon railing at the opposition about its lack of efforts to reduce binge drinking, but the government and her department have made no effort to stop the sale of this product and others like it. I will argue today that the advertising of the game Pass-out should be stopped, and that we must consider whether this is a game that is appropriate for sale in Australia. With the help of the Parliamentary Library, I have information into the mechanisms by which such a game can be screened and restricted from advertisement and sale. The Classification (Publications, Films and Computer Games) Act 1995 would appear to be the relevant act in this instance. I will refer to it from this point forward as ‘the act’. Under this act, a drinking game, or indeed any game, would meet the definition of a publication in section 5—written or pictorial matter that is not a film or computer game—and therefore may need to be classified before it can be advertised or otherwise offered for sale. However, this act does not require all publications to be classified. Only those publications deemed to be submittable publications must be classified. The term ‘submittable publication’ is defined in section 5 of the act as follows: … an unclassified publication that, having regard to section 9A— the classification of publications, films and computer games that advocate terrorism— or to the Code— the National Classification Code— and the classification guidelines to the extent that they relate to publications, contains depictions or descriptions that: are likely to cause the publication to be classified RC; or are likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult to the extent that the publication should not be sold or displayed as an unrestricted publication; or are unsuitable for a minor to see or read. I would argue that the drinking game Pass-out meets all three of these criteria and should be considered a submittable publication. As an absolute minimum, its advertising should be restricted. However, it appears that the Pass-out game has never been classified by the Classification Board as a submittable publication. There is no mention of any classification decision in relation to the product on the Classification Board’s website. This game may have eluded the Classification Board up to now, probably through its packaging and disclaimers such as, ‘The Pass-out adult drinking game is not intended for use with alcoholic beverages and is only recommended for adults over 18 years of age,’ which appears on their website. However, the intention of the game is clear and needs to be classified. I cannot think of any other legal fluids we can consume that would make a human being pass out. I repeat: the intention is clear. I have written today to Donald McDonald, the Director of the Classification Board, to bring this matter to his attention under section 23 of the Classification Act, which deals with the calling in of submittable publications. I ask the Minister for Health, the member for Gellibrand, to make a real contribution by also writing a letter to the Director of the Classification Board asking for these games to be urgently considered as a submittable publication. I am sure all members would agree that we need to tackle binge drinking in Australia. Stopping games like this from being advertised and sold in Australia is an important part of this. 2560 2560 16:50:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to acknowledge the passage of International Women’s Day, celebrated last Sunday. It is a day to celebrate and commemorate. International Women’s Day gives us an opportunity to celebrate women across Australia and the contributions they make—contributions which make a remarkable difference to those around them. I was very pleased that I was able, last week, to attend a number of functions that commemorated International Women’s Day. One of these, run by Southern Health, was in my electorate. They had a very interesting and informative function, focusing on how we can better improve women’s health. Although I was not able to attend the whole day, I was able to go and to enjoy that day with many people around my electorate. In addition to that, Senator Penny Wong also held a very big and very successful UNIFEM breakfast, and that was also a great opportunity to commemorate this day. I think we need to recognise that on International Women’s Day we have the opportunity to look at the unique contribution that women have made to our society. As part of that celebration, we also remember how hard many women do it. And we commemorate the struggle undertaken by our forbears in achieving the types of equality that women like me can enjoy today. International Women’s Day was established because women have suffered a great deal of discrimination over the years. The day grew out of the American women’s fight for the simple right to vote, and through the tremendous organisation of early women’s labour groups such as the International Conference of Working Women. The day also allows us to not only look at the past and the achievements that have been made but also focus on the work that still needs to be done. There are many women in boardrooms, there are female astronauts and there is even a female Deputy Prime Minister of Australia. Critically, more and more girls are welcomed into schools and universities and are obtaining an education here in Australia. But it is still disappointing that a full-time working woman will on average earn around 85 per cent of the male wage and it is devastating to know that one in three women experience physical violence in their lifetime. The Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, reported last week in New York to the United Nations International Women’s Day event, and was from one of the few countries which were asked to present. There she outlined three key priority areas that this government is tackling in advancing gender equality in Australia. The first is improving women’s economic outcomes and financial independence, the second is ensuring that women’s voices are heard at all levels of the decision making process, and the third is reducing violence against women. I will focus on the third theme. It was the same theme that UNIFEM Australia had for International Women’s Day—that is, to unite to end violence against women. This is a very important issue that faces many women in Australia today and it faces a whole range of women from different backgrounds and different classes. That includes our Indigenous women and children, who have often been subjected to violence against them. In response to this, in May last year this government appointed a national council to develop a national plan to reduce violence against women. This plan includes respectful relationship resources for high schools and $1 million for the white ribbon campaign—and I know that there are many white ribbon ambassadors from both sides of the House who really do great work in promoting this very important cause. The Rudd government is committed to building a modern workplace relations system that is also flexible and encourages family-friendly working conditions. It is also committed to better quality, more affordable and more accessible child care. I look forward to continuing to be part of this government that recognises women’s participation, celebrates it and also looks at how we can improve it. 2561 2561 16:54:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —Tonight I rise to reassure those people in fire affected communities in Victoria that our thoughts continue to be with them, and we note some announcements in recent hours about the extraordinary generosity of Australians and Australian companies to help with the rebuilding process for those who have lost their homes. The urgency of rebuilding these homes and re-establishing these fire affected areas does highlight an area of considerable interest but also of a considerable lack of clarity—that is, fire bunkers. We saw reports at the time of the fires and heard some quite remarkable stories about families who had endured that apocalyptic experience by retreating to fire bunkers, some of which seemed rather improvised and others which were built with the very clear purpose in mind of acting as a final retreat when the fight or flee options were not available and that bunkering down was all that was left for them. In that rebuilding process, with the vigour and urgency that we are faced with right now, there is a lack of clarity around fire bunker building regulations or, indeed, the lack of a national standard as to the performance of these structures. Premier Brumby in Victoria did note the interest in fire bunkers, and we have seen reports in the paper about Andrew and Nicole Berry and their baby, Rafael, who survived in a fire bunker in their home near Kinglake. We have learnt about the experience of Steven Van Roy, a Latrobe Valley resident who also survived by taking shelter in a concrete bunker on his property. This debate led Premier Brumby to say that fire bunkers need to be considered as part of the forward program but that there is considerable work to be done to establish what those bunkers should look like, how they should be constructed and what standards should be enforced to make sure they actually perform. Premier Brumby said: I’m sure people will look at things like bunkers as well. He was referring back to some of the lessons that came out of Cyclone Tracy and also drawing on insights from the United States, where twisters and the like are a part of everyday life and bunkers are part of their protection armoury. Premier Brumby went on, at the time of releasing the revised Australian building standards, which will be introduced earlier in Victoria with particular requirements for fire-risk areas, to say that the question of bunkers still needed to be answered. He said: … it would be appropriate for the Federal Government to look at a standard in relation to a bunker. He went on to say that he was writing to the Prime Minister to see that this received some attention. Tonight, though, I urge the government to make examination of fire bunkers a priority, to set in place a rapid task force to provide some early guidance to those families who are rebuilding their homes, rebuilding their lives. People in fire affected areas who have seen the media coverage about families who have survived because of fire bunkers are looking for some guidance about what bunkers actually need to do, how they need to be designed and constructed, and what standards they need to meet. In the absence of such clear building regulations and performance standards, I fear that there are some in the community who may invest several thousands of dollars on what they feel is the ultimate fire protection, only to be concerned that that structure has not been verified as fit for purpose and no-one can guarantee that it actually achieves the levels of performance that people feel they are buying. I refer to some of the published advertisements that you can find anywhere on the web and in fact in some newspapers in which local firms are offering fire bunkers. Some of the firms have experience in certain kinds of materials that have fire resistant properties and that know-how is being extrapolated into the construction of fire bunkers. But still a building standard does not exist and an Australian standard to ensure that those structures meet performance requirements is not in place. This is why we need some rapid, urgent action by the government to set in place a task force to examine this matter very quickly. Even in my own electorate a very reputable engineering firm are making these fire bunkers available, and they are putting their experience into that work. But unlike, say, a door between a garage and a home that needs a particular fire rating to make sure that if the fuel can for the lawn mower goes up then the house does not go up, there is no such clarity for fire bunkers. I urge the government to pick up this issue, to bring together the Australian Building Codes Board, the Archicentre, the Master Builders Association, the emergency service representative bodies, Standards Australia and the like to get some action happening to provide clarity for people contemplating spending thousands of dollars on what they feel is the ultimate fire protection measure but where there is no building standard; there is no regulation on their maintenance and their use; and there is no understanding about other things, such as access to oxygen, what may or may not be stored there and what is required to actually consider the use of a bunker when faced with the dangers of a fire. I think that is an area for urgent action and I look forward to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 5.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 2562 17:00:00 House adjourned at 5.00 pm 2009-03-12 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson) took the chair at 9.30 am. 2563 Statements by Members 2563 2563 09:30:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to acknowledge the new student leaders within the schools of Fadden. Australia’s young leaders play an important role in setting a good example by acting responsibly and making positive choices. What is encouraging is that these leaders have been selected by their schools and, in many instances, by their own peers for their potential to make a positive and lasting contribution to their school communities. We all know Australia needs great leaders, and much more will be demanded of these leaders in their schools today and in their communities tomorrow. Accordingly, I acknowledge from Ormeau State School the school captains, Braden Korhecz, Tegan Raines, Luke Moulston and Stephanie Loane. From Gaven State School, I acknowledge the school captains, Hannah Castelijn, Leah Dudley, Jackson Huang and Lucas Goldblatt; Amaroo house captains, Makylah Hardiman and Jackson Huang; Koorong house captains, Margaret Piakura and Tristan Flute; Wallaba house captains, Lena Hines and Jacob Smith; and music captains, Hannah Castelijn and Amber Rose. From Helensvale State High School, I acknowledge the school captains, Becky Able and Ben MacLeod; and vice captains, Christine Milo and Tim D’Arcy. The Student Executive Council comprises Talia Benatar, the president; Prudence Hatton, the secretary; Brittany Hull, the finance manager; and Jessica Cowie, student services. The house captains are Ashley Harding-Smith, Brett Parker, Jessica Duvall, Matthew Fraser-Dawson, Zara King, Laura Bryan, Tara Heaton and David O’Neil. The house leaders are Sean Finigan, Emily Knox, Lachlan Newberry, Tiffany Colombi, Josh Cowen, Wyatt Bacon, Sheridan Lewerissa, Cameron Schalch, Cassie Witten, Cassie Morris, Tessa Helman, Laura Bechaz, Nathan Bellin, Samara Camilleri, Lauren Shingles, Kate Schalch, Lauren King, Hayden Durrington, Emma-Jean Newton, Jessica Handsaker and Jared De Roos. The year 9 leaders are Cheyenne Donnelly, Amy Griffiths, Courtney Richardson, Claudia Stewart, Seline Taylor, Mikeala Tyrrell, Lachlan Versluis and Terri-Anne Whale. The year 10 leaders are Lauren Bolin, Luke Bourke, Sarah Crone, Kaitlyn McConnell, Amy Parry, Deon Savage, Andrew Schalch and Thomas Storey. The year 11 leaders are Christopher Bambury, Kaleisha Lee, Rohan Melloy, Christiana Moore, Nikki Russell, Dalton Tucker and Demi Winton. From Coombabah State School, I acknowledge the school captains, Sarah Grigg, Jesse Kay, Abby Crone and Thomas Spratt. The Student Council president is Patryk Wus. The Melaleuca house captains are Sarah Taylor and Jesse Kay; the vice captains are Abby Crone and Thomas Meighan. The Banksia house captains are Cassie Turner and Patryk Wus; the vice captains are Sarah Grigg and Blake Pearson. The Casuarina house captains are Ellen Palmer and Tom Spratt; the vice captains are Kiara Levingston and Dane Watmuff. The Acacia house captains are Amy Phillips and Matt Harris-Hughes; the vice captains are Holly Richmond and Jack Carrall. The music captains comprise, for the senior choir, Tiffany Peters and Kiara Levingston; string captains, Sarah Grigg and Ellie Pinnington; band captains, Abby Crone and Tia Windelburn; and recorder captains, Antony Kathage and Ashleigh Pullin. The student counsellors are, for 7S, Amy Phillips and Daniel Bell; 7R, Danhiene Currie and Joseph Sabin; 7CH, Taryn Coombes and Patryk Wus; 7V, Shashawana Albert and Kate Donaldson-Reid; 6A, Alicia Lybeck and Jack Micklesson; 6B, Bronte Price and Jerome West; 6W, Tyla Phillips and Dane Watmuff; 6D, Krystal Bell-Hannan and Ryan Palmer; 6V, Tharushi Mitiyamulle-Arachchi and Caitlin Dines; 5C, Grace Catterall-Higgins; 5F, Jye Peters and Tiana Raiwalui; 5L, Shelby Pinnington and Locky Baltins; 5S, Charlie Self and Katie Ramage; and 4/5A, Holly Jones and Emily Pointing. From AB Paterson College, I acknowledge the college leaders, Damon Barbaresco, Robyn Bett, Tori Eagles, Fiona Glenister, Luke Middleton, Lewis Neilsen, Leiston Pickett, Katie Porteous, Anastasia Stathis and Jye Thomas. (Time expired) 2564 2564 09:33:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —It is with great pleasure that I can report to the parliament that the Australian National Academy of Music has a new program for 2009. After the cathartic events of late last year, ANAM is going to greater heights than before. Last year the future of ANAM seemed clouded, but the academy’s expectations now look bright under artistic director Brett Dean. The Australian National Academy of Music, based in the old South Melbourne Town Hall, is the only national arts institution based in Melbourne. It trains and encourages graduates of conservatories around the country to make a transition to the standard of performance appropriate for orchestras. ANAM has a new board chaired by Mr Ian McRae, who is also Chairman of the Australian Ballet School and a Director of the Melbourne Recital Centre, the Malthouse Theatre and the Bangarra Dance Theatre. I certainly hope that Mr McRae will have sufficient time to devote to ANAM,  given recent events in the past. We really need to make sure the board is fully seized of ANAM’s potential opportunities. The new board also includes the Arts Victoria Director, Penny Hutchinson, the chair of the university’s steering group for its new music conservatorium, Professor Barry Sheehan, and the university’s Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Professor Warren Bebbington. ANAM is now a subsidiary of Melbourne University, and its funding of $2.5 million has been retained. It will remain in the wonderful old South Melbourne Town Hall building, which not only gives it a classical aura, but also means the great amount of money spent by the former Keating government on all of the musical equipment and sound rooms in the building continue to be used. This year’s program includes work from the Artistic Director of the Australian Chamber Orchestra, Richard Tognetti, who will be putting on a great performance on Friday week. The Chief Conductor of the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, Oleg Caetani, will direct the Australian premiere of the prize-winning violin concerto The Lost Art of Letter Writing, with Christian Winter as the soloist, in November. Brett Dean is also proud that ANAM will have one of the hottest properties in classical music in Europe and the United States, conductor Daniel Harding, making his only Australian appearance at ANAM this year. ANAM will perform three concerts during the Melbourne International Arts Festival in October at St Patrick’s Cathedral, programs inspired by Haydn’s The Seven Last Words of Christ on the Cross. It is the anniversary year of both Haydn and Mendelssohn and both will feature in ANAM’s year-long program, as well as contemporary composer Gyorgy Ligeti. More unusual components include a cabaret performance, Meow Meow, and jazz pianist Paul Grabowsky as well as the great Joe Chindamo. ANAM has been re-established for a successful program in 2009. My personal pleasure at this prospect pales by comparison to the great public good served by its resurrection. (Time expired) 2565 2565 09:36:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —In the Australian parliament today I want to speak about something that is very close to my heart, and that is job security and the promotion of jobs in the Ryan electorate. Associated with that, of course, is going in to bat for small- and medium-sized businesses. I want to raise two issues in the parliament today that I think can help job security and that can foster greater economic activity within the Ryan jobs market. The first is to fly very proudly and very strongly the opposition’s policy in relation to the superannuation guarantee levy, which would help small businesses. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics definition, a small business is one that has 20 or fewer employees. I should say at the outset that all of us in the coalition acknowledge very strongly and very proudly that small- and medium-sized businesses really are the heart and soul of our country’s economic activity. They are the backbone of our country. They provide jobs for millions of Australians and we must do all we can to assist them and to promote their success. The important policy announcement by the federal Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, about how governments can help small businesses in relation to the superannuation guarantee levy is that we can for the next two years assist small businesses by covering their superannuation guarantee commitments. I think that is very important because, firstly, it will help with cash flow and, secondly, it will reduce the cost of employment to small- and medium-sized businesses. What would the impact of that be? Clearly the impact would be to contribute to job security. I know the small businesses in the Ryan electorate, who employ many people, would be very confident in its success. The second thing I want to raise very strongly is my support for the position of the Queensland Leader of the Opposition on payroll tax. On Saturday, 21 March Queenslanders will go to the polls, and after nearly two decades of uninterrupted Labor rule at the state level I think it is time for Queenslanders to have a new, fresh and dynamic leadership in the form of Lawrence Springborg and his LNP team. One of the very strong policies that he has advocated to the business community is the cutting of payroll tax. I would like to quote what Mr Springborg said in a speech to the business community in Brisbane: If a business maintains its staff at current levels throughout the financial year, that business will receive a 10 per cent increase in its tax free threshold as a rebate at the end of the year. In addition … businesses with a payroll at the bottom end of the $1 million to $5 million range will be able to employ two extra people … That is a very important policy. (Time expired) 2565 2565 09:40:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 0 Ms CAMPBELL —This government has made no secret of the fact that we consider social inclusion to be part of the core business of this government. Social inclusion is a commitment we made and one which we are acting upon. Last week in my electorate of Bass I had the pleasure of hosting a social inclusion forum. It was attended by more than 50 service providers from across Tasmania, each of whom was keen to hear firsthand from a panel made up of Senator Ursula Stephens, Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion; Dr Ron Edwards, who is an esteemed member of the Australian Social Inclusion Board; and Professor David Adams, Tasmania’s Social Inclusion Commissioner. It was an interesting and at times lively discussion. One thing came through loud and clear from across a range of sectors—that is, there is much more that needs to be done. Those who gave up their valuable time to take part in the forum heard from Senator Stephens about the commitment which the Rudd government has made to social inclusion. It is a commitment backed up by funding: $200 million in the Get Communities Working fund, $300 million in the community fund and $50 million to boost emergency relief. As I said, there is much which remains to be done. I will go through just a few of the issues which were raised. The accessing of funds was a recurring theme. It is all well and good to make money available for the advancement of social inclusion and for the betterment of our communities; however, it does need to be accessible. I am pleased to report to the House that it is an issue of which Senator Stephens is acutely aware. I want to see created sustainable solutions which will build inclusive fair communities, and approaches developed which emphasise the importance of partnerships in the social inclusion approach to addressing deep disadvantage. Also raised during the forum was the significance of homelessness in Launceston; issues surrounding transport, particularly in rural and regional centres like those which go to make up the electorate of Bass; the importance of access to information for regional planning of services; the role which local government has to play in social inclusion; and the need for long-term policy. The last point is of particular significance. We are aiming to build socially inclusive communities, not just over the electoral cycle but well into the future. Forums like that which I held in Launceston go to inform the formation of long-term policy, which I hope will create better communities and a more sustainable and secure provision of services within those communities. I would like to thank Senator Stephens, Dr Edwards and Professor Adams for their time and expertise. It is only through dialogue such as this that we can engage with those on the coalface of service provision in our communities. I would encourage further forums such as this and I look forward to continuing to play my part in the development of a socially inclusive policy. 2566 2566 09:42:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise this morning to comment on a very important aspect of government failure and policy, particularly as it relates to rural and regional Australia. Some on the other side may laugh and mock at the lack of resources. The rhetoric is great: ad nauseam, they seem to get the lines and trot them out like wound-up robots. But people on the ground who live in real towns and cities, not in the make-believe pretend world of spin doctors but in the real world in rural and regional Australia, know some things for certain. One of those things is that this government’s approach to regional telecommunications is an absolute joke. Whether it is through sheer malice that they make the assumption there are swathes of rural and regional Australia who did not vote for them at the last election, therefore why bother, or whether it is through sheer incompetence, it is inexcusable, nonetheless. Labor’s cancellation of the Howard government’s OPEL contract was an absolute act of political opportunism. It was one of the worst decisions they could have made for people living in rural and regional Australia. And it is not just businesses that need access to the latest in telecommunications—it is schools; it is households; it is emerging online businesses as well, many of which have been successful and are developing in rural and regional parts of the country. But it is very interesting to note that very little has been promised and, in fact, even less can be delivered by this government when it comes to telecommunications in rural and regional Australia. I would like to read a paragraph from Optus’s submission to the Senate inquiry into the Labor government’s proposed National Broadband Network. They have quite correctly slammed the Rudd government. This is what they said: The cancellation of OPEL was a lost opportunity for Australian business and consumers, particularly in the bush. Almost 900,000 premises across rural and remote Australia were to have been delivered metro-equivalent services at metro-comparable prices. Many of those premises would have been receiving services now. Optus’s submission does expose the Labor government’s indifference and inability to actually deliver for country Australia. Kevin Rudd’s approach and that of his minister is shameful. (Time expired) 2567 2567 09:45:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —It is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak on the Rudd government’s Building the Education Revolution package. I have some of the most dedicated principals and teachers working in my electorate. The parents and students in the southern metropolitan area of Perth are indeed fortunate and blessed to have both a federal government prepared to stand behind education and to support and drive an education revolution, and a state government that is also standing behind the professional teachers and ensuring that their salaries and conditions are what they need to be to reward people for the extremely difficult work that they do in our schools. The commitment, passion and expertise of our teachers often go unrecognised. The government has announced a $14.7 billion school modernisation program that will go a long way to make the jobs of our teachers easier and give our children the facilities that they deserve. Each of the 65 schools in my electorate will be able to access up to $200,000 to fund small-scale infrastructure buildings and refurbishments. All primary schools in my electorate, and across the country, will be eligible for up to $3 million to construct or renew large-scale infrastructure, and the 20 secondary and K-to-12 schools in my electorate will be able to apply for a science laboratory or language learning centre. At Rockingham Beach Primary School, one of the older schools in my electorate, principal Gary Crocetta hopes to use the Building the Education Revolution funding to replace five demountable classrooms with permanent structures. He believes this is especially important for the two demountables which will be used for early childhood education classrooms. At Calista Primary School in Kwinana they hope to build a new multipurpose facility that amongst other things can be used for music and art and craft facilities. Principal Glenn Edwards and the Calista School community were meeting last night to discuss their proposals as well as the school’s plan to replace their cement walkways, which pose a trip hazard, with much safer and kid-friendly synthetic rubber surfaces. A 2008 report by the Australian Council for Educational Research highlighted that the number of high school students studying science has almost halved since the mid-1970s, and I was especially pleased to read a letter from Kolbe Catholic College’s Caroline Payne which outlined her plan to apply for specialist chemistry laboratories. The school already had this facility on their master plan for completion in 2015. That meant that even current year 7 students at Kolbe would never receive the benefits of the resource. It is now clear from the government’s announcements and response of Kolbe College that not only will students be able to benefit from this significant investment but also students who are currently entering the school will be able to complete their studies using absolutely outstanding state-of-the-art infrastructure supplied and supported by current government policy. (Time expired) 2568 2568 09:48:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Within the electorate of Cowan we are blessed with a number of seniors clubs that provide great recreation and support options for older Australians within the electorate. On 17 February I was fortunate enough to be able to attend, once again, the Girrawheen-Koondoola Senior Citizens Club located at Patrick Court in Girrawheen. I had on that occasion a chance to say thank you to the committee and the leadership of the club because they do an absolutely splendid job. There is, particularly in the lower socioeconomic suburbs, a sense of isolation. I see that the leadership and committee of the club are doing great work in encouraging more seniors to come out, interact with others their own age, work with some advocacy, get some computer training or get involved in arts, crafts, bowling, indoor carpet bowls or bingo—a lot of traditional type activities for seniors. As I said before, they add great value in the community. I really do not know what we would do without them It is important that I acknowledge the leadership of the club. Graham Furey JP has been a leading light at the club for a long time. He is a great bloke. He does excellent work and I appreciate the work that he has done for the locals. I would also like to thank: Bella Alphonso, Hilary Austin and Rose Barto, who are committee members; Joyce Bloomfield, who calls the bingo; Audrey Brown, who works in the kitchen; Coral Fotheringham, who is on the committee and is also the coordinator of the bus; and Deanne Hetherington, who is the Secretary-Treasurer. Les Hunter is on the committee, he is a general worker and he is also a leading light within the Girradoola Lions, so I thank Les for his work in the local community. Veronica Klaver, Irene Milton, Vera Lean, Joan Nash, Rita Shepherd, Pol Situe and Alf Smallacombe are also members of the committee and represent leadership in the Girraween-Koondoola Senior Citizens Club. As I said before, particularly in suburbs like Girrawheen and Koondoola, where there is a great deal of challenge due to the lower socioeconomic circumstances of the area, it is great to have the support of organisations such as seniors clubs, particularly the Girrawheen-Koondoola Senior Citizens Club. (Time expired) 2568 2568 09:52:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to share with the House today my great delight that the Parliamentary Secretary for Regional Development and Northern Australia, who was the previous speaker on this side of the parliament, approved $825,000 under the Better Regions program for the upgrade and extension to Fernleigh Track. This project has enormous support within the community. I went to the last election with a commitment that this would be built. I would have to say that I am absolutely delighted that this extension has been approved. It will provide a walkway-cycleway; it will extend the current Fernleigh Track to Redhead; it goes through beautiful bushland; it is a tourist attraction; and it creates a wonderful transport corridor. It shows that the Rudd government delivers on its election promises. The extension, as I mentioned earlier, has widespread support within the community. It is not only the electorate of Shortland that will benefit; it is of great advantage to the whole of the Hunter and the Central Coast. It really will be a unique and outstanding tourist attraction. The other thing that is so special about this project is that it is a partnership between Commonwealth, state and local government. It is something for which we have all been working very hard to see actually come to fruition. When I heard the news that the project had been approved, I rang the Mayor of Lake Macquarie. The Mayor of Lake Macquarie is an independent mayor; he is not in any way associated with my side of politics. His words were that he was ‘extremely delighted’ and that ‘this is something that will be welcomed by everyone in the community’. This project will be used for both commuting and casual use and it was funded, as I said, through the Rudd government’s Better Regions program. It has been a wonderful joint effort by all levels of government. I cannot help but make the contrast between our approach to these types of projects and the approach of the Howard government. Our approach is transparent, open and delivers to the community, whilst the Howard government’s was done behind closed doors and some very, very inappropriate projects were approved. (Time expired) 2569 2569 09:55:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to call on the government to increase the base rate of the age pension in the 2009 budget by responsibly managing our economy and without making others pay for their failure to manage the economy. Age pensioners—the more than 800,000 age pensioners who were ignored in the Rudd government’s first budget—need an increase in their pensions. Pensioners have very rightly been extremely angry ever since, something that I am constantly dealing with in my electorate. I have met very many of the 12,762 age pensioners in my electorate of Forrest. These people are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain a reasonable standard of living. Their pensions are simply not keeping pace with the increased costs of living. As I said, seniors must receive an increase to their pensions in the 2009 budget. However, I note that the Labor government is now planning to scrap the Medicare safety net, there may be increases in nursing home fees and we may see superannuation become more expensive. These are all obviously measures to fund the pension increases that may come in the budget—measures needed because of the government’s failure to manage the economy. In September 2008, the coalition introduced legislation to increase the single rate pension and the Senate voted in support of the increase to help pensioners manage constantly increasing costs of living. Pensioners have had to manage increases in rent, petrol, groceries, energy and, most importantly—for those who can just manage to afford it—the security of private health cover, something that is very important to seniors and age pensioners. Some of the pensioners who I have met go without other basic needs in their lives just so that they can afford to pay for the security of private health cover. Given the stage of their lives, private health cover is one of the most important issues for them. Many in their senior years are desperate to retain their private health cover and increased premium costs can mean that they have to go without other essential items in their lives. I met with Jeff Irwin and his group at Elouera nursing home, a group that asked me to come and talk to them about the many increases in costs that they were facing and why they were finding it increasingly difficult to afford the basics of life. They talked about not being able to go out because they could not afford petrol. They relied on others to come and pick them up. I therefore call on the government to increase the age pension in the 2009 budget through sound management of our economy, not by making others pay for the government’s mismanagement and the Rudd recession. 2570 2570 09:58:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP 1 0 Mr MARLES —I would like to inform the House today about a great news story from my electorate of Corio. It is a story of how old-fashioned ingenuity and know-how can take an innovative idea and turn it into export dollars and local jobs. It involves a business called Geelong Coachworks and it plans to manufacture a purpose-built hearse. This would be a first for Australia. Our funeral industry currently has no reliable supply of vehicles to carry coffins. Most operators simply use modified station wagons. It is a simple solution, but it has its drawbacks. There are issues of compliance and reliability. There are also problems with sizing. As Australia’s population gets heavier, hearses need to be bigger and stronger. In the past decade, the average weight of a dead body being carried in coffins has increased by 30 kilograms. Funeral directors are finding that they need wider doors and stronger suspension. What is needed is a heavier vehicle specially modified to perform what is certainly a most important role, one that needs to be carried out with great dignity. That brings me to the story in my electorate. Geelong Coachworks has built up its business during the past decade refurbishing everything from motorcoaches to school buses. Some time ago, Geelong Coachworks was approached by one of Australia’s largest family owned funeral companies, John Allison/Monkhouse, to develop a purpose-built hearse specially designed and standardised for mass production. This new improved vehicle is not made from a station wagon but a Ford one-tonne ute. The ute is modified, extended and fitted with a higher roof to carry larger coffins, side lift in windows. It has an overall look that is dignified and befitting of its purpose. The company has already produced a prototype and could start production immediately, mass-producing a standardised vehicle purpose-built for the funeral industry. There is clearly a need in the market. Although it is not yet in production, Geelong Coachworks already has a waiting list. It has definite orders for six vehicles, interest for another 11 and the potential to fit-out a whole fleet for a major Australian funeral company. There is also strong interest from overseas. The company has identified potential markets in New Zealand, South Africa and the United Kingdom. This is a fantastic story about how a local company has identified a need in the market and set to work to satisfy that need. Indeed, Geelong Coachworks says there is no more noble purpose for a car than being a hearse. This is an exciting local project. The company already employs 15 highly skilled staff. It predicts, once fully operational, it could build two to three hearses a week. Obviously, the international market would provide greater opportunities. It is significant revenue when you consider that hearses currently retail for between $100,000 and $200,000 a car. The company says its growing business could easily create jobs for another 10 or 15 people, which is so important in these times. They have spent close to $1 million getting to this point and will need to spend more in order to build a specialised production line. I have already met with them to discuss potential avenues for assistance that may exist for this project. This is a fantastic example of how enthusiasm and a genuine passion for an idea combined with a desire to grow a business can yield exciting results. (Time expired) 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 2571 Bills R4063 Cognate bill: 2571 Bills R4064 2571 Debate resumed from 11 March, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 2571 10:01:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —It gives me great pleasure to rise to speak on the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 that show just how well-prepared the government is for handling the global financial crisis. This legislation is preparing Australia to cope with the crisis and many of the issues that will become apparent over the next few months—and, probably, 18 months. The Rudd government, in contrast to the opposition, have shown that they are prepared to act now to put in place measures that will put Australia in a strong position in these very difficult and troubled times. This is opposed to the opposition’s approach of doing nothing, being obstructionist and being critical without offering any viable alternatives. It is a real contrast between taking action to prepare Australia for the difficult times ahead and sitting back, folding hands and indicating that you do not have to do anything—all you have to do is knock. If members of this House and the Australian public want to look in detail at what is happening, they will see an opposition more concerned about their own jobs and about fighting with each other than they are about preparing Australia for the future and protecting the jobs of all Australians. We listen in question time each day to the opposition rolling out examples of workers who lose their jobs. These are people who have families and financial commitments, and it seems the opposition are excited about the prospect of their fellow Australians experiencing such hardship, losing their jobs and being in dire straits over the next few months or longer. That is in stark contrast to what we have done on this side of the parliament. We recognise that it is going to be very difficult for Australia and for workers, and the Rudd government has decided to invest in Australia’s future, invest in infrastructure and put in place the right sort of protection for those workers who do lose their jobs. Under one of those schemes, newly redundant workers will become eligible immediately for intensive employment services and they will be able to access those services from 1 April this year. This is in stark contrast to the approach of those on the other side. Their approach has always been to make it difficult for people who are unemployed; there is an element of blaming the victims. So when people became unemployed, through no cause of their own, in the past those on the other side blamed—and I am sure if they were in power now they would continue to blame—those people. They are the slaves of Work Choices. They would still like to see Work Choices legislation in place. They care about only one side of the equation. They do not care about the other side of the equation—that is, the workers, the people who support the businesses. We care about businesses. We are very mindful of the fact that businesses are finding it hard at the moment and we know we have to support businesses, but those on the other side of this parliament, with their commitment to Work Choices, believe that it should be easier for employers to just sack workers and, when they are sacked, not have in place programs like those announced by the Minister for Employment Participation. This program will give workers access to job seeker accounts. They will also have an employment pathway plan with a $550 credit to pay for specific, personalised assistance. They are the kinds of things that workers who are made redundant need and the kinds of things that those on the other side of this parliament have continually ignored. Once again, I would like to refer to some of the measures in this legislation. Part of it refers to the infrastructure program. Under the previous government, there was a lack of investment in Australia’s future. We had a chronic skills shortage because the government of the day was not prepared to invest in training Australian workers. Under these appropriation bills a considerable amount of money has been put in place for doing just that. There is $43 million for apprenticeships and apprenticeship centres—$38.9 million to help trade apprentices find employers. In times such as these, that is a very important action. If an apprentice loses their job and remains unemployed and is unable to complete their apprenticeship, in the future Australia will lose the services of a tradesperson. The Rudd government has recognised the value of completing apprenticeships and is investing a significant amount of money to assist apprentices in finding new employers. As I have already mentioned, $36.8 million will be used by redundant workers to give them early access to programs. Those two particular elements focus on the needs of Australia into the future by providing skills training now and linking apprenticeships with employers now, and recognising that employment and skills are vital for Australia’s future. Given the current economic climate, I think it is also worth mentioning that the government is investing more money in GEERS—some $70 million to ensure that workers receive the protection that they need. Also, there is $68.7 million for the implementation of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan advertising campaign. It is all about jobs, all about training and all about the future, and all about providing support and protection for workers now. I cannot help but make the contrast between what the Rudd government is offering workers and what the previous government offered workers. That is evident in the legislation before the parliament, in the policies and the programs that have been released, and it is acknowledged by the people within my electorate—you can see it on a daily basis. My area has a higher level of unemployment than the national average. People are embracing these programs and they really appreciate the fact that the government recognises their needs. There is another aspect of this legislation that I want to refer to—that is, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s equity injection of $580 million will lead to a program of upgrades valued at over $1 billion by the Australian Rail Track Corporation in the Hunter Valley. This injection of funds to the ARTC for 17 projects is really appreciated. I want to refer to a July 2007 report of the House Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services. I was a member of that committee, and at that time we were looking at the blockages between ports and the fact that to maximise the potential of ports we needed to ensure that the rail connections to those ports were at the standard that they needed to be. The committee recommended that urgent consideration by the minister of that time be given to an upgrade of those facilities. I have to say that we would still be waiting for that if it had been left to the previous government. Some of the issues raised in that inquiry included the rapid increase in demand for coal exports and how the capacity of ports was being impeded by poor linkages. In the current legislation before the House, one project that will be funded is the upgrading of the track in that area. The current minister recognises just how important and vital the port of Newcastle is to the economic future of Australia. Because he recognises that fact, a large proportion of that money for ARTC is being delivered to the Hunter. I must say, it is welcomed by all in the Hunter. Another aspect of investment in infrastructure has been the investment at the local government level. In my area, we are very fortunate that the two local government areas received a considerable amount of money. Lake Macquarie City Council received $2,117,000, and Wyong Shire Council received $1,529,000. Lake Macquarie council chose two projects—and they are excellent projects: the upgrading of the Regatta Walk Foreshore Reserve at Toronto, which is in the electorate of Charlton, and a $1.167 million extension of the Red Bluff shared pathway at Eleebana. This is an outstanding walkway on the foreshore of Lake Macquarie. If you are in that area on any day of the week, you will find people walking around the foreshore. This will be a state-of-the-art walkway. It is something that, like the Fernleigh Track that I spoke about in my three-minute statement, will benefit not only the Shortland electorate and the Hunter area but also anyone who visits the area. There is nothing more beautiful than walking around the foreshore of Lake Macquarie, which is the largest saltwater lake in the Southern Hemisphere. You can see how beneficial the investment of funds in infrastructure in Lake Macquarie has been. There is also an extension to the cycleway at Buff Point on the Central Coast and to the Mannering Park pathway, which are also in the electorate of Shortland. Both councils are investing in infrastructure that will be used by the people in the area. There is also additional funding for special projects. Lake Macquarie has, in particular, a state-of-the-art children’s play area. It is designed for children both with and without disabilities. This park is very special; it has been replicated in other areas. The proposal that Lake Macquarie has put in is an extension of that project, and I wholeheartedly support it. I think it will benefit not only the people of Lake Macquarie but also, because of its innovation, other Australians as it is replicated throughout the country. I cannot finish my contribution to this debate without referring to Building the Education Revolution. I must say that, over the last few weeks, I have been contacting all of the schools in my electorate. I can tell members on the other side of parliament that those schools are ecstatic. They have never had such an investment in education and they are embracing it. Every school will become a mini construction site; every school will have the ability to have capital works programs that have been needed for a very long period of time carried out. I will just share with the House some of the programs that will be put in place. Some of the projects that the schools in Shortland are looking at are: halls—I think numerous schools have identified halls—admin blocks, as I believe currently some staff are working out of demountables and temporary buildings; libraries; COLAs; and the upgrading of classrooms, walkways and toilet blocks. The one thing that the schools were saying to me time and time again was that they were ready to go, that they could not wait until their projects were approved. They are all putting in their wish lists at the moment and they are all very mindful of fitting within the indicative cap that is being placed on them. Some schools are looking at a combined projects, which I think is very special. One school is even looking at providing a building that will be utilised by a number of organisations in the community as well as by the school itself. The schools are mindful of the fact that their projects will be used from both a school perspective and a community perspective as well. The Rudd government recognises that we are in hard times. The Rudd government knows that we have to invest in training and infrastructure for the future. By doing that, we are protecting Australia, unlike the opposition that believes that the best approach to handling the global financial crisis is to sit on their hands and do nothing. (Time expired) 2574 10:22:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 0 Mr BEVIS —I am very pleased to be able to support these two bills, Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009, which add to an impressive list of measures by the Rudd Labor government to provide economic stimulus at a time of global economic woes. These two bills are part of a broad package that has already seen substantial amounts of funds flow to Australians and that has provided much-needed support across the various parts of the country geographically and the different industry sectors. I am reflecting on the comments that I know some members opposite have made in attacking and criticising the previous payments and, indeed, even the core payments like Building the Education Revolution, to which the member for Shortland just referred. I want to first make comment about the payments that the Commonwealth made prior to Christmas last year, the $10 billion or so that was provided to Australians in the lead-up to Christmas. At the time we announced it, the Leader of the Opposition said he supported it, but since then he has gone around criticising it. That seems to be the standard operating procedure of those opposite when it comes to these matters. They criticise the measures and support them, depending on who their audience is. The people of Australia are actually smarter than that, and I think one of the reasons those opposite have had a poor showing in the polls is because those antics do not cut it with the Australian population. The Australian Bureau of Statistics has now published the figures for the retail sector over the Christmas period. The most recent figures showed that in January of this year the seasonally adjusted estimate increased by 0.2 per cent. That is an increase in retail activity at a time when the global economic crisis was sending virtually every modern economy into recession, or at least into a period of decline if not formal technical recession. In Australia, principally because of the stimulus package the government put in place before the end of last year, the retail sector saw a very buoyant December-January period. Not only were January’s figures up but December last year saw a very substantial increase of 3.8 per cent. That 3.8 per cent is the largest monthly seasonally adjusted percentage increase since August 2000. Against the trend, we have seen a very substantial increase in consumer confidence, in consumer spending and in the purchases that Australians made over that Christmas period. We all know that many people in the retail sector rely on that Christmas period for their annual cash flow. Many organisations in those two or three months survive through the year on that turnover during the holiday period. Had the government not taken the action it did last year with that stimulus package, there is absolutely no doubt that we would have recorded similar outcomes to those of other nations with whom we compare ourselves. That we did not record those bad figures, but rather recorded the best December since 2000, is an indication of just how timely the government’s initiative was and how effective it has been. I am amazed to hear Liberal and National Party members of the parliament even now arguing that that was somehow a mistake. The Liberal and National Party approach would have condemned thousands of workers in the retail sector to unemployment queues. That is what it would have done, and it would have ensured that many small and medium-sized enterprises would have shut their doors over Christmas rather than benefit from one of the most substantial monthly increases in the last decade. The general community and the various industry groups understand the importance of the government acting quickly and in a very decisive manner. The government’s nation building plan has been warmly welcomed by virtually every industry group across the country. I want to refer quickly to some of the comments that leaders in our community have made. The Australian Industry Group said this on 3 February: The nation building and jobs plan announced by the Federal Government today is simple and substantial, and will provide a big stimulus to help keep the economy moving. Wal King, a well-known Australian businessman, on behalf of the Australian Constructors Association said: The Rudd government’s $42 billion nation building and jobs plan announced today will play an important role in stimulating the Australian economy. Of course these people, whose daily jobs involve them keeping their finger on the pulse of economic activity, understand that, and those opposite would have been given the same advice and would have been subjected to the same lobbying from these organisations that we all are. Yet, in spite of that, they choose to adopt a purely negative approach to these issues. It is not just the business community who comprehend how important these measures are that the government has taken to support our economy. Importantly, the Labor government has not forgotten those who are hardest hit by the economic downturn. We have put measures in place to provide the biggest boost in public housing in well over a decade. It is a matter of criminal neglect that the former Howard government virtually stripped funds from the Commonwealth-state agreements for public housing, resulting in the stock of housing for low-income and homeless people being at desperately low levels. In a joint press release, Anglicare, UnitingCare, the Salvation Army and Catholic Social Services said: We welcome the stimulus to jobs across Australia and the targeting of infrastructure dollars to homes and local community facilities through improving the energy efficiency of Australia’s houses. We also welcome the targeting of community resources to schools, which will create jobs and supply facilities that can be used by the whole community. The payments package is well targeted and will help Australians already struggling to make ends meet. So said the combined voices of Anglicare, UnitingCare, the Salvation Army and Catholic Social Services. That is a very genuine endorsement by a broad cross-section of organisations who know what it is like for people most severely affected by an economic downturn. I think that their endorsement fails to be recognised by those opposite, but it is important in these times that we not only provide support to those in work to try to keep them in jobs, and to businesses to try to enable them to keep their doors open; we need to understand that many people are on hard times and they require particular assistance. The Property Council of Australia joined the chorus of community groups supporting the federal government’s initiatives when they said: Every dollar that goes into the construction sector has a multiplier effect—it is spent three times over in the economy. This makes for an ideal measure of a well-thought-out stimulus package. So the Property Council referred to it as a well-thought-out stimulus package. Ron Silberberg—not usually known for his endorsement of Labor politics, I have to say, over the years—had this to say: The Government’s recovery plan appropriately spends for jobs in the short term and invests for future prosperity. And it does those two things very well indeed. I will give just two more quotes, Mr Deputy Speaker. The Clean Energy Council noted: The government is to be congratulated for taking a big …step towards delivering energy saving across Australian households. Insulation saves energy, money, jobs and the environment—so it’s a win-win-win-win. That last comment refers to the initiatives for insulation and other energy-saving measures, something that those opposite have ridiculed. It is one of the areas that has been mentioned in speeches in this debate and in others by those opposite who find it somehow misplaced or amusing that the government should invest in energy-saving measures such as insulation of houses and the like. I can tell you from the reaction in my electorate that the people of Brisbane welcome it and are looking forward to the opportunity to access the support to enable them to make their homes more energy efficient. People want their homes to be energy efficient, but not everybody can afford to do it. I think the commitment of this government to those measures is very well received. The final quote I want to give, and there are many more that I could include but time will not allow it today, is from the National Farmers Federation. It said: The Government’s $950 tax-free bonus for all drought-affected farmers—reaching some 21,500 farmers in need—will be a much-needed fillip to families and regional economies. It went on to say: Likewise, the regional infrastructure package … will see a major revamp of country services and shore-up jobs in local communities. Against that background of universal endorsement and support from community groups, business groups and social welfare providers, how is it that the Liberal and National parties can stand in this place and, on bills like this, say they will vote for it but actually oppose parts of it, and on the major parts of the economic package actually vote against it? And they voted against it not once but twice in each chamber. It is a matter of fact that the Liberal and National parties voted four times in this parliament against those major initiatives, one of which was the Building the Education Revolution initiative. I want to turn for a moment to Building the Education Revolution because as a former teacher, as a parent and now as a member of parliament I am a very firm supporter of increased resourcing of our schools. This is the greatest commitment of any government to primary education in our country in living memory. You have to go back to the early days of universal education to find a commitment of this magnitude to primary school education that would compare with what the current government is doing as part of this economic stimulus package. Like a number of members on the government side, I spent last week visiting many schools in my electorate. Like members on the government side, I have written to all the schools in my electorate. Last week I visited schools at Ferny Grove, Grovely, Mitchelton, Ashgrove, New Farm, Kelvin Grove, Ithaca Creek, Bardon, Red Hill and Newmarket, and let me tell you that they are absolutely excited about the opportunities this presents. They have never seen a government take their needs as seriously as this government has. This package provides a wonderful opportunity for students in all schools—big and small, rural, regional and metropolitan—to gain access to quality facilities. There are schools like Newmarket State School in my electorate, which has a P&C that has been working hard with the school community to raise money for a community hall that they have wanted to build for some years now. They have the plans and are nearly ready to go. They now see the light at the end of the tunnel. Because of this initiative, the government is going to provide them the funds to enable that to go forward. That is the story at other places. When I visited Mitchelton State School, they had just built the bare bones of an indoor assembly hall. It is the bare bones because that is all the school community could afford to put up. They thought they would get that constructed and, over time, try to put some walls on, put some amenities in, put a canteen in—put in all the other things that would go in a properly resourced hall. Having just completed that recently, they now know that the funds that are there from this government do not just enable them to finalise that project and bring forward activity that would have been years in the making had this government not taken the initiative that it has in this stimulus package; they will have sufficient funds left over to upgrade their resource centre and establish a first-class library resource centre for the pupils in that school. That is one of the most enduring things we can do. Investing in schools is an investment in our nation’s greatest resource. Our greatest resource is our people; our greatest future resource is our children. Money invested in those people can never be wasted. It is not possible to have a population that is too well educated or too well trained. This money goes to schools across the country and guarantees that investment will bring returns in the school base of our nation for decades to come. Importantly, it will create jobs. It will provide work for people in every suburb and community of our nation as those building programs roll out. I think of the small schools in regional and rural Queensland that I used to visit as an official in the Queensland Teachers Union. They were one- and two-teacher schools that under this program are going to get between a quarter of a million and half a million dollars. In those small communities, having the workers doing the work in their town, whether they are doing maintenance or repair or constructing a multipurpose hall that the school and the community will have access to, will pour money into every shop and every store in that location, providing support for the jobs in the small towns I used to visit in regional and rural Queensland around the Burnett region and up the Queensland coast just north of Bundaberg. This is a great nation-building program. It is a great jobs-generation program. Why is it that every member of the Liberal and National parties voted against it? Why is it that when they were given a second opportunity when it was returned to the House of Representatives they voted against it a second time? I do not intend to have the people of Brisbane miss out on that knowledge. Next week I will be sending a letter to every constituent in my electorate, telling them about the funds that are going to the schools in our electorate, telling them about the commitment of this government and pointing out to them that every member of the Liberal and National parties voted against this program on no fewer than four occasions in this parliament. Members opposite can say, ‘We supported the schools funding; we just didn’t like the rest of the package.’ The trouble is that when you go through the package they turn around and say, ‘We support tax cuts,’ but they voted against the package that had the tax cuts in it. They say they support increased funding for public housing and helping people who do not have a roof over their heads, but they voted against the legislation for that, as well. They tell us that they supported the money for primary schools, but they voted against that piece of legislation. They tell us they supported the money going to the rural sector, the money for low-income farmers, but they voted against that, as well. I am left wondering about this legislation that they all voted against; which part of it was it that they supported? Individually, when they are confronted out there by people in the electorate, they say, ‘Of course we supported that bit; it was just the tricky government that made us vote against the whole package.’ When you take it piece by piece, depending on who you talk to, they supported every little bit of it; they just happened to vote against the whole lot of it. No-one in Australia is going to fall for that. If the people on the other side of the House, in opposition, think that they can get away with that pea and thimble trick then they underrate the intelligence of the Australian public and they certainly underrate the determination of members on the government side to make sure that the people of Australia know about their deception and know about what they actually did. Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 also include some important measures that go to support for trades training, and that is vitally important not only to provide the opportunity for people now seeking jobs but also, most importantly, for the future. As inevitably recessions come and go and we get back into a recovery phase, the worst thing we can confront in that recovery phase is a shortage of materials and a shortage of skilled workers. So we are investing now to provide those skills to those workers so that when economic activity does pick up—and hopefully it is sooner rather than later, but none of us anywhere in the world have the perfect crystal ball for that—we will have invested in the training of those people whose services will be so keenly sought after at that time. We are also providing in these bills $38 million to help out trade apprentices with new employers. Recognising that in spite of our best efforts there will be some additional people unemployed, there is $36 million in these bills to assist redundant workers to gain early access to employment programs. This is, as a whole, a package of materials designed to minimise the impact of the global economic downturn on Australians, to invest in key economic infrastructure in our nation for the long term and to put money into the hands of people today so that we can stimulate economic activity before the long-term projects come on line. I am very happy to be part of a Labor government doing these things and I am very happy to support the bills before the House today. 2578 10:42:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009. I endorse entirely the comments of the member for Brisbane, Arch Bevis. I think they were very well put indeed. I would like to point out that in yesterday’s Daily Mercury from the seat of Dawson it said on the front page ‘Six million boost for kids’ jobs hopes’. This is good news for the people of Dawson. This good news is only made possible by the decisions of the Rudd Labor government on trade training centres. Each secondary school had the opportunity to get up to $1.5 million. What happened in our region? Five schools got together and pooled their resources and now that centre is going to work with the Central Queensland University Mackay campus. We are going to have a $6 million trade training centre working in conjunction with the university and enabling our kids in our region. Mackay is a major service city to the Bowen Basin mines. Some of the things that were said yesterday about this complex indicated the widespread support at all levels. The principal, the head of campus, Trevor Davison, said, ‘The new Mackay trade centre will allow university students to do their full four-year engineering degree without leaving Mackay.’ That is looking after students in regional and rural communities. That is what this government is about: empowering kids through education all across Australia regardless of political representation. Every single school across the nation is going to benefit from these packages. Trevor Davison went on to say: ‘We could offer third- and fourth-year engineering in Mackay. That is what I am aiming for.’ He said it would also offer opportunities for students to attend the centre through years 11 and 12 and then complete their apprenticeships or go on to degrees and be picked up by employers without needing to study elsewhere. This is keeping local kids in local regions and skilling them up to grow the economy not only locally but also nationally—and adding to the bottom line for this nation when those kids then take on full-time work within the mining service sector and the greater region of the seat of Dawson, which stretches from Mackay up into Proserpine, the Whitsundays, Bowen and Townsville. This is indeed very good news. How could anybody vote against training up the kids in rural and regional Australia? But the other side of politics did and that is shameful. This government is determined to equip our kids with the skills they need for their futures and for the future of this nation. It will add to the bottom line of this nation and the future prosperity of this nation. I would also like to pass on some comments from the schools that have pooled their funding together, as part of the Kevin Rudd education revolution, to build a multimillion dollar complex. Some of the comments are from Matt O’Hanlon of Mackay State High School. The principal there said that the centre would improve the level of skills being delivered in our region and kids would get a greater opportunity to take away higher skills— 8H4 Hawker, David, MP Mr Hawker —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 1000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—Is the member for Dawson willing to give way? HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —No, Mr Deputy Speaker. I am talking about the benefits of packages like this. These bills enable these things to happen. We have a political determination to improve the skills base of every student across this nation because the investment we make now is like planting a seed which, in 10, 15, 20 or 25 years time, will build the foundations of this nation. It will make us a great, prosperous nation exporting skills and products across the world and engaging competitively on the global stage. The global economy is going through the most difficult period in living memory, and this requires extraordinary actions for extraordinary times. When governments fail to take early action confidence falls. That is why this is indeed so important. Not only would failure to act early and decisively be an economic failure; it would be a failure of leadership and a failure to learn the lessons of the past. The Rudd government will continue to do whatever is necessary to help protect Australian households and businesses from the worst effects of the global crisis. The nation-building package complements measures taken by the government over the past several months to help support growth and protect Australian jobs. The total appropriation being sought this year through Appropriation Bill (No. 5) is $384 million. This proposed appropriation will meet the funding requirements of a number of measures announced in the December 2008 nation-building package, including implementation costs; recently announced changes to employment and apprenticeship programs; and changes in the estimated program expenditures due to variations in the timing of payments, forecast increases in program take-up and other policy decisions taken by the government since additional estimates. It also includes funding for initiatives agreed with the minor parties during the debate on the National Building and Jobs Plan. There will be $34 million of additional funding for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations to support 241 childcare centres until 31 March 2009. That will once again look after the kids of our nation, who are our future. We are investing in our people. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations will receive $70 million for the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, which covers capped unpaid wages, annual and long service leave, capped payments in lieu of notice and capped redundancy pay. This is an estimates variation, as GEERS is a demand-driven program and the current economic climate has seen an increase in demand for this program. The department will also receive $46.5 million for infrastructure and training places. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has $43 million for new apprenticeships and apprenticeship centres. This is a parameter update, as the program is demand driven and funds allocated for this program are expected to be exhausted prior to the end of the year. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations also needs $38.9 million to help trade apprentices find new employers. The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations has $36.8 million to provide redundant workers with earlier access to employment programs. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs has $11.1 million to expand emergency relief, and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 provides additional funding to agencies for expenses in relation to grants to the states under section 96 of the Constitution, for payments to the territories and local government authorities and for non-operating purposes such as equity injections and loans. The total additional appropriation being sought in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 is $1.83 billion. The amounts proposed are required to implement elements of the December nation-building package and the nation-building and jobs agreements with minor parties. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has, for an equity injection to the Australian Rail Track Corporation, $1,189 million. This injection will fund 17 projects to improve the reliability and competitiveness of the nation’s rail freight network. This was announced on 12 December 2008 as part of the $4.7 billion nation-building package. Although the full amount of appropriation required is in 2008-09, amounts will be paid to the ARTC on an agreed schedule and over 2008-09 through to 2010-11. The Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government has $392 million for AusLink. This is part of the 12 December announcement to bring forward $711 million in spending to build better roads and to increase investment in the highly successful Black Spot Program. I recently had the honour of having the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government in Mackay. Along with the minister, the Mayor of the Mackay Regional Council, Col Meng, and the state minister Warren Pitt, I was able to turn the first sod on stage 1 of the $50 million project for the duplication of the Bruce Highway south of Mackay from a two-lane to a four-lane highway, which is a crucial junction of four kilometres which links with the major mining industrial complex that services the Bowen Basin. This investment is critical to the supply of goods, services and facilities from the area known as Paget in South Mackay out to the Bowen Basin mines—a major service route. And this money will deliver for the industries and the people in Dawson. This is a crucial investment which is going to add once again to the bottom line of this nation in efficiency and transport infrastructure. I am pleased to report that this project will create 96 jobs locally, invest in key infrastructure, which will last for decades, and boost the local economy for the common good of the nation’s productivity. The Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts, through nation-building and jobs agreements with minor parties, will receive $250 million to accelerate additional water purchases and associated structural adjustment. The stimulus packages that we are bringing through in the Rudd Labor government are historic, truly nation building and truly employ the people and the human resources in our nation. It is good and pleasing to know that we are going to provide 21st century libraries in our schools to give students the best education in the world. We will be able to compete on a level playing field with Europe, the United States of America and Asia. There will be multipurpose halls, which can be opened to the community, adding value to every community across this nation and employing local tradespeople to build those facilities. There will be classroom upgrades for primary schools. We are looking at 500 new science labs or language centres for secondary schools. Principals cannot believe that this government has finally said ‘yes’ to education, where previous governments have only given it lip-service and not delivered. We are the party who are delivering on our promises. We are making real investments in our children and in our future, not for short-term political gain but for long-term investment in our human capital and human resource. There will be funding of between $50,000 and $200,000 for every school for minor maintenance and school building upgrades—for things like painting, plumbing, electrics, pathways, shadecloth and basic seating in playgrounds. These are the sorts of things P&Fs would have held many barbeques and many raffles for to raise money. This government has said there is value in this. We have stepped up to the mark and we have made an investment and given these schools a hand up, not a handout. We are investing for the long term not the short term. It will last for decades. This is good news for our people and good news for the future of our students. We are bringing forward up to $110 million to fund the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. I showed the Committee yesterday’s Daily Mercury earlier—this paper loves good news stories. The editor said: ‘This is great. This is fantastic. What good news it is for our people.’ The heading is ‘$6 million for kids’ jobs hopes’. Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, I seek leave to table this newspaper article. Leave granted. HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr BIDGOOD —This is evidence of positive stimulus not only in financial terms and in infrastructure terms but also in the psychology of people—of lifting people up in hard times. We do not want to see unemployment. We are the Labor Party. We believe in helping the labourers. We believe in helping the workers because workers have families, workers have homes, workers have communities. We are here for those people who are doing it tough at the bottom end of society, those who need a hand up. And that is what we are doing with these packages. We are stimulating every local community through the Investing in Our Schools Program and through Building the Education Revolution. I am so pleased that 2.2 million homes across this nation will receive insulation. We are going to reduce the amount of carbon between now and 2020—49 million tonnes of carbon will not go into the atmosphere once this program is implemented. That is the equivalent of one million cars being taken off the road. This fulfils our Kyoto agreement obligations. This is good news for the environment and good news for every home across the nation, and it helps working families reduce their energy bills. That is good news! Everyday working people like these policies because they directly touch every home across the nation. This initiative will not only insulate homes but also protect the environment and save families money in energy bills. These are good investments that provide good stimulation. I think it is incredible that the other side of politics cannot see the benefits. All we hear from them is criticism and carping—so sad when there are so many benefits in these measures. It truly is a nation-building program and a jobs building program. There is business. The Labor Party believes in supporting small business. I myself spent something like 14 years in small business, so I understand how hard it can be to run a small business. My accountant, Wayne James, said to me: ‘James, when you get down to Canberra, you tell Kevin from me that that incentive’—the 30 per cent tax deduction for eligible assets costing $1,000 or more and acquired between 13 December 2008 and 30 June 2009—‘is one of the best initiatives ever implemented by a government to help small business.’ He said, ‘I have only one request of the Prime Minister: can he extend it beyond 30 June?’ I said, ‘I’ll let him know.’ So there you are, Mr Prime Minister, I am sure you will hear this or someone will report it to you; that is what my accountant in Mackay is saying. This is fantastic for small business, and people are picking it up and using it. It really is good news for small business, not just for big business. Having worked in small business myself and having grown a couple of businesses I can say that we need government to give a helping hand, because it truly is dynamic economy at the grassroots level. There is the 20 per cent discount on pay-as-you-go tax investment, payable by 2 March 2009. There is also the $4 billion Australian Business Investment Partnership to support the commercial property sector, and thousands of small businesses, independent contractors and tradespeople will be looked after by this bill. This bill is fantastic. How could anybody vote against it? Look at the benefits. I commend this bill to the House. 2582 11:01:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —It is a pleasure to follow the member for Dawson in speaking to the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and related bill. He is quite right to point out the stark contrast between the approach of the government benches to the global economic crisis and the approach of the opposition. The opposition’s approach is: ‘Let’s sit and wait. Let’s wait until the situation gets worse and then we’ll think about whether we act or not.’ Whereas the government’s position on the global economic crisis is to act swiftly and decisively to make sure that jobs are front and centre in our response to this crisis. I suppose the opposition can be excused to some extent, because I think on the opposition benches more time and energy is being spent arguing about whose turn it is to be leader next rather than looking at what is good for the community and what is good for Australia. I can assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker, on this side of the House we are firmly in the camp of every Australian, making sure that we cushion our communities from the global economic crisis as best we possibly can, whether that is looking after pensioners, building infrastructure that is needed, making sure that local government is supported or working through COAG to make sure that we cooperate with the states. That is in stark contrast to what we see from the opposition. What a fundamental shift in philosophy we have seen from the Rudd government, when compared with the previous Howard government, in the way in which we approach the states and territories. The government approach to the issues that confront our communities is to sit down with the state and territory governments and cooperate so that we are working together to try to come up with collective solutions and are not working against each other. Compare that approach and the outcomes that will be delivered from it with the approach of the previous government. The previous government’s position was, firstly, not to talk to the states at all, let alone to seek to reach an agreement. It was take it or leave it; you do it our way or you do not do it at all. Clearly that cannot be in the national interest, and in such difficult economic times and in a time of global financial crisis it is absolutely essential that we have all levels of governments working together. This government has been able to achieve not only reaching agreements with state governments through COAG but also working with local councils and local governments. I am reminded of my local mayor, the Mayor of the Wyong Shire, who was quoted as being ‘absolutely ecstatic with the federal government’s approach to local councils’ and the money that we have released to stimulate local jobs. He said that this is something that is long overdue and most welcome in the Wyong Shire and that he looked forward to working with me as the federal member and with the Rudd government to deliver these projects to local governments so that local jobs can be retained. You may think the Mayor of the Wyong Shire is a Labor hack, someone who has been put there by the party. In fact he is not. This mayor actually stood for the Liberal Party. He was a Liberal Party candidate; he was, in fact, a Liberal Party member in the seat of The Entrance in the New South Wales parliament for some period of time. People of goodwill, people who are concerned about our communities, are not playing politics in this global financial crisis. It does not matter what their background is; if they see a positive contribution being made, if they see that there are projects that are going to help local communities, then they will support them. That is what this man, Mr Bob Graham, has done, and he should be congratulated for embracing the Rudd government’s approach to this particular issue. Only last week I had the pleasure of being with Mr Graham as we inspected the netball courts at Wyong, where some $400,000 of federal money is going to expand those netball courts so that they are up to state level and Wyong will be able to bid for the state championships. This was one of five local projects that the Wyong Council was able to do directly because it took a positive approach to cooperating and working with the Rudd government to create jobs locally. The Wyong Shire Council got over $1½ million in the local council stimulus, and that is something that I know all residents in the Wyong Shire are very happy about. Some of these projects, like the netball project, have been spoken about for over 10 years and have not been able to be done, but this is a project that is ready to go. While we were there announcing that the money for this project had been agreed to, a truck rolled up and the surveyors were already starting to look at doing the work—local people, local businesses, local jobs. These appropriation bills go to important infrastructure areas such as rail, vital programs for helping people keep their jobs and retrain for new jobs, and water. I have said in this place before that, if you look at the government’s approach to the global financial crisis and the stimulus packages that have been introduced, if you were to design stimulus packages to assist the Central Coast then you would do exactly what the Rudd government has done—they fit perfectly with the issues that we need to address in Dobell and on the Central Coast. We have problems with rail; we have problems with unemployment—we have higher unemployment than the national average—and we have also had some very serious problems with water. We are very familiar on the Central Coast with the consequences of a lack of water. It was only a year or so ago that our water supply was close to only 10 per cent and we were piping in water from the Hunter to make sure that the Central Coast, with over 300,000 people living there, did not go dry. But the Rudd government and a campaign that was run by me, the member for Shortland and the member for Robertson ensured that at the last election the Rudd government made a commitment of $80 million to build a pipeline that had been on the drawing board but not acted on for the last 10 years, which will drought-proof the Central Coast. We now have up to 30 per cent of our water capacity because of the recent rain that has fallen, but we cannot be complacent. Until this vital piece of infrastructure is built, we will always be in some danger of drought. These appropriation bills, which go to rail, to helping people keep their jobs and retrain for new jobs, and to water are very much at the forefront of issues that affect the seat of Dobell and the Central Coast. The total appropriation being sought this year through Appropriation Bill (No. 5) is $384 million. The proposed appropriation will meet funding requirements for a number of measures announced in December 2008 for the national building project and is one that we need to support. It also covers recently announced changes to employment and apprenticeship programs and changes to the estimates of program expenditure due to variations in the timing of payments, forecast increases in the program take-up and other policy decisions taken by the government since additional estimates. Employment in apprenticeship programs is an absolutely vital part of making sure that we continue to have the right skills for the right jobs as the economy turns around in the future. In my electorate we have a high proportion of tradespeople, and these people employ the majority of the apprentices. It is vital that we have programs that encourage that to continue. As I have already mentioned, Dobell has almost twice the national average of unemployment. We have close to eight per cent unemployment at the moment, and youth unemployment on the Central Coast is close to 20 per cent. These are issues that particularly affect my electorate and it is very important that they are addressed. Looking at the main items included under Appropriation Bill (No. 5) for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, there is $70 million for the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, GEERS, which covers capped unpaid wages, annual leave and long-service leave, capped payment in lieu of notice and capped redundancy pay. This is an estimates variation as GEERS is a demand-driven program, and the current economic climate will obviously see an increase in the demand for this particular program. It is interesting that the key words of GEERS, such as ‘entitlements’ and ‘redundancy’, are quite a concept for those on the other side, after all their failed Work Choices laws, which many on that side of politics are still flirting with and trying to cling to and which goes completely against such rights as entitlements and redundancies that most Australians expect. Most Australians made their views very clear in November 2007. We can only hope that, down the hall in the Senate, some sanity will be seen there and that the opposition, who once declared that Work Choices was dead, will put their short-term political infighting to one side and do the right thing by working Australians by assisting in making sure that we can once and for all say that Work Choices is gone, dead and buried. But, as we know, there are many on the other side who not only want to see it continue but would like to see it strengthened. I fear that the tensions within the Liberal Party will make it too big a hurdle for them to accept that their failed policy was repudiated at the ballot box and should finally be put to bed forever. Another of the main items under this bill is the $46.5 million for infrastructure and training places for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations. Investments are being made in public skills and training infrastructure—it is a secure economic activity—to address the sharpest impacts of the economic downtown and increase the capacity of the training sector over the long term to meet the 21st century skills needs. The next item for the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations is $43 million for new apprenticeships and apprenticeship centres. This is a parameter update as the program, again, is demand driven, and funds allocated for this program are expected to be exhausted prior to the year’s end. Again under the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, there is a further $38.9 million to help trade apprentices find new employers, which is an absolutely vital role. These elements of the bills, focusing on new apprenticeships, apprenticeship centres and finding new employers for existing trade apprentices, are all vital for an area like my electorate of Dobell, which is on the New South Wales Central Coast. As I have said, unemployment, and especially youth unemployment, is well above the national average. Because we are a region outside of the country’s largest city, Sydney, and also outside of one of the largest regional cities in Australia, Newcastle, the majority of jobs for apprentices and young people exist in those centres. This makes it more difficult for a young person trying to make a start in a trade and maintain a job, as he or she has to spend many hours of the day commuting to and from work. As well, they often have to attend TAFE for several hours a week—probably in another location, far removed from where they work. It is vital that we support these young people in order to ensure that they can continue their chosen apprenticeships and help them skill and reskill in areas of greatest need. They are finding it tougher than apprentices and trainees who are based in the capital cities because of this extra travel time and distance that they face each day. We cannot let young apprentices lose their current employment because of a lack of work and be put off from their chosen trade. We have to quickly help them find a new employer in the same or similar field. These measures go some way towards addressing that particular need. One of the main issues addressed in Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 is the $1.189 billion injected into the Australian Rail Track Corporation. This injection will fund 17 projects to improve the reliability and competitiveness of the nation’s rail freight network. One of the major projects includes expanding capacity in rail corridors to service the Hunter Valley coalmines and the connection to the port of Newcastle. This project is expected to more than double the export capacity at Newcastle from 97 million to 200 million tonnes per year. The Hunter region is just north of my seat, and there are many people in my seat who find employment in Newcastle and in these areas. Again, this is vital infrastructure that is going to help stimulate the economic development of the region and the country both in the short term and, just as importantly, in the long term. In speaking about rail, I have to mention, of course, that the government is committed to developing a separate rail freight line between Sydney and Brisbane. Such a project will be a major infrastructure boost for regions such as mine on the Central Coast, which lies between Sydney and Newcastle, and will benefit many thousands of people. Not only would a separate rail freight line add major carrying capacity for land cargoes between two major centres; it would also free up the existing rail line for enhanced passenger train services. Thirty per cent of people in my electorate commute to either Sydney or Newcastle on the train every day of the week. Freeing up the existing line just for passenger train services is something that commuters on the Central Coast have been calling for for a long time. Too frequently there are breakdowns on our rail line that mean major delays for people trying to get to work. Almost always, the breakdowns occur with the heavier freight rail. Having a separate line will not only increase the capacity to transport more cargo between the various centres but also mean that the commuter line is there for commuters and enable people to travel faster and more securely to Sydney and Newcastle. With the major increase in freight by rail, there should also be a marked decrease in road freight, particularly road freight on the major road link between Sydney and Newcastle, the F3 freeway. It has been estimated that, when a dedicated freight line is up and running, up to 1,900 truck movements per day would be cut. That is 1,900 truck movements per day that the F3 would be free of, allowing a dramatic improvement in the traffic flow and safety conditions for motorists on this major road link. It would also be a blessing for those who commute by road, because it suddenly gives the F3 a whole new capacity for some time. It also, quite importantly, means that there is a dramatic effect in terms of the greenhouse gases that will be removed by reducing by 1,900 the truck trips per day in this particular area. It is a very important infrastructure promise that this government is making about the rail network. The difference between the parties is stark. We on the government benches are acting decisively and swiftly to make sure that money is going locally to short-term stimulus as well as to nation-building infrastructure, the lack of which has constrained the Australian economy for far too long. What we have been faced with from those on the opposition benches is dithering, inaction and confusion. One finds it very difficult to understand what the opposition’s position is in relation to many of the measures that the Rudd government has announced. The classic example was the October stimulus package. We were told first of all that it was something that was supported by the opposition. Then came the doubt about it. Now we seem to be having outright opposition in relation to that particular package. We certainly had outright opposition to the $42 billion stimulus package, which is helping infrastructure and jobs throughout Australia. What the Australian public see is a government prepared to do something and an opposition that is only going to sit on its hands, carp and try and make cheap political points. I commend these bills to the House. 2587 11:23:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009. The total appropriation sought by these particular bills adds up to $2.14 billion, about 2.6 per cent of the total annual appropriation. These bills are in line with and support our Nation Building and Jobs Plan, which has had such a great impact in my electorate of Blair in South-East Queensland and will continue to do so in the future. It is important to note how these things announced at a national level impact locally, because all politics is local, as former House of Representative Speaker Tip O’Neil said. He was a very famous Democratic politician who knew a lot about local people, local campaigning and delivering locally for his seat in Massachusetts. I want to talk about the impact of this type of legislation and the kind of funding that we are bringing to my electorate. These bills, which will deliver a lot of money nationally and which will have a great impact locally, will be warmly received by the constituents of Blair in South-East Queensland. Both bills put money aside for roads, rail, employment, redundancy packages, schemes to assist those workers who have lost their jobs, literacy and numeracy programs, language programs, apprenticeships and the like. These bills are in the great Labor tradition of nation building and assisting those who are disadvantaged and those who are struggling. In my electorate of Blair, where manufacturing and agriculture are so important, these appropriation bills will help enormously. My electorate is a large electorate—5,300 square kilometres—in South-East Queensland. Commuting from one part of the electorate to another is a challenge for my constituents, particularly as many work in rural areas and commute to Ipswich or on to Brisbane to gain employment. Rail infrastructure is important and roads are critical. We are talking about money being delivered into the local area. Underpinning this sort of legislation is money. This is about what impact this will have on people’s lives. We are talking about delivering money to assist local roads in my constituency. I am pleased to say that, through the AusLink process and through money delivered by the Rudd Labor government, we are fixing important intersections which remained in states of dilapidation under the previous Howard government, posing safety risks to constituents in Blair. For example, the Haigslea-Amberley intersection, which connects the Warrego Highway to the RAAF base at Amberley, was for too long left unattended. I am pleased to say that the people of Ipswich and areas west can see the construction underway at the moment. We are talking about delivering money in terms of roads and that is the perfect example of how the Rudd Labor government is fixing up an intersection in my area to help local people. In addition, we can see the construction taking place on the road between Ipswich and Brisbane as part of the AusLink process. There is the upgrade to the Ipswich Motorway, which was for so long inexplicably and inexcusably opposed by the Liberal National Party. It is extraordinary that it has taken so long and a change of government for that road to be worked on. I am pleased to say that by the middle of this year the Dinmore to Goodna section will be under construction. We will see by the middle of this year the Goodna to Wacol section completed, and by the end of 2010 the Wacol to Darra section will be finally completed. You can see it taking place. It is one of the biggest road projects in South-East Queensland. It is a massive construction and it makes a big difference to the lives of the tens of thousands of people who commute every day from Ipswich and the rural areas to Brisbane for the purpose of employment. This sort of funding makes a big impact. It will also make a big impact in respect of national highways like the Warrego Highway and the Cunningham Highway. They are important links for the rural areas outside of Ipswich and west of Ipswich through to Brisbane. This sort of funding makes a big impact. I also think it will make a big impact in terms of employment. The Queensland Times, which is the only daily newspaper in my electorate, has reported recently and accurately that more than 3,000 people in Ipswich are receiving unemployment benefits, 400 more than in February 2009. Certainly, important employment agencies in Ipswich, such as Top Office, Apprenticeships Queensland and others, as well as organisations like the Salvation Army’s Employment Plus, have reported the effects of the global financial crisis on local workers. I was recently in Ipswich and met people in the meat industry. They are of course seeing the results of the global financial crisis on the meat industry. We are seeing that also in manufacturing. We have a number of big manufacturing plants locally in Ipswich. Employees in those plants are also reporting that they are concerned about their job security as a result of what is going on. Providing assistance in practical ways, and that is what these bills do, is important for local people. I am pleased to see that we have provided easier access for redundant workers to gain the kind of assistance they need to retrain or receive a $550 jobseeker account credit, which will allow workers who lose their jobs in my electorate to gain access to new employment services and assistance in finding alternative employment. They also gain a degree of respect and understanding of their future. The Rudd Labor government are putting $3.9 billion into a new employment service scheme from 1 July 2009. We are providing 701,000 productivity places, which will be delivered over five years. This is extremely important in electorates like Blair. The assistance in terms of trade training centres is also an important part of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan that the Rudd Labor government are undertaking. For example, in Ipswich we are delivering the Ipswich Trade Training Centre. Nearly $3 million has been set aside for St Edmund’s College and also the two grammar schools, Ipswich Girls Grammar and Ipswich Boys Grammar, so that young people can get training in the areas of the wet trades, carpentry and the like. There was the recent announcement of a trade training centre in the Lockyer district—$1.5 million to Lockyer District High. That will also make a big impact in the area of engineering, automotive and mechanical trades. These are important and practical measures the Rudd Labor government are undertaking to help local people in the Lockyer Valley as well as in Ipswich. I am pleased to say that the people of my electorate have warmly welcomed the nation building and jobs package, which is supported by these two pieces of legislation that are before the House today. Certainly in the mobile offices that I run—last Saturday in Gatton, the Saturday before in Boonah and before that, for four Saturday mornings, in various shopping centres in Ipswich—people have constantly been coming up to me and saying how pleased they are to see a government that cares and a government that is investing in infrastructure, in schools and in the economy. I will illustrate just how important this package is to my electorate. There are 12,553 families who will receive the back-to-school bonus to help their kids return to school; 119 farmers who are struggling in my electorate will receive a hardship payment, so 119 families will benefit accordingly; and 3,870 students and people looking for work will receive a training and learning bonus to support their study costs. What a practical way to help people in the electorate of Blair. In addition, as part of this package and through these appropriation bills, we see money set aside for housing. The Rudd Labor government is making a big impact locally in my constituency. There will be 133 new defence homes built in Ipswich. All bar seven of them will be built in the suburbs around where I live on the south side of Ipswich. This is a $36.3 million investment in local construction. The flow-on effects in increased employment and the local economy will be immense. Members of the Royal Australian Air Force based at Amberley will benefit enormously from this construction. We are seeing high-quality and appropriate housing in good suburbs in Ipswich being provided for local defence families. The Rudd government has demonstrated its commitment to the long-term future of the Australian economy by providing $252 million over the next two years for the construction of 802 new homes for ADF members and their families. This is important as part of our Nation Building and Jobs Plan. It is specifically mentioned that the appropriations under this legislation provide money for housing. One of the things that is really puzzling to me is how those opposite cannot see that the allocations for community infrastructure are so important for local communities. In my area there are three mayors. Two of them are not from my side of politics. They are good men who work hard for the local community. Steve Jones is the Mayor of the Lockyer Valley Regional Council and John Brent is Mayor of the Scenic Rim Regional Council. Paul Pisasale, the Mayor of Ipswich City Council, is a member of the Labor Party. I have spoken to all three of them and to many councillors in the various councils. The vast majority of the councillors in my electorate are not paid-up members of the Australian Labor Party, but from the discussions I have had with them—and I have spoken to many of them—they are very much in favour of the appropriations that we are seeing locally in Ipswich and the rural areas of my electorate. Mayor John Brent, who I am sure would be known to you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, is a very prominent member of the National Party in Queensland and has, I think, been a member of the inner sanctum of the party in Queensland. So I think it is interesting that he was saying how fantastic this package is for community infrastructure in the area of the Scenic Rim. I know that the Lockyer Valley Regional Council has applied for funding under our package, and I warmly support their applications. They have applied for funding for the Lake Apex redevelopment and the walking and cycling track at Lake Dyer. So we are seeing a lot of interest from local councils for the money we are allocating in our nation building and jobs package. Ipswich City Council has made an application for funding as well. I think the issue that has attracted the interest in my local area—what has been most warmly received—is the assistance given to schools, and that allies with the funding arrangements we are talking about here. There will be funding for computers in schools. We are talking about important money which will help local infrastructure. There will be funding for trade training centres, which will help local employment. The funding for science laboratories and language-learning centres will help local employment. There will be funding for multipurpose halls and libraries. There will be school pride funding that will help in the refurbishment of local school communities. I attended the Kentville P&C meeting the other night. It is in a rural part of my electorate, and there were about 16 people there. They were very much in favour of the package that we have handed down and of the kind of funding that supports the package in these two bills, because our schools really do need renewing and we really do need schools which will be cathedrals of learning for the 21st century. So many schools, particularly state schools, are old and dilapidated and need assistance. We believe it is important that we give our children every chance in life in the circumstances. I have been speaking to all the school principals in my area. They are concerned about their students—their children. They are worried about what the future holds for their students and their students’ job prospects. They have said how much they favour funding for employment services, redundancy and assistance. I think that in the electorate of Blair we will see a lot more local employment driven by this package than elsewhere. Sadly, in Ipswich and the rural areas outside, when there has been recession in the past those areas have been hit hardest. Working people, working families, working-class battlers—meatworkers, cleaners, shop assistants, process workers and factory hands—are the people who make up and have built Ipswich and the rural areas outside. They are the people who labour on farms, who work in horticulture. They are the ones who have built the wealth and have provided so much for the economic viability and prosperity that South-East Queensland has enjoyed for so long. Providing assistance to them in times of need through appropriations like these bills will make a big difference. I recently spoke to one of the principals in my electorate. I will not mention his name, because he might find himself in a bit of trouble. He was saying how much he has been convinced by the Rudd Labor government. He has not always been a Labor voter. He told me quite clearly that in the past he voted for ‘the other side of politics’, but he said that the Prime Minister had won him over because of the investments in infrastructure, schooling and roads. I think that has been the impression of the Australian public in general in relation to this. At this time of great international anxiety, when we are facing a tremendous international challenge, when so many of our trading partners are in recession, when we have seen America lose 651,000 people to unemployment in the last month, when we have seen unemployment rising in our country and we expect more unemployment, when we expect more people to suffer the kinds of social problems that arise with unemployment, it is so important to provide help with entitlements and redundancy and get rid of pernicious, evil legislation like Work Choices which will impact on people’s lives locally by making it easier to sack workers and strip away entitlements. I agree with the member for Dobell: it is time that the coalition finally, at this time of crisis, adopted a more national approach—an approach that looks at how we can together bring forward Australia’s prosperity; how we can together ride through the global storm that is hitting us at the moment. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you are a Queenslander and I know that you have seen in the agricultural industry the travails of the farmers. I know the farmers in my electorate are really doing it tough. I think it is important that we provide for them in this time of need. I think we should do what we can to help them because they do not enjoy the benefits of those who live in the cities. They have all kinds of problems with the tyranny of distance. The schools that their kids go to are small and lack the kinds of facilities that big schools have. We need to do everything we can to help them in that regard. I have small country schools in my electorate where there are eight children attending the school—or 10 children or 30 children. I have 63 local primary schools, many of them in the rural parts of my area, particularly in the Lockyer Valley. Helping those little country schools is important because it gives those kids a chance. I want to commend the government for this package. Not only is it economically responsible and prudent but also it helps in terms of social equity and nation building. It helps those kids to have a chance in life in transport, education and community infrastructure. I commend these bills to the House. 2591 11:41:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —It is my pleasure to be following my parliamentary colleague the member for Blair in this debate. I certainly support his comments about the importance of our rural and regional schools. Although the electorate of Petrie covers outer metropolitan Brisbane, the initiatives that the Rudd Labor government has announced in relation to schools apply to all schools across the country, and that is what makes Building the Education Revolution such an exciting initiative—it does not pick pockets of schools in certain electorates in certain regions across this country; it is there to benefit all students, all children and all households across this country and all of our schools. Certainly those schools are deserving of that support. I rise to speak in support of the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009. These are very important bills to ensure adequate funding flows to the government stimulus packages—both the first one announced in October 2008 and our most recent Nation Building and Jobs Plan package. They will also fund other important initiatives and schemes that are ongoing to ensure that we are delivering for all of our communities and looking after those in most need. These bills touch on some very important measures—for example, the $34 million of additional funding to ensure that the 241 ABC Learning childcare centres remain operational until 31 March 2009. This provides the certainty that is so desperately needed for families who rely on such childcare places. If parents are unable to have that certainty, they are at risk of being unable to continue in their existing employment or continue with their existing working hours. With the current economic climate this type of uncertainty with regard to employment adds to the pressures already on households. We should not underestimate how important it is for parents to be able to have quality child care and guaranteed childcare places for their children. If we want to have more women in the workforce and if we want to have those skills in the workforce then we have to ensure that adequate child care is provided. Irrespective of your views about ABC Learning itself and how it came to be in such an appalling situation with its finances, you have to put that aside and look at this. This is not just another private-sector business, and the question is not just whether it should have any government support or not. You cannot ignore the fact that there are whole communities and families that are completely reliant on having that child care there for their children so that they can go to work, earn their living and pay their bills. As a parent who has had two children in child care, I know that one is always torn in two over having quality child care and being in the workforce and that those concerns are eased somewhat when you know you have the certainty of good carers for your children. What happened with ABC was appalling and certainly put a lot of families at risk of losing that certainty. I am pleased that the government could step in to provide some certainty for those families in that troubling time. This bill also provides additional funding for GEERS, the General Employee Entitlements and Redundancy Scheme, which covers capped unpaid wages, annual and long-service leave, capped payment in lieu of notice and capped redundancy pay. Again, in the current economic climate this scheme has seen, unfortunately, an increase in demand, and it is the role of a responsible government to ensure that adequate funds are contributed to this scheme at these difficult times. Importantly, these bills ensure adequate funding for infrastructure and training places, new apprenticeships and apprenticeship centres. It is extremely important that governments, industry—both small and large enterprises—and the general community stay focused on the need to build infrastructure and skills. Although unemployment will rise as a consequence of the global recession, Australia still faces a skills shortage. This is why the Rudd Labor government is delivering on its commitment to build trade training centres in secondary schools across the country. I can advise the House that my local community is seeing the benefit of that commitment, with announcements of two successful trade training applications last week. The Redcliffe State High School, as the lead school in conjunction with Clontarf Beach State High School, Deception Bay State High School and North Lakes State College—those last two schools being in the federal seat of Longman—were successful in their application to build an industry-compliant analytical chemical and physical microbiology laboratory with industry-standard equipment. Northside Christian College were also successful in a joint application with Everton Park State High School, The Gap State High School, Mount Maria Senior College, Northside Christian College and Mitchelton State High School, which is the lead school in that application. Mitchelton State High School will be building a state-of-the-art facility delivering skills in electrotechnology. I congratulate all of these schools for their tremendous work in preparing their applications and their willingness to work collectively with local schools and the community. This is another benefit of the Rudd Labor government’s education revolution. Not only are we delivering these state-of-the-art facilities so that we have services that underpin a quality education for our children but we are seeing schools that have never before worked together coming together to share in knowledge, ideas and facilities so that the children in their schools can benefit from them. The different facilities will complement each other, and the schools will share that experience. To have not just government schools sharing with other government schools but non-government schools joining in with government schools—whether that be through trade training centres or through funding programs the Rudd Labor government has announced for new facilities, for performing arts centres, for a whole range of things—is a fantastic initiative. With regard to the most recent announcement about building multipurpose halls: again, this is a hall not just for the school but for the community. We are once again ensuring that our schools are building a relationship with the communities in which they operate, which is so fundamentally important. So I congratulate all of those schools for getting involved in these initiatives and putting their applications forward. On the issue of jobs and their importance, the Rudd Labor government has announced as part of the apprenticeships announcements the Securing Apprenticeships and Traineeships Program. This is extremely important with the current downturn in work. Unfortunately, in my electorate I have too many apprentices who are on stand-down right now because the businesses they were placed with are short of work. I appreciate the efforts those businesses are going to in trying to retain the training contracts for those individuals by not cancelling them and by merely standing their apprentices down for what they hope is a temporary period. The Rudd Labor government has announced this important initiative to try to ensure that, where an employer has no choice but to let the apprentice go because of the downturn in work, we are assisting those who are out of work and out of their trade to get back into an apprenticeship contract so that they can continue and finish their trade qualification. We cannot have the efforts that businesses have put in over two or three years to train up these apprentices being lost overnight by the apprentices becoming unemployed and having to go back into the general workforce and having their training fall away. We need to pick up those individuals with those skills and help them get back into their apprenticeship so that they can continue. Certainly the Securing Apprenticeships and Traineeships Program will provide a pathway for out-of-trade apprentices and trainees to remain connected to the workforce and to maintain their training. Employers will also be encouraged to retain apprentices and trainees through the provision of an additional completion payment. Not only are we assisting those who are in the extremely unfortunate position of having had their apprenticeship contract cancelled; with this completion payment we are also assisting those employers who are struggling now to hold on to their apprentices. In tenders for new Australian government funded infrastructure projects preference will be given to businesses that demonstrate a commitment to retain and employ new trainees and apprentices. We should not underestimate the value of that. We as a government have a responsibility when we are putting out for tenders for infrastructure projects to ensure that there is a strong commitment to retaining and employing new trainees and apprentices. I have already spoken about the out-of-trade apprentices and former apprentices and trainees who have not successfully completed their apprenticeships because they were laid off by their employer. During an economic downturn, such that we are seeing globally, employers may find it more challenging to maintain their support for apprentices and trainees. The Securing Apprenticeships and Traineeships Program will assist them to hold on to their employees and assist employers in taking on apprentices, and it will assist our country to continue to build our national skills, which is so important and will be more even more important to grow the economy as we start to recover. On the important issue of infrastructure, this government is committed to going forward with a national building plan. This plan has become even more important because of the global recession, because it not only serves to build long-term infrastructure so desperately needed across this country but also supports businesses locally, nationally and globally. This program supports jobs in the current slowing economic growth and the pressures that that creates on employment. This House has heard a number of members from the opposition speaking on these bills over the last couple of days take the opportunity to criticise the Queensland government. I believe it is important to set the record straight: the commitment to nation building is reflected in both the Rudd Labor government’s actions and the Bligh Labor government’s actions. The Queensland Labor government is working with the federal government in ensuring that the infrastructure needs of tomorrow are being built today throughout Queensland. With the global recession worsening, what Queensland needs now more than ever is strong leadership and certainty about the future. Anna Bligh is about securing jobs; Lawrence Springborg is about slashing them. As the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government informed the House on Tuesday of this week, every state and territory government has signed up to the $26.4 billion nation-building plan. Queensland, because of the caretaker period, are not able to sign up at this stage but the Queensland government have said that they will sign. The opposition leader in Queensland is, however, as confused as ever. Last Tuesday Lawrence Springborg said that he would sign up to the Rudd government’s offer of a $6.5 billion road and rail package for Queensland, and the minister thought that here was an opposition leader who actually understood nation building. But the commitment lasted only two days. Two days later, on the Thursday—whether at the suggestion of the federal Leader of the Opposition or the Queensland Liberals or Nationals or Liberal Nationals, whatever they are now—he decided that they wanted the same deal that they were offered by the Howard government under AusLink over the same period of time. If you compare the nation-building program with AusLink, we have doubled the funding. It does say something quite extraordinary that an opposition leader campaigning in a Queensland election is actually asking for less money from the Commonwealth. Compare this to Anna Bligh’s Labor government, which has committed $17 billion this financial year to Queensland’s building program. It is the biggest building program of any state and will protect local jobs, building better hospitals, schools and roads. The building program will support 119,000 jobs and, in the 17 months since Anna Bligh became Premier, 168,000 jobs have been created. Anna Bligh will protect jobs in the Public Service, like those in health, policing and education—not cut them like the opposition is planning to do. Anna Bligh will fully cooperate with Kevin Rudd and the Rudd Labor government to make sure Queenslanders get the very best from the government’s stimulus package. This includes implementing our Building the Education Revolution by ensuring that every primary school receives a multipurpose hall, state-of-the-art library or other permanent building. I have been working closely with all of the state members across my electorate in conjunction with our schools in delivering on this commitment. I have state electorates that cross over my federal electorate, with the member for Murrumba, Dean Wells; the member for Redcliffe, Lillian van Litsenburg; the member for Sandgate, Vicky Darling; the member for Aspley, Bonny Barry; the member for Stafford, Stirling Hinchliffe; and our new Labor candidate for Everton, Murray Watt, all working closely with me to ensure that there is an ongoing cooperative working relationship locally between the state and federal governments. Mr Springborg has said he will cut 12,000 jobs from the Public Service. This is the opposition leader who, of course, also said that he would ‘front-end’ Public Service jobs and make some ‘de-necessary’. This is not a person we want to put in charge of the Queensland government and the Queensland economy at a time when this nation is feeling the effects of the worst economic times since the Great Depression. This is the opposition leader who does not believe that we are actually having an economic crisis. His view is that things have never been better. He actually came out on 27 January 2009 and said: It didn’t have to be this serious. It’s not like the Great Depression. It’s not like the hysteria … it’s not like a war footing. That is absolute nonsense. It is not even a recession. Only weeks ago Mr Springborg’s economic spokesman, Tim Nicholls, said that they would rather scrap projects—which, I suspect, is also the federal opposition’s position—than have a budget deficit. This would destroy jobs. Mr Nicholls, the member for Clayfield, has come out and said, ‘I have indicated that some projects will be scrapped.’ This is their solution in dealing with global recession. Their solution in supporting jobs is to propose scrapping infrastructure projects and nation building. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs interjecting— 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Order! I remind the member for Mayo that if he wants to interject, there is an intervention process whereby he can seek to ask a question. I would ask him to seek that, if that is what he wants to do, rather than interject. HVN D’Ath, Yvette, MP Mrs D’ATH —In the last couple of minutes that I have left to speak on these important appropriation bills I would like to emphasise other important initiatives, such as the employment services funding to support retrenched workers. This is so important. There will be workers made redundant. We need to give these people the best assistance we can by giving them intensive assistance with the equivalent of stream 2 services, such as career advice, a comprehensive skills assessment, skills development training, IT support and stationary support to help with job applications, targeted referral to appropriate education and training and $550 credit to the employment pathway fund to pay for items such as computer courses, heavy vehicle licences, safety boots and work uniforms. This targeted investment will help to support jobs and get people back in the workplace as quickly as possible. Rather than having to wait at least three months to receive intensive personalised assistance, this will become available immediately. These are some of the very important initiatives that form part of these appropriation bills. These are important bills that will support the economy and our local communities. I commend the bills to the House. 2595 12:00:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —These are certainly strange times that we are living in, strange times indeed. We have an African-American President in the White House who won the candidacy of the Democratic Party from a women who would have also made a great President. The British Prime Minister is Scottish. The Governor-General of Australia is female and a Queenslander. We have a Prime Minister who is a Queenslander; we have a Treasurer who is a Queenslander. We have a female Governor in Queensland. Next Saturday, we will even have the first elected female Premier of Queensland. These are very strange times. We even have the Liberals and Nationals staying together in Queensland. These are very strange times in which I rise to support the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009, which will appropriate $2.1 billion. This is all part of the Rudd government’s response to the global financial crisis. Yes, it is global and it is a crisis. These are difficult times indeed around the world. Corporate greed, extreme capitalism and neoliberalism have combined to create a perfect storm of financial ruin. The crisis has thrown major economies like those of the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan and Germany into recession. Thirty banks around the world have collapsed or been bailed out. We say that, but people do not understand the sorts of banks that we are talking about. Some of these are so substantial that it would be like our four major banks going over. Every country in the world faces a dramatic rise in unemployment, as we have seen today. No country is immune from the fallout of the crisis, but the Rudd government is doing whatever it can to shelter Australia from the storm. Early on, the government guaranteed deposits held in Australian owned banks to stimulate confidence in the banking sector and to ensure that our banks remain competitive in the difficult international market. We are also providing relief to pensioners, support for low- and middle-income families and support for students. We are building confidence in the housing market and boosting training opportunities. Through the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, we are supporting drought affected farmers and small businesses and investing in infrastructure and skills for the future. We have the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. I am sure that all members in the House, even those who voted against the Rudd government initiative, welcome this injection of money into their school communities. It is a fantastic opportunity to bring money into communities quickly while investing in something that will pay off in the long run—education. This program will deliver a new school library, multipurpose hall or classroom upgrade for all primary schools. The principals in my electorate tell me that this is exactly what their schools need. They simply cannot believe that a government is finally doing it. I am sure, Deputy Speaker Scott, that, as a longstanding member of parliament, when you have gone to schools over the last 10 or so years they always had a list of wishes and what the community would like to achieve. It is great that we are going to be able to achieve some of those dreams in so many schools. We are also putting pink batts as insulation into the roofs of many Australian homes. This will decrease people’s carbon footprints and improve their living conditions in winter and summer. Unfortunately, the opposition opposed all of these measures. Every single one of them opposed every single measure. Unfortunately, they have no plan to respond to the global recession and no plan to support struggling Australian families. While we have the ESS and that NBJP, they have the WAS strategy, which is of course the ‘wait-and-see’ strategy—wait and see what happens. I turn now to the details in the bills before the House. The amount of $384 million will be appropriated through Appropriation Bill (No. 5). It includes $34 million to support 241 childcare centres until 31 March 2009 and $70 million for wages and entitlements under the General Employment Entitlements Redundancy Scheme. As a former union official, I commend John Howard for the Stan Howard initiative. I always give credit to John Howard for three things, and that is one of them. Having being a union official and having worked with GEERS, I know how difficult it is when you do have to access the GEERS. It is a great initiative. Also, there is $46.5 million for infrastructure and training places at DEEWR, $43 million for new apprenticeships and apprenticeship centres, $38.9 million to help trade apprentices find new employers, $36.8 million to help redundant workers access employment programs, $16.4 million for developments in the East Kimberley, $11.1 million to expand emergency relief, and $68.7 million for the Nation Building and Jobs Plan, including informing citizens about the opportunities they can access to build confidence and to build jobs. The Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 will also appropriate $1.83 billion for significant nation-building programs; $1.2 billion will go to the Australian Rail Track Corporation to fund 17 rail freight projects around the country. Railways were a significant issue at the time of Federation and it is good to see that, 100 years on, we still have a commitment to supporting our rail networks. A further $392 million will go to AusLink to bring forward spending on roads, and $250 million will also go to bring forward the purchase of water to return flows to the Murray-Darling Basin, which is something I am sure the member for Mayo would be very supportive of. I am proud to support these initiatives because I know they will secure thousands of Australian jobs, they will provide support to those who find themselves without a job as a result of the global economic crisis and they will help finance our nation-building agenda. As a former schoolteacher, I return again to schools because I really think that is the masterstroke in this plan in terms of ensuring that we have a plan for the future so that we are ready, when the economic situation stabilises, to go forward and take advantage of the good economic times that will come rather than just lay back in a hammock and do nothing in terms of economic restructuring which, unfortunately, is what happened on 2 March 1996 for 10, 11 or 12 years. In between jockeying for the leadership position that takes place on the other side of the chamber, the opposition has also cried foul over the size of the deficit that will come about as a result of this stimulus package. This is typical of the Liberal and National parties. I would like to call it ‘dole queue schadenfreude’, for those familiar with that psychological term. They are rubbing their hands—not in public, of course—hoping that there will be dole queues, that there will be misery, that lives will suffer so that they can then magically go to the polls and say, ‘I told you so.’ That is the Peter Costello plan if he ever finds the backbone to come forward and execute it. But it is all based on this dole queue schadenfreude. They would rather Australian businesses close their doors; they would rather Australians moved to the unemployment queues. Unfortunately, that means that lives are damaged and that families will suffer. Thankfully, we do have a clear choice in front of us. The government could ignore the global economic crisis. We could take economic advice from Lawrence Springborg, the leader of the Liberal National Party in Queensland, and just say, ‘It’s a peripheral thing; don’t worry about it.’ We could ignore the global—I repeat, global—recession and let the free market rip, as per Liberal Party policy, without regard for the impact it will have on Australian families. Or, through targeted and responsible spending initiatives we could stimulate our economy, support jobs, support families, strengthen small businesses and stand shoulder to shoulder with Australian working families and farmers, who are doing it tough. The Rudd government believes there are no responsible alternatives. The Treasurer delivered a surplus of almost $22 billion last budget, which gave us room to move in terms of our response to this crisis. But let us be clear about the size of the deficit we are talking about. I will make it very simple for the audience. It is the equivalent of a situation in which you are earning $100,000 a year—if you are lucky enough to be—and you take out a loan for $5,000. It is not irresponsible; it is very manageable and very serviceable. It is a small price to pay to help Australian small businesses and to secure Australian jobs. And, obviously, we have the commitment to return the budget to surplus after the global recession is through. Through responsible economic management we will get through the global recession and return to a budget surplus. Don’t listen to the henny penny collective opposite saying that the sky is going to fall in. Instead of taking advice from the other side of the House before coming to parliament I was playing around with a couple of my local businesses and business contacts and they all say the same thing: they hear that tough times are coming but at the moment they are holding steady. They are not listening to Malcolm Turnbull saying that the sky is going to fall in. They say: ‘No, we are holding up, we are doing okay and the government is doing a great job. We are holding steady.’ So the dole queue schadenfreude that is found opposite is bad for the soul and it is bad at the polls. So my advice to Malcolm and the rest of the people opposite is to give it up. I commend the bills to the House. 2598 12:11:00 Snowdon, Warren, MP IJ4 Lingiari ALP Minister for Defence Science and Personnel 1 0 Mr SNOWDON —Given the nature of this debate on the Appropriation Bill (No. 5) 2008-2009 and the Appropriation Bill (No. 6) 2008-2009 it is my intention, in the first part of what I have to say, to refer to the memory of two good friends of mine who have passed away recently. Both of these people were great fighters for social justice in the Territory and both died from that dreadful disease, cancer. The first of these friends was Tony Fitzgerald—someone who was known to my friend the member for Banks—who was the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in the Northern Territory. The second person was Ms Ursula Balfour, a school teacher. She was a highly respected and prominent figure in Northern Territory education circles. Recently both of these people lost their lives after long battles with cancer. I was fortunate enough to have attended commemorative services for both of them—in Darwin for my good friend Tony Fitzgerald and in Alice Springs for Ursula Balfour. Tony arrived in the Northern Territory in May 1977 as a lawyer. He graduated from the University of Melbourne in commerce and law and his first job as a legal practitioner was with the Fitzroy Legal Service, which again will be known to my mate the member for Banks. Under the auspices of the Fitzroy Legal Service he was an advocate for the Tenants Union of Victoria. He left Victoria in May and arrived in the Northern Territory to work for Aboriginal legal aid at a time when there were some very impressive people there. His confreres at the time included Dave Parsons, who is now a judge of the Victorian courts, and a former Victorian appeal court judge, Jeff Eames, both of whom were solicitors at the Northern Australian Legal Aid Service, NALAS, as it was at that time. In October of that year, Tony was joined by his best mate, Greg Borchers. Greg was also a lawyer. Over his life, Tony was not known for punctuality. He was due to, as you do, pick up his mate at the airport and look after him. Unfortunately, on that October day, when Greg arrived in Darwin to take up his new position at the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, Tony was nowhere to be seen. They later came together and they have had a long and fruitful relationship ever since. Tony worked for the North Australian Aboriginal Legal Aid Service, and I knew him not only because I had a lot of mates in the legal circles in Darwin at the time but also through rugby union. Tony was a very, very good rugby player and had played state level rugby at junior and senior levels in Victoria. Tony then had a varied career, not only playing rugby, at which he excelled, but also in legal circles, though for a time he left the Northern Territory and took up practising in Melbourne with Greg Borchers on Punt Road. That did not last that long and they were soon back in the Territory. He was at the bar for a while, worked for the Wagait association, went back to the law and then was offered the position of Anti-Discrimination Commissioner in the Northern Territory. In the late eighties and early nineties, Tony had a partner, Ursula Raymond, with whom he lived and they had two children, Nina and Gus. Unfortunately, their relationship did not last, and Tony was left as a single parent with two young children. I think at the time that Nina would have been about three and Gus about five or six. Gus, as it happens, is around the same age as my eldest son. It was about this time that Tony was diagnosed with cancer and had an operation. Around the same time that he first received the diagnosis and had this operation, he said to my partner, Elizabeth, ‘All I want is 10 years’—10 years so he could see his children grow up. As it happens, he had this terrible disease for almost 13 years, and he did see his children grow up into fine young people. I know that, in the sacrifice he made for them, his life was driven by them; his reason was to be with his children. Despite the personal affliction and the suffering which saw his body become, by the end, an emaciated representation of his true self, he was a fine man. He had his foibles—more than one. He was a very pugnacious, opinionated and argumentative person, and we had a great friendship. We had many lively discussions about a range of issues. When Tony thought something was right, there was no question, no brooking any criticism; he was going to be right. Whilst it did not come as a surprise to me that he was appointed Anti-Discrimination Commissioner of the Northern Territory, what became very clear was that Tony was not going to bow to anyone. In that position, he stood up ever so strongly not only to governments at a national level and in the Northern Territory but also to sections in the community who perhaps were not as rounded as they should have been in terms of appreciating such things as racism and minority rights. He was a great advocate. He will be missed by all those who knew him. He made a significant contribution to the life of the Northern Territory. He is survived by Gus and Nina, and they are now living with their lovely mother, Ursula, in Darwin. The second person I want to refer to is Ursula Balfour. Ursula was a long-time resident of the Northern Territory. She arrived in Alice Springs in the late seventies and on 6 March, last week, was farewelled at the Alice Springs Telegraph Station after she passed away at noon on 1 March after losing her battle with cancer. There were around 600 people at her memorial service—friends and relatives from Alice Springs and across the nation who came to honour the memory of a very distinguished woman. She was a very brave woman, a distinguished teacher and an advocate for Central Australian education. I knew Ursula because she worked as the deputy principal in the school which my children attended and at which my partner worked. Ursula was a very professional person, extremely highly valued as a teacher, having worked as I say as an assistant principal at the School of the Air and principal of both Bradshaw and Ross Park primary schools in Alice Springs. She was a very active member of the Northern Territory teachers union and was also in the principals association. Over recent years she undertook a great challenge. At Bradshaw Primary School, where she was principal, she set up a unit to address the needs of town camp kids around Alice Springs. She was extremely successful in this endeavour, and great tributes were paid to her as a result of that fine work. I know that she has impacted upon the lives of so many: all the students she has had contact with and their families. She is survived by her loving husband, Scotty, and two beautiful children, Sally and Jamie. I know that, whilst it is difficult when we are talking about people whom most of us in this place do not know, when I talk about Tony and Ursula I can say without fear of contradiction that were Tony and Ursula known to everyone else in this parliament they would come away with the same impression I arrived at after many years of association with them. They were fine individuals who will be sadly missed. I guess it points out in a way that, no matter how fine you are, how courageous you are or how brilliant you are, you can be susceptible to the dreadful attack of cancer. Given that last week we had the Shade for Cancer exercise, I encourage people when they are thinking about what they might do with their excess dollars, to think about contributing to cancer research. I want to conclude my remarks here by talking about the legislation. I refer the chamber to the enormous benefit for the Northern Territory of the federal government’s $800 million community infrastructure program. More than $3 million has been invested in the Territory. In mid-December town and shire councils the length and breadth of the Territory received letters advising them of their allocation through the new Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. In these three short months not only have projects been announced from the Tiwi islands to Tennant Creek, covering everything from rubbish tip upgrades to cultural tourism signage, but already contracts have been sent to councils, signed and sent back and funds have been released. So in three short months we have gone from nothing—no investment in these projects, no improvements in the lives of our remote Territory communities and no construction to keep our regional economies ticking over in these difficult times—to having these funds flowing in. Wagait, on the Cox Peninsula, has received $100,000 for a bicycle path. It is much more than a bicycle path—the bike path means people can catch the ferry from Darwin over to Wagait and go for a ride. They can stay longer and look around. This generates tourism. This is a very important part of the community and economic infrastructure for the region. Katherine Town Council has signed a contract which means that work can get under way on a large, centrally located children’s playground. MacDonnell Shire Council has signed a contract that gives $250,000 for cultural tourism signage around Alice Springs. I am so amazed by the way the opposition opposed these funding measures. I am amazed for a number of reasons. Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, you will be aware, as I have said many times in this place, that my electorate of Lingiari covers 1.34 million square kilometres—it is somewhat bigger than your tiny patch. I have a very diverse community with hundreds of small Aboriginal communities. We know about addressing the needs of Aboriginal communities, and closing the gap is very much at the centre of what the government is about. An essential ingredient of that is investment in education. The government has previously announced funding for 200 extra teachers to work in the Northern Territory in these bush schools. I know personally that these schools are very undercapitalised and have lacked significant resources. To see the contribution which this government is now making to those schools and the school environments and to understand that that has been opposed by the opposition leaves me wondering: what is it that will attract the interest of the opposition to support the rights of people who need an education? Of course those interests in education extend far beyond those bush communities—to every primary school in the Northern Territory and a number of high schools which will benefit. So how is it that the opposition can turn their noses up and oppose funding of over $14 billion for education in the stimulus package? What does it say about them? Are they saying that this is not essential infrastructure? I beg your pardon. Anyone who knows anything about the bush—as I know you do, Mr Deputy Speaker—would know of the absolute importance of having infrastructure investment of the type which has been made by the government both in the regional programs and in the infrastructure programs generally; and most importantly in education. If we are to improve the lot of Indigenous Australians so that they are healthy and have work then what we are required to do is to invest in their educational opportunities. Debate (on motion by Mr Melham) adjourned. 2601 Adjournment Mr SNOWDON (Lingiari —Minister for Defence Science and Personnel) 12:30:00 —I move: That the Main Committee do now adjourn. 2601 2601 12:30:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise to talk about something that just about every state and federal member and local council on the North Coast of New South Wales is incredibly frustrated by, continues to talk about ad nauseam and is urging governments at all levels to deliver on, and that is the Pacific Highway upgrade. I will start by mentioning a death on the highway on 13 February. None of us can stand up here and mention every death—there have been more than 400 of them over the past decade—on the Pacific Highway. However, I do mention the loss of Jim Burke on 13 February at an intersection in Coopernook because he was a personal friend, so much so that he was in charge of one of my election booths. As everyone in this place will understand, when someone helps you out at the ballot box they are close to you. But the loss of Jim Burke was certainly a devastating blow to the Coopernook community, as well as to family and friends, and in that I include myself. He was a tremendous fellow and a really active member of the Coopernook and Manning Valley communities. He enjoyed and celebrated towards the end of last year the politics and the changed politics on the mid-North Coast. I will certainly have very fond memories of Jim throughout my parliamentary days and for the rest of my life; he will be missed. I start with that as a gentle reminder for everyone that every life lost on the mid-North Coast on the Pacific Highway is more than just a statistic. If these numbers were being lost in a war or in another context I think the response from government would be substantially different. Yet we seem to have an entrenched argument between the Commonwealth and the state over funding arrangements, over who is responsible for what sections of the highway and over completion dates. We are now into a third generation of governments involved in these Commonwealth-state disputes. There was plenty of fanfare in 1996 when the Keating and John Fahey governments reached arrangements on a 10-year plan to fully duplicate the highway between Hexham and the Queensland border. We went through the Howard and Carr years, when we were drip-fed some great projects as they were completed. We are now into the Rudd-Rees arrangement. And where are we? Thirteen years past the 10-year plan, and under 50 per cent of the highway duplication has been done. Whilst the sections that are done are safe and deliver great outcomes in travelling times and business and community links, what that has done is expose what is left as even more dangerous—the goat track that has been left behind. This is a live discussion even now, as we have seen the New South Wales state government penalised $50 million for its minibudget in November and cutting back its commitment to the highway from $800 million to $500 million. That has enraged members of the mid-North Coast communities who really do see the full duplication of the highway, as quickly as possible, as the backbone of existence on the North Coast. There is plenty of good work being done in the electorate of Lyne. The Coopernook to Herons Creek work currently has 500 jobs on it. It is about 18 months to two years away from completion and it is a really good example of the difference that we will see once it is completed. The Coopernook bypass is another good example. Even though that is, somewhat ironically, where Jim Burke died—because of the lack of a flyover and an inferior option in a section that was a $69 million fully state-funded section—it is an example of a better option than the single lanes and the goat track that were there before. It would be remiss of me, as a new member in this place representing the North Coast, not to talk about the Pacific Highway and the need for vigilance from this government. I am pleased that the federal roads minister is trying to keep the state honest on this, but the Prime Minister, the roads minister, the cabinet and the government really need to be very aware of the needs of the Pacific Highway and the North Coast communities. (Time expired) 2602 2602 12:36:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I draw to the House’s attention the concerns of constituents of mine, the Watts family of Mirani. Patty Watts and her family are frustrated, and for good reason. On 13 January they woke to find that their landline phone had gone dead. Since then, they have been locked in an ongoing battle with Telstra to fix the underground cable delivering phone service to their home on Watts Road. This battle is to restore not only their own phone but also the phones of five other farm houses on the road. They have been without a landline since then, and they are dealing with patchy mobile reception, which has put pressure on running their farm business. When I rang the Watts family this morning, I reached them only because Patty was outside hanging the washing on the line. She receives mobile service only in a small area of her backyard, and she has to leave her phone near the Hills hoist so that it will receive calls. It makes for a frustrating life: having your landline diverted to your mobile but having only marginal mobile reception. Patty Watts constantly has to go outside to check her phone for missed calls and voice and text messages. Then, when she is on the phone to Telstra attempting to communicate her frustration, the phone battery goes flat because she is kept on hold so long. Patty tells me that one time when she had to speak to Telstra, she drove her car down the road because she had to use the car’s phone charger to keep the battery alive—that is how long they kept her on hold. She has had to speak to Telstra so often and for so long—to people in call centres all over the country—that at one point she was reduced to tears of frustration. Telstra has now told the Watts family that it will fix the problem on 24 April. It is a disgrace. That is still more than a month away and it will be three months from when their line first went dead. This is just to repair 10 metres of cable that is water damaged. What have Telstra been doing since 13 January and for the last two months? Why is it taking so long? Neither the Watts family nor my office can get a clear answer from Telstra on these simple questions. Last year, the service on Watts Road was out for eight weeks with similar problems. With young children and elderly people in the area, and the road being more than 50 kilometres from Mackay, there are also safety concerns that arise from the phone being out of service for so long. Sadly, this is a blight on the record of Telstra and an example of Telstra falling short in service delivery to remote Australians. My office receives numerous calls about Telstra every week, registering similar complaints. Let me make it clear that I do not blame the techs for this. The Telstra techs—the ones who are left in the company—or the contractors they bring in can only work with what they have got. This is the result of failure at the senior levels of the company to invest in its core network. In the years leading up to privatisation and since then, the company has been concerned with propping up its balance sheet in the short term at the expense of building and maintaining its network and employing the staff needed to keep even basic services, like a landline, operating reliably. It also makes me wonder what the National Party were thinking of. It is amazing that they believed the Prime Minister back when he was making those promises that Telstra would not be privatised, would not be sold off, until telecommunications services in the bush were up to scratch. I think it would be hard to convince the Watts family at the moment that Telstra services in the bush are anything like up to scratch. Telstra obviously has other matters on its agenda than the needs of people in rural and regional areas. Just yesterday Telstra was in the newspapers, spruiking its plan to turbocharge its broadband network. But that is only if you live in a capital city—in fact, only in certain parts of capital cities. It is a move that the papers yesterday described as cherry-picking the markets where Telstra can register the most profit. To people in regional areas it probably will not come as much of a surprise, but it is nonetheless another slap in the face from Telstra. Telstra claims on its website that its vision is to create a world of one-click, one-touch, one-button, one-screen and one-step solutions. That is nice if you live in Melbourne, but in Mirani all you get is a world of frustration. 2603 2603 12:40:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —There has been much debate given to the rights of disabled workers, and I consider it an opportune and appropriate time to again raise the issue of the plight of the Disabled Workers Union of Western Australia. This organisation assists people with a variety of physical and mental disabilities—Down syndrome, brain injury and psychological problems, to name but a few. The Disabled Workers Union assists people with accommodation issues, legal issues and medical problems and in dealing with Centrelink, as well as with industrial issues. Prior to 1981, there was no representative body for disabled workers employed in sheltered workshops. When a disabled worker was having problems at work, he contacted a friend, Gloria Cassidy, who in turn contacted the Trades and Labour Council of Western Australia. Later that year, Gloria formed the disabled workers action group—rather appropriately, as I believe that 1981 was designated the International Year of Disabled Persons. The registration of the DWU as a union was granted on 29 October 1986. Since then, Gloria Cassidy and her equally committed assistant, Naomi Wallace, have worked tirelessly to assist disabled workers. In recent years, the DWU has received funding, but last year the funding was abruptly halted. The WA section manager wrote to the DWU and said that the DWU had been assessed as not working to disability service standards. The only way in which the DWU could continue to receive federal funding ‘would be to engage another NDAP funded advocacy provider to oversee and manage the DWU’s advocacy until such time as it could be demonstrated that the DWU has the capacity to meet all of the standards in its own right’. This is bureaucracy gone crazy. The DWU has been operating properly for over 20 years and somehow, all of a sudden, it has ceased to operate properly? The DWU has filled in reams of forms—requests for information et cetera—and some of the bizarre reasons for it losing funding are as follows. Standard 7.1a requires the agency to have written policies and procedures for consumer complaints and disputes. What is the department’s assessment of DWU policies? It states: Points one to four contained in the Policy on Grievance are satisfactory, but the document itself is unprofessional and needs simplification. Procedures contained in this policy document are insufficient; lapse into the realm of the union and business services; and do not clearly outline the process involved in submitting, handling, resolving, reviewing and finalising a complaint. Another reason was that was there was ‘no evidence that the policy received consumer consultation’. You would think this report was done by a forensic accountant investigating a billion-dollar embezzlement case. It is astounding that this sort of bureaucratic nitpicking and these pathetic excuses for cutting funding could ever be agreed to by any minister who genuinely cared for the disabled. The bureaucrats appear to have beaten these two wonderful women. They are now using up their own meagre savings to keep this vital and worthy organisation going. Surely to goodness, if it is only for some minor, pettifogging procedural details, why on earth didn’t someone in the department help this organisation? Instead of gratitude and funding from the government for doing an amazing job with some of the most vulnerable members of our community, Gloria and Naomi are being drowned in unnecessary red tape about policy statements, consultation and such. If the minister and his departmental officers could leave their ivory tower for a nanosecond and come and visit the DWU, they might just see an organisation that is actually doing some good. But apparently policy statements which are not user friendly in alternative formats or easily accessible to consumers are such an oversight, such a dreadful sin and so totally unacceptable that the DWU might have to close up shop. I implore the minister to have a good look at the devastation that this assessment will cause so many disabled people and to provide badly-needed funding and temporary secretarial assistance—if that is so important—to ensure the Disabled Workers Union can continue to do the marvellous job it has been doing with government funding for over two decades. 2604 2604 12:45:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I recently had the honour to attend Henley High School in the western suburbs of the electorate of Hindmarsh and open their new facilities. This project totalled over $11 million and was funded with $2 million from the Australian government, $8 million from the state government and a staggering $180,000 from the school community. That is a significant contribution, if you think of mums, dads, school friends and the parents and friends raising $180,000 through selling chocolates and having barbeques and sausage sizzles. That is a great effort, and I would like to congratulate all the community at Henley High School on their magnificent efforts in raising that amount of money. I am proud to say that this government has also committed to providing every student with the best possible learning environment through the provision of new, upgraded facilities. The outstanding facilities at this school will help the students and encourage them to realise their full potential and to attain their goals. As I said, I congratulate the school on establishing the best possible facilities for their students. Principal Liz Schneyder is an extremely committed principal. She is constantly knocking on doors and doing all she can to raise funds for the school. Whilst I was there, I saw demonstrations of dance and a full band of all ages playing rock music. The students were very happy and very engaged in their activities. The Australian government is committed to the education revolution. To be globally competitive, we need a world-class education system and we believe that every child deserves a world-class education. An exciting new initiative recently announced by the Rudd Labor government is Building the Education Revolution. Under this initiative, Primary Schools for the 21st Century will provide $12.4 billion to build and renew large-scale infrastructure—including libraries, halls and indoor sporting centres—in all primary schools, special schools and the primary component of kindergarten to year 12 schools. Also, $1.3 million is available under the National School Pride program. All schools will be eligible to apply to state and territory education authorities and block grant authorities through BER for small-scale infrastructure building and refurbishment funding of up to $200,000, subject to the size of the school. These projects can include the minor refurbishment of buildings, installation of fixed-shade structures, covering outdoor learning areas, carrying out green upgrades—for example, water tanks—and providing support for students with disabilities or special needs. The federal government also recently announced three successful schools in the Hindmarsh electorate under the Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. The successful schools were Henley High School, at Henley Beach; Immanuel College, in Novar Gardens; and Thebarton Senior College, in Torrensville. These schools will be equipped and their aim will be to help young people to learn the skills they need to effectively, competently and competitively participate in the workforce of tomorrow. The program addresses skill shortages in traditional trades and emerging industries by ensuring that Australian students have access to high-quality, relevant education and training opportunities that engage and encourage them to complete their studies. The trade training centres will also enable young people in our local communities to achieve their full potential and attain their goals. As I said, I congratulate the government on recognising the need to invest in our schools and to provide future generations with the best possible opportunities to achieve their potential so they can go into the workforce and participate in the future of Australia. Throughout the early nineties in South Australia we saw the sell-off of many of our utilities, such as SA Water and electricity. Under the Brown-Olsen Liberal government of that period these utilities were sold off—and obviously the state Labor opposition opposed that. These utilities used to train a lot of our people. Part of their contribution was to train students who left school. For example, we had ETSA, the Electricity Trust of South Australia, take on 150 to 200 apprentices at the beginning of every year. (Time expired) 2605 2605 12:50:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —In 1915 the Girl Guide movement commenced in Western Australia. In 2009 there are around 2,600 guides across the state. In Cowan we have a number of Girl Guide groups and I take this opportunity to speak about the great work being undertaken by their volunteer leaders. Girl Guides allow opportunities for girls from five years to 18-plus to receive an all-round education that helps build resilience and responsible attitudes. Girl Guide groups meet weekly as community based units and the girls enjoy the fun, friendship and adventure of guiding. Naturally, the objectives of the Girl Guide movement and the enjoyable and positive activities for the girls could not be achieved without the support and mentoring from Girl Guide leaders and unit helpers. The practical lessons are designed to help the girls better understand the world around them by exploring the environment, making useful items, carrying out science investigations and performing in drama and entertainment activities. Other parts of the activities include learning about traditions and cultures from other countries as well as the well-known special activities such as canoeing, camping and outdoor cooking. Each time the girls attend their weekly night or afternoon session, a typical gathering will see the girls undertake fun activities such as games, crafts and learning survival skills. In 2010 it is the Centenary of the Girl Guides in Australia and I congratulate the guides at all levels for the great work they do. I appreciate what they do because the Girl Guides know how important it is to raise children with flexible skills, confidence and a good attitude. As parents of daughters, we know that we want them to be positive contributors to our community, and the guides are a great organisation working towards that objective. To that end I know that the Girl Guides have specifically designed programs for girls to help them learn new skills and grow in a noncompetitive, accepting environment. An element of their work that I particularly like is self-esteem building activities that allow the girls to achieve across a variety of activities, and this is done in the company of their friends with common interests. In Cowan we are fortunate enough to have five Girl Guide groups within the electorate. I would like to make mention of these five groups and their leaders, who are outstanding and committed volunteers. Firstly I would mention the Marangaroo Butterfly Scouts. That group is well led by Mandie Cuevas and her 15-year-old daughter Kaitlyn, who is a junior leader and guide herself. In Alexander Heights there is the Alexander Heights Adventure Guides under the leadership of Margaret Harvey. In Ballajura there are two guide groups known as the Ballajura Wildlife Guides under Kristy Kerr, and the Ballajura Willy Wagtail Guides under leaders Leanne Woods, Katherine Jenkins and Rachel Hills. In nearby Landsdale the Butterfly Guides are led by Dianne Hodgson, Elizabeth Woodhouse and Helen Cocks. I have recently visited most of the groups so I know how these leaders, these volunteers, are highly regarded by the girls and the parents. They do a great job and are a highly positive influence on the lives of girls and young women in our local community. I will also make mention of others that work hard for the benefit of the Girl Guides in the Cowan electorate. Annette Smith is the Kingsway District fundraising coordinator. Jackie Wann is another leader. Robyn O’Sullivan is a permanent parent helper. Robert Harvey also helps as a parent, particularly at camps and on other outdoor activities. Although this is the first time that the Girl Guides in Cowan have been mentioned in the federal parliament, I welcome the opportunity to correct that shortcoming. I acknowledge the great work done by the leaders, the helpers and everyone else in Cowan, who combine to provide the young girls and young women of Cowan with the opportunity to be Girl Guides. As their federal member of parliament they have my thanks for the work they do and I wish them all the best for the future and their centenary year in 2010. And finally in closing I say to Quail, Joey, Koala, Numbat and all the volunteers: keep up the good work! 2607 2607 12:54:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —I rise today to speak about my concern regarding the manufacturing industry in Australia and in particular within my electorate of Calwell. The impact of the global financial crisis is hurting manufacturing in my electorate. Since November 2008, approximately 1,500 jobs have been lost. This includes the most recent 298 jobs lost as a result of the decision by Pacific Brands to close the doors of its very productive Coolaroo hosiery plant and to go offshore. Imagine one day turning up to work and being summoned to a mass meeting and being told that your job was about to go. That was the case on Wednesday, 25 February when Mr Graeme Russell, the general manager of hosiery, on behalf of the management of Pacific Brands, addressed the workers of the Coolaroo hosiery plant. I want the House to hear the narrative that plays out in workplaces across the country as Australian workers are told that they are about to lose their jobs. This is a condensed version of Mr Russell’s address. I am quoting selectively from the entirety of the text, which was a two-page document. He said: Good morning everyone and thankyou for coming together at such short notice … This morning Pacific Brands has made an important announcement which I am here to share with you … the company has made a difficult decision to exit the majority of its manufacturing operations globally … sadly it will result in 1,850 redundancies across Australia… Regrettably, the company has decided to exit all manufacturing at Coolaroo …. The intention is to manage an orderly wind-down of manufacturing on this site that will see us cease manufacturing on or around the end of February 2010 … We will give you the next hour or so to digest the news, talk among yourselves, call home, do whatever you need to do—after that, we will need to return to work. Needless to say, the reaction to this closure by Pacific Brands in my electorate has been one of shock and disbelief. The personal stories I have heard are gut wrenching. It is important that this parliament hears these stories because all of us in here will need to somehow support as best we can those constituents who will become unemployment statistics. Last Saturday morning I went to visit one of my constituents. This 43-year-old mother is having great difficulty digesting the news of her impending job loss. She is having difficulty because, as she asked me, how can Pacific Brands be in trouble ‘when we have so much work to do here in the factory’? She just cannot believe that the company she has worked for all these years, a profitable factory where workers were rewarded with bonuses, encouraged to buy shares in the company when it was floated, and treated to Christmas and Easter lunches in recognition of their contribution to the company’s successful production, could so abruptly come to an end. She told me that losing her job will mean that all of her family plans will now have to be shelved. Although fearful of the future, she will not give up hope that the decision by Pacific Brands to leave Australia will be reversed. This wonderful lady told me about her neighbour, a co-worker with whom she carpools to work and who is also trying to digest the news. This co-worker and his wife are expecting a child. He and his wife also recently purchased a block of land. Their dream is to build a home. His impending job loss now places this dream into serious jeopardy as he worries now about how he is going to support his family. There are many stories like this. Many of the people in my electorate who are losing their jobs are middle-aged migrants from non-English-speaking backgrounds. Many of these workers do not have any formal qualifications or training and will find it difficult to find other employment. But they want to work. Like most of us, they all have families and financial commitments. They have mortgages, bills to pay and children to support. These are real people and they will need our help. It goes without saying that this decision by Pacific Brands is a further blow to the manufacturing sector in Australia. In the face of this global crisis though, whilst we have said that this will be a difficult year, it is important for us to be optimistic about the future of the manufacturing industry and its ability to recover from this setback and to build a sustainable future. As a government, we have committed to doing everything we can to help workers get new jobs. My constituents do not want to give up on the manufacturing industry and neither do I. I do not believe that this House should give up on the future of manufacturing in this country. Question agreed to. 2608 12:59:00 Main Committee adjourned at 12.59 pm