2009-09-07 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-09-07 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12 pm and read prayers. 8621 Miscellaneous 8621 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 19 August 2009, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Fremantle, Cowper ad Franklin. These items will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 8621 Bills R4158 8621 Bills R4159 8621 Bills R4086 8621 Bills R4083 8621 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 8621 Bills R4080 8621 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment. 8621 Committees 8621 8621 8621 12:02:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —I present a correction to a dissenting report incorporated in the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration entitled Immigration detention in Australia: facilities, services and transparency. 8621 Bills R4151 Cognate bills: 8621 Bills R4153 8621 Bills R4152 8621 Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Ms Roxon: That this bill be now read a second time. 8621 12:03:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is a rare occasion that the Speaker is in the chair when I am on my feet. It will give me great pleasure to speak while you are here. We are debating today important legislation which covers several areas. Most contentious of course is how it has dealt with midwives and homebirths, and as I am the first speaker to deal with the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and related bills since the minister’s backflip on Friday I will be able to make some remarks on that. But firstly I will deal another aspect of the bill, the PBS and MBS access for midwives and nurse practitioners, which is included as part of the Maternity Services Review which this government has undertaken. It is one of the many hundreds of reviews that the government has held since it came to office, particularly in the area of health, where it has had more reviews than days in office so far. The coalition’s view is that there needs to be a more holistic approach to health care in Australia, especially in the areas of preventative health and chronic illness. The skills of all health and medical practitioners should be utilised to their full potential and in accordance with appropriate scope of practice. It is important that PBS and MBS access for all professionals is carefully restricted and monitored in accordance with professional qualifications and experience. Of course we are very fortunate in Australia to have a high-quality healthcare system. It has its challenges, particularly with state-run public hospitals. There are many challenges in all states at the moment, particularly in my home state of South Australia, and in regional areas such as mine it is a very challenging area of government policy, one where the state governments are clearly not up to the task. I note that the Rudd government, since coming to office and prior to being elected, have promised that if the states do not achieve certain benchmarks or certain standards they will take a full takeover of the health system to the Australian people. Whether that is the right or wrong approach, it will be dealt with at some other time; however, it is worth noting that their approach to that promise has been reduced since they have come to government and realised how challenging this area of policy is. The buck appears not to have stopped anywhere. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —The member for Shortland is garbling something. It is important that there be appropriate guidelines for scope of practice ensuring patient health and the economic viability of the PBS and the MBS. Referral rights for nurse practitioners to specialise may give rise to inefficiencies. Currently, GPs refer only a very small portion of patients to specialists and are best placed to make such decisions. While highlighting some of these concerns, the coalition will not oppose this legislation. We firmly believe that GPs are the cornerstone of primary care in Australia and it is important that there is genuine collaboration between other health professionals and GPs in managing patient health care. That is a fair summary of our position, a position that the shadow minister has pursued with some vigour since he took on that role. It is a position which is important particularly in outer suburban and regional areas such as mine, where there is limited access for people to medical services in some cases. There has been a centralisation of health services over many years, and there are challenges for regional health across this country in ensuring that people have access to appropriate healthcare services for both preventative and reactive health care. We in the opposition are supportive of the government looking at these issues, but we do think it is getting to a point where the government need to start taking some action to fulfil some of the promises they made—which is, of course, what they are meant to do. When it comes to healthcare services in Australia, when the government promise that the buck will stop with them and they do not fulfil that promise, people have every right to be disappointed. The realm of health services also includes the aged-care sector, which in my electorate and also across a range of electorates around the country faces significant challenges. That brings me to the other and more contentious aspect of this legislation, which is at the other end of the healthcare services spectrum, and that is homebirth. I think it is a disgrace that the government have handled homebirth in the way they have in this legislation. They are reducing choices for women. Not long ago I actually wrote a blog for The Punch about the whole issue of birthing and government putting its nose where it is not welcome. I suspect that is the best way to describe it. My wife and I were fortunate, with both of our children, in having very safe and happy births. We used a private obstetrician for both of them, and the services were first class. It is always very saddening to hear about stories of births that do not go so well, and it is a credit to the medical profession that, in the modern day, the rates of infant mortality are so much lower than they used to be. However, as a parliament I think we need to realise that birthing is a very personal and individual experience. For my wife and I, it was a very deep experience with the babies, and I think it is dangerous when governments start to intervene and restrict how that experience can be conducted, and that is exactly what this legislation seeks to do. On Friday, the Minister for Health and Ageing performed a backflip, and she is seemingly allowing two more years for consideration of the homebirthing issue. I suspect that it is more of a bureaucratic battle with the health department and insurance rather than the actual health aspects of homebirthing, given that state governments run homebirthing services already. I suspect it is more the insurance angle, rather than the health aspects, that the government is trying to grapple with. I think that creates a very unfortunate situation, where the government has tried to outlaw something—by putting a significant fine on it and therefore outlawing it—because, it appears, it is beyond their wit to deal with what is mainly an insurance issue. As I said in the blog that I wrote in The Punch, it is a very poor excuse to send something underground, which is in effect what will happen, because there are a group of people in our community, even though it is a small percentage— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Currently it is able to, Jill. The member for Shortland says that is what the problem is currently. What your health minister has done in this legislation, Member for Shortland, is to try and make homebirths illegal. The Labor Party believe that government knows best and you can tell that to all the people out the front of Parliament House who have come here today to protest—the people the Labor Party will ignore, at their peril. Ultimately the individual knows best. Birthing is a very personal thing, and if the Labor Party try to tell women of Australia how they are going to do it, they will find that it is not a very practical or popular decision in the long run. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I remind the member for Shortland that, as of yet, there are no interventions in this House. Even though that might lead to a better debate—and I am sure the member for Mayo would be able to handle interventions—at this point in time it is not allowed. The member for Mayo has the call. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —It is, I think, a good indication of the nervousness or the sensitivities on the other side to this issue, given the minister’s decision on Friday. HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr Bidgood interjecting— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —It would be interesting to know whether the member for camera shots on the other side, who interjects, went to the rally at the front of Parliament House earlier to explain to his constituents HVM Bidgood, James, MP Mr Bidgood —I know more about homebirths than you’ll ever know. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I am sure you do. You have probably taken some photos of it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mayo will ignore the interjections. The member for Mayo will speak to the bills. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Thank you, Mr Speaker, for bringing me back to the legislation. Homebirth is a very personal issue and, as I said earlier, my wife and I were very fortunate. We have had two—and my wife plans more—birthing experiences which were very fortunately positive, and we are very lucky. However, others do not have such positive experiences, and they do need the best care available. There is no doubt about that. However, to rule out access to homebirths altogether rather than dealing with an insurance issue was an ill-thought-through decision. I am very pleased that the minister has listened to the concerns. She has undertaken a backflip for a two-year period, and we hope that in that time she will be able to get her mind across how to deal with the insurance issue. I must say that this is probably the biggest issue which has driven contact to my office since I was elected 12 months ago. We have had more correspondence and contact about this issue than about any other single issue. It is a small group of people who are involved, but they are very passionate about their right to choose. That is something that we on this side of the House support. We support women’s right to choose. It was unfortunate that the government decided not to support that right of choice. We have fought against that and we are very pleased that the minister has seen it appropriate at this point to backflip for a two-year period. We hope that in that time she will be able to get across a better way to deal with the issue of homebirths and the issue of insurance, which is attached to it, and we certainly will have more to say as far as our policy going forward. I thought I would give a snapshot of the emotion which is attached to this issue. A constituent of mine, Amy Sparshott, wrote to me again on Friday—she has written a couple of times. I think she describes the issue very well. She says: Homebirth is not something that many women choose for themselves; however, it is important that women continue to have access to this choice of care. The South Australian state funded homebirth programs run from hospitals are a start but are not accessible to most South Australian women due to the strict guidelines and small geographical catchment areas. My electorate of Mayo is not covered at all. The letter continues: Midwives in private practice are experts in normal birth. Their skills will be lost once they either cease to work as midwives or find they have to work within a hospital system that is geared towards finding complications and introducing interventions during labour and birth that are not often needed. That brings me to another reason for homebirths. There is, of course, choice but there is also circumstance. A couple of the ladies who have come to see me about this issue have said that they would never go back to a public hospital because of the experiences they had. So the government can slap a $33,000 fine on this and ban it outright—as the member for Shortland appears to want—but that will push these births underground and it will reduce access to the high-quality professionals that these people need, because they are going to do it anyway. Some will argue, ‘That is not taking much care of the unborn baby,’ but I do not think that is a fair characterisation of what these mothers and fathers are going through. The experiences they had in these public hospitals were so horrific that I can understand why they do not want to go back. It is only right and fair that they be able to choose another option which suits their needs better. This is a very private and personal experience. It is a very important experience that many of us go through and enjoy. To tell someone that they cannot do it their chosen way because of an insurance issue is weak. It is right that the minister has backflipped, and we hope that she continues to. I support the sentiments of what Amy Sparshott, Joe Woods and others who have come to see me have said. It is about choice, but it is about choice for their reasons—whether it be the experience they have had previously in a public hospital or whether it be that they feel more comfortable to give birth in the home environment, it should be their choice. The issue of care and responsibility for the unborn child raises its head in this debate. The situation is that homebirthing is not for everybody and few people choose it. There is no doubt that there are certain cases where homebirthing should not be undertaken—on medical advice—but I defy anyone to tell me that mothers and fathers would deliberately put their unborn babies at risk. It is quite an accusation to suggest that people would willingly put their unborn babies at risk and not think through the consequences. We are very pleased that we have been able to get the minister to back down from the original intention of the bill, which was to outlaw homebirthing. It is as clear as day that slapping a $33,000 fine on midwives for assisting with homebirthing clearly rules that out as a possible option. We are glad that the government have backed down on that, because it would have sent homebirths underground, it would have reduced choice and it would have been a negative move for females in this country. We stand on the side of choice. We stand on the side of females being able to choose the healthiest and most appropriate way for them to give birth. We are glad the minister has backed down so far on this and we hope that she goes even further. 8625 12:19:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to commence my contribution to this debate on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and related bills by providing the member for Mayo with some information that might help him, so that next time that he makes a speech he can actually put factually correct information to the House. I have in my hand a letter from one of my constituents who wrote to a local health fund. This constituent is a midwife and is a person who is very supportive of homebirthing and somebody I have had a long association with. She wrote to a health fund asking them why they had removed homebirthing from the schedule that they paid insurance rebates for. Oh, the member for Mayo has left the chamber. He did not want to learn or get the information that showed that what he presented to this House was factually incorrect. The letter reads: Thank you for your response to my inquiry. You have stated that the removal of the homebirth benefit is due to the fact that midwives in private practice are unable to source professional indemnity insurance for the homebirth of a baby. And this is the really key point— This has been the case since 1 July 2001. Who was in government then? That has been the case since 1 July 2001, when those opposite were in government. Those on the other side argue that they have supported homebirths for a long period of time—so how could it be that it was removed from medical indemnity insurance when they were in government? I find it sickening to see those on the other side of this House standing up and advocating homebirthing when they were the ones who removed it from medical indemnity insurance. They have never supported choice for women. They have always adopted a very patriarchal approach to birthing and other women’s health issues, where they feel that they have the right to tell women what they need and what is best for them. I hear speaker after speaker after speaker stand up and advocate homebirth, and that is really out of character for those on the other side of the House. I have been associated with midwives in my electorate for a very long time. I have attended picnics on the foreshore in Newcastle with midwives where they advocated homebirthing, and I stated my support for homebirthing in that environment. It was many, many years ago—around 2001, I believe—when the then government decided that they would not offer medical indemnity insurance for midwives. Listeners to this debate could actually be confused as to what it is about. They could think that this was a debate about homebirthing; that is not true. This is an excellent piece of legislation that supports the inclusion of nurse practitioners and appropriately qualified midwives under the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in line with the 2009-10 budget measures. This will enable these health professionals to request appropriate diagnostic imaging and pathology services for which Medicare benefits may be paid and to prescribe certain medicines under the PBS. The MBS and PBS benefits will be available from 2010. The professional indemnity, which has been discussed at great length and which I will come back to in a moment, will commence on 1 July 2010. Medicare benefits and PBS subsidised medicines will not be approved for delivery outside of clinical settings. The Commonwealth subsidised professional indemnity cover will not respond to homebirthing but, as has already been said in the debate today, an agreement was reached at the COAG meeting on Friday. I heard the previous speaker refer to ‘backflips’. I would like to refer him, and all those members on the other side of this House who are not in the House now, to statements made by the minister consistently through this debate that there were negotiations taking place between the states and the Commonwealth and that this matter would be resolved. I refer to the communique that was released on Friday, which says: Health Ministers agreed to a transitional clause in the current draft National Registration and Accreditation Scheme legislation which provides a two year exemption until June 2012 from holding indemnity insurance for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance for attending a homebirth. That is a far cry from what happened in 2001, when the Howard government removed that coverage from midwives. Professional indemnity insurance for midwives has always been quite an issue. I refer to the paper I have in my hand, from Australian and New Zealand Health Policy, which discusses the issue at great length—how Australian governments, particularly the Howard government, I have to say, appeared reluctant to protect the economic viability of the business of self-employed midwives. This legislation does give some protection to midwives, as does the agreement that was reached on Friday. The government has committed $120.5 million over four years to maternity service reforms and $59.7 million over four years to expand the role of nurse practitioners. I might add that those on the other side of this House have always opposed the expansion of nurse practitioners. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing over a very long period of time, I have seen many members on that side argue that nurse practitioners take away from the role of doctors. Last week I was in the Torres Strait Islands with the health and ageing committee and we visited Saibai, which is nearly the northernmost tip of Australia. There we saw firsthand just how vital the role of a nurse practitioner is, how essential it is for nurses working in very remote and rural locations to be able to work as nurse practitioners. They are delivering front-line services with doctors, hundreds or thousands of kilometres from where their health clinics are. That is the case in many areas throughout Australia. Mr Deputy Speaker—sorry, Mr Speaker; it is such an honour to have you in the chair. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I am not sure where this flattery is going, but the member for Shortland will continue speaking to the bill. 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I have been a member of the health and ageing committee, as I mentioned, for some period of time. I was deputy chair when we brought down the report The blame game: report on the inquiry into health funding. When we did that inquiry, we looked extensively into the role of midwives and nurse practitioners. It has been my long-held belief that legislation like the bill we are discussing and debating here in this House today was needed. I did not see any moves from the then Howard government to act on those recommendations or to address that need. In 2007 I was a member of the committee and we did an inquiry into the health benefits of breastfeeding, called The best start: report on the inquiry into the health benefits of breastfeeding. That inquiry really emphasised to me the vital role that midwives play, how their role needs to be expanded and how they need to have the rights that are being given to them in the legislation that we are debating here in the House today. It is a midwife who provides the support to a mother during pregnancy. Obviously, there is a very important role for obstetricians, but some women choose to have only a midwife’s support. After the birth is when a midwife provides the particular support that is needed in relation to breastfeeding. To hear those on the other side of this House sanctimoniously stand up and make the case that they support choice, they support midwives and they support women really turns my stomach. I will get back to the legislation. This bill will support the inclusion of nurse practitioners and midwives under the Medicare Benefits Scheme and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which is particularly important for those midwives who work in remote locations like Saibai Island and Thursday Island, as I mentioned earlier. These measures will help improve the efficiency, capacity and productivity of Australia’s health workforce, particularly in rural and remote areas, and it will make it so much easier for those nurse practitioners and midwives working in remote communities. When I was at Saibai Island last week, the nurse practitioner midwife there said that within the last month she had been required to assist in the birth of three babies whose mothers had come across from the Western Province of Papua New Guinea. Those births can be extremely difficult, and in those cases the excellent, highly qualified midwife can provide the assistance that is needed until the medical assistance of an obstetrician can be brought in. These measures are vitally important for improving primary and maternal care. This legislation will allow nurse practitioners and advanced midwives to work in collaboration with doctors. I use Saibai Island in the Torres Strait as a very good example of where the skills of these midwives will be utilised. The new Medicare items covering these services will also be introduced, effective 2010. Specific Medicare items as well as PBS formulas specifying midwives and nurse practitioners will be managed through the minister’s determination. At this stage the government is not supporting funding of homebirthing. I have already referred to the communique that was released, and I can also refer to the transcript of the minister’s press conference on Friday, where she highlighted that there had been a breakthrough in the national registration and accreditation program. This has led to the resolution of the homebirthing issue. I hear people like the member for Mayo getting up and saying it is a backflip. It is not; it is the result of a lot of hard effort put in by the minister, who has worked constructively with the state health ministers to bring about a situation where this can take place. The Commonwealth signing on to the registration of the accreditation of 10 professions is about lifting standards, as the minister said. That is what it is all about. I think this legislation has the ability to change the way nurse practitioners work. I should emphasise that, though I have talked a lot about those nurse practitioners working on Saibai Island, to a large extent it refers to nurse practitioners and midwives working in private practice. I felt the example of Saibai Island really showed how effective it was on the ground. In many areas throughout Australia there are no doctors on the ground. The simple fact that there are qualified midwives in those locations can really provide support that is needed. These midwives will need to meet advanced practice requirements and have collaborative arrangements with doctors. This is all about providing and ensuring the safety of those women who are giving birth and of their babies. The reforms initiative supported by this legislation will allow for incremental reform with a strong framework of quality and safety. Quality, safety and being able to choose to have midwives and nurse practitioners when the time is right are what the Australian people should expect. It is expected that about 700 eligible midwives will participate in the measure over the next four years, so that will significantly expand the workforce and provide a lot of support to women throughout Australia. I have to emphasise that none of these bills have ever sought to make homebirthing unlawful— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr Ian Macfarlane —That’s not right, is it? 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms HALL —yet those people on the other side of this House have said these bills are about making homebirthing illegal. Unlike the Howard government, we have not removed that professional indemnity that was in place. I have to refer back, for the member who is going to speak following me, the member for Groom, to the fact that midwives not having medical indemnity insurance has been the case since 1 July 2001. What government was in power then? The Howard government. A large number of members on the other side of this House were members of the Howard government and I presume they supported that move, and now they sanctimoniously stand up in this parliament and argue that choice is being taken away by this legislation when in actual fact, through the hard work and the strong negotiating skills of the minister, we are in a situation where for the next two years there will be medical indemnity insurance. An agreement was reached on Friday and ongoing discussions will take place from there. I would really like to congratulate the minister. This is groundbreaking legislation. This is legislation that does support choice for women. It is legislation that is not about telling women what they have to do but rather about providing choice. It is about recognising both nurse practitioners and midwives, and acknowledging that they have a significant contribution to make to our health system. I commend the bills to the House. 8628 12:39:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I listened carefully to the member for Shortland, but I must admit that at the end of the allocated time I was none the wiser as to whether she is actually a supporter of homebirths or not. What has been lacking in this debate all along— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —The member for Shortland interjects. She says she is. Well, why didn’t she say so in her speech? Why didn’t she come out and say to the midwives— 83N Hall, Jill, MP Ms Hall interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Shortland has had her time, and the member for Groom will not provoke interjections. WN6 Macfarlane, Ian, MP Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I will not provoke, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I was interested in the answer because the member for Shortland claims now, after she has delivered her speech, that she is a supporter of homebirths. She said in her speech that she went to a rally a few years ago. If that is so, why was she so silent when the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and related bills were introduced to the House? Why didn’t she, and every other member of the government sitting over there who say they support homebirths, speak up and say there is a flaw in this legislation, which couples homebirths to state registration requirements? This government was on the verge of banning midwives attending homebirths, committing women to a situation where if they ask a registered midwife to attend then that midwife could not only face a massive fine but in fact be deregistered and lose her right to her livelihood. So where were all these people six weeks ago, before the minister did a massive backflip on Friday, before the minister changed her position to where she should have been? Where were all those people? Where have they been for the last six weeks? Why weren’t they speaking up? All those people who support choice, all those people on the government side who speak up for women’s rights—where were they on this issue? They were nowhere. They were silent. The Minister for Health and Ageing changed her position last Friday because of the pressure that came from this side of the chamber, because of the pressure that came from those thousands of midwives who are standing out there in the rain as we speak. They went quietly to the minister for health. They said: ‘There is a flaw in what you are proposing. Because of the link to registration at a state level, there is going to be a problem in a registered midwife attending a homebirth.’ And what did we get from that side? Silence. They thought they could bluff it out. They thought it would not be an issue. They should have been on the planes this morning, when babies and mothers—pregnant mothers, in some cases—were flying down here because the only time this government, this Prime Minister and that minister listen is when women go and stand in the rain, supported by their partners, to get a voice in this House. That should never be so. We need to see a more understanding government. We need to see a more compassionate government. We need to see a government that understands the detail of its own legislation. It took the minister nearly two months to realise the problem that was explained to her in words of single syllables by the midwives of Australia. They immediately knew that there were clauses in this legislation that were going to be a massive problem for midwives who operate in Australia. Can I say categorically that every woman has the right to choose where she has her baby. It may not be the choice that my family makes. The birth of our two daughters is not something I would want to go through again. I know they say it is a wonderful experience, but the birth of our first daughter lasted 16 hours. It was not what you would call a quick delivery, and that daughter has been late most of the time ever since! Our second daughter was a little quicker, but it is not something that I would like to go through again. It was a wonderful experience and something that certainly leaves a memory, but whether my wife had decided to have those babies in hospital or whether she wanted to have them at home was, in the end, her choice. Whether my daughters make that choice, again, is their choice. But there are women now who are making that choice. In my electorate, one birth in 15 is a homebirth. That is a staggeringly high statistic, for a whole range of reasons—lifestyle; experiences, perhaps with one birth in a hospital; personal beliefs. Whatever the reason, women need the right to have that choice. They need to be confident that if they make that choice they will then have access to the best care possible. As it originally stood, this legislation removed that right. It took away options that would have allowed women to make that decision or, more dangerously, to put them in a position where they would have to have a baby without a registered midwife. Imagine a government that says they care about the rights of individuals forcing women underground to have babies in seclusion, away from all the medical help. And do not think that they would not. There are some women who will do what it takes, as they say, to have their babies the way they want. In that situation the mother’s life, and the baby’s life, are being put in danger. I am grateful for what the minister did on Friday. She has taken, as the member for Shortland said, an incremental step, but she has not come up with the solution. She has provided two years breathing space. That is not a solution. That smacks to me a little bit of, ‘Let us get this on the other side of the next election before we make a decision.’ That could be a cynical comment. I hope it is, because I hope the minister is committed to fixing this problem because she has not fixed it yet. She has said that you do not have to have indemnity insurance if you are a registered midwife attending homebirths. That is no solution. Everyone knows—and the Howard government started this process—that indemnity insurance is critical to protecting the professionals who operate not only in the medical area but everywhere. We as a government recognised that there would have to be assistance in some cases in paying those premiums. That is just the way the world is. No-one likes it, no-one believes that it should be this way, but that is the reality. A civil case now can amount to millions of dollars of damages and for a midwife often—in fact, in virtually every case—that would mean the complete destruction of her or his business. As we move forward, firstly dealing with the whole area of obstetrics, the Howard government took steps to ensure that we filled the first major holes of assisting in indemnity insurance. I am not going to stand here and say that we got it all right. What we did we got all right. We did not make a mistake. We did not exclude anything. We did not say to doctors, ‘If we provide assistance to you for your indemnity insurance you cannot do this or you cannot do that.’ We are not into specifying to professionals who know better what they should and should not do. There are other mechanisms for that. I do accept that we needed to go further, and in the fullness of time we would have. That baton has now been passed to the Labor government. As I say, I acknowledge that in this area, particularly for midwives and nurse practitioners, the government has introduced a number of very important pieces to this legislation: for instance, the right to request certain diagnostic imaging and pathology services, the right to prescribe certain medicines under the PBS, a new Medicare item and referrals under the Medicare benefits schedule for midwives and nurse practitioners working in collaborative arrangements with doctors. The bill goes on to cover a range of areas in regard to assisting with insurance and providing a tender process for indemnity insurance. There are within this legislation that we are talking on today provisions for the imposition of run-off cover support payments as a levy on insurers’ midwife professional indemnity insurance premium income—all good things that this side of the House supports. We support midwives. We support the work that they do. We see them as incredibly important. I turn to my seat of Groom and my city of Toowoomba. Toowoomba is a very fertile place. In fact, in October last year it was shown to have 2.07 babies per woman over the preceding three years. The state average happened to be 1.92. I am sure it has got nothing to do with cold nights or anything else. We just see ourselves as living in a very fertile part of the world, both in growing crops and also babies. But, as I said, the interesting statistic that was not in that article and that has since surfaced is that one in 15 mothers chooses to have a homebirth. That is the principle that the coalition has forced this government to recognise: every woman has the right, whether they live in Toowoomba, in Canberra, in Nimbin or in the Riverina, to choose where they have their baby. Every woman has the right to choose whether or not they attend a hospital for the birth. This legislation, as it stood, undermined a woman’s right to choose how she would experience childbirth and limited her ability to decide what was in the best interests of her own body, her unborn child and her family. The minister knows that that is the case. That was proven by what she did on Friday. She accepts now that, through the link of state registration and the requirements of state legislation, she was taking away a right. She has not fixed it yet, and I guess our role between now and the next election is to ensure that she does not just prevaricate on this issue but actually gets down to doing something about it. We need to ensure that women not only have the right to choose but have access to the very best of medical care when they do choose to have a baby at home. They need to have access to a fully registered indemnified midwife who can collaborate both with other midwives and with all the other doctors and obstetricians within the health service to ensure that that baby is born in absolute safety and is born in an environment to the choosing of the parents, particularly of the mother. If the mother decides to have the baby at home, then so be it. We as a parliament and we as a country should provide the support for a woman who makes that decision. I must admit that when this debate about midwives started, around three years ago, I was not as passionate as I am now. I have always believed in the right of individuals to choose. That is a fundamental Liberal right. It used to be a fundamental Labor right, but they have stepped away from it. I believed that women could do what they chose to do—in fact, in my family they did anyway. I needed, though, to get my mind around the issue of homebirths. Coming from my background, slightly conservative, and from a family that, on my father’s side, has a history of birthing problems, I found the idea of homebirths certainly rang some alarm bells. That is when Liz Wilkes, who is not only a local midwife but also the national president of Australian Private Midwives Association, started coming to my office regularly to change my attitude towards homebirths. What she has done very successfully—not emotionally but very professionally—is to outline the facts relating to homebirths: the experiences in other countries, the process that takes place when a woman decides to have a baby at home, and the fact that, along with her right to choose homebirth, a woman should have the ability to make the right decision about every aspect of that birth—that is, that the baby be born not only in a home environment but in such a way that there is virtually no risk to both mother and child. I acknowledge the work that Liz Wilkes has done, particularly in the last six months, to ensure that this legislation as it was originally framed did not pass this House and that concessions were gained from this government. Those concessions still have some distance to go, but people like Liz Wilkes and members of the midwives association right across Australia have brought this government to account and made it see the error of its ways. Just to make sure of that, the midwives association has also assembled the thousands of women out there in the rain today—women who will not be taken for granted on this issue. This is not just about those women who want to have babies at home; it is about men and women who believe in the right of choice. They are the people being represented down there in front of Parliament House today: people who believe that women have the right to choose. We on this side believe that, but I sometimes wonder if those on the other side still do. It seems to me that their voices have become muted since they got into government. It seems to me that all the people who used to speak so freely when they were on this side of the chamber suddenly have been forced to toe the line. I will be interested to hear whether those who are left to speak in the debate speak up in support of the midwives who are assembled down there. It seems odd to me that, with so many women and so many men who support the rights of women sitting on that side of the House, not one Labor member spoke to the midwives assembled on the lawn at the front of Parliament House. That says to me that perhaps they are not fair dinkum. I hope, as we go forward with this legislation, that I am wrong. The Senate will provide further information through its inquiry, which had over 2,000 submissions, a record number. Two thousand submissions should have been enough to tell the government that something was wrong, but they were not. It was not until those women prepared to assemble down there, started to book their flights and to travel to Canberra last week, that this government actually decided to do something about it. The shame of all of this is not that a disaster almost occurred in the formation of this legislation; it is that professional men and women who are midwives have been distracted by the flaw in this legislation for the past six weeks. They have spent more time on this, in some cases, than they have on what they want to do, which is to deliver babies for Australians. This government needs to fix the problem. This government needs to ensure that women have not only choice but access to the full broad spectrum of birthing options when they deliver their babies. That is what this country is all about. It is what we who sit on this side of the House are all about. We believe in women having the right to choose. We do not believe in shutting off options that are safe. We believe that the government does not have to regulate everything to the point where it is impossible for people to deliver their babies in their own home. I will be following this debate closely as we go forward from here. If those on that side of the House want to have any credibility in this matter they should be down there talking at the rally. They should be speaking up in this chamber. They should be saying to the people of Australia: ‘We realise there was a problem. We are going to fix it. We have not just deferred this for two years to get it on the other side of the election. Let’s fix it now. Let’s see the numbers from the health minister, see what it will cost and what we can do to fix the problem.’ 8632 12:58:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I speak in support of the three bills before the House in this cognate debate: the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. There is widespread professional support for these bills and much community interest in them. They institute changes that have long been anticipated and that are greatly welcome. Yet in the way these changes were initially framed there were some consequences that, while not in themselves part of the bills’ overt purpose, were nevertheless of deep concern to some in the community, including within my electorate. These were the consequences for independent midwives practising homebirth deliveries. I am extremely happy to say that, as of last Friday, 4 September, a solution has been found. So it is that in speaking to these bills I congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing both for the reforms the bills represent and for acting so quickly and decisively to achieve a commonsense solution to an unintended consequence of the reform matrix. As with the adjustments made by the Deputy Prime Minister to the youth allowance reforms, this is another example of a government that is set on achieving the positive reform agenda it was elected to implement, but without the hubris or the arrogance to believe that its efforts cannot be further improved by listening to the community or by reasonable negotiation with its parliamentary colleagues. At the outset, I think it is useful to set out a short history of some broad health system issues in Australia in relation to these bills. In the 2007 election campaign, the Australian Labor Party said we would consider a more expansive role for the skills and experience of suitably qualified health professionals, such as nurse practitioners and midwives. We also indicated our commitment to improved health services for women and children, including those in rural and remote areas. These commitments were informed in part by a 2006 Productivity Commission report in response to longstanding concerns about shortages and inflexibilities in the Australian health workforce. Key issues for the commission were: first, the critical need to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the available health workforce and to improve its distribution; and, second, to develop a more sustainable and responsive health workforce whilst maintaining a commitment to high-quality and safe health outcomes. The commission also recommended the creation of a single national registration board for the 10 professional health occupations in Australia, including nurse practitioners and midwives. In response to the Productivity Commission’s recommendations, the Council of Australian Governments resolved in March 2008 to devise and implement a new national registration and accreditation system to commence operation in July 2010. A core element of the national scheme is a condition that all registered health professionals carry professional indemnity insurance. Queensland was given responsibility for legislative development and enacted initial legislation in November 2008. An exposure draft of the second piece of legislation proposed for jurisdictions was released by the ministerial council in July 2009 and it addresses the nuts-and-bolts issues of accreditation and registration. Parallel with those developments, and as a key step towards delivering the government’s commitment to a national maternity services plan, the minister charged the Chief Commonwealth Nurse with responsibility for a detailed investigation of maternity services—the outcome of which was published in February 2009 under the title Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the Maternity Services Review. Finally, earlier this year, the Rudd government gave life to this health reform agenda by providing a four-year, $120.5 million budget commitment to improving maternity services together with $59.7 million over four years to expand the role of nurse practitioners. That brief summary of what has gone on before brings me to the bills that we are considering here—bills that give legislative effect to the government’s commitments. The first of the bills extends both the Medicare Benefits Scheme, MBS, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, PBS, to participating eligible midwives and nurse practitioners so they can access or provide Medicare subsidised services, prescribe certain medicines and refer patients for diagnostic imaging and pathology. In the case of midwives, these measures resonate with recommendation 17 of the Maternity Services Review, while in relation to nurse practitioners the government is legislating to further enhance the practice scope of these important health professionals. While nurse practitioners can already prescribe in most jurisdictions, their new access to the MBS and PBS will be a significant development and improvement. These are historical firsts for Australia. They are very significant measures indeed. They are measures conceived to enhance the efficiency, capacity and productivity of our health workforce, especially in rural and remote areas, and so they are measures that are consonant with the findings of the Productivity Commission report. Now I want to touch briefly on the issue of professional indemnity insurance for midwives. This is the driver of the provisions in the second and third bills before the House. It is a great shame that there is no private sector insurer who will currently provide cover for midwife-led birthing. This constitutes a significant problem for both the registration and the accreditation of midwives and therefore in implementing an expanded role for midwives within maternal health services The Maternity Services Review concluded that ‘lack of professional indemnity insurance will inhibit the expansion of collaborative models of midwifery care’ and it addressed the defect in recommendation 18, which called on the government to provide a subsidised insurance scheme for midwives operating in collaborative team based models. That is what is accomplished by these bills. They establish that scheme—a scheme that will be accessible by midwives practising in collaborative, team based models in clinical settings as recommended by the Maternity Services Review. But now, in the context of these positive developments, I want to acknowledge the strength of feeling and also the administrative difficulties that surround the issue of homebirth. As it originally stood, the model preferred by the Maternity Services Review was one that excluded midwife led birthing in the home by virtue of the fact that the insurance scheme established under the legislation was not able to be extended to midwives who practice in the home. Last Friday, as part of a joint communique that emerged from the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference, a medium-term solution to this problem was announced. I can say in this place that it was an announcement celebrated in my electorate of Fremantle. At the conference, the health ministers agreed that the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme legislation would include a transitional clause providing an exemption through to June 2012 for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance. Requirements to access the exemptions include providing full disclosure and informed consent that they do not have professional indemnity insurance, reporting each homebirth and participating in a quality and safety framework which will be developed after consultation led by Victoria through the finalisation of the registration accreditation process. As noted by the health minister when the changes were announced, there will be more data on homebirthing, and there will be a process to work further on protocols that will either bring more homebirthing services into our public system or potentially open the way in the future for an insurance product to be extended to cover them. This is a fantastic, commonsense result and it will give comfort to midwives and families around the country. On this point it is worth considering what the Maternity Services Review actually said about homebirth: While acknowledging it is a preference for some women, the Review Team does not propose Commonwealth funding of homebirths as a mainstream option for maternity care at this time. It is also likely that professional indemnity cover support for a Commonwealth-funded model that includes a homebirth setting would be limited, at least in the short term. It is likely that insurers will be less inclined to provide indemnity cover for private homebirths and, if they did provide cover, the premium costs would be very high. One does not have to read too far between the lines to conclude that the issue of homebirth was a very difficult one for the review. It observed: In recognising that, at the current time in Australia, homebirthing is a sensitive and controversial issue, the Review Team has formed the view that the relationship between maternity health care professionals is not such as to support homebirth as a mainstream Commonwealth-funded option (at least in the short term). The Review also considers that moving prematurely to a mainstream private model of care incorporating homebirthing risks polarising the professions rather than allowing the expansion of collaborative approaches to improving choice and services for Australian women and their babies. That view notwithstanding, there is an adamant and passionate minority of women who regard homebirth with a private midwife as their preferred birthing choice. I think their views are well illustrated by some words in a report released for the Western Australian Department of Heath in August 2008, entitled Review of homebirths in Western Australia. It had this to say: It seems apparent that the maternity systems are, for some women, too medicalised and restrictive and do not meet their needs. It also noted: … developing systems to support safe and satisfying systems of care that provide childbearing women with a diversity of options is essential. I recently met an impressive woman who is a very experienced, independently-practising midwife in my electorate of Fremantle—Sally Westbury. She told me that she is very supportive of the government’s initiatives in the area of midwifery. She sees them as a great step forward and feels she could be part of an incremental process of improvement, even if she cannot herself access the insurance scheme. After all, she has worked for many years as an independent midwife without such insurance and all her clients take on her service in the full knowledge that there is no insurance. She has relied on her judgement, her expertise and her commitment to sound professional practice. As a result of the exemption announced last Friday, Sally will be able to continue to provide those services, and the important choice that her services represent. As Sally pointed out to me, this is especially significant for women in regional, rural and remote areas who are not able to access community midwifery centres because of geographic restrictions on those services. I want to say something on behalf of all those who have written to me and visited me—whether they be midwives, clients of midwives, couples who have chosen homebirth or maternal health practitioners who support independent midwives and the women they minister to. All these constituents of mine are committed and passionate people—they are people who care about health outcomes for themselves and for their families; they are people who have clear and substantial reasons for choosing homebirth; they are people who, in some cases, choose homebirth as a result of traumatic birthing experiences in hospitals; and they are people who care about choice as a matter of principle. I support all those people—my constituents in Fremantle—and I join with them in congratulating and thanking the health ministers, who have found a way to allow independent midwives to continue supporting those women and families who choose homebirth. It should be noted that there are well-established independent midwife schemes in NZ and Europe. I understand that in New Zealand the independent midwives are covered by the comprehensive no-fault insurance scheme that applies there. Perhaps in the longer term there is something in this for Australia to consider. I know that a significant number of women, even though they are in the minority, have chosen and continue to choose homebirth. I know they want that right of choice to remain. I know too that many women who do not themselves opt for homebirth nevertheless support the right of other women and their families to choose it. On this issue we should recognise that there are other birthing choices, such as elective caesarean section deliveries, that are available to women even when there is no strict medical case for this kind of birth intervention. What is even more important is that we do not make the mistake of assuming that homebirth is necessarily a less-safe option than a hospital birth. I am aware that many people begin their approach to the question of homebirths by making that assumption, and I refer those people to the report undertaken by the Western Australian Department of Health in 2008, entitled Review of homebirths in Western Australia. It states: For the years 2000-2006, the total perinatal deaths for babies born of all gestations was not statistically significantly different … between the planned homebirth and hospital birth groups. Indeed, the perinatal mortality rate, or PMR, was 10.08 per 1,000 planned homebirths and 11.93 per 1,000 planned hospital births across that period. There were no perinatal deaths in the planned homebirth group for the years 2006 and 2007. Homebirth represents a tiny minority of all births but it is an important and valid birthing option, both personally and medically, and one that should be supported within the broader structure of our health system. I support these bills because they have been conceived to do good and they will deliver positive change. They are widely supported in the professional nursing and midwifery community, and they are reforms that are long overdue. 8636 13:12:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise today to support the thousands of women who have turned up to this parliament to protest, not to celebrate, the government’s proposed changes in this legislation that is before us today. The member for Fremantle gave a dry account of the bureaucratic processes of government, but I think she did outline a fantastic case as to why the health minister has got this legislation wrong and indeed ought to reconsider the position of the government in relation to the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. The health minister has temporarily reversed her position on midwives in terms of homebirths. What we see there is an attempt by this government to acknowledge that they have indeed got it wrong. It is the case that only 0.2 per cent of births in Australia at the moment are homebirths. That is a very small proportion of births in this country, and yet when you look around the world the proportions are much, much higher. In the Netherlands, it is 30 per cent; in New Zealand, seven per cent; in the United Kingdom, 2.7 per cent—and this has been rising since 1988; in Australia, of course, 0.2 per cent; and in the USA, 0.6 per cent. So I find it hard to understand why the government would introduce legislation which proposes that midwives who are present at a homebirth are engaged in some sort of criminal activity—and that is what it would become under this legislation. There would be a $30,000 fine, which is an odd signal to send to a professional midwife with their experience and their talent. I have met many midwives. Midwives who attend a homebirth would suddenly be guilty of a crime. I think this overlooks a series of very serious factors, including the fact that homebirths have been conducted throughout the centuries as a matter of course in human nature. And yet today we have only 0.2 per cent of births in Australia conducted in this fashion. I cannot understand what problem the government is trying to solve. Of course the government says that this was an unintended consequence of this legislation. Indeed, it is the case that many midwives and nursing practitioners do support a national registration scheme. This is progress. Providing for the indemnity of midwives is a very important matter and something which all members in this place would agree upon. However, when you consider how small a fraction of births homebirthing represents, why exclude this category of activity from the legislation? Indeed, why then go further and say that homebirthing would become a crime under this legislation and midwives who were engaged in it would be guilty of a crime when it is a valid choice for an expectant mother to make? I have had mothers from my electorate approach me and they are very passionate about the reasons why they may choose to have a homebirth. I find their reasons to be quite acceptable. The majority of people would also find those reasons to be quite acceptable. Sometimes it can be that they have had a very bad experience in the hospital system. I find that to be a valid argument. There are people who go through the hospital system who have genuinely bad experiences. Therefore, it may be the case that a person feels more comfortable in taking a homebirth option. If you look at all the experience around the world, the argument that homebirth is somehow more risky does not seem to bear any significant weight when it is examined. In the United Kingdom, the largest study of its kind found that, for low-risk women, giving birth at home is as safe as doing so in a hospital with a midwife. The UK has a very workable scheme in place, which I think the government here ought to examine in relation to this legislation. This report did raise the issue of hospital transfers and noted that once complications arise after birth then the issue of transferring into hospital becomes more serious. But the experience of the midwives is such that, when a complication arises, they are the best placed people to determine when hospital care is needed. But, at the time of birth and in the arrangement of birth, there is no difference between hospital care and homebirth care, and that is the experience in the modern practice of this activity. Therefore, it is mystifying that the government has taken this approach. I think it is very valid for people to be concerned and for women to be here today protesting outside the parliament in support of this. I get the sense that most people in the community accept that there ought to be this choice and that it is valid for a person to choose to have their own midwife present at their homebirth. Not knowing a lot about this topic and having spent time with experienced midwives who visited me, I can tell you I felt a lot more confident about it. Hearing from the women who had been through multiple homebirths with no complications reinforced to me the idea that there is just the same level of risk. When we consider that this is such a small fraction of all births, I cannot understand what the government is afraid of in relation to providing for extra indemnity insurance protection for this category of birthing. We have not heard any good arguments to date in relation to that matter. It may be something for the government to introduce as talking points so that their backbenchers could read them out for us, and then we may have an understanding as to why they specifically would seek to exclude homebirthing from professional indemnity insurance for midwives. One of the government speakers, the member for Shortland, lamented the Howard government’s approach to this area, but we know that, if you look back in time after the collapse of HIH insurance, the availability and affordability of insurance in Australia went through a complete and utter overhaul. The member for Shortland ought to be very careful about saying that the Howard government did not support homebirthing because all the types of insurance available had to be re-examined and redefined after the collapse of that major insurer within this country. Today I do not wish to speak for too long in relation to this topic except to record my absolute support for the right of a woman to have choice in her birthing options. In this case, the government needs to seriously re-examine its legislation because of the backflip that we have seen in the last week, saying that they will delay this by two years. The member for Fremantle described it as a ‘medium-term option’. Two years is not a medium-term solution to this problem. It is a very short-term solution. It puts at serious risk the professional and experienced midwives who attend homebirths. For them to then say to mothers, ‘I do not have insurance,’ and therefore raise a spectre of doubt in relation to their activity is, I think, an unacceptable outcome. I do not think this is a medium- or short-term solution. I think we need to look at something better. If you look at the data or the facts from around the world, with such a small minority of women taking this option up in Australia, the government ought to seriously consider extending professional indemnity insurance to this field of endeavour—of course along properly conducted lines and of course with due examination of a register of women who are professional midwives. I think all members accept the need for those qualifications and that level of scrutiny but I do not see this as a major policy challenge. I do see this as a deep flaw within the government’s approach in relation to these bills in front of us and I would ask that the government seriously reconsider its position in relation to this legislation. 8638 13:21:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I too rise to speak in support of theHealth Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. This package of bills provides the government’s response to the Maternity Services Review, which I understand considered some 900 submissions. Just before I get onto my remarks on the bills, I will just say in respect of the comments previously made by the member for Mitchell that, even if he believes that the Howard government did not do the wrong thing in not providing professional indemnity insurance to midwives back in 2001 and even if he believes it was simply a case of an HIH debacle, the government had some eight or nine years after that to correct that particular anomaly and, in fact, chose to do nothing. For members to then come into this chamber and say the government ought to do it now raises the question: if it could be done and it was practical for it to be done, why didn’t they do it? They had so many years to do so. These bills are important legislation because they respond to the Rudd government’s Maternity Services Review. That review was undertaken because there were clearly flaws and problems in the birthing services throughout this country. It was not undertaken just to fill in time; it was undertaken because this government recognised that we could do things better, that we should do things better and that it was time that we did things better. These bills collectively go a long way to in fact doing things better when it comes to birthing throughout Australia. The bills deliver on the government’s commitment of $120 million over four years to maternity services reform and $59.7 million over four years to expand the role of nurse practitioners. These bills do not make homebirthing unlawful. Importantly, following an agreement reached on Friday, 4 September—only last Friday—between the federal health minister and state health ministers, an exemption will apply until June 2012 for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance for homebirthing. June 2012 is not two years away; it is almost three years away. It gives ample time to the industry, the government and the state governments to look at what other measures need to be put in place. Three years is not insignificant, and I believe that it is a welcome move on the part of the federal health minister and the state health ministers working together. The exemption will enable homebirthing midwives to continue to provide their services in jurisdictions where that is currently allowed. The exemption comes with conditions requiring full disclosure by midwives that they do not have professional indemnity insurance and consent that each homebirth be reported. Those are reasonable and appropriate conditions to apply in order to get that extension until June 2012. In summary, these bills implement three key measures relating to eligible nurses and midwives. Firstly, the bills support the inclusion of nurse practitioners and appropriately qualified and experienced midwives in the Medicare Benefits Schedule. Secondly, the bills support the inclusion of those same nurse practitioners and midwives under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. Thirdly, eligible nurse practitioners and midwives will be able to secure professional indemnity insurance under a government professional indemnity insurance scheme. I note that these measures have the support of both the Australian Nursing Federation and the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council. I also note that the measures I have just referred to do not generally apply to homebirthing and that there has been some concern expressed by some sectors about that aspect. I understand that some state governments provide varying degrees of support for homebirthing. I also accept that there will be occasions when homebirthing will be a necessity. Overwhelmingly, however, births take place in a hospital because that is where the medical support services are available for both the mother and the child if a complication arises during the birthing. I am aware that there has been some concern and some opposition to these bills because, as the measures contained within them do not apply to homebirthing, mothers wrongly believe that they are being denied choice. I just want to speak about the issue of choice, because it is an interesting matter. I ask those people who talk about choice: what choice does the newborn child have in the birthing and what rights should that child have? On other matters, I frequently hear members opposite talking about the rights of the newborn or unborn child. Today I have not heard one single member opposite talking about the rights of the newborn child. I accept and respect that mothers have choice, but I think that as a society we should also accept and respect the fact that the newborn child should have rights. If the newborn child is not in a position to express those rights then we collectively, as a society, also have an obligation and a responsibility to that newborn child. It is my view that every newborn child should have the right, wherever possible, to the best birthing services available at the time. To quote Dr Andrew Lavender, President of the Australian Medical Association in South Australia: Home birthing may appear to be an emotionally fulfilling option, but history has revealed it as clearly more dangerous for babies and mothers than birth in a hospital. Current advocacy for home birthing fails to mention that even in highly selected cases—where the birth weight of the baby exceeds 2,500 grams and pregnancy exceeds 37 weeks—the mortality rate for babies is double that achieved in hospital. It’s impossible to predict or safely manage birth complications such as an impacted shoulder, impaired oxygen supply to the baby, or massive haemorrhage in the home. The safest place to be is in a hospital. Dr Lavender goes on to say: Home birthing is a dangerous choice, which pays no regard to the rights of the unborn child to a safe and healthy birth with the best care available. I am not a doctor and I am not prepared to make judgment on these matters, but I am prepared to say that if the President of the Australian Medical Association in South Australia—who, I assume, speaks on behalf of his profession—makes those statements then we should take note of them. Enabling nurse practitioners and eligible midwives to prescribe necessary and appropriate diagnostic services or pharmaceutical products will not only ensure that mothers and newborns can be provided with better medical care but free up doctors, most of whom are already working long hours. It is also my view that it will give deserved and long overdue recognition to the nursing and midwife professions. The professional indemnity provided under the bills is essentially a government backed scheme whereby, for any claim between $100,000 and $2 million, the government will pay 80 per cent of the claim and, for claims above $2 million, the government will pay 100 per cent of the claim. Under those circumstances, it seems to me that all taxpayers would expect the government to minimise its risks by not covering homebirthing if the hospital option is available. It seems to me that this cover would not be feasible or affordable if homebirthing had been included. In 2006, the latest year for which figures are available, there were 269,835 births recorded in Australia. Of those, 97.3 per cent took place in a hospital and two per cent took place in a birthing centre. Only 708 were recorded as deliberate homebirths, which is approximately one-quarter of one per cent of the total births in Australia for the year. What was particularly notable in those figures was that in that same year 886 mothers had intended having a homebirth but 178 of those, or one in five, needed to birth in a hospital, highlighting just how frequently complications arise with birthing. The South Australian government’s Children, Youth and Women’s Health Service estimate that every year around 50 women in South Australia choose to have planned homebirths. Homebirthing is by no means unlawful under these bills, and I understand that the minister is continuing to work with the states and territories on this issue following the meeting and agreement reached last Friday. However, the Maternity Services Review did not recommend that mothers who choose homebirthing should expect the rest of society to bear the additional financial risks that come with it. I take this opportunity to give special recognition to the Zonta women of Australia, especially Zonta women of the Para District Zonta Club in Adelaide, for the extraordinary support the members provide to midwives, nurses, mothers and babies both in Adelaide and overseas. The club has taken a special interest in supporting birthing services provided at home and abroad. Over the years club members have made and donated hundreds of beautiful baby quilts to local families in need of support. Their support for Third World countries comes through the provision of birthing kits that the club members fund and organise for distribution. Such simple kits can make so much difference to ensuring a much safer birth for mothers and babies in parts of the world where both maternal and infant mortality rates during childbirth are high. This program commenced in 1999 with the provision of 100 kits to Papua New Guinea. Zonta have since distributed in total 340,000 kits to 30 different countries in the Asia-Pacific and African regions. They have worked in partnership with 40 organisations including, since 2004, the federal government’s overseas development organisation, AusAID. This project, which started small, has grown into the Zonta Birthing Kit Foundation, which runs community development programs where the local government or community establish their own midwifery training programs with the hope that eventually they will source, supply and make their own birthing kits. These kits make such a difference to the health and wellbeing of mothers and children in Third World countries, and I applaud the ambition to educate and empower the local communities to provide their own care and own birthing kits. This level of support and empowerment is a great example of a local community working to assist less fortunate mothers and babies who do not have the same access to maternity services and support covered under this legislation. I would now like to elaborate on the further support and recognition for nurses and midwives that arise from this legislation. My own state of South Australia has been a leader in the provision of maternity services by midwives and nurse practitioners because of the Alternative Birthing Services Program, which was established in the early 1990s. Birthing units now operate at three of Adelaide’s hospitals—the Flinders Medical Centre, Lyell McEwin Hospital and the Women’s and Children’s Hospital. The consequence of this is that South Australia has a much higher proportion of births in birthing units—around seven per cent annually, compared to a national average of two per cent. The federal government’s Maternity Services Review report found that demand for birthing units is growing. This legislation provides the support that midwives and nurses need to meet this demand from expecting mothers for birthing unit services. As a consequence, we should see the proportion of birthing unit births in other states rise to be closer to that in South Australia. The organisations representing nurses and midwives have been very outspoken in their support for this legislation. On 13 May, the day after these measures were announced in the federal budget, the Chair of the Australian Nursing and Midwifery Council, Professor Mary Chiarella, said: The Rudd Government and Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon have shown their support and understanding of the contribution that nurses and midwives can and are making to the health system. …            …            … In responding to the Maternity Services Review the Rudd Government has provided greater choice for women in maternity care by providing MBS and PBS for eligible midwives. It also supports midwives in being able to provide women with greater choice through a Government-supported professional indemnity insurance scheme for eligible midwives. The secretary of the Australian Nursing Federation, Ged Kearney, said: This represents a new era of health care and is a landmark reform of our health and hospital system. She also said: These changes will boost frontline healthcare across the community and make sure that those people who receive health care from nurse practitioners and midwives can do so without facing huge out of pocket expenses. The support of these key industry organisations for the changes in this legislation shows that the Rudd government has gone about its reform of maternity services in the correct way. As part of the review the government consulted widely with all key stakeholders and the community. The report from the review was made publicly available in February 2009, before these changes were announced in the May budget. The reforms in this legislation will provide greater support and recognition for midwives and practitioners. They will meet the increasing demand for families to utilise birthing unit services. These reforms, arising from the recommendations of the report of the Maternity Services Review, will mean Australia has a stronger and more equitable health system. Rosemary Bryant, Australia’s Chief Nurse and Midwifery Officer, said in her foreword to the review’s report: There is a clear role for leadership by the Australian Government in concert with the state and territory governments to ensure that Australian women and their babies are provided with the best possible care. I agree with the sentiments of Rosemary Bryant and I believe that the measures in this legislation are a significant step in creating a health system that provides the best possible care for Australia’s mothers and their newborn babies. I commend the legislation to the House. 8642 13:36:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I rise to speak to the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and cognate bills in the interest of supporting freedom of choice for women. Whilst I applaud the move to expand the role of nurse practitioners and midwives, I cannot support the government in its long-term plans to exclude those who wish to assist in homebirths from the compulsory national registration and accreditation requirements, effectively disallowing the practice. It is pleasing to see that the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, has recognised that she has made a big mistake on this issue in the past few days and offered some hope to homebirthing mothers and experts by allowing a two-year exemption from indemnity insurers for privately practising midwives, but it does not go far enough. While this does give the government two years to do its research and follow in the footsteps of other First World countries on this issue, there is still a long way to go in ensuring long-term certainty for private midwives and pregnant women. I have been approached by many of my constituents as this debate has unfolded, who question why it is okay for a woman to choose whether she will abort a pregnancy, and how or whether she will undergo a caesarean or breastfeed, but not where she will give birth. Excluding midwives from indemnity insurance registration after a two-year indemnity period following the introduction of the national registration and accreditation in July 2010 will most certainly drive the practice of homebirth underground, with a potentially fatal risk to mothers and their babies. Mums have reserved the right to give birth in their own home with experts they trust and feel comfortable with for hundreds of years. There is no one-size-fits-all approach to birth and the government should not legislate that there be just one or effectively make this so by putting question marks over the long-term viability of the practice and by refusing to offer Medicare support in any way. The law needs to take into account the feelings or preferences of women, who are ultimately the ones that will endure giving birth and live with the result. Over 18,000 women believe that a woman who is capable of making an educated decision about her child’s birth, and who is well aware of her options, should not be prevented from homebirthing by a well-meaning third party. This figure was found on the Homebirth Australia website, where 18,197 women have signed a petition to block the legislation that we are discussing here today. While the number of homebirths only represents less than one per cent of all births in Australia, or approximately 700 births per year, this unique option still has a lot of support from women who reserve the right to choose, depending on their circumstances as the practice can also be quite expensive with no Medicare or private health fund rebates. Surely in this day and age of advanced skills, knowledge and technology it is possible to assist a woman in giving birth where she is most comfortable. There are several women in my area who are well qualified and who have set up their own private practice in this industry, providing a quality service to women and families in the Shoalhaven who choose personal care in their own homes. Moves to prevent these women from practising in the long term not only directly affect their business—the source of their wellbeing and passion—but also severely disadvantage the many women who would no longer be able to call on their services. Pregnancy can be a time of intense stress and worry. Many women need the support that independent services provide, and any effort to make their experience as positive as possible is certainly worth while. In my view it is important for us to look at all the facts during this debate, as I would hate for us to perpetuate an existing culture of misinformation and a misunderstanding which often overrides the views of the very people that this legislation affects most, and that is women. Some women may not be interested in homebirthing; I did not consider this option to be right for me. But the point is that it is a choice, a choice that women in a developed country like Australia should be entitled to. While the media has been known to focus on negative stories related to homebirthing, there is also ample research that indicates homebirth for low-risk pregnancies is as safe, or safer, than hospital births. All the facts need to be brought to the table in this discussion along with some consideration for all women, who deserve the right to go through the process of birth—a process they will remember for life—in a way they feel comfortable with. It is actually quite alarming to me that we need to debate the legality of this age-old practice when, as I mentioned earlier, we live in an age of medical breakthrough, highly advanced technology and an accredited knowledge at our fingertips. It almost seems as though we are going backwards. If there are enough women who are always going to choose homebirth in the right situation, why are we not aiding them with the tools that we have? Why is the government leaving the door open to make things harder, as opposed to easier, for these women in the long-term, when the capability is certainly there? No one doubts that safeguards should be put in place; no one doubts that women need to be armed with the right advice and information. But, surely, providing the right resources for women instead of driving the practice underground is a better outcome for everyone involved. The homebirth model of care has many points worth applauding: many women have reported feeling more prepared, safer and comfortable. I am not promoting it above hospital births, but I am simply pointing out that it is a viable option. This positive feedback highlights the professionalism and care provided by our nurse practitioners and midwives. I have the utmost faith in these professionals, and do not doubt their ability and judgment as the government apparently does. Some of them have helped successfully deliver homebirths for many years. We know that their representative body is extremely concerned about this legislation, warning that it would increase mortality rates, and although Minister Roxon has offered some concession the industry does need long-term certainty. The Australian College of Midwives would like to see independent midwives exempt from indemnity insurance requirements full stop, not just for X amount of time, or would at least like to see the accreditation extended to them in the long run. This is certainly not an unreasonable request for those qualified homebirthing experts. The government does not have its hands tied: it can better equip women if it chooses. Friday’s backflip shows that the government recognises it made a mistake and, on behalf of the women in my electorate of Gilmore, I certainly encourage it to fully address the matter and not just offer a bandaid solution. The government is already showing some confidence in our Australian midwives and nurse practitioners with an increase in their powers to prescribe certain medicines, but it is treating them with contempt by leaving the door open to prevent those qualified to offer expert assistance in a homebirth from doing so. I believe this issue boils down to several key factors that cannot be ignored. Firstly, it is about choice and the freedom to choose. Giving birth is a major event in a woman’s life, it affects her body and family for life and there are currently options for women, as it is acknowledged that one size does not fit all. Those options must remain in place for women. They can be added to as breakthroughs in research and technology are found, but never taken away from. The second issue here is safety. There is a significant number of women who have done their research and have already decided that homebirthing is for them. They may even have been through the process before. These women are going to deliver this way whether they are supported by the government or not and qualified services must be available to them for the long term, without question, to make this practice as safe as possible and to reduce the possibility of unwanted consequences. The third point I emphasise is that our nurse practitioners and midwives are of world-class standard. Their professionalism and track record is the only reason we can have this debate today. I have every confidence in qualified midwives who are homebirthing experts and I stress the need for them to have the freedom to access the resources and services that they need. I am aware that the state Labor government has virtually made us a nanny state in New South Wales, treating the rights of mature adults with contempt, and surely any effort to assist the state government with easing the burden on its overcrowded, understaffed hospitals would be welcome. Almost every day we read in the media stories about women who are sent home in the early stages of labour until a bed can be made available at a nearby hospital. While I would never denigrate the work of our medical personnel, I do criticise the lack of facilities provided and I certainly think that supporting other viable options such as homebirths would be in the public and government’s best interests. Not all women are happy for choices about their bodies to be left up to others, like the women I visited at this morning’s ‘Mother of all Birthing Rallies’ outside Parliament House. They are passionate about choice, as I am, and I speak for them today. I thank them for travelling from many far and wide places to be here today—it has not gone unnoticed. Well done to you all for being here. Your views have and will continue to be heard by the coalition. 8645 13:46:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and cognate bills. Having become a father recently, these are issues that I have given considerable thought to. It is great to see the government bringing some improved clarity and science to these issues, particularly to homebirthing and related insurance matters. It is also nice to be speaking on an issue that is at the leading edge of the delivery of health services across Australia, particularly the issue of nurse practitioners. I congratulate the Minister for Health and Ageing on these bills. Minister Roxon has shown a lot of resolve to deliver a greater level of certainty to the midwifery area and even more nerve to ensure that the rollout of nurse practitioners happens in a meaningful way. I cannot understate the importance of the role that nurse practitioners will play in the reform process in the delivery of health services right across Australia. This is indeed a very important change. In future years I think history will show that this reform was one of the most fundamental and important changes in our healthcare system. Almost always when we make major change there is a push back within some elements of the community. The minister has stood up to this. I listened to the comments and the pressure put on by the various stakeholders in this debate. It was a real test that was passed with flying colours by the federal minister, who has taken the initiative in Victoria and nationally with these health reform bills. There are currently around 350 qualified nurse practitioners in Australia, generally working in public hospitals. I believe the role of nurse practitioners is a terrific one. It provides an important level of care, more flexibility and better integrated healthcare outcomes with our healthcare workforce. It also provides a fantastic new element to the nursing career structures and I think it will help contain costs within the Australian healthcare system. Nurse practitioners can already provide healthcare services and prescribe medications in the majority of jurisdictions around the world. However, the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill will enable their clients to access the Medicare benefits schedule and Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme subsidised services and medications. In the budget, the government committed $120.5 million over four years to maternity services reform and $59.7 million over four years to expand the role of nurse practitioners. This bill is delivering on that commitment. These bills will support the inclusion of nurse practitioners and midwives under the MBS and PBS in line with the 2009-10 budget measures. In addition to these bills helping to drive the nurse practitioners reform issue, they will also enable the establishment of a professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives. This is critical in supporting the new MBS and PBS arrangements that we have spelt out. The midwives and nurse practitioners bill will allow for nurse practitioners and advanced midwives to request or provide specific Medicare subsidised services and prescribe certain PBS subsidised medicines. New Medicare items covering these services will also be introduced, effective from 1 November 2010. I think there is an important point to make in how the new arrangements will work. What we are seeking to put in place is a more effective and appropriate healthcare delivery structure that has all the proper checks and balances. Importantly, for midwives to be eligible to participate in the new arrangements they will need to meet advanced practice requirements and they will also have to work in collaborative arrangements with doctors. The minister and the Department of Health and Ageing will be working through exactly what is required and a comprehensive consultation process with midwives, doctors and other stakeholders will take place. The reform initiatives supported by this legislation will allow for incremental reform within a strong framework of quality and safety. It is expected that around 700 eligible midwives will be participating in the measure over the coming four years. I want to go through a few details in relation to the professional indemnity for eligible midwives and, of course, to deal with the homebirthing issue. The three bills before the House improve choice and extend Commonwealth funding for a range of midwife and nurse practitioner services for the first time ever, including the provision of antenatal care in the community and attending births in clinical settings. But, very importantly, none of these bills make homebirth unlawful. As we know, there is still a strong homebirth movement in Australia. Many Australian women and their families still take up this option. There are many women and men who favour homebirthing over the more clinical settings of hospitals. It is very important that in designing the new laws, the overall framework for midwifery, there are still choices available to women. We do not in any way want to establish a framework that makes homebirthing illegal or that drives it underground. That would be an absolute disaster in my view and most certainly might end in tragedy. To avoid this, the Minister for Health and Ageing, after considerable consultation with state governments, has forged an agreement with all healthcare ministers around the country to add a transitional clause to the current draft national registration and accreditation scheme legislation. This transitional clause provides a two-year exemption for privately practising midwives who are currently unable to obtain professional indemnity. This clause will allow midwives who are currently practising to continue to do so, although they of course will not be insured. As most people are aware, there are currently no professional indemnity health products available for midwives working outside the state hospital system. There are a couple of other important aspects to these bills that I think are very positive. These bills will improve disclosure and provide better information on services for users; provide better systems for collection of data, which will form the basis of future research so that we can continually refine and improve services; and provide better overall health standards systems for us to use. There will also be a requirement for homebirthing midwives to disclose fully to clients that they do not have professional indemnity insurance so that people can give informed consent. This is important and will ensure that clients are better informed about their rights and legal standing should things go wrong. As well, each homebirth must be reported and disclosed. This is important because, in the past, the recording of data about homebirths has not been as good as what it should or could have been. There have previously been no reporting requirements. People will also be required to participate in a quality and safety framework which will be developed after consultation led by Victoria through the finalisation of the registration and accreditation process. We will, for example, ask the national Nursing and Midwifery Council to provide advice on protocols for homebirthing outside the publicly funded and auspiced services. Importantly, the collection of better data on homebirthing and the development of detailed protocols might actually bring more homebirthing services into our public system or potentially open the way into the future for an insurance product to be extended to cover them. Of course, we will have a fully operational nursing and midwifery board in place as a part of the changes that are established as a result of the registration and accreditation. So there are multiple benefits that are going to be introduced as a consequence of these bills. We are clearing up things that the previous government never got to. This has been achieved with a determined effort by the federal minister and with all governments working together to obtain an outcome that is progressive for our healthcare system. Overall, the three bills before the House expand Commonwealth support for midwives and nurse practitioners in our community. They improve choice and extend Commonwealth funding for a range of midwife and nurse practitioner services for the first time ever, including providing antenatal care in the community and attending births in clinical settings. I underline again: none of these bills make homebirth unlawful. In fact, I believe they put in place foundations that may well lead to services of a sustainable nature with a long-term future. The separate draft bill for the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme for the Health Professions currently carries a proposal that will require health professionals from the 10 professions covered to carry insurance as a condition of registration. This draft bill was prepared for all jurisdictions via a COAG agreement and is not yet before any parliament, but the bill goes hand in hand with some of the provisions of these bills and is another element in standardising accreditation requirements and a universally better healthcare system. I think this legislation is very positive for my electorate. These measures will help improve the efficiency, capacity and productivity of Australia’s health workforce, but they are particularly important in rural and remote areas. As we know, many regional and rural areas struggle for GP services, and women giving birth sometimes have to travel a long way from their homes and their home communities. Whilst my electorate has recently taken some enormous strides in health service provisions under the Rudd government, as we build capacity at Deakin University’s medical school and provide a regional GP superclinic, there are still areas where it is hard to see a doctor or to get appropriate healthcare services when you need them. These changes will help alleviate that problem. These changes will mean more people will be able to get timely medical advice when they most need it. These changes support the Commonwealth’s commitment to improve maternity and primary care services and they support the Council of Australian Governments health workforce reform agenda. These changes will also lift the standard of health care that people get in regional Australia. I commend the minister for her hard work and for her compassion in this area, and I commend these bills to the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. 8648 Ministerial Arrangements 8648 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today as he is in India meeting with senior counterparts to discuss outcomes of the G20 finance ministers meeting in London. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. Furthermore, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport will be absent from question time today as she is attending the funeral of Flying Officer Michael Herbert in Adelaide. The Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion will answer questions in relation to early childhood education, childcare and youth and the Minister for Health and Ageing will answer questions in relation to youth on her behalf. 8648 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 8648 8648 14:00:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is addressed to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the minister to the following comment by the Prime Minister, in November 2007, about the impact of government spending on interest rates. The Prime Minister said: I will not place in jeopardy households already struggling with mortgages. I ask the minister: what spending restraint is the government currently showing to take pressure off interest rates? 8648 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —The government has put in place a savings strategy which is designed to ensure that the budget gets back to surplus by 2015-16 in the wake of the massive loss of revenue that has arrived as a result of the global financial crisis and the global recession. Mr Speaker, as you would recall, that is approximately $210 billion. But the government did put in place a number of savings initiatives in the last budget which were all designed to, over the medium term, improve the fiscal situation for, amongst other reasons, the purpose of avoiding having the fiscal position put upward pressure on interest rates. Unfortunately some of these initiatives have been blocked by the opposition in the Senate. I find it rather extraordinary that the Leader of the Opposition would stand up here and ask for details of the government’s fiscal strategy to ensure that we have savings and put downward pressure on interest rates when one of the major obstacles to achieving these ambitions is the opposition itself. With respect to the reform of the private health insurance rebate, for example, and other health initiatives that are designed to reduce the total spend on these areas in order to improve the fiscal position, it is the opposition, in the Senate, that is blocking these savings. It is characteristically part of the opposition’s stance that, on the one hand, it says that it will deliver a smaller deficit— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question related to spending restraint. The minister has not addressed that. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister is responding to the question. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —I hate to enlighten the Leader of the Opposition but the private health insurance rebate is in fact a spending item, and that is the example I cited that is being blocked in the Senate because the Leader of the Opposition wants to keep his private health insurance rebate so that ordinary working people who pay the taxes to finance his private health insurance subsidy will keep paying those taxes. The opposition is totally, massively, chronically confused on fiscal policy. It says it would have a lower deficit, that it would have lower debt, yet it makes promises of more spending, it blocks the government’s savings initiatives in the Senate and it has yet to put forward a single savings initiative of its own. 8649 8649 14:04:00 Sullivan, Jon, MP HVS Longman ALP 1 Mr SULLIVAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on developments in the global economy? How is the Australian economy performing through the global recession? 8649 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. Recently the G20, at finance minister level, has been meeting in London to discuss measures taken so far but also what measures may further need to be taken in our response to what has been the worst economic crisis the world has confronted in three-quarters of a century. Here in Australia, I would like to inform the House, the ANZ job advertisement series shows that the number of job ads grew 4.1 per cent in August. They actually grew by 4.1 per cent in August. This is the first monthly increase since April 2008—that is nearly 18 months—and the strongest monthly growth since September 2007. The acting chief economist at Westpac says: Australian economic activity has been remarkably resilient in recent months, particularly in some of our largest employing industries, such as retail trade, health services, government and construction. Of course these are the industry areas where so much of the government stimulus strategy has been focused, and that is why it is important to see that these measures are having an effect. These figures on job advertisements follow what has been a positive result in the national accounts data released last week. Last week’s GDP result indicated that the government’s early and decisive action to cushion the economy from the worst impacts of the global recession is working. The Australian economy grew by 0.6 per cent in the June quarter and 0.6 per cent across the year. The results are that Australia has the strongest growth, over the past year, of any of the world’s 33 advanced economies; secondly, Australia is the only advanced economy to have reported positive growth over the last year; and, thirdly, Australia has the fastest growth, the lowest debt, the lowest deficit and the second lowest unemployment of the major advanced economies. Domestic and international figures underscore the absolute importance of ensuring that we continue to stay the course with this strategy. Treasury advises that, in the absence of the government’s stimulus strategy delivered through our nation building for recovery plan, GDP in Australia would have fallen 0.3 per cent in the last quarter, the economy would be recording its third consecutive quarter of negative growth and, on top of that, the Australian economy would have contracted 1.3 per cent over the past year. In other words, had the strategy advocated by those opposite been adopted, Australia right now would be in the depths of recession and with unemployment going through the roof. Let us be absolutely clear about this: had the strategy advocated by those opposite been embraced, we would right now be in the depths of recession and with unemployment going through the roof. Can I say to those opposite that the Australian economy, however, is not out of the woods yet. If you look carefully at the job ads data released in the ANZ series today, there is another important figure there which is worthy of examination, and that is that job ads are still down 48.1 per cent over the year. Furthermore, if you look at the recent data on trade, you will see that our export earnings fell by almost $11 billion in the June quarter, the largest fall on record, and this has been a consequence of the unwinding of the commodity boom. Also, company profits fell by 9.4 per cent over the past year, the largest fall since 1961. So, if you look carefully at the national accounts, if you look at trade data, if you look across the other indicators, there are strengths—largely but not exclusively in response to what the government has been doing by way of stimulus—but also weaknesses, which are reflecting the downturn in global economic activity which has been underway for some time. For those opposite who believe that we may be out of the woods already, I draw their attention to the unemployment data which has come out of the United States overnight which says that unemployment in the US is now 9.7 per cent, and in Canada it is 8.7 per cent. These are very large numbers indeed. This underlines the absolute importance of ensuring that we prosecute a strategy which does not pull the rug from underneath the economic recovery. The Chief Economist of the Commonwealth Bank, Michael Blythe, says: The Australian economy will continue to benefit from economic policy stimulus. We are not there yet, but that stimulus should get us through to the point where a self-sustaining recovery takes over. Furthermore, in terms of the absolute importance of economic stimulus, I draw the attention of those opposite to what was concluded by the G20 finance ministers and central bank governors over the course of the weekend in London. They said, in their communique: We will continue to implement decisively our necessary financial support measures and expansionary monetary and fiscal policies, consistent with price stability and long-term fiscal sustainability, until recovery is secured. It is worth reflecting on that. You have the finance ministers and the central bank governors from the United Kingdom, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Canada, the United States, Japan, China, the Republic of Korea, Indonesia, India and other countries, of course. None of these central bank governors or finance ministers, according to those opposite, has a clue what they are talking about. Only those opposite, it seems, have received wisdom from on high—this is the only course of action, they say—that it is time to pull the rug from under the recovery by pulling the rug from under the government’s stimulus strategy being delivered through the nation building for recovery plan. I also draw the attention of those opposite to the very important intervention by the Treasurer of Western Australia, Troy Buswell. What did Troy have to say? Troy had a few things to say. Troy was asked: Back on the economy: should the Commonwealth pull back on its stimulus strategy? Troy said: No. I think that would be far too premature, to argue for the Commonwealth to pull back on a stimulatory package. There is still much uncertainty. There you have the finance ministers and the central bank governors of the 20 largest economies in the world, you have major public economists and you have our industry organisation leaders urging the government to continue in its course of action. You have Troy Buswell, the Liberal Treasurer of Western Australia out there saying the same. There is but one voice in the wilderness saying that this is all wrong, and that voice is that of the Leader of the Opposition, who has argued consistently, ‘You should never have brought in stimulus in the first place,’ presumably because their strategy— Opposition members interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —No! Sit down! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Oh! Now they want to hop onto the stimulus bandwagon! That brings us back to that core mathematical question: ‘How much stimulus do you want and how much do you not want?’ Last time I looked, you wanted 95 per cent, maybe 90 per cent—it depends how the factional deliberations are going within the Liberal Party on a given day. But, if we had followed the advice of those opposite, which was not to engage in early, decisive, strong action through stimulus, the result would have been that we would now be in the depths of recession with unemployment going through the roof. But, having got that so fundamentally wrong, what do they now say? ‘Pull the rug from under recovery and pull back on the stimulus’—which all these other institutions are urging this government to continue with. I say to those opposite, whether it is on the economy or other matters of public policy, what we see is a Liberal Party increasingly opportunist, out of touch, short term and—I have got to say—on the question of economic strategy, fundamentally lacking in judgment. It is that lack of judgment that we have seen so conspicuously on the part of the Leader of the Opposition on so many matters in recent times. Let us get on with the business of an Australian economic recovery. 8651 8651 14:12:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. I refer the minister for finance to the statement by the Prime Minister at the Lord Mayor’s Business Breakfast in Perth on 21 January this year, where the Prime Minister said: Fiscal policy should not complicate the task of monetary policy. It should make the job of the Reserve Bank easier, not harder. That is why the Government is committed to strengthening the budget position as well as improving the quality of public spending. Given that the Reserve Bank has indicated that it will unwind its stimulatory monetary policy and given that the Prime Minister insists on spending the government’s stimulus in full, will the minister now confirm that spending and interest rate policies are actually working against each other? 8651 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —To begin with, I cannot confirm the assertion that concluded the member for North Sydney’s question. In fact, the circumstances are such that it is very important for the stimulus to remain in place. Had that stimulus not been there, the June quarter account figures that have just been released would have been negative. The Treasury advice is that, had the government stimulus not been in place, then the Australian economy would have gone backwards by minus 0.3 per cent in the preceding quarter. The implication in the member for North Sydney’s question is at odds with what in fact the Reserve Bank governor has said. The Reserve Bank governor has simply said that, because the current interest rate settings are at ‘emergency levels’, it is reasonable to anticipate that at some point in the future that would cease to be the case. The member for Sydney is spicing up the Reserve Bank governor’s comments in ways that are not intended and therefore the whole implication in his question is completely wrong. The government do have a strong fiscal position, which is designed to get the budget back into surplus, which is built around savings in order to ensure that the government take strong action to get value for money from the taxpayers’ dollar that is spent on behalf of the Australian people. But I would remind the member for North Sydney that the government, of which he was a part, the cabinet of which he was a part, in its last four budgets managed to come up with a grand total of savings of roughly zero. So when we came to office we had a pretty big task of cleaning up government spending. We had a very big task of running the ruler over government programs and over government administration. And we have put in place, through a lot of reductions in spending on government processes alone—not on programs but just on the business of government alone—savings that will yield benefits of about $5 billion over a five-year period. That is not to mention major changes to entitlements, including major decisions that were put in place in the budget this year, some of which are being blocked by the opposition in the Senate. I would conclude by suggesting that if, as they pretend, at least today—tomorrow’s message might be the opposite—the opposition are serious about ensuring that the Australian government has a fiscal position that is as strong as possible and that is putting zero upward pressure on interest rates they will stop blocking government savings initiatives in the Senate. That is precisely what they are doing. They are continuing to block those savings initiatives in the Senate. If they are serious about a strong fiscal position and about maximising the downward pressure on interest rates they will get out of the road and pass those budget measures in the Senate. 8652 8652 14:16:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the impact that the economic stimulus package is having on job creation? 8652 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 Kingston for her question. I know that she, both in her electorate and in the state of South Australia, is very concerned to see jobs supported during the difficult days of the global recession. Of course, the world is confronting the harshest global economic conditions since World War II, and Australia is weathering this storm. We know that current economic conditions around the globe are impacting on the Australian economy and on jobs. Nevertheless, there are some encouraging signs in some recent jobs figures, some released today and some released over the past few weeks. In the ANZ job advertisement series, released today, we saw that the total number of jobs advertised in major metropolitan newspapers and on the internet rose by 4.1 per cent. In the Oliver Job Index, reported in the media today, there was a rise of 2.5 per cent, which was the largest jump since May 2008. The SEEK Employment Index rose by 4.8 per cent over the month of July. The Skilled Vacancies Index, containing figures collected by my department, rose by one per cent over August 2009, and the leading indicator of employment has risen for the second consecutive month in August, after falling for 18 consecutive months. Notwithstanding these figures, later this week we will see the next figures in the ABS monthly series on unemployment and, as the government forecast predicts, we do anticipate that unemployment will continue to rise. We know that this is occurring in circumstances where the IMF is still forecasting the global economy to contract by 1.4 per cent this year, and we know that unemployment in the US has hit 9.7 per cent. What this means of course is that, as the G20 finance ministers reflected on the weekend, as representatives of the world’s leading economies, we are not yet out of the woods. Business investment remains weak in Australia, our export income has been cut and of course we have to engage in economic stimulus which is timely and targeted and that is exactly what the government is doing— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —notwithstanding the jeering of those opposite, who care so little about the jobs of their fellow Australians. This economic stimulus will support over 200,000 jobs. This economic stimulus is not only supporting jobs today whilst we build the infrastructure that we need for tomorrow; it is supporting training efforts today. In that regard I would direct members’ attention to the fact that in the Building the Education Revolution program there is a requirement that at least 10 per cent of the total contract hours should be undertaken by apprentices, trainees and those seeking to upskill. I would have thought that that would have been endorsed as good news by anyone who cares about the next generation of skilled tradespeople. This is against a background where the National Centre for Vocational Education Research has told us, in its recent statistics, that the number of Australians who started a trade apprenticeship fell in the March quarter, by 22 per cent, compared to the same time last year. These figures prove that we are not out of the woods, that we need to support employment in our economy and that we need to support training efforts in our economy. Our economic stimulus package is doing just that, our Building the Education Revolution package is doing just that and we will continue to deliver them, notwithstanding the jeering and criticism of those opposite, who care so little about the jobs of Australians. 8653 8653 14:21:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. By way of introduction may I commend her on her response to the UN special representative, who plainly misunderstood the nature of the intervention. My question today is about the strategic housing program in the Northern Territory. How can the minister continue to claim that the strategic housing program, which is yet to build a single house, will still deliver 750 new houses when the cost of each house has increased by around 30 per cent, from $350,000 to $450,000? 8653 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Warringah for his question, and particularly for the opportunity that it gives me to inform the House about how many houses have been built in remote parts of the Northern Territory since the election. In fact, 102 houses have been built in remote Northern Territory communities since we were elected— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. The minister is responding. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —Thank you, Mr Speaker. One hundred and two houses. I might just compare that with how many houses were built under the previous government under the same program. In 2004-05 there were 94 houses built. In 2005-06 under the previous government there were 51 houses built— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. I asked not about the houses built under the former government’s program, I asked about the number of houses— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Warringah will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —Of course, what Aboriginal people want to know is how many houses have been built since we came into government, and it is 102, compared to the number of houses that were built under the previous government, which was considerably less. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, my point of order goes to relevance. The minister was asked about the Indigenous strategic housing program. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume his seat. That is, the Manager of Opposition Business will resume his seat. The minister is responding to the question. PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —I do appreciate the opportunity to go through this in some detail. Like everybody in this House, I am concerned to make sure that we deliver increased numbers of houses to Aboriginal people in remote parts of the Northern Territory. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —What we have recently done is conduct an important review of the SIHIP program— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —A review! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Bowman is warned! PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms MACKLIN —which has been put in place while those 102 houses have been built. What has been found as a result of that review is that, unlike the question from the shadow minister, we are able to deliver the housing numbers that we are committed to. We intend to deliver by 2013 750 new homes, 230 rebuilds and 2½ thousand refurbishments. Just compare that number of houses to what was built under the previous government. In 2005-06 under the previous government 51 houses were built. We have a major program underway and we intend to deliver on those targets. We have recognised that issues have arisen and challenges have arisen, which is why I have put in place this important review. The review has been conducted and made public, and the review has found that the program design that we have put in place is sound but that there has certainly been about a three-month delay in implementation, which of course I am very concerned about. Nevertheless, it makes it very clear that the program targets of 750 houses, 230 rebuilds and 2½ thousand refurbishments will be met. I have been very concerned in particular about the findings of this review in relation to administrative costs. I know there has been a lot of public comment about this issue. We are now working to reduce those administrative costs from 11.4 per cent to eight per cent, and that will be done. I have also decided that the Commonwealth will take a much more hands-on approach. This is a very unusual step, which has never been done by the previous government, to make sure that we deliver on the targets that we have set. Work has now started on Groote Eylandt and it is about to start in Nguiu. Most importantly, we have to recognise that the work is underway to refurbish houses and to rebuild houses that were previously not liveable. I am sure that the shadow minister has seen some of these houses, with kitchens that families could not cook in and bathrooms that children could not be bathed in. In Tennant Creek, for example, we have got many people working on these houses making sure that families will have a decent place to live in. We are putting Commonwealth officials into this program in an unusual step to make sure that it does deliver on the targets that we know are so important for Aboriginal people. 8655 8655 14:28:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 Mr HALE —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the finance minister provide the House with an overview of last week’s national accounts and what the figures say about Australia’s performance during this global recession? 8655 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Solomon for his question. The June quarter national accounts that were published last week indicated that the Australian economy is the only major developed economy that grew over the course of the 2008-09 year, and that, in the previous quarter, the economy grew by 0.6 per cent and, indeed, over the year the economy grew by 0.6 per cent. Within the detail of the national accounts, you can see evidence that the government’s stimulus strategy has been working. In particular, household consumption increased by 0.8 per cent over the course of the quarter, indicating that the cash payments that were put into the economy to stimulate economic activity had a significant effect. The business investment figure for the quarter increased by two per cent—equally indicating that the tax incentives put in place, specifically for small business but also for business generally, were having an effect, bringing forward business investment, bringing forward business expenditure, to help sustain the economy at a time when private activity has been generally retreating. Finally, you will also see that public investment increased by 0.8 per cent over the quarter—namely, that the infrastructure investment program of the government, as part of its wider stimulus strategy, has also been having an effect. The Treasury calculates that, without the government’s stimulus strategy, Australia would have suffered three consecutive quarters of negative growth. That would mean technical recession—three consecutive quarters of negative growth—and that we would have had 0.3 per cent negative growth over the course of the recent quarter, not the 0.6 per cent positive growth that we have experienced. Australia now is the fastest-growing economy in the developed world, and we have the second-lowest unemployment. The government is focused on the short-term challenge of tackling the flow-on consequences of the global recession and the global financial crisis, but also is very much focused, in doing so, on the longer term productivity challenges facing its nation. That is why the bulk of its stimulus strategy is focused on investing in infrastructure, investing in improving our education systems  and investing in the long-term drivers of productivity. I would have to ask: just how much evidence does the opposition need in order for it to understand that the government’s stimulus strategy is having a positive effect on the Australian economy—that it is working? They have consistently opposed this strategy. They have consistently voted against this strategy. They have consistently locked themselves into a foolish position. And they are now desperately groping around for any last little bit of political nitpicking they can throw at the stimulus strategy in order to justify their position. I note that the Leader of the Opposition, it was claimed a week or so ago in the media, was trawling around 10 years ago to become Labor shadow finance minister. This was of some concern to me because I was shadow finance minister at the time. I did not know he was stalking me! I am not quite sure whether it would have had a positive impact on the fiscal position of the opposition, but we live in hope. And there is still time. We have had three shadow finance ministers over the past 18 or 20 months and, given the leadership turmoil on the other side, it is still possible that the member for Wentworth could end up as shadow finance minister before this parliament is out. But I sincerely hope that the opposition, irrespective of the position that the member for Wentworth and Leader of the Opposition currently holds, rethink their position on the government’s stimulus strategy, because these national accounts demonstrate that, against very powerful negative forces from the international economy, we are succeeding in pushing back and keeping the Australian economy growing positively, sustaining jobs and employment, at a time when they are collapsing throughout the rest of the developed world. 8656 8656 14:33:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to her $1.7 billion blow-out in the Julia Gillard memorial school halls program, and the amendment to the program guidelines. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The phrasing in that question makes it out of order. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Joe, in your dreams it might be called that but it is not called that. It would, strictly, place the question out of order. The member for Sturt will rephrase his question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —To rephrase the question, Mr Speaker: I refer the minister to her $1.7 billion blow-out in the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, and the amendment to the program guidelines in the last 10 days to require project managers to seek value for money in delivering these projects. Why has it taken six months and, potentially, billions of dollars of unnecessary waste for the government to pay lip-service to the concept of value for money? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am trying to help them, Mr Speaker, but the last part of the question was also out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —As I have said often in this place, if there was a strict interpretation of the standing orders to do with questions, many questions would be taken out of order. I understand the point that the Leader of the House is making to me, but I will allow the question to continue. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on the point of order and your ruling: what you have indicated in the past is that a point of order must be raised at the time at which a question is asked. If it is out of order, I would ask you to ask the shadow minister to rephrase the question or to rule it out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I have allowed the question. 8656 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I do genuinely thank the shadow minister for his question, because it enables me to explain to the House some facts about this program which I believe the shadow minister either may not understand or may not be repeating accurately. The shadow minister is certainly right to say that the government has increased allocations to the Building the Education Revolution program by $1.5 billion. We promised the Australian people— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question has been asked. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —We promised the Australian people we would deliver $42 billion worth of economic stimulus, and we are delivering $42 billion of economic stimulus. The Building the Education Revolution program required an additional allocation from that $42 billion because of two factors in our Primary Schools for the 21st Century program. Factor No. 1 was that at the time that this program was costed it was impossible for the government to have the actual 2009 enrolment statistics because it was before the commencement of the school year. The enrolment statistics matter because this is a program correlated to school size. So, as school sizes change and the number of schools changes, obviously financing in the program changes. Then, the second and overwhelmingly largest factor in terms of the costings was that when this program was announced the program costings were done on the basis that uptake was likely to be 90 per cent. An opposition member—What? Free money! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —You said every school! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The question having been allowed, I thought that the House might wish to listen to the response. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I hear the opposition jeer at that, and the opposition is obviously thinking to itself: ‘Why would you model a percentage uptake of a universal entitlement program in schools? Why would you do that?’ It really strikes me as passing strange that any member of the opposition would jeer about that, because when the opposition was in government it had the Investing in Our Schools Program and—you guessed it—it was modelled at an 80 per cent take-up rate. It was badged as a universal entitlement to schools and it was modelled at an 80 per cent take-up rate. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The shadow minister says—he is priceless; I am very fond of him—‘And there wasn’t a blow-out.’ Yes, there was a blow-out. There was a blow-out when your deputy leader was Minister for Education, Science and Training. Let me explain to you the nature of the blow-out. Having costed the program at 80 per cent, more schools wanted the money than the costing allowed. So what happened was that the then minister for education, currently Deputy Leader of the Opposition, went back for an additional $181 million. That is the ‘blow-out’, if this terminology is going to be used, in the cost of Investing in Our Schools—18 per cent. It was a blow-out of 18 per cent, presided over by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition whilst the current Leader of the Opposition was a member of cabinet. I cannot recall whether the current shadow minister was in the ministry or trying to get into the ministry, but it was a blow-out of 18 per cent. Of course, percentage wise, this is a far greater cost variation than anything that has happened with Building the Education Revolution. The then minister for education, now the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, had to go back to the budget and come back out with $181 million, whereas this is a reallocation within an envelope that we promised the Australian people—$42 billion. So it just amazes me that any member of the opposition would have been out criticising a costing assumption of a 90 per cent take-up for Primary Schools for the 21st Century when they sat on the government benches and put out a program with an 80 per cent take-up and a blow-out of 18 per cent and then had to fix it. Then, of course, on the question of fixing that blow-out, what did they do? They changed the guidelines to cut the entitlement to—you guessed it—government schools. Schools had been able to apply, government and non-government, for $150,000 and then, to manage the consequences of the 80 per cent take-up rate assumption, the former government changed the guidelines so government schools could only get $50,000 less as a maximum. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked about why it took six months to include value for money in the guidelines. She might need to take— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. Whilst there is a differing opinion about the extent to which the question was in order, it is true that the question was as wide ranging as I will allow. The response from the Deputy Prime Minister is relevant to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —What they then did was cut the entitlement to government schools. In stark contrast, this is a government that said it would deliver $42 billion of stimulus to support jobs today whilst building the infrastructure for tomorrow. Within that $42 billion stimulus we have made an extra allocation to Primary Schools for the 21st Century because it is going gangbusters and more primary schools want to be involved in it than were originally costed for. We costed with a greater uptake assumption than that used by the previous government in its Investing in Our Schools Program and, unlike the previous government, we do not discriminate against government schools. We are supporting schools right around the nation so we can support jobs right around the nation. This is about jobs. It is about infrastructure for the future. It is a real pity that the current opposition, caught in this mire of hypocrisy, cannot see its way clear to just supporting the program. 8658 8658 14:43:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. Will the minister update the House on how the government’s stimulus investment in road, rail and community infrastructure is progressing across the nation? 8658 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. It is good to get another question from this side of the House about infrastructure, because we have had none all year—not a single question on infrastructure—from the opposite side of the House. Indeed, 70 per cent of our economic stimulus is in nation-building infrastructure—in our roads, in our rail, in our ports, in our broadband and, of course, in our schools as well as in our housing. This is about supporting jobs today to boost our economic recovery to support the economy of tomorrow. As part of the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, we brought forward some $711 million to accelerate 14 road projects across the country. This is now flowing through in projects across the nation. Indeed, last Friday the member for Brand launched the construction of the Mandurah Entrance Road in Perth in Western Australia. This construction is supporting up to 200 jobs and is construction welcomed by the West Australian Minister for Transport, Simon O’Brien. It is not surprising that the West Australian Treasurer, when asked about whether the stimulus should be withdrawn, said last Thursday, ‘I think that would be far too premature to argue for the Commonwealth to pull back on a stimulatory package. We see evidence of that here.’ Indeed they do in Western Australia, as they do right around the country. Indeed, last Thursday I turned the first sod on section B, Cooroy to Curra, on the Bruce Highway as part of our N1. In rail, we have injected $1.2 billion to undertake 17 rail projects. Just nine months later, projects are underway right around the country. Work got underway so quickly that three of those projects have been completed—announced, people put to work and completed so as to improve productivity on those rail lines. But, of course, we are also delivering on community infrastructure. We are investing over $1 billion through the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. Of that, some 400 projects have been completed already. Over 2,500 projects are underway. Are those who argue for the stimulus to be brought back saying that those 2,500 local community infrastructure projects in electorates right around the nation—theirs and ours regardless of political flavour—should be stopped halfway through? What are they saying when they say that these projects should be withdrawn? I note that the member for North Sydney has said that he will not go to the school infrastructure projects as part of the economic stimulus in his electorate because that would be hypocritical given that he voted against the package. That stands in stark contrast to the member for Wentworth and other members who are happy to turn up to these projects that they voted against. I look forward to seeing Malcolm this Friday, once again in the electorate of Wentworth, at a Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program announcement. Right around the country, with the exception of the member for North Sydney, their members on the ground in their own electorates are supporting the economic stimulus because they know that local communities want the jobs and the economic activity that that stimulus is bringing. 8659 8659 14:48:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What reasons did the Department of Finance and Deregulation give you for the massive $1.7 billion blow-out in the schools program? 8659 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for North Sydney for his question. As the Deputy Prime Minister has explained, there are a number of factors involved in this situation, the first of which— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What did your department say? YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Perhaps you will allow me to conclude the answer. The answer is that, firstly, the enrolment data that was available at the time the costing occurred was superseded by subsequent enrolment data which, of course, was not available at the time. The school census data for the current year was not available at the time, and that meant that there were significant changes in the overall profile for funding. Secondly, the assumption behind the take-up rate, the utilisation of maximum funding rate of 90 per cent, proved to be insufficient. The amount that had been taken up was significantly higher than the amount on which that was based. The advice from my department is directly in accord with what you just heard from the Deputy Prime Minister that the take-up rate was in fact higher than was initially anticipated and that there was a particular element with respect to the costing, namely, that the school census data on which the costing was based was subsequently superseded by more updated school census data, which meant that there were more students and higher numbers of students in different categories. 8659 8659 14:49:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs and Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy. Will the minister advise the House of the benefits of the economic stimulus for small business? Are there any obstacles to continued stimulus support for small business? 8660 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 Dr EMERSON —I thank the member for Brisbane for his question and for his ongoing support for all those small businesses in and around the central area of Brisbane. He has been a long and trusted supporter of the small business community there. The national accounts released last week confirm that our fiscal stimulus strategy is working and that Australia is one of the very few developed countries that is not in recession. In fact, it is the only major developed country not in recession. We have now recorded two successive quarters of positive economic growth at a time when, overall, the rest of the developed world is in the deepest recession since the Great Depression. It was interesting to go through a bit of a breakdown of the national accounts figures because they reveal that private investment in plant and equipment was much stronger than the market had expected. Gross domestic product in the June quarter grew by 0.6 per cent but business expenditure on equipment, plant and machinery increased by 5.6 per cent. Compare that with the overall GDP growth of 0.6 per cent—a very strong result. There was a 5.6 per cent increase in investment in equipment, plant and machinery. It is fascinating because Treasury estimates suggest that that investment in equipment, plant and machinery would have contracted by around three per cent without the small business and general business tax break. That shows how important the stimulus has been and continues to be in supporting small business through these challenging economic times. It is clear that this strong result is testimony to the small business and general business tax break that was introduced by the Rudd government on 13 December last year, but yet again the opposition leader has shown poor judgment by claiming that small businesses would not take advantage of that tax break. That is what he said: that small business would not take advantage of the tax break. In fact, they have done so. Indeed, the Prime Minister— 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull interjecting— 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr EMERSON —You said it many times. Indeed, you said, ‘If you’re a small business and you’re short of cash, a tax break isn’t much good to you.’ That was one of the many references that you made. The fact is that these figures are very strong: a 5.6 per cent increase in investment in plant, equipment and machinery in the June quarter compared with an overall increase in GDP of just 0.6 per cent—but at least it had a positive number in front of it, whereas the rest of the world had a negative number in front of it, and most of the rest of the world is in recession. The Prime Minister extended the small business tax break until the end of this year, 31 December, and boosted the rate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. So small businesses, against the judgment of the opposition leader, are taking to this tax break with gusto. Yet the opposition leader is now demanding that the stimulus be withdrawn. He voted against the stimulus package in the first place, and now he wants it withdrawn. His policy is to pull the supports out of the Australian economy, destroying Australian jobs and Australian small businesses in the process. It is just another example of the opposition leader’s poor judgment. The fact of the matter is this: withdrawing the stimulus would smash small business confidence and destroy tens of thousands of small businesses in this country. The Leader of the Opposition was asked yesterday to identify any credible source that supported his policy of withdrawing stimulus. He was incapable of naming one credible supporter of his policy of withdrawing stimulus. He is on his own. He is the Lone Ranger, Napoleon Solo, Robinson Crusoe and Dr Zachary Smith up there out on the outer edges of the Milky Way, lost in space, out there on his own. Ground control to Major Tom: you are out there on your own whizzing around the Milky Way, absolutely isolated. Ground control to Major Tom: do not destroy Australian businesses. That is what ground control is saying, Major Tom: do not destroy Australian small businesses. Get in and support our policy, because the Rudd government will continue to support Australian jobs, apprentices, tradies and small businesses in building the infrastructure of tomorrow. 8661 8661 14:54:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr ROBERT —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to the Evesham State School in the Labor electorate of Flynn, which last week received a grant of $250,000 to build a new library for its one enrolled student. Is this the minister’s idea of value for money? How did the school census data support this decision? 8661 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 Fadden for his question, and I presume that he is opposed to the 32 schools in his electorate benefiting from 104 projects and receiving more than $77 million of funds under Building the Education Revolution. I presume he is opposed to each and every dollar and each and every job supported by that expenditure. He must be, because he voted against it. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. One student has been handed a quarter of a million dollars, and surely the nation needs— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden will resume his seat. On the question of relevance, after the preamble the Deputy Prime Minister will now respond to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. I was making the very simple point to the member—and I would make it to all members in the House—that this is a program for all 9,500-odd schools around the country. It is a program that— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order on relevance. We already have one Anna Bligh in Queensland; we do not need another— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Bowman will leave the chamber under standing order 94(a). As he was given a warning earlier in the day, that is very generous. The member for Bowman then left the chamber. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Member for Canning, I noted your interjection, but an interjection is out of order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The simple point I was making is that this is a program benefiting 9,501 schools around the country with 24,426 individual projects. This is a program that rolls out correlated with school size but, as the guidelines have made clear throughout the life of the program, we work with education authorities, state and territory governments, the Catholic education authority and the education authority for independent schools so that we can respond to school needs. That has, of course, included money being moved from schools that do not need that resource to other schools. That has happened in circumstances where schools are going to be amalgamated, and obviously we want the new facilities to be there at the school that is going to be ongoing. We continue to work with school authorities on these questions, and we will continue to do so. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I say to the opposition members who call out during this debate that perhaps they might like to consider that the centrepiece of this program is support for jobs and school infrastructure today, during the days of the global recession, supporting tradespeople and apprentices around the country whilst delivering the biggest school modernisation program the country has ever seen, with more than 24,000 projects being delivered effectively over a two-year rollout period. I know that members opposite are embarrassed that they voted against jobs and assistance for local schools. I know that members opposite think that it is clever to come in here day after day— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, a point of order: the minister was asked about the Evesham State School. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I do not think she has actually mentioned it yet. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I know that members opposite feel that it is clever to come in here day after day raising allegations about this program and talking it down. Most of the material they have raised in question time has turned out to be factually inaccurate. This is a program to support local jobs and to build school infrastructure for the future. It is a program that most members sitting opposite cannot wait to associate themselves with the moment they are back in their electorates. But here in Canberra, of course, because they have voted against the program they cannot do that. The difficulty for the opposition is that very first decision. When they voted against this program they said no to jobs and no to school infrastructure and they will be judged on that. 8662 8662 15:00:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr GEORGANAS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the government’s plans to improve maternity services? 8662 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question. He always takes a particular interest in health issues. We all know in this parliament that Australia is one of the safest places in the world to give birth and that is an enviable record that we must, of course, protect. In June I was pleased to introduce into the parliament landmark legislation to implement our $120 million maternity services package, which will boost the role of the nation’s nurses and midwives in providing high-quality health care and improving women’s access to high-quality safe maternity care. Our reforms, as many in the House would know, are facilitating access to the MBS and the PBS by patients of nurse practitioners and appropriately qualified and experienced midwives. This is going to help remove barriers to the provision of care and improve access to services for the community. By making better use of our maternity services workforce, new arrangements are also expected to ensure greater access to maternity care for women closer to their homes. These bills are before the House right now and Australia’s nurses and midwives know exactly where the Rudd government stands on this issue. But as yet we do not know where the Liberal Party stand on this issue. How could we possibly know where the Liberal Party stand on this issue? The member for Dickson, true to form, has done nothing but grandstand and posture on this issue. We have seen no statement of support, no arguments against—no reason for any support to be denied or granted to nurses and midwives from the opposition. So what I want to make sure the parliament and the public are aware of today is just what it is that the Liberal Party seem unable to decide on when it comes to backing our nurses and midwives, who have waited decades for this change. Just so we are clear, do the Liberal Party truly want to prevent better access to breastfeeding support for many thousands of women across the country? Do they really want to prevent patients of nurse practitioners from accessing a rebate for medicines that they can legally prescribe today? Do they want to prevent innovative ways of ensuring that some of the most vulnerable in our community, like those in aged-care facilities, get better access to health care when and where they need it? Any attempts by the Liberal Party to pretend that these bills take away rights are simply incorrect. The member for Dickson still seems to be very confused with the draft national registration and accreditation scheme legislation, which requires that all health professionals, including midwives, have professional indemnity insurance cover as a condition of their professional registration. This of course is an agreement which is being implemented by states and territories as well as by the Commonwealth but is not currently yet before any parliament in the country, a fact that I would have presumed the member for Dickson might have bothered to find out. The government, though, has always maintained a concern—and I have made it quite clear that I was concerned about this—about the potential impact of this draft legislation on a small number of midwives who provide homebirthing services and an independent private capacity outside state run services and without indemnity cover. I am pleased to advise that on Friday last week, at a health ministers’ conference with state and territory colleagues, I was able to negotiate an agreement with the states and territories which will preserve the current rights of women who choose to have homebirth. Health ministers have agreed to a transitional clause in the national registration for a two-year exemption, which will last until July 2012, from the requirement to hold insurance as a condition of registration for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance for attending a homebirth. Importantly, state and territory health ministers agreed with our request that in order to access this exemption privately practising midwives will need to provide full disclosure, report each homebirth and participate in quality and safety frameworks. This is a sensible and practical arrangement which will allow for the status quo for women who choose homebirthing and continue to make that choice. Plus, for the first time, we will be able to collect national data on homebirthing and gather important information on quality and safety. So now is the time that the member for Dickson and the Liberal Party need to tell the 285,000 nurses and midwives across the country whether or not they are going to support increasing recognition for nurses and midwives, providing greater access to quality health care for patients and providing more choice and access to maternity services. Nurses want to know the answer, midwives want to know the answer and women across the country want to know where the Liberal Party stands on this issue. 8663 8663 15:06:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Given that the Australian Electoral Commission has today in writing, in this letter, confirmed to me that the schools stimulus display signs are electoral advertisements, will the minister undertake to ensure that all other promotion of the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program is similarly compliant with the Electoral Act, including the program website and all literature? 8664 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 shadow minister for his question. As the shadow minister would be aware, the AEC has also referred to the arrangements that we have announced in relation to the signs, which satisfy the requirements for authorisation. It strikes me as passing strange that the shadow minister would have become so concerned about this topic, given the track record of the former government when it came to signage and recognition arrangements. I have some material here that I could go to but I do not want to restrain the House for too long on this question. I draw the House’s attention to the Investing in Our Schools Program Guidelines for state schools. That was the one we were referring to a little bit earlier with the 80 per cent costing. It says: Stickers with modified plaque wording are to be attached to all books and smaller library resource items. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked a specific question about whether she would ensure that the website and literature associated with the schools stimulus debacle were compliant with the Electoral Act, and I would ask her to answer the question. I am also happy to table the school program guidelines. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member will resume his seat. There is no point of order. A government member—Come in, spinner! 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I don’t think so, you fool! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will withdraw. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I have been asked about programs and compliance with Australian Electoral Commission guidelines. Obviously, precedence and what has happened in the past are relevant to this. My attention has been, and I think the House’s attention probably should be, drawn to the fact that under the old Investing in Our Schools Program guidelines if you ended up with a school grant and, say, bought 5,000 books for your library every one of them had to have a sticker included in it. Every piece of material bought with the Investing in Our Schools Program money—10,000 books or 5,000 books—needed to have a sticker in it. Having had my attention drawn to this sticker here—it is very small print, so it may be challenging for some of us—I actually do not see an authorisation. I do not see an authorisation that would satisfy the Australian Electoral Commission on it. Whilst we are on the question of school signs and other things, my attention has also been drawn to signage under the Investing in Our Schools Program. Here is one example, at the Wantirna Primary School, that actually told you who opened the project. It helpfully tells you that it was Chris Pearce, the member for Aston. It tells you that he opened the project, obviously, at a school. Once again, it is not authorised in terms of Australian Electoral Commission style authorisation. Whilst I may be straying onto— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order, and a very important one as it relates to keeping the law. It is the obligation of ministers to comply with the law of Australia. The Deputy Prime Minister is not answering and giving a guarantee to the place. If she thinks two wrongs make a right she should, of course, admit to it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. There is no point of order. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The only member of the opposition that I am fonder of than the member for Sturt is the member for O’Connor. He is one of my special favourites. I thank him for his very frank concession that the Howard government behaved in a wrong fashion when it was in office. I thank him for that concession and say that he, at least, is an honest man on those topics. The Howard government behaved wrongly in office—here comes an apology for it. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked specifically whether she would ensure that the website and the literature were compliant with the Electoral Act, and I ask you— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. There is no point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Finally, though it may be straying onto the portfolio responsibilities of the minister for infrastructure, my attention has also been drawn to this sign under Roads to Recovery, just outside a school fence. No authorisation on that one. I think the minister would confirm to me that under the AusLink guidelines, to take just one example, such signage was displayed for at least 12 months after the project was finished. So there are some of the precedents on the question of signage and precedent. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Too embarrassed to answer the question! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I say to the shadow minister opposite, who is obviously concerned about these questions, that we will comply with any requirements of the Australian Electoral Commission. He may like, at some point, to explain the conduct of the Howard government on these questions. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I seek leave to table the guidelines of the Investing in Our Schools Program, which contain no requirement for display signs praising the government and also the Electoral Commissioner’s advice to me, which sets out the breach by the government in respect of their display signs. Leave not granted. 8665 8665 15:14:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. What action is the government taking to improve the quality of care for older Australians through investment in the aged-care workforce? How is it working to address workforce shortages? 8665 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Deakin for his question and I know what a very strong interest he has when it comes to aged-care matters and our aged-care workforce. I also know how particularly pleased he was about the additional residential places and community care places and the capital grant that was allocated in the last aged-care approvals round for Deakin and his continuing interest in aged care. The Rudd government is building a modern aged-care system to help meet the challenges of our ageing population. We are investing in our aged-care workforce to increase skills and to build an aged-care workforce for the future. Our aged-care workers provide such an invaluable and important service right across our nation. In fact, I have had the opportunity to visit many nursing homes right across the country. We have nearly 3,000 nursing homes and I have been very privileged to meet many of the wonderful staff that work there. These people are truly inspirational when it comes to their dedication and their commitment to the work that they do within our nursing homes. I would like to take the opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the more than 260,000 people who are currently employed within our aged-care sector and who are providing care to our older Australians, and I thank them for their continued commitment. The provision of high-quality aged-care services relies on the presence of a skilled workforce. That is why the Rudd government is making substantial investments in training and skills development for our aged-care workers. To date the government has invested $127 million to provide additional training to more than 21,000 aged-care enrolled nurses and personal care workers. This is taking place through a mix of programs such as the Better Skills for Better Care Program that funds the training of residential aged-care workers, the Better Skills for Better Care Program for community care workers and the Aged Care Nursing Scholarship Scheme, as well as programs to provide incentives for nurses to return to aged care after an absence. I was pleased to recently be at the TAFE at Ballina on the North Coast of New South Wales in the electorate of Page making an announcement. That announcement was for a $43.8 million package to train more than 8,000 aged and community care workers throughout the country. Through this package, more than 3,000 community care workers and more than 5,000 residential aged-care workers will receive training. Present on that day at Ballina TAFE was the UnitingCare Ageing North Coast Residential Group manager, Natalie Carter, and she said: ‘The residents we are getting in aged care are more complex, clinically complex, and higher skilled staff enables better care for those people.’ We are responding to that by this major investment in this training package. We are also investing in care specific training in areas such as dementia care, oral health and medication management as well. Aged-care qualifications are also amongst the most popular qualifications sought through the government’s Skilling Australia for the Future program. As at July this year, nearly 12,000 people had enrolled in aged care qualifications under the Productivity Places Program. In fact, it is the second most popular qualification sought through the government’s massive investment in training places. These are practical and commonsense measures to help people gain skills and build a long-term career in the aged-care sector. The Rudd government is investing in the aged-care system today by providing more funding than any previous Australian government in our aged-care sector. We are working with aged-care providers to build a modern aged-care system to meet the challenges of the future. 8666 8666 15:18:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Minister for Education and relates to changes to infrastructure funding in New South Wales schools. The minister would be well aware of the disappointment felt by 26 central schools in disadvantaged areas in rural New South Wales at having their funding for science and language centres removed and transferred to primary schools to rectify demand issues under the Building the Education Revolution program. Given that four of those schools are in the electorate of New England, could the minister explain to the communities of Ashford, Emmaville, Bundarra and Bingara why this decision was taken? Will the government revisit this decision? 8666 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 his question. As the member is probably aware, when the government announced the $42 billion nation-building package—the economic stimulus that we need to support Australian jobs with Building the Education Revolution as its centrepiece—one of the components of the Building the Education Revolution program was our pledge to construct 500 science and language centres around the country. This was the only part of the program that was done by way of competitive bid. The National School Pride Program was an entitlement for all schools calibrated to school size. The Primary Schools for the 21st Century program was a program for all primary schools calibrated to school size. The Science and Language Centres program was one where applications were made and assessed. There were various criteria, including need. The applications were not assessed by me. They were assessed by an independent panel and the independent panel made recommendations to government. Government has funded 537 of those applications as recommended by the independent panel. So we have more than delivered on that promise. The overdelivery on that promise was able to be done at a lesser cost than the $1 billion originally budgeted for. So, when it came to making adjustments within the $42 billion Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan, the residual money of that billion dollars was reallocated to help support expenditure under Primary Schools for the 21st Century. Obviously, in earlier questions in question time today I have explained how that costing was done and what was changed about that costing. I say to the member for New England that I understand that any school that missed out on a competitive funding round would be disappointed. But we have pledged to fund 500 science and language centres and we are actually constructing more. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I hear interjections from the Liberal Party, from the opposition, about priorities in relation to this. Because we are keeping it within the $42 billion funding envelope, obviously if we were to fund more science and language centres that would need to come at a cost somewhere else in the program. Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —To the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the member for Warringah and the member for Sturt, who are interjecting, I say this: if they want at any point to walk into the parliament and table at the dispatch box a list of schools which should not be funded under the National School Pride program or should not be funded under Primary Schools for the 21st Century in order to fund more science and language centres within the $42 billion envelope of our economic stimulus plan then they should feel free to do that. But I have issued that challenge to them before and I have not yet got a list from them about the schools they say should not be funded. I will set that test, that homework, for the shadow minister, and any time he wants to furnish that list of schools that according to the Liberal Party should be not funded I will be very ready to receive it. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt is warned! 8667 8667 15:23:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 Ms JACKSON —My question is to the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. What action is being taken to safely and quickly shut off the leaking well on the Montara oilfield? 8667 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I thank the member for Hasluck for her question. All of us in this place share her concern. The Montara oil spill is a very unfortunate incident and we must do everything we can to make sure it does not happen again. Right now, however, our top priorities are to respond to the oil spill and minimise harm to the environment, and to shut in the leaking well and stop the flow of oil and gas safely and as soon as possible. I was able to inspect the impact of the incident personally on Saturday, 29 August as part of a daily aerial inspection that was being undertaken by the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA. Dispersants are also being applied from the air and water, and this has been successful in accelerating the breakdown of the oil. Coastal and reef areas are not currently at risk. The operator of the oilfield, PTTEP, has decided to stop the leak by drilling a relief well to intercept the leaking well. The best advice available from Geoscience Australia and my department was that this is the most technically feasible, safest and fastest option to shut in the well. A number of companies in Australia have offered drilling rigs to undertake this work. These were all properly considered from a technical, safety and timing perspective. Again, Geoscience Australia and my department concurred with PTTEP that the West Triton, a jack-up drilling rig in Batam, Indonesia, should be mobilised to do the job. PTTEP also has appropriate contingency plans in place. It is very disappointing that some politicians with no technical expertise, as far as I am aware, and in a politically opportunistic way acted like they thought they knew better. The Australian community can rest assured that the government took the best technical advice and will continue to put safety and the environment before populist politics. The West Triton is due to arrive at the Montara oilfield this Thursday. It will take about four weeks to complete drilling and well operations, taking us to early October to shut in the well. Then we will focus on a full independent investigation into the operational, human and regulatory factors surrounding the incident. We have to learn from this incident and put in place any measures that are necessary to stop it happening again. I indicate that at the conclusion of question time I will be seeking leave of the House to make a full ministerial statement concerning these matters. I will also look to work with the opposition in respect of legislative change to enable a full and independent investigation to occur. 8668 8668 15:27:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 Mr KEENAN —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to her guarantee that ‘no worker, from the bill we have passed today into Australian law, will be worse off’. Does the minister stand by that guarantee, and will the minister also guarantee that no Australian employer will face higher labour costs under the government’s new award system? 8668 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I very much thank the shadow minister for his question. It gives me the opportunity to explain—and the shadow minister, I think, is aware of this—that in the process of killing Work Choices, something that the Rudd Labor government was elected to do and has very proudly set about doing, we have passed three pieces of legislation through this parliament. The first of them stopped the making of Australian workplace agreements and authorised award modernisation. The second set up our Fair Work system. The third dealt with transitional and consequential matters. I think the shadow minister points to an interview that I gave on Sky in March 2008. Of course, when I gave that interview I was very proudly proclaiming that workers in this country would be better off as a result of the determination of the Rudd government to kill Work Choices and to get rid of award-stripping AWAs, and that is precisely what we have done. Then, with the award modernisation process, we have taken a belts and braces approach to ensuring that employees are not in any way disadvantaged by this process. We set ‘no disadvantage for employees’ as an objective of award modernisation, and the Prime Minister was interviewed about these matters on radio last week. But in our third piece of legislation we also put in place as ‘the braces’ a system of take-home pay guarantees. This is a mechanism to make absolutely sure that no employee in Australia would have his or her take-home pay cut as a result of the making of a modern award. I would draw the House’s attention to a very important statement made about this matter and some unbelievably wise words dealing with the question of take-home pay guarantees: This is reasonable and it gives effect to one of the minister’s promises—an undertaking that no employees will be disadvantaged under her changes. Who said those unbelievably wise words, those very erudite words? It was none other than the shadow minister for workplace relations. I rely on and adopt his form of words. He is absolutely right: we have taken a belt and braces approach to looking after Australian employees. I thank him for the fact that he was so frank about it in this parliament on Hansard. He was very helpful indeed. 8669 8669 15:31:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 Mr DREYFUS —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. Will the minister outline how the Australian government is responding to any environmental threat posed by the Montara oil spill? 8669 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I thank the member for his question. My department continues to work closely with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority and relevant Commonwealth and state agencies to ensure that appropriate measures are in place to respond to any impact on wildlife and the broader environment that may result from this oil spill. It is a matter of great concern to me as environment minister. On Friday last week I accompanied AMSA on a flight over the site to see the extent of the spill firsthand and spoke to the officers working there who are monitoring it and responding to it. Emergency response measures have been in place since the uncontrolled release began on 21 August and, as the House has just heard, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority continues to lead the federal response to this matter. The most immediate priority, as the Minister for Resources and Energy has just pointed out, remains to stem the flow of oil as soon as practicable by blocking the leaking well. This is a particularly complex engineering operation. To ensure that this essential operation is in no way delayed by the need to seek formal statutory approval for the necessary works, I can advise the House that last night I formally exempted these actions from the requirements of the EPBC Act on the basis that it was in the national interest to do so. Granting an exemption from the operation of the EPBC Act is not an action that any minister would take lightly, but I think there is little doubt that the environmental consequences of allowing the spill to continue whilst an environmental impact assessment is being prepared would be far worse than any impacts that might arise from actions taken to stem the flow. Since the spill was reported my department has been working closely with AMSA and relevant Commonwealth and state agencies to put in place a plan of action to help any wildlife that might be affected by the oil spill in Commonwealth waters and to respond to possible impacts on nearby Commonwealth reserves. This plan has been developed by an expert in wildlife response from the Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management who coordinated the wildlife response to the Moreton Bay oil spill earlier this year. Last week that expert carried out surveillance of the area, including the Ashmore Reef and Cartier Island Commonwealth marine reserves. The plan of action includes measures for treating any wildlife found that might be affected by oil at Ashmore and Cartier marine reserves, which are within about 80 nautical miles of the site. This includes ensuring that the appropriate response equipment is on site should it be needed. Customs and Border Protection Command officers on site at Ashmore are also regularly surveying the reserve for any identifiable impacts. Whilst the spill is some distance from the Ashmore and Cartier reserves, my department continues to work with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority to develop a response plan should any oil, including residue, reach these fragile areas. At the same time, the department will continue to work closely with the Western Australian government, which has plans in place to deal with any oil affected wildlife that might be found in state waters or that might come ashore on the Western Australian coastline. And to ensure that any longer term environmental impacts of the spill are appropriately addressed, my department is also working with the company responsible for the rig, PTTEP, to ensure that a comprehensive, long-term environmental monitoring program is put in place. The government is working to ensure that we do put in place all the necessary and practicable measures to respond to the threat presented by this oil spill to our precious environment. 8670 8670 15:35:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 Mr KEENAN —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his Deputy Prime Minister’s previous answer. I also refer him to his guarantee given in this House that ‘no working families in this country will be worse off as a consequence of the industrial relations laws’. Does the Prime Minister stand by his guarantee, and will the Prime Minister also guarantee that no Australian employer will face higher labour costs under the government’s new award system? 8670 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I would again refer to that statement by the honourable member who has just asked the question, where he says that he endorses the position taken by the minister, and I would refer to his statement in the House on 2 June 2009. The government’s mandate to reform the industrial relations system in this country is absolutely clear-cut: get rid of Work Choices, get rid of AWAs and bring in a fair and balanced industrial relations system. That is what we have done. The government stands by the policy underpinning that legislation and supports the determinations which were contained in the statements by the AIRC last week. In terms of transitional arrangements for both employers and employees, it is the right policy for the country. 8670 8670 15:36:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr DANBY —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House about the appointment of the new Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police and the government’s ongoing campaign to fight terrorism both in Australia and abroad? 8670 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I thank the member for Melbourne Ports for his question. This is a very important day. Today Mr Tony Negus was sworn in as Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police effective from today. In attendance were the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General, the Acting Chief Justice of the Federal Court of Australia and me, as well representatives from other police jurisdictions and many other distinguished guests. It was a very important event. Commissioner Negus has had a distinguished 27 years in the AFP and has worked across the spectrum in the Australian Federal Police. He has worked in community policing, federal investigations, human resources, training and protection. He has worked overseas and understands the growing need to engage with counterparts within our region and across the world. He is highly regarded. I am sure the opposition would agree that the new Commissioner of the Australian Federal Police is highly regarded and widely respected by his Australian domestic and international law enforcement colleagues as well as the AFP’s many partner law enforcement agencies. The commissioner has most recently held responsibility for high-tech crime operations, border activities, international liaison networks, economic and special operations, forensics and the international deployment group, and he is extremely well qualified to lead this very important law enforcement agency. Tony Negus said today, after being sworn in by the acting chief justice, that protecting the Australian community against the threat of terrorism and serious organised crime will remain the primary focus of the Australian Federal Police’s policing activities. This is a focus that the Rudd government fully endorses. The AFP is 30 years old and is entering a significant phase in its development. Commissioner Negus will be working, supported by the Rudd government, to deliver more sworn police onto the front-line investigations in the fight against organised crime and transnational crime and terrorism. In welcoming this appointment, the government would also like to acknowledge the significant contribution of the outgoing commissioner, Commissioner Mick Keelty, in his leading role of the AFP since 2001. Commissioner Kelty has demonstrated an outstanding leadership during a period of significant growth in the size, the nature and the complexity of the AFP’s operations in Australia and abroad. He also led the AFP through a challenging period including events such as the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Bali bombings, the Jakarta embassy bombing, the Indian Ocean tsunami disaster and the 2003 Canberra bushfires. Commissioner Keelty has played a key role in driving greater cooperation and coordination in law enforcement operations with a number of Commonwealth and state authorities and has forged important relationships with law enforcement partners throughout the region. He leaves a lasting legacy within the Australian Federal Police and in law enforcement generally in Australia and within the region. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 8671 Auditor-General's Reports 8671 8671 15:40:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit report No. 2 of 2009-10 entitled Campaign advertising review 2008-09. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 8671 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:41:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings, and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Great Barrier Reef Outlook Report 2009 – Section 54(5) of the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act 1975 Airservices Australia - Report on Movement Cap for Sydney Airport – 2nd Quarter 2009 – Subsection 9(3) of the Sydney Airport Demand Management Act 1997 Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 8672 Ministerial Statements 8672 8672 15:41:00 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 0 Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —by leave—On Friday, 21 August 2009 an uncontrolled release of oil and gas into the ocean and atmosphere occurred from a well on the Montara oil field in the Timor Sea. At the time of the hydrocarbon release, the West Atlas jack-up drilling rig was engaged in well operations through the Montara wellhead platform. A total of 69 personnel were on board the West Atlas drilling rig at the time of the incident and all were safely evacuated by lifeboat to a nearby support vessel and later a pipe-lay vessel in the area that was able to support helicopter evacuation operations to Darwin. The drilling rig was also safely shut down. Since the evacuation of personnel, the top priorities have been to respond to the oil spill and minimise environmental harm; and ensure a plan is in place to shut in the leaking well safely and quickly. I am pleased to advise that the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, AMSA, had mobilised equipment and personnel to respond to the incident within 15 minutes. The response effort was rapid and safely conducted, and is a tribute to all those who have been involved for many years in ensuring Australia’s preparedness to handle an oil spill through AMSA’s National Plan to Combat Pollution of the Sea and the industry’s Australian Marine Oil Spill Centre. In addition, the oil and gas industry, federal, state and territory agencies have provided their full support to assist the response efforts. I was able to inspect the impact of the incident personally on Saturday, 29 August as part of a daily aerial inspection that is being undertaken by AMSA. Natural evaporation and weathering is breaking down and dispersing the oil. Dispersants are also being applied from the air and water, and this has been successful in accelerating the breakdown of the oil. The use of dispersants is consistent with international best practice aimed at minimising environmental harm. AMSA is using sophisticated tracking and measuring equipment on its Dornier aircraft, professionally trained observers and satellite tracking buoys in the water to make observations about the size and location of the slick. The coastal region, reefs and islands are not at risk. The affected area is 170 kilometres from the shore and the slick continues to trend out to sea in a north-easterly direction. The affected area is about 25 nautical miles by 70 nautical miles with a visible sheen and patches of oil covering about 25 per cent of that area. The heaviest patches of oil are less than 10 nautical miles from the Montara wellhead platform. Last Friday, boom and skimmer vessels also commenced recovery operations on site. This will contain more of the oil to the area immediately around the Montara wellhead platform. Dispersant operations will continue to accelerate the breakdown of the oil that cannot be recovered. The operator of the Montara oil field, PTTEP Australasia (Ashmore Cartier) Pty Ltd, investigated a number of options to shut in the leaking well. Geoscience Australia and my department also assessed a number of options and concurred with PTTEP that the most technically feasible, safest and fastest option was to drill a relief well, intercept the leaking well and stop the flow of oil and gas. A number of companies indicated their willingness to offer drilling rigs either stacked or operating in Australia to undertake this work. I am pleased to advise the House that these were all properly considered from a technical, safety and timing perspective. Again, Geoscience Australia and my department were satisfied that PTTEP’s decision to mobilise the West Triton jack-up drilling rig from Batam, Indonesia, represented the best available option. The West Triton is currently on its way to the Montara oil field and the best estimate for its arrival is now Thursday, 10 September. While some problems were encountered yesterday while the rig was under tow, PTTEP and all others involved in the response effort must stay focused on safe operations to get the rig on location as soon as possible. Once the rig arrives at Montara, it will take about four weeks to complete drilling and well operations. The best estimate for containing the leak and stopping the flow of oil and gas remains early October. AMSA is well prepared to deal with an ongoing clean-up operation over this period. The National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority, NOPSA, and the designated authority under the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006—the Northern Territory Department of Regional Development, Primary Industry, Fisheries and Resources—are working cooperatively with PTTEP to assess proposed safety, environment and operational plans before drilling commences on the relief well. The safety of people and the protection of the environment remain our top priorities and the regulators will ensure that appropriate plans are approved before work commences. Once the well has been safely shut in and the flow of oil and gas has been stopped, the West Atlas will be inspected and there will be a full investigation into the operational, human and regulatory factors surrounding the incident. Most importantly, we want to learn from this incident and take any measures that are necessary to stop it happening again. If the regulatory framework needs to be improved, the government will act decisively to do that. NOPSA has already initiated investigation activities relating to the occupational health and safety of people. Later this week I plan to also introduce an amendment to the Offshore Petroleum and Greenhouse Gas Storage Act 2006 to provide for a broad-ranging major incident investigation power. Subsequently, I will announce arrangements for an investigation into the Montara incident. The need for both a review of regulatory investigatory powers and consideration of a properly resourced and empowered independent national safety investigation capacity was identified by Kym Bills and David Agostini in the June 2009 report of their inquiry into offshore petroleum safety regulation. This report was released at the meeting of the Ministerial Council on Mineral and Petroleum Resources, MCMPR, in Darwin on 9 July 2009. The MCMPR has undertaken to consult with the industry and respond to the detailed findings and recommendations of the inquiry by the end of November 2009 with a view to introducing appropriate legislative amendments in early 2010. I am determined that we meet this commitment. Whilst this is the first well blow-out in offshore Australia since 1984 and around 1,500 wells have been drilled safely over the last 25 years, there is no room for complacency. The oil and gas industry is one of the engine rooms of growth in the Australian economy and critical in providing energy security for the nation. It is also an industry that can be hazardous to people and the environment when things go wrong. That is why our industry standards, practices, regulations, operators and regulators must be world class. The Australian community, rightly, expects no less from all of us. I thank the House for the opportunity to make this statement. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Groom to speak for 9½ minutes. Leave granted. LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr MARTIN FERGUSON —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Macfarlane speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding nine and a half minutes. Question agreed to. 8674 15:52:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I thank the Minister for Resources and Energy for the update he has just provided to the House in regard to the response that is being implemented following the incident on the Montara oil field in the Timor Sea. The opposition accept the minister’s presentation of the sequence of events and are satisfied that all that needs to be done that can possibly be done to clean up the spill effectively, with the minimum damage to the surrounding environment, is being done. These are never easy situations and we realise that people have an extraordinarily high expectation in regard to the response by both the government and the companies involved. The government is, through its bodies Geoscience Australia and the various other agencies involved, including the Australian Maritime Safety Authority, doing everything it can. Perhaps there will be lessons to learn from this, and I will come back to this a little later in my speech. But for the time being I have to say that I support the minister in thanking the personnel of the Australian Maritime Safety Authority for the high standards they are already displaying in regard to their response. I also take the opportunity to concur with the minister’s comments that we should never be complacent about the risk of oil well blow-outs. Offshore exploration has long played a critical role in contributing to our national economy and it will continue to do so well into Australia’s future. I note the minister’s statement that this is the first well blow-out offshore since 1984 and that around 1,500 wells have been drilled safely in that time. While any blow-out is one blow-out too many, the reality is, given the scale and involved nature of this type of project, that this is still a very impressive record. However, we should not use that record as an excuse not to maintain even higher standards going forward from here, higher standards based on the experience we gain from the investigation which the minister has foreshadowed that will take place once the first priority of shutting this well down has been achieved. Whilst there is no room for complacency, we cannot afford to be alarmist. Unfortunately, in the wake of this spill some have chosen to forgo a reasonable and rational assessment of what has happened and instead use the situation as a platform for opportunistic statements, some of which have since been contradicted. For example, on 29 August a statement was issued from Senator Rachel Siewert stating that the oil was sited only 20 kilometres off the coast and would soon hit the Kimberley coast. This stands in stark contrast to statements presented in this House today placing the spill 170 kilometres off the coast of Western Australia. I believe the minister’s figures not only because of his requirements to always speak the truth in this House but I know that they are backed up by Geoscience Australia and the marine safety authority, two agencies of enormous respect internationally. When we hear of statements about the oil slick being 20 kilometres off the coast and another statement the previous day measuring the size of the oil spill from east to west at 180 kilometres, we realise that we are running a risk here of letting the fiction hide the facts. Only the facts will fix this situation. Only the facts can be used to ensure that this situation never happens again. We should not allow those who want to politicise this matter to use the situation for their own political advantage and put at risk our ability to effectively deal with this situation now and the possible recurrence of the situation in the future. Once the immediate effects of the spill are dealt with, it is prudent to be going forward armed fully with the facts about the circumstances leading up to the spill and the impact it has had and to put in place provisions to prevent a similar situation occurring again. I note that the minister has indicated he will announce arrangements for an investigation into the Montara incident. I also note from his statement that he will introduce amendments to the Offshore Petroleum Amendment (Greenhouse Gas Storage) Act 2008 to provide for that broad-ranging major incident investigation power. On the basis that we have confidence in the preparation of those amendments, in principle we will support them when they come to the House. What we must do also is to ensure that we work in company with any state authorities on this matter and ensure that as we go forward we do everything we can to prevent a reoccurrence. 8675 8675 15:58:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —by leave—The devastating Victorian bushfires of February 2009 have been described as Australia’s worst natural disaster, and it certainly was in terms of the catastrophic loss of life and the extreme damage to property. The impact of the bushfires will continue to be felt as the recovery and rebuilding process continues, and the thoughts of all members of this parliament continue to remain with the communities that have been so terribly affected. I would particularly like to acknowledge the work of my colleagues the Minister for Families, Housing and Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and the Parliamentary Secretary for Bushfire Reconstruction, who continue to work with the Bushfire Reconstruction and Recovery Authority, the Victorian government, the Red Cross Appeal Fund Advisory Panel and affected communities in the rebuilding process. From the outset, the Commonwealth has worked cooperatively with Victoria to provide every necessary support to communities in responding to and recovering from the bushfires. This has involved the hard work of several Commonwealth government agencies. Commonwealth assets were made available under the Commonwealth disaster plan, including, for example, Australian Defence Force personnel and equipment and Centrelink workers to assist bushfire victims in accessing financial assistance measures. To date, the Rudd government has committed nearly $400 million in response, recovery and reconstruction measures following the devastating Victorian bushfires and will continue to provide support and assistance as schools, homes, businesses and communities are rebuilt. In the aftermath of the bushfires the Victorian government established a royal commission to investigate the causes of, preparation for, responses to and the impact of the fires. In August 2009, the commission released its interim report with recommendations focusing on the protection of human life and reforms that can be implemented prior to the coming bushfire season as a matter of priority. In that context it is appropriate that I outline for the House the federal government’s response to the recommendations made by the commission with primary relevance to the Commonwealth. But the Commonwealth’s response will also go into matters where we believe we can provide particular assistance to Victoria. Our formal response was tabled with the commission on 31 August this year. Development of National Emergency Warning System (NEWS) A key initiative referred to by the royal commission is the development of a national telephone based emergency warning system. The Commonwealth is already assisting the states and territories to develop a national telephone based emergency warning system and to conduct research to improve the technology. The Rudd government has invested $15 million to assist the states and territories to establish the National Emergency Warning System  to deliver emergency warnings to landline and mobile telephones based on billing address. The tender process is being managed by Victoria on behalf of all states and territories. The Rudd government has also invested over $10 million to create a Location Based Number Store (LBNS) to provide secure access for state and territory warning systems to telephone numbers based on their billing address. The National Emergency Warning System is being developed to be operational by the next bushfire season in line with the recommendations of the interim report and, I would suggest, community expectations. It is important to remember, however, that the development of a national telephone based warning system is designed to complement and augment existing measures such as radio alerts and warning signals as no one method of warning can or should ever be relied on in its entirety in the event of a disaster or emergency. Delivery of emergency warnings based on the physical location of the handset In addition, the royal commission has asked the Australian government, the Victorian government and the Council of Australian Governments to consider whether it is technically possible to implement a national warning system that can reach mobile phones based on their physical location as opposed merely to the owner’s billing address. The royal commission asked these parties to determine whether it is technically possible to implement these measures for the 2009-10 bushfire season. The government recognises the importance of tailoring the delivery of emergency warnings based on the actual location of a mobile handset which is why we support the intent of the royal commission’s recommendations and will do everything that we reasonably can to advance it. The Commonwealth has already taken action to implement the royal commission’s recommendations insofar as we are able. In April the Commonwealth committed, through the Council of Australian Governments, to fund further research into a capability to deliver warnings based on the location of a mobile telephone. At the meeting, it was agreed that: the Commonwealth will fund the research to establish the feasibility of developing a national location based mobile telephone warning capability; the work will be coordinated through a working group with the states; following an evaluation of the feasibility of the capability and further scoping of the likely costs, consideration of possible funding will also be required. To implement this agreement: the Commonwealth has committed $1.35 million to Victoria as the jurisdiction with responsibility for managing this stage of the program to identify a technical solution that will work across all carrier networks. Victoria has made a formal request for information (RFI) from industry on the capability to send warning messages to mobile telephones based on handset location on behalf of all states and territories. The RFI closes on 28 October 2009. In addition to the Council of Australian Government agreement, the Commonwealth will also: consult with Victoria on the feasibility of deploying an interim solution to deliver warnings to mobile telephones on the basis of the location of the handset for the 2009-2010 bushfire season; by December 2009 participate with the states and territories in the evaluation of responses to the RFI; and assist in the development of any proposals for the extension of the emergency warning system to deliver location based warnings to mobile phones for consideration by the Council of Australian Governments in early 2010. We are ultimately, however, restricted by the state of technological advances with respect to that particular recommendation. Annual preseason briefings The interim report of the commission also recommends that briefings be provided by the Commonwealth at least once per year regarding arrangements available to support states and territories during disasters and emergencies, including bushfires. My department has organised a national preseason briefing to be held in Canberra on 25 September 2009. The briefing will focus on bushfires and other hazards and will involve key Commonwealth, state and territory agencies and representatives. The Commonwealth will ensure that these preseason briefings are held annually for all jurisdictions. Facilitating discussions between Commonwealth, state and territory agencies In addition to the annual briefings, the commission recommends that the Commonwealth facilitates discussions between its agencies—that is, Commonwealth agencies—and state and territory fire services, to identify ways in which Commonwealth assets can be applied more rapidly and effectively during extremely dangerous bushfires. The Commonwealth, through Emergency Management in Australia in my department, has already commenced these discussions and will continue them on an ongoing basis. Options for fire danger indices and ratings The commission in its interim report also made recommendations concerning fire danger descriptions and called for the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) and the Bureau of Meteorology to collaborate with researchers in exploring additional and more sophisticated fire ratings and descriptions. These recommendations will be implemented by the next bushfire season. A national bushfire warnings task force has already been established to finalise a national fire-warning model by 1 October 2009. The Bureau of Meteorology will also incorporate a new scale of fire danger ratings into its weather and warning services and will also include fire danger index values on its website, which will be a particularly valuable resource. By 2009-10, this coming bushfire season, Victorian weather forecasts and warnings will include the new fire index values, descriptions and also action statements. Other recommendations In addition to recommendations that directly affect the Commonwealth, the government is also taking action in areas addressed by other key recommendations of the report that affect, in particular, Victoria. The commission makes a number of recommendations with respect to increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the emergency triple zero call services processes, involving the initial call referral from Telstra to the state and territory emergency service organisations and the subsequent handling by those organisations. In May, I invited state and territory emergency management ministers to consider measures to improve aspects of the triple zero system, including arrangements for managing a surge in calls during a major disaster, at the meeting of the ministerial council. This issue will also be discussed at our upcoming meeting in September, in preparation for that subsequent meeting. This work is being conducted in cooperation with the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), which has operational oversight of triple zero, and the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy (DBCDE). As well, I commend Telstra on their constructive approach to the discussions. Addressing bushfire arson As stated in the Australian Institute of Criminology report titled Using crime prevention to reduce deliberate bushfires in Australia, approximately half of all vegetation fires, some 20,000 to 30,000 each year, are deliberately lit, and arson in all forms across the Australian community costs the Australian community in the order of $1.6 billion annually—but I suspect that figure has gone up dramatically as a consequence of the Victorian bushfires. The Commonwealth has initiated a number of measures to tackle arson within our community. In March, a national forum on the reduction of deliberate bushfires in Australia was convened, bringing together for the first time key agencies and experts across jurisdictions to identify areas for action and to ensure better coordination between police, fire and emergency services to engage in targeted prevention programs and share information in investigating crime and working with the broader community, including schools and other organisations. As a result of this, I will be presenting a draft National Bushfire Arson Strategy to the September meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management (MCPEM) ministers, with a view to finalisation in November. My department has also drafted new model penalties for bushfire arson, which impose penalties of up to 25 years for lighting a fire which leads to death and 15 years for lighting a fire which leads to serious injury. These offences were presented to the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General (SCAG) in April, and we hope that states will respond favourably to the recommendations. The department is also helping to facilitate the development of better education and training tools with relevant organisations such as the Australasian Fire and Emergency Service Authorities Council (AFAC) and also the National Institute of Forensic Science and in turn of course liaising with state and territory educational authorities. Clarity in national disaster arrangements A strong theme in the royal commission’s interim report is the complexity of current disaster arrangements across Australia and the need for greater clarity in responsibilities and procedures. As such, a coordinated response to risk assessment, prevention, preparedness, response and recovery is required—indeed is essential—at all levels. To this end, the November meeting of the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management (MCPEM) will consider a National Catastrophic Natural Disaster Plan, which will aim to provide clarity on the coordination of arrangements across jurisdictions for managing the consequences of natural disasters. The meeting will also consider a disaster resilience framework, which will provide strategic direction to guide national policy in a range of sectors including the emergency management sector. Through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG), the Commonwealth is also working with state, territory and local governments to ensure that jurisdictions take full advantage of the lessons learned from the tragedy of the Victorian bushfires to maintain an efficient and responsive disaster response and recovery framework for the future, which, unfortunately, all indications are will become more in demand as a result of the impacts of climate change. Conclusion The royal commission is to be commended for its work to date. We are actively working to implement relevant recommendations of the commission’s interim report. The Commonwealth will continue to assist Victoria to ensure measures are in place, to the best extent possible, to help communities protect themselves in future bushfire seasons. The government also remains committed to cooperating with and assisting the royal commission to the greatest extent we possibly can in anticipation of their final report in July next year. I thank the House for its attention. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Farrer to speak for 15½ minutes. Leave granted. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms Ley speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 15½ minutes. Question agreed to. 8679 16:14:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the ministerial statement on the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission Interim Report and present the coalition’s response. We should never forget what happened on 7 February this year, we should never forget the unfathomable human tragedy and we should never forget the communities that were devastated by the worst natural disaster to have ever touched this nation—173 people died in the Black Saturday bushfires in Victoria on 7 February. Now, seven months on, the wounds are still raw. The physical threat may have passed but the emotional trauma will continue to haunt us all. The misery that this fire left behind is difficult to comprehend and the communities affected will continue to grieve—as we all will—for those who have lost their loved ones, their homes and for whom life will never be the same again. As with every crisis, particularly natural disasters, the important thing for us to do is to learn from what happened and to make sure that we do everything we can to prevent it from happening again. On 17 August we heard from the 2009 Victorian Bushfires Royal Commission in their interim report that many mistakes were made and more could have been done to prepare Victoria for a natural disaster of this magnitude. I commend Commissioner Teague and his fellow commissioners on their important work over the last seven months. They have acted professionally and with great empathy. They have dedicated themselves to the harrowing task of listening to people’s stories of the horrific events and weighing up the evidence presented so the nation can learn the lessons of Black Saturday. Regardless of what the report says about what systems may not have worked or could have worked better, the dedication of our emergency service volunteers is something of which we can all be proud. Over 4,000 fire service volunteers and career staff immediately responded to combat more than 300 fires across Victoria on 7 February. Over 10,000 personnel were subsequently involved in the largest co-ordinated emergency response and community response in the state’s history. Despite the scale of these efforts there was an unprecedented loss of life, extreme property damage and large-scale community trauma and displacement. Some of the findings of the interim report about Victoria’s preparedness, warning systems and evacuation policies are disturbing. It is now clear that the systems that were in place failed and we have to do better. Of particular concern is the failure of provision of adequate warnings and information to the public. As the report says, timely and accurate warnings may save lives, and the systems simply could not cope with a disaster of this scale. The commission also rightly identifies problems with how the stay-or-go policy has been articulated. Priority should always be given to human life over the protection of property and the public needs to be made aware of the very real risk to human life of staying with their homes. Essentially, it is incumbent on governments to ensure that we give our communities the best information in the shortest time possible to enable them to make an informed decision about whether to stay and protect their properties or to leave early. The member for McEwen, whose electorate was worst affected by the Black Saturday bushfires, has put forward a four-point plan to better protect local communities from the summer fire threat. I commend that plan. It includes a world-best telecommunications platform that includes an early warning system for small communities, a comprehensive fuel reduction program that eliminates the growing backlog of planned burns, construction of safe shelters at schools in fire risk areas and the introduction of better fire prevention and detection methods. Following on from the member for McEwen’s last point, it was most disappointing that the commission’s interim report contained no recommendations on fuel reduction measures. The commission received 485 submissions where the need for fuel reduction along roadsides, in forests and around homes was raised. As the member for McEwen has pointed out, the submissions have documented rampant frustration in her electorate and others at the obstacles and complacency to reducing fuel loads. These loads are linked to fire intensity. Whilst the interim report devotes some attention to fuel reduction concerns, the commission has yet to address this vital issue and make recommendations. I appreciate that this is an interim report and fuel reduction and land management will be examined subsequently. I take that point but I stress the urgency of that examination. It is the coalition’s view that a clearly articulated high priority fuel reduction program in fire risk communities would support the commission’s life-before-property recommendations. As the member for McEwen noted in her submission to the commission, each inquiry following previous bushfires—in particular, 1939, 1983 and 2003—has made recommendations to reduce the fuel load. These have been largely ignored. Further in the submission, the member for McEwen notes that, in addition to this lack of will by the state government of the day to enact these recommendations, there has developed a misguided practice by local governments to introduce bylaws that prevent the clearing of trees around private property and along the verges of all local roads in the name of conservation, biodiversity of species and protection. We appreciate that the fuel reduction window has closed for this season and whilst the commission has done a great job of completing the interim report in a relative short period of time—in order, I know, to get the recommendations out there for the 2009-10 bushfire season—just as important is the next stage. There is no less urgency to complete the inquiry to address the land management and fuel reduction matters. Parliaments have heard compelling evidence following previous fires and I will name just two. In the A Nation Charred report into the fires in 2003 chaired by Gary Nairn, eight recommendations were listed on fuel reduction and at least as many on land management. I am advised that a committee of the Victorian parliament completed an inquiry shortly before Black Saturday and recommended three times the amount of fuel reduction burning than is currently taking place. The most fundamental responsibility on any government is the protection of its citizens. All state governments and authorities must look carefully at the findings of the commission and learn from the mistakes as we approach this fire season and beyond. May I acknowledge the hard work in the aftermath of the fires and ongoing of all of the local members involved. I particularly mentioned the member for McEwen, who was and remains absolutely indefatigable in her efforts on preventing a future occurrence and managing bushfire risk in her communities. I also mention the member for Gippsland, who I know has proposed a national register of arsonists, something that could be made available to the police and fire services at the commencement, say, of a fire season; the member for McMillan; the member for Casey; the member for Bendigo; and the member for Indi. I should also mention the member for Dunkley, who I know gave a speech to parliament expressing concerns about the lack of clarity in fire bunker building regulations. I ask the government to continue the spirit of bipartisanship shown after the fires and continue to consult with local members in the fire affected areas. We in the coalition pledge our full support to working with this government to bolster our preparedness in emergency response to bushfires around the country. 8681 Bills R4112 8681 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request. 8681 Business 8681 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 16:23:00 —I move: That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 8681 Bills R4178 8681 Debate resumed from 25 June, on motion by Dr Emerson: That this bill be now read a second time. 8681 16:23:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —The Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009 was introduced into the House on 25 June this year and contains various technical aspects amending the taxation law. I say at the outset that the coalition will be supporting the passage of this bill through the House and through the Senate when it arrives there. I will go through each of the schedules in some detail. Schedule 1 will increase the research and development expenditure cap for the R&D tax offset from $1 million to $2 million. The R&D tax offset allows eligible entities to receive a tax credit rather than a deduction for expenditure relating to R&D activities. This R&D tax offset was introduced by the former coalition government to assist innovative small businesses that do not benefit from the R&D tax concession, especially those that are in a tax loss position. The former coalition government recognised the cash flow difficulties of small businesses undertaking R&D, especially during the initial start-up and growth phases. The introduction of the R&D tax offset is an example of the coalition’s understanding of small business and the unique issues they face. I note that the amendments in this bill that increase the cap are only an interim measure for the 2009-10 income year. The government committed in the budget to introducing a new R&D tax incentive regime from 1 July of next year to replace the current system. On behalf of the coalition, I look forward to working with the government to ensure that the new regime is available for Australian businesses from 1 July 2010. Schedule 2 of the bill will provide increased regulatory control of prescribed private funds to the Australian Taxation Office. The changes will effectively mean that such funds will be treated similarly to other fundraising organisations known as public ancillary funds. To reflect these changes in schedule 2, prescribed private funds will be renamed as private ancillary funds. The schedule also includes provisions for the Treasurer to issue guidelines governing the creation and regulation of these funds. The schedule also introduces a range of administrative penalties that may be applied to enforce those new guidelines. Many in the not-for-profit industry have been concerned that changes to the mandatory distribution rate may severely affect the ongoing nature of these funds. This schedule does not deal with the mandatory distribution rate; the rules regarding that will be contained within guidelines to be introduced into parliament by the Treasurer later in the year. We note here on this side of the House that Treasury, on behalf of the government, undertook consultation on draft guidelines in July of this year, and we encourage the government to listen very carefully to industry concerns and suggestions to avoid these funds having any of the problems that can arise when a government does not undertake that consultation process properly. I say that because there have been a range of budget measures—employee share schemes come to mind—where the government has monumentally mangled the implementation of technical policy issues. Schedule 3 provides capital gains tax relief to members of friendly societies when a friendly society demutualises. It will ensure that friendly societies are treated in the same way as stand-alone private health insurers or life insurers should they decide to demutualise. For members of friendly societies that demutualise into a for-profit entity, this means they will not be liable for capital gains tax if they receive shares. The schedule also makes amendments to ensure that those who receive cash through demutualisation are treated in exactly the same way as those who receive shares and immediately sell them. This schedule ensures that members of friendly societies are treated in exactly the same way as members of stand-alone private health insurers or stand-alone life insurers, as I said earlier. Schedule 4 makes a retrospective change to the consolidation regime from the beginning of the consolidation regime from 1 July 2002. It allows for losses to be transferred within a consolidated group from an insolvent joining entity to the head company under certain circumstances. The amendments will allow the head company to use the tax loss to reduce a net forgiven amount derived under the commercial debt forgiveness rules, reduce any capital allowance that has been adjusted using the limited recourse debt rules or reduce any capital gain in the situation where a capital gains tax event L5 occurs when the joining entity then leaves the consolidated group. Finally, schedule 5—as is often the case with tax law amendment bills, the final schedule in this bill—makes a number of minor changes to the existing tax law to ensure its intended operation. It also amends the fringe benefits tax law to ensure that donations made to deductible gift recipients through salary sacrifice arrangements do not result in an FBT liability. On behalf of the coalition, I commend the bill to the House and reiterate that it will have our support through this House and through the Senate. 8683 16:29:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009. Like the previous speaker, I do not intend to speak for very long in relation to the matter except to say that these reforms are long overdue and welcome. They improve the integrity of the tax system, they make the situation with respect to philanthropy better, they are beneficial to the taxpayer, they provide relief to business and they improve the potentiality for investment in R&D. So they are welcome changes to the tax system. Once again, they do this by schedule. Schedule seems to be the way in which we deal with taxation amendments. They are important in the circumstances. Anything we can do to reduce the complexity of our tax system to improve its overall effectiveness and operation is a good thing, particularly as nothing infuriates business and individual taxpayers more than dealing with complex tax laws that you can measure by weight rather than by word. So I speak in support of those, and I will go very briefly through the schedules as the previous speaker, the shadow minister, did. The first schedule overcomes a truly weird situation which resulted in a perverse outcome, as the minister said, with respect to R&D tax offsets. The situation was that the $1 million cap really meant that some companies could keep their expenditure in such a way that they could claim the R&D tax offset, effectively getting a cash payment back in circumstances where the whole purpose of the legislation and the whole purpose of R&D tax deductibility was to ensure that we gave an incentive to companies to invest in R&D. So the lifting of the expenditure cap from $1 million to $2 million will provide a boost, we believe, to pre-profit companies to invest in research, and I think that is a good thing. It is an interim measure which goes ahead of the introduction of the new R&D tax incentive which operates from 2010 to 2011. In the circumstances, anything we can do to boost investment and boost R&D is a healthy thing for our economy, good for small business, good for big business, good for jobs and good for infrastructure. Schedule 2 deals with prescribed private funds. These were established in 2001 and were a creation of statute. We have seen about $1.3 billion put into these funds and distributions of over $300 million in that time. PPFs are really a form of ancillary trusts established by companies, by businesses, by families and by individuals who are interested in philanthropy. We really do not have enough of a culture of philanthropy in this country. The Americans seem to put in a great deal of time and effort and have a culture with respect to philanthropic generosity. In our culture we do respond wonderfully well. We saw the floods in north Queensland and we saw the bushfires in Victoria, and Australians came to the party contributing hundreds of millions of dollars when it came to relief for their fellow citizens. When people are injured, when people die, when property is damaged, when communities are devastated, Australians are very quick to provide generous assistance to their fellow Australians. But the idea that a company or a law firm or a business might engage itself in philanthropy is something that is not widely thought of. Some big law firms in this country have a partner or a lawyer who might do some pro bono work, but really we do not see much by way of systematic attempts at charity, at giving back to the community in the public interest. The PPFs are a good thing and they should be encouraged. We are rebadging them and renaming them with a different title: ‘private ancillary funds’. It involves a change which means they will no longer be prescribed in the legal sense. There is a movement in terms of their administration under the authority of the Commissioner of Taxation. We are giving the Treasurer some power to provide legislative guidelines to maintain them after they are established and we are giving the Commissioner of Taxation some powers to impose some penalties on trustees who might do the wrong thing by way of failure to comply with the guidelines. And, of course, we are giving the commissioner some power to remove and suspend trustees and noncomplying funds. Sadly, with superannuation funds, people sometimes do not ensure compliance. These changes in schedule 2 were announced in the budget of 2008-09, and we are going to provide some legislation which will improve the overall operation and integrity of the PPFs. Anything to encourage philanthropic involvement is a good thing and I warmly welcome this schedule. Schedule 3 deals with capital gains tax and amends the income tax law to ensure that there is relief from capital gains tax for demutualisation operations. In this country we have many organisations which have undertaken demutualisation. AMP was one. We saw others involved in this process and, according to the explanatory memorandum, there are currently about 70 friendly societies operating in Australia, with about 1.6 million members, and about 24 friendly societies conducting life insurance businesses. So there are a lot of people involved and a lot of organisations involved. We have seen demutualisation of private health insurance, and many Australians would have received a cheque in relation to MBF. I know my wife did when that demutualisation took place. So what we are doing in relation to this is to effectively ensure that there is relief in the demutualisation process so that those organisations associated with friendly societies are not treated in a disadvantageous way. We want to make sure that they are relieved of capital gains tax in the circumstances. We do not want them to be disadvantaged in any way in relation to that. Demutualisation is quite a complex problem and challenge for the organisations involved. It is particularly interesting because what it really involves is the participants in a common fund who have contributed to that fund giving up their rights to participate in that fund in the future. It is an interesting phenomenon: people giving up rights. There is nearly always a distribution of any accumulated surplus as a result of the demutualisation, and that is where the cheques go back to the Australian citizenry. We are making sure that CGT relief for members and policyholders of friendly societies is the same as any other institution, such as life insurance and private health insurance organisations. This is a beneficial change. It has been warmly welcomed by key stakeholders in the circumstances. We saw support for the measure during what was an extensive consultation process. It is a worthwhile piece of legislation and amendment. I will not deal with schedule 5 as it is really quite minor in terms of the maintenance and operation of the tax system. There is very little change there, and it is quite uninteresting in the circumstances. Schedule 4 deals with amending the tax law to ensure loss is transferred to a head company of a consolidated group, or a multiple entry consolidated group, by a joining entity in the circumstances that it is insolvent at the time of joining and can be used by the head company in certain circumstances. These amendments have some benefit to the Australian taxpayers. They ensure that losses, which can be wasted in the joining process and in the lodging of tax returns, are not wasted but are beneficial and that companies will benefit. There is a retrospective aspect to this, and it does affect one taxpayer according to the research that I have undertaken: Transfield Holdings Pty Ltd, which sought the retrospective application of this legislation in the circumstances. The amendments will apply from 1 July 2002, so the retrospectivity of the legislation is quite long. Overall, these laws improve the efficacy of our tax system, they help taxpayers, they help the operation of our tax system—they improve it and make it easier to understand—they treat taxpayers fairly, they improve the demutualisation process and we hope that they will result in greater research and development by companies and individuals. They also improve the operation of philanthropic trusts and funds. I support the legislation and am happy to speak on it. 8685 16:40:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise to speak on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009. As we have heard, there are five schedules in the bill. Schedule 1 deals with increasing the research and development expenditure cap for determining eligibility for the R&D tax offset from $1 million to $2 million. It is known that the R&D tax offset is available for certain companies that undertake expenditure on eligible R&D activities totalling less than $1 million per year. Schedule 2 is about improving the integrity of prescribed private funds. This schedule will see the administration of a prescribed private fund, a PPF, ensuring complete regulatory control over the PPF by the ATO. PPFs are prescribed by the Governor-General, but this change will remove the need for the Governor-General to do so and will rename PPFs to private ancillary funds, known as PAFs. The schedule will result in these funds being placed under the same regulations as other public fundraising bodies. Schedule 3 is about providing capital gains tax relief to members of friendly society that demutualise. Friendly societies are bodies that provide a combination of services such as private health insurance, life insurance, aged care and other services for members of the society. In the case of insurers demutualising, members are given cash or shares and are not subject to capital gains tax. Those arrangements are not the same for friendly societies that, when paying cash or providing shares upon demutualising, have no protection from CGT. This schedule will change that and extend the capital gains tax protection to those benefiting from the demutualisation of friendly societies. Schedule 4 will allow for the losses of an entity joining a consolidated group to be transferred to the head company of that group. Schedule 5 has simply minor tax amendments addressing errors and anomalies within existing tax legislation. I would like to speak specifically on Schedule 1, with regard to the research and development achievements in this country. I have obtained some information from local Cowan business Tieline Technology. Tieline are a leading research company meeting world market demands with modern technology, and they have been doing so for more than 10 years. They have a strong commitment to research and that has been rewarded with their market position. Risk is always a major factor for all research companies. There are always many hurdles to jump, and these come at a huge cost in time to market and in money. R&D taxation schemes are essential aspects of helping business mitigate the risks involved. Tieline employ a team of specialist software and hardware engineers to develop products that are sold into the world broadcast radio and television markets. The team has been responsible for attaining a key award at the 2009 show of the National Association of Broadcasters in the US for a new product that it calls Bridge-IT. Bridge-IT will enable users to transmit broadcast quality low-delay audio between two units anywhere in the world using the internet as a carrier. Two awards were granted in recognition of the Bridge-IT product. Tieline is a very good local company, and I appreciate their boss’s views on the needs of business. He has told me that while he appreciates any extra R&D support, the business remains subject to staff costs, new government regulations in the work environment and this government calling only firms of fewer than 15 employees small businesses. In fact on this point he believes that 30 employees should be the mark. He also raises the very interesting point that turnover of less than $10 million should be the mark for a small business, that between $10 million and $100 million should be the mark for a medium business and that above that should be the mark for a large business. Above all, this is a business that just wants the government to stop their intervention and allow it to get on with innovation, creativity, jobs and economic prosperity for Cowan, Perth, Western Australia and Australia. I also received the perspective of David Lockett, of the Western Australian Tourism and Accommodation Guide. They are Western Australian software developers and have developed worldclass software applications and are preparing for sales around the world. Mr Lockett tells me that they have for years been heavily involved in research into new technology, together with the social and economic implications of that technology. They are not alone in this research and development but have worked with other technology developers both here and overseas to identify the best practices and the markets for those products now and into the future. That being said, I thought that I would relay the views of David Lockett regarding research and development in Australia. They have determined that there is a potential multibillion dollar global market available to innovative Australian software developers. David has also formed the view that most successful Australian software developers will probably relocate overseas because the Australian government and business sectors are far too slow in adopting new technology. He attributes this loss, and the potential loss to Australia, on a culture in which those of influence, including influential organisations, fail to take seriously the need for change and often appear to be unaware that significant changes have taken and are taking place. He attributes this to a society that has relied on protectionism and long-established, near monopoly media organisations delivering information and educating the population about important developments that are taking place around the world. He also comments that senior career public servants and politicians who do not possess relevant experience frequently have the attitude of ‘we know best’ and in effect listen to no-one other than themselves and their closest advisers. Although Mr Lockett’s attitude towards Australia’s willingness to embrace innovation is concerning, it is probably held by many others. Their applications are being developed and tested in Western Australia although they are planning to target overseas markets after testing and the trials have been completed over the next few months. He believes that breaking into Australian markets and changing entrenched local attitudes is very difficult when compared to overseas markets, where individuals are often more effectively educated about important global developments and where individuals and organisations are frequently more open to new information. This will probably mean relocating his business overseas in order to access an environment that is more innovative, is more investment friendly and is less taxation unfriendly, thereby causing Australia to miss out again on the long-term benefits obtained by countries that are serious about developing substantial technology-based economies. David Lockett provided me with examples of Australia’s failure to embrace innovators and inventions, losing them overseas. Although I did not know it, the aero wing profile used by the Wright Brothers was actually invented in Australia by Mr Hargraves. Similarly, the first feature movie ever made was made in Australia in the early years of the 20th century. Interestingly, the original copy of that Australian made movie was recently discovered in a vault in New York, where it is thought to have laid untouched for almost 100 years. The movie, either indirectly or directly, contributed to the establishment by Samuel Goldwyn of Hollywood, in California—California at that time having a tiny population, only marginally larger than the population of New South Wales—while today in Australia the movie industry remains little more than a hobby for many participants. This is to say nothing of Australia’s contribution to early cartoon animation, which also had to be taken to America in order to be developed by Americans such as Walt Disney. Another instance is the famous Australian-invented Sunshine Harvester. This was possibly the basis on which the massive Canadian based International Harvester company was founded after the original Australian based inventors sold out to overseas investors, apparently because of a lack of support in Australia. David Lockett’s view is that the only possible reasons for these types of events can be the insular mentality of Australian bureaucrats, politicians, industrialists, investors and the monopolistic Australian media, who today have far too great an influence over what many Australians think, know and say. David believes that by the time the federal government actually gets around to encouraging, organising or authorising the development of substantial high speed internet broadband connections in Australia, it is likely that the technology promoted by the federal government bureaucrats will be obsolete and Australia will then fall even further behind already more technologically advanced countries, such as New Zealand and Taiwan, in the adoption and application of new technology. I thank David Lockett and Tieline Research for bringing these points to my attention and allowing me the opportunity to relay their perspectives to the parliament. As I said at the outset, I support any efforts to promote research and development; however, it is of concern that the broad range of government policies are not streamlined to achieve the best in this field. It is also of concern, as David Lockett has suggested, that this country has a disturbing history of resting on its laurels and permitting a culture that is contrary to a high technology future. Tax benefits aside, it appears that our greatest challenge is to create a culture across media, business and government that embraces and honours innovation, research and technology while reducing red tape, thereby getting our innovators, researchers and developers into world markets—but from here, not by exporting expertise. This has not yet been achieved and it appears we have a great distance to go. 8688 16:49:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I, too, rise in support of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009. This bill implements a number of budget measures and other reforms to the tax system to benefit business, to improve philanthropic trust funds and to provide capital gains tax relief for policyholders of friendly societies that demutualise. It also makes a range of other minor amendments to tax laws contained in schedules 4 and 5, which I will not go into in any great detail. In my view, one of the key chapters in the success story that is the Australian economy was the budget assistance provided to Australian small and medium businesses. Measures like the 50 per cent tax break for eligible assets, the $10 million to help small business go online and the changes to PAYG instalments to ensure better cash-flow for small business are all helping to bolster business. They are supporting the economy and, most importantly in the current climate, they are protecting jobs. The bill before the House implements another budget initiative to support business by boosting R&D tax credits. It was quite instructive to hear the comments from the member for Cowan relating to the comments from his constituent David Lockett about the years of malaise and how Australia had not taken every opportunity, especially of late, to progress research and development opportunities—instead they have fled overseas. When you combine that with the set of government opportunities that were handed over to the Rudd government on election night, the one that screams out to me is that productivity was at an all-time low—at zero, basically. Why was this so? It was because the previous government had not invested in R&D and some of the opportunities that existed to make the economy leaner. What had they done? They had a full-on attack down the low-wage road in terms of what was really a political strategy rather than a realistic attempt at economic reform. It was attempted political sabotage rather than real economic reform. As any economist will tell you, productivity is the real measure of a healthy economy. Building on the comments of the member for Cowan, one of the ways that you can improve productivity is investing strategically in R&D, not trying to drive wages down—that is not the way to success for Australia. The boost to R&D credits in the legislation before the House lifts the research and development expenditure cap from $1 million to $2 million from 1 July this year. Companies that spend on eligible R&D can choose to receive a tax offset instead of a deduction. This is a great benefit to companies in a tax loss position. The tax offset is equal to 37.5 per cent of expenditure. The higher cap on expenditure will encourage more companies to invest in R&D to encourage research intensive industries to do more research and to help get Australian businesses working smarter. I have a slightly more optimistic view of Australians’ ability to be competitive in the world when it comes to developing new technologies and developing business strategies that can take on the rest of the world—without relying on low wages as the way to do it. This bill also implements the 2008-09 budget commitment to legislate guidelines to improve the integrity of prescribed private funds. Prescribed private funds, or PPFs, provide a way for businesses, families and individuals to start their own trust funds for philanthropic purposes. PPFs are income tax exempt and donations to PPFs are tax deductible. PPFs are only able to donate to deductible gift recipients, which are mostly charities. Since they were first set up in 2001—and I commend the Howard government for this initiative—they have received more than $1.3 billion in donations and distributed more than $300 million to charities, $300 million that has been used for the benefit of Australian society. However, more transparency is needed to ensure the ongoing accountability of PPFs. Currently they have minimal reporting requirements and very little is known about their operation. This bill will increase the regulatory powers of the ATO by moving the administration of PPFs, logically, under the tax commissioner. It also gives the Treasurer power to legislate guidelines and gives the tax commissioner greater power to enforce these guidelines. This is not the heavy hand of government. I understand that the sector is very supportive of these changes and in fact looks forward to greater certainty as to its philanthropic obligations. I know people often compare Australia’s philanthropic inclinations with the United States, which is not always a fair thing to do because we have slightly different marginal tax rates. Also, what we can be proud of as Australians is the fact that our philanthropic inclinations go across the board. In fact, I recall some surveys that showed that the poorer we are the more generous we are in terms of the percentage of our income that we are prepared to give. Anything that the government can do to support this philanthropic sector is to be commended. Thirdly, I turn to the demutualisation of friendly societies. This aspect of the bill largely mirrors the legislation concerning the demutualisation of private health insurers which was debated in this House last year and which I spoke on. The demutualisation of a private health insurer or friendly society has a surprising bonus for policyholders. Any accumulated surplus from the fund is distributed to existing members of that fund, usually on the basis of the length of time they have been a member. The downside, especially if you are a long-time member, is that recipients of this surplus are subject to capital gains tax. These amendments ensure that members and policyholders of friendly societies are not subject to capital gains tax when their friendly society demutualises and becomes a for-profit entity, so we will ensure that Mr Swan receives only what is appropriate. Policyholders who have received shares or a cash payment under these demutualisations would have had to include a capital gain in their 2008-09 tax return. However, as these amendments are retrospective, people who have lodged their return before this legislation is enacted will be entitled to have their assessments amended. This gives certainty to members and policyholders of friendly societies that have demutualised. They can have confidence that they will not face any capital gains tax on shares or payments they have received. Friendly societies provide life insurance, private health insurance, aged care and other services to their members and policyholders. In the Brisbane area there are friendly societies such as the Sureplan Friendly Society in Spring Hill and the CUA Friendly Society in Brisbane, which are both in the electorate of the Hon. Arch Bevis, and the Family Care Friendly Society, which is based at the Mater in the electorate of Griffith, represented by the Prime Minister, the Hon. Kevin Rudd. This bill will benefit their members by ensuring they do not incur capital gains tax as a result of demutualisation. Potentially up to 1.6 million members around Australia will appreciate the changes that the Rudd government has brought to the House. This bill also contains a range of other minor amendments to the tax system to correct drafting errors or technical flaws. Such amendments include ensuring that gifts to deductible gift recipients, such as bushfire relief funds, do not result in an employer having a fringe benefits tax and that the foreign income tax offset and foreign loss rules apply as intended. I will not elaborate on these as other speakers have covered them quite adequately, especially the member for Blair. I commend the bill to the House. 8690 16:58:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 0 Mr LAMING —Speaking in favour of the elements of the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009 today, I would like to touch briefly on the R&D tax offset, which is an important bridging measure. As a result of the Cutler review, we will see significant changes after 2011. But, in the meantime, the lifting of the cap from $1 million to $2 million removes a significant perverse element whereby many businesses were restricting their R&D development expenditure to below $1 million in order to qualify for the tax offset. It is important to see that that change has been made. I want to go to schedule 2 of this bill, which identifies the private entities for which tax-deductible donations can be made by companies and individuals. As has been noted in this debate already, just over 700 of these entities exist. They are an important element of reforms that were made under the previous government in response to the business and community partnerships working group into tax reform in 1999. What that has potentially unleashed is the enormous power of donations to the non-profit sector through these tax vehicles, and there is a very good example of this working very well in my electorate of Bowman. The benefits of being able to invest as an individual or a company in this way are seen in the workings of Redlands Young Champions. This is, as it sounds, an opportunity to fund the efforts of young Australians in my electorate. Recipients have to be of school age. Whether they be participating in sport or non-sporting activities, such a vehicle gives them the potential to fund their dreams to go to the places they wish to go and to fulfil their endowments. It may well be a single event and it may well be interstate or overseas. But it is not limited to sport. What has been occurring through Redlands Young Champions, particularly for lower socioeconomic groups, is that students have a chance to travel for any kind of activity. They can be as young as six or seven years of age, when students first find themselves travelling with sporting teams. They may then go on to orchestras and drama groups. As we move into the teenage years there is the Duke of Edinburgh scheme, science and maths olympiads and exchange programs that may even run overseas. The first of these announcements of travel bursaries were made in my electorate only two months ago, and I would like to recognise some of them. Ruby Fuller, a student from Cleveland District State High School, has as part of a cultural exchange received assistance to fulfil her dream to travel to the UK later this year through a tax vehicle such as we are discussing today. Jaimie Buckridge has had assistance from Redlands Young Champions to go to the netball interregional championships. Jessica Brown won the Alana Haines Australasian scholarship competition and, to fulfil her dream, was able to rely on an investment from Redlands Young Champions. Claire Innes was also part of the cultural tour to Europe. Amanda Olorenshaw is part of the wind orchestra at Alexandra Hills State High School. I would also like to mention two very impressive young Redlanders—Rylie Holland, who plays netball, and Sarah Chlonta, who collected a bursary to attend the Australian national scout jamboree. That unlocking of the dreams of young Australians to attend events like these, which are often very costly, is achieved through the changes that were made in 1999 and the further amendments that are being made here today. There are another 20 or 30 winners from that first round, so obviously this is a very large foundation. The benefits are that, through a sponsorship, a company or an individual can make a payment and, without directing how that payment is disbursed, payments can be made to other non-profit entities. So there is an enormous opportunity here for young people right around the country to benefit if these donations are promoted. That is exactly what has happened in Redlands. I should make the point that it is a rolling application procedure, so it does allow people from the age of six to 18 to apply at any time—and, in a rather innovative model, they are judged by members of the community. Once again, that is an arms-length process that allows community members to determine both who receive these scholarships and the size of the awards. But the final message from this fairly innovative process is that it does not matter what the activity is. We have had so much support for sporting travel—and, of course, people who play sport typically have an entire sporting club behind them to help with fundraising. But what we are seeing here, with the unlocked potential of the Redlands Young Champions program, is that you may be a single person who wishes to attend a science or maths olympiad or a chess championship and there is no club behind you to help you fundraise and pay for that travel. Through the innovative changes that have been made in this area for private and tax-deductible entities to make these kinds of donations, we are seeing a method for both individuals, through both bequests and donations, and also for companies to be able to support their local community. That is one element of this legislation that I wanted to highlight. 8691 17:04:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I am pleased to rise to speak to the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009. In particular, in my capacity as shadow minister for small business, I welcome schedule 1 of the bill, which sees an increase in the R&D tax offset threshold cap from $1 million to $2 million as of 1 July this year. This is a welcome addition. I think it will be positive for small businesses across Australia. The government has the support of the opposition with respect to this legislation. From my perspective I think it is important that we as a nation recognise the need to provide as much incentive as possible for small businesses across the length and breadth of this country to engage in productive, value-adding research and development expenditure. There is no doubt that in many parts of Australia—and I would mention in particular those small businesses engaged in R&D activities on the Gold Coast—the increase in the cap from $1 million to $2 million will afford them extra opportunity to take advantage of the R&D tax offset in such a way as to be supportive of their research and development efforts. This is important in a place like the Gold Coast because it is in every measure Australia’s ‘innovation city’. ‘Innovation City’ is a term given to our city by the Gold Coast City Council. It is much more than simply a slogan; it underscores the approach that is adopted by all three levels of government—both government and opposition—with respect to our approach to supporting the SME sector on the Gold Coast. The fact is that, for many of the thousands of small businesses in my city and those that I have the pleasure of representing in my city of Moncrieff, research and development into new technologies, research and development into the commercialisation of technology and research and development into all sorts of goods and services in the future will underpin their continued prosperity into the future. Of course, that continued prosperity is crucial to ensuring that there are opportunities to broaden and deepen the economic base of the Gold Coast. The fact is that, if we broaden and deepen the economic base of the Gold Coast, we will also ensure continued opportunities for there to be sustained employment outcomes in our city as well. So from both a parochial point of view in my role as a representative for the people of Moncrieff and at a national level this is a positive measure and it is certainly one that I believe will be of benefit to small businesses across Australia into the future. With those few words I will confine my remarks to schedule 1. 8692 17:07:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —in reply—I thank those members who contributed to the second reading debate on the Tax Laws Amendment (2009 Measures No. 4) Bill 2009, in particular the members on the government side. I thank the shadow small business minister for his support for the bill at large but in particular for schedule 1. Schedule 1 lifts the expenditure cap for access to the existing research and development tax offset from $1 million to $2 million with effect from 1 July 2009. This measure provides a further boost to small pre-profit companies in research-intensive industries ahead of the introduction of the new R&D tax incentive in 2010-11. It also mitigates the incentive for firms to keep their R&D spending below the current expenditure cap. That is why we are lifting it from $1 million to $2 million. I will foreshadow the further reform very briefly. This is really a transition from the old system to a new system, which will be an R&D tax credit. It was announced in the budget, but it was to come in not immediately, from 1 July 2009, but in 2010-11. It is a tax credit that, in effect, is equivalent to the 150 per cent R&D tax concession that was introduced by the previous Labor government but then cut back to 125 per cent in 1996 or 1997 by the incoming Howard government. That did damage the incentive to invest in research and development. What we are doing here is restoring that incentive but also making it available to small businesses that do not have the taxable income to claim the traditional R&D tax concession. When a tax credit is provided, it is immaterial really, in terms of incentives, whether those businesses have the necessary cash flow or not. That is why it is an initiative that is targeted at small businesses and especially targeted at start-up small businesses. This schedule 1 is a transition to those longer term arrangements that come into effect later. It is all part of the Rudd government’s support for research and development in this country, its support for innovation and creativity. Schedule 2 honours the government’s 2008 budget commitment to improve the integrity of prescribed private funds and to provide the trustees of such funds with greater certainty as to their philanthropic obligations. The government recently consulted on draft guidelines, which will shortly be made by legislative instrument. Following a thorough public consultation process, the bill amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997, the Taxation Administration Act 1953 and the A New Tax System (Australian Business Number) Act 1999 to improve the integrity of prescribed private funds. Schedule 3 amends the income tax law to provide relief from capital gains tax to members and insured entities of friendly societies that have either a life insurance business or a private health insurance business, or both, when the society demutualises to a for-profit entity. Depending on how the friendly society chooses to demutualise, these entities do not necessarily easily fit within the existing demutualisation regimes. These amendments will provide a broadly equivalent capital gains tax outcome for members and insured entities of these friendly societies relative to that which members and policyholders of a stand-alone life insurer or private health insurer would receive if the insurer demutualised. Schedule 4 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that losses transferred to the head company of a consolidated group, or a multiple entry consolidated group, by a joining entity that is insolvent at the joining time are not wasted. The head company will be able to apply the transferred losses in one of three ways—that is, the losses can be applied to reduce a net forgiven amount under the commercial debt forgiveness rules; alternatively, they can be applied to reduce a capital allowance that is adjusted under the limited recourse debt rules or to reduce a capital gain that arises when the joining entity subsequently leaves the group.  As the amendments are beneficial to taxpayers, they apply from 1 July 2002—that is, from the commencement of the consolidation regime. Finally, the bill includes minor amendments to the tax laws. The amendments ensure that the law operates as intended by correcting technical or drafting defects, removing anomalies and addressing unintended outcomes. The minor amendments are part of the government’s commitment to the care and maintenance of the tax law. Minor amendment packages now include addressing minor legislative issues raised by the public through the recently introduced tax issues entry system. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 8693 Dr EMERSON (Rankin —Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) 17:13:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8693 Bills R4085 8693 Debate resumed from 19 March, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 8693 17:14:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —The coalition supports the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009. The bill proposes amendments to the IMA Act to simplify the way Australia implements amendments to the articles of agreement of the IMF and the World Bank. It will make the amendments to the articles of agreement automatic and, some would say, more effective, in that it will not add to the legislative timetable in the future. There are no direct financial implications for Australia and it does not in any way alter the government’s domestic legal powers. The coalition supports the IMF, and the World Bank for that matter. The IMF’s goal is to ensure the stability of the international monetary and financial system. That is particularly important at this juncture. Australia joined the IMF, I think, back in 1947. The IMF and the IBRD, the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, were the two organisations conceived during the United Nations Monetary and Financial Conference, known as the Brenton Woods conference, which was held in New Hampshire in the United States in July 1944. The IMF and the bank agreement came into force in December 1945, the end of World War II, and both organisations continue today, although obviously the role is quite different. The IMF was set up to manage a system of fixed exchange rates that essentially prevailed until the 1970s and was seen as necessary after World War II and obviously, before that, due to the lingering impact of the Great Depression. What happens is that, from time to time, the agreements will change and all the paid-up members of the IMF must accept the proposed changes. The current proposed changes require a piece of legislation in this place. In my maiden speech I committed to parliamentary democracy, so it does grate a little that the coalition would be in a position where it is supporting legislation that empowers international agreements to automatically flow through to Australia. It is something that I am uncomfortable with and I would hope the government is uncomfortable with as well. In no way would we want to diminish the role of this place in determining the appropriate level of scrutiny necessary for new international agreements or amendments to existing agreements. As the Parliamentary Library identified in its very handy note, the bill will reduce the parliamentary scrutiny of proposed amendments. Unless Australia monitors the amendments, it may not, as it currently stands, meet its international agreement and that is why it requires legislation here. The fact that there will be less parliamentary scrutiny of any amendments to the IMA Act is of concern. I would suggest that there is a way forward for the government, and hopefully further scrutiny in the other place, and that is to look at ways to provide constant updates to legislation as changes go through in the various agreements that underpin the International Monetary Fund and the IBRD. By way of background, the IMF’s main goal is to ensure the stability of the international monetary and financial system. It helps resolve crises and works with its member countries to promote growth and, I would hope, alleviate poverty. It has three main tools at its disposal to carry out its mandate. The first is surveillance, which has actually been very useful throughout the recent global financial crisis. Having said that, the IMF always seem to be playing catch-up, but that is not unusual, one would suggest, in a world where there are rapidly changing economies as a result of the global financial crisis that rely heavily on the contribution of domestic treasuries. Obviously not all departments of finance, as they are usually known globally, or treasuries are of the same quality as that of Australia, even though from time to time we might have differences with the Treasury—after all it is an arm of the government, as Dr Ken Henry correctly identified. So surveillance is a very important tool. The second one is technical assistance, which plays a very significant role as well, and that includes training. I know that has been a large contributor to improvements in financial reporting and accountability in many Third World countries. The third area of activity is in relation to lending. The IMF often indicates a willingness to provide funding support where there is a breakdown. Thankfully, from time to time, the IMF is not required to contribute. One of the most endearing features of the IMF is that the voting power of members is closely linked to the amount they contribute to the global economy. The voting power of individual countries is closely linked to that as well. Quota largely determines a member’s voting power in IMF decisions, and further reform is flagged to improve that. Look at the case of the United States, the world’s largest economy. The United States had well over 16 per cent of the votes and Palau has 0.01 per cent of the votes, and that is appropriate. There is a direct link: the amount of financing a member can obtain is based on the quota. If it is seen as a lender of last resort, which is not really the case, but if the IMF is seen to be undertaking initiatives which are going to prop up the economic stability of a country or a region then it is vitally important to have funding mechanisms closely linked to the size of the economy. Without going into any further details of the bill, and the second reading speaker went into quite a few of those details, the coalition reiterates that we support the bill. We believe that it is a piece of administration that has common sense in this current environment where there seems to be a lot of legislation going through this place without any appropriate scrutiny. Given that we are affected by any changes in the IMF automatically, the only encouragement I would give to the Treasurer and the government is to ask them to consider amendments that would allow the agreements to be constantly updated even though the parliament is not changing the legislation. 8695 17:23:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —I rise this evening to speak in support of the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009. The International Monetary Agreements Act was enacted to ‘approve of Australia becoming a member of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development’. The objective of this bill is to simplify the process for Australia to accept agreed amendments to the articles of agreement of the IMF and the World Bank. In recent times the number of amendments to the International Monetary Fund articles of agreement, or fund agreement, and the World Bank articles of agreement, or bank agreement, have been agreed by members of the IMF and the World Bank. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, those amendments were supported by the Treasurer, the Hon. Wayne Swan, in his role as governor for Australia of the IMF and the World Bank. These amendments include an increase in the number of basic votes allocated to each member of the IMF and World Bank; provisions for a second alternate executive director for large constituencies at the IMF; and an expansion in the IMF’s investment authority. The first two amendments are designed to improve the level of participation of low-income economies in both the IMF and the World Bank and therefore ensure that these institutions are more representative of these economies. Equally important are the amendments to expand the IMF’s investment authority, which will form part of a new income model to provide the fund with a more robust, stable and sustainable income base. This bill is designed to ensure that any amendments to the respective articles of agreement of the IMF and the World Bank, including the three to which I have just referred, enter into force without the need for further legislative changes. As the fund and bank articles of agreement form schedules to the International Monetary Agreements Act, an IMA Amendment Bill is required to reflect amendments to the fund and bank agreements. As a result of this bill, separate amendments will no longer be required. This simplification will be achieved by amending the International Monetary Agreements Act to alter the definition of ‘fund agreement’ and the definition of ‘bank agreement’ to include any amendments of the relevant articles of agreement that enter into force for Australia. Indeed, given the current G20 reform agenda, which includes calls for reform of the IMF and World Bank, further amendments to both institutions are likely to occur in the future—both in the short term and long term. Concerns have been expressed that this bill will weaken parliamentary scrutiny of proposed amendments to the agreements. However, as the agreements are effectively international treaties, any amendments will still be tabled in the parliament and considered by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Australia, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker, has had a proud history as a member of the IMF and the World Bank since we first joined in 1947. In light of the current global financial crisis, it is reasonable to assume that we will play an increasingly active role to ensure that the financial market meltdown is not repeated. That is why I am of the view that our membership of the IMF and World Bank is more important now than it has ever been since we became a member in 1947. The IMF and the World Bank have a critical role to play in the restoration of international economic stability. In April this year, the G20 summit in London ordered key measures to restore stability to global financial markets. These measures included a trebling of IMF financing to $750 billion. The IMF will also sell billions of dollars worth of gold reserves to help poor countries which have been significantly affected by the current economic crisis. Moreover, a new $100 billion credit line will be established for low-income countries through multi-country development banks. These measures are only the beginning of a broader global effort to restore stability to the international economy. Of course, they are not the be-all and end-all when it comes to tackling the economic crisis. That is why Australia must continue to play an important role as a member of the IMF and World Bank, and the Rudd government certainly acknowledges this fact. Given the seriousness of the global financial crisis, we need to be in a position to respond quickly to changes introduced by both the IMF and the World Bank. For instance, further amendments may very well be needed to address the toxic debts which continue to plague financial markets and pose a risk to a global economic recovery. In fact, a recent editorial in the Australian Financial Review raised this very issue, stating: The toxic debts on bank balance sheets remain to be dealt with. This will impair recovery … there can be no sustainable recovery without healthy lenders … the International Monetary Fund estimates there is $3 trillion of bad assets still sitting on bank balance sheets. I, too, share the concerns conveyed in this editorial. Toxic assets are largely responsible for the instability which led to the global recession and we cannot adequately resolve this crisis unless they are completely removed from the market. Any delay in the implementation of measures to clean out toxic assets will simply add more uncertainty to our fragile markets. The success of the government’s economic package was largely due to the swiftness of our response. Had we followed the advice of the then shadow Treasurer and done nothing, I highly doubt that we would be experiencing the positive levels of economic growth that we have achieved in the past two quarters. The national account figures released last week vindicate the Treasurer’s speedy response to the global economic crisis. The logic of swift action must be applied to measures proposed by the IMF and the World Bank to address the global financial crisis. The importance of quickly enacting amendments to the IMF articles of agreement was exemplified at the G20 summit earlier this year. A key outcome of this summit was the $250 billion allocated to special drawing rights, SDRs, to supplement IMF members’ foreign exchange reserves and provide liquidity to the global economic system. However, nations which joined the IMF after 1981—which account for more than one-fifth of IMF members—have never received SDRs. In order to ensure that the SDRs would be allocated to these nations, the G20 summit called for the urgent ratification of what is known as the ‘fourth amendment’, which would allow members to participate in the SDR system on an equitable basis. Whilst the fourth amendment was first proposed over 10 years ago, it was not implemented until earlier this year because it needed to be passed through the parliaments of a number of IMF members, such as the United States. This is the kind of unnecessary delay that the bill we are debating here this evening aims to stop. It is also important to highlight some of the measures currently being discussed by the World Bank to address the global financial crisis. Since the 1990s the World Bank has shifted its focus to supporting development and poverty reduction programs in developing economies—and rightly so. For example, the World Bank has called for developed countries to provide money to developing economies that cannot afford bailouts and cannot finance deficits. This includes the establishment of a global vulnerability fund which aims to help support development agencies such as aid agencies, United Nations agencies and non-government organisations. The growth of developing economies in past years was instrumental to the strong global economic performance that preceded the downturn of recent years. Sustainable growth in these economies will also drive the world’s economic recovery in the years to come, and for this reason is essential that we continue to support the World Bank’s efforts to provide economic development in developing countries. In conclusion, this bill greatly simplifies the process of accepting amendments to the articles of agreement of both the IMF and the World Bank, with further amendments likely to be proposed in order to remove toxic assets from the market and prevent another financial market meltdown. It is important that we can respond promptly to any changes introduced by either body. Against that background, I commend this bill to the House. 8697 17:33:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —As explained by the member for Lowe, the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009 is fairly routine legislation, but it is worth recording in my speech some items from the explanatory memorandum. We are advised that the purpose of this bill is to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 to alter the definition of the International Monetary Fund articles of agreement, known as the fund agreement, and the definition of World Bank articles of agreement, known as the bank agreement, to include any amendments of the relevant articles of agreement that enter into force for Australia without the need for further legislative changes when these amendments are made. That is a fairly significant move nevertheless because the parliament is virtually authorising executive government to carry out matters related to this area without, one might say, further consultation. Nevertheless, we are assured that, within this area also, the agreements which are schedules to the act constitute international treaties for Australia and as such, irrespective of the requirement for legislation, any amendments to the treaties will still require tabling in parliament for consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This committee operates quite well and it will in fact probably be sufficient to maintain some oversight of the executive in this regard. Nevertheless, because this matter deals with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank and considering the fact that the government virtually used statements from the IMF as absolute justification for things such as their stimulus package and that it is an established and public fact that the IMF continues to campaign for countries such as Australia to borrow and spend money for this purpose, it is of interest that the IMF’s interest is not in Australia; its interest is that, by Australia borrowing and spending money, it might just get the world over its problems. I know that is not hugely significant, but it is significant and questions must be levelled at the intentions of the IMF being so supportive of what the Australian government is doing in circumstances where it is questionable that such stimulus expenditure of borrowed money is in the long-term interests of Australians. It is an absolute fact that the distribution of $900 cheques totalling, I think, some $24 billion, as urged by the IMF, has resulted in expenditure and some savings, but the expenditure was typically directed in two directions. Because of the nature and marketing of consumer goods in Australia it was primarily directed at imported goods. The IMF would say, ‘Three cheers for that; you are buying imported goods from other countries and helping them out in their circumstances as they relate to the global financial crisis.’ China was, no doubt, a major recipient, with flat-screen televisions and products of that nature. So was the Indonesian tourist industry, as people discovered that 900 bucks got them a round trip to Bali, with a few days to spend there. So, there again, Australia obviously did its best for the international community. I am not sure that future generations will thank the government for the debts incurred and the interest that will accumulate in the early years before there are in fact any repayment possibilities whatsoever. I have left out the other important bodies, the Westfield Group and others, which are very supportive. They are property developers, big investors in shopping centres and, for that, we are extremely grateful. But they have always shown their support for the Labor Party when one reads the list of donors to their efforts during the election campaign. Without their close association with property developers the New South Wales Labor Party would have no idea what to do. All those who have been loyal have been rewarded by that initiative but, even with the building initiatives, one can only wonder how come young people are attending schools in a new covered assembly area, or a new gymnasium, when there was insufficient money to meet the entire demand for science and library facilities? I have a very proactive school in my electorate, Albany Grammar School. They have gone in the last, I think, 10 years from nothing to about 600 students, demonstrating how Australian parents are determined to spend money, which they sometimes have great difficulty in acquiring, to give their kids a good education. They wanted one of these science facilities; they were able to employ teachers with the qualifications to teach science, but they missed out. Today we heard the Minister for Education explaining, ‘We are sorry; we were only going to have 500 science and language centres.’ I do not know how that figure was arrived at, but the 500 did not include Albany. The reality is that that need is not being met in that particular community, with a population of some 30,000 people, with a surrounding catchment area of probably three times that number. So too bad for those kids, notwithstanding that the teaching resource was available. In terms of my support for their application for funding, I wrote to the minister drawing that to her attention. Notably, the BER, the Building the Education Revolution, is all about building; it is not about teachers. Of course, that is a serious problem. It is nice to have some flash classrooms but, of course, if you have nobody who can teach the kids within that facility then it is of little assistance. Notably, there has been a massive increase in costs due to this program, the BER, recommended by the IMF—just to make sure I stick to the subject. The minister was at pains to try to defend it again, but the reality is that the simple act of constructing school buildings has engendered massive cost increases. The Leader of the House, Mr Albanese, stood up as acting minister for the Minister for Education, when she was absent in Israel, and attacked the school principal, who had publicly said that she did not like the quote that was being accepted to build, as it turned out, two classrooms and two storerooms in her school, because she had had a quote of $150,000 which was, apparently, much less than the actual cost. I might add that a later quote was for a larger building. But the one referred to by the Leader of the House was this particular quote. He said it was for only $120,000 and then listed all the things that were left out, trying to belittle the applicant. He mentioned the actual tenderer, the building company. It is national. In fact, it has an agency here in Canberra and it makes transportable buildings. Transportable buildings have been the only solution to a two-year time frame from government decision to completion, whereby most of these buildings can be provided to schools. So I rang the tenderer. He said, ‘$120,000 is right, but we had options in there for another $18,000, some of which the minister said had not been included.’ That took the price to approximately $150,000. That is exactly what the school principal mentioned. But Minister Albanese went well beyond that. He listed things like furniture, site works and the connection of electricity and sewerage. Interestingly, the original quote included no requirement for toilets, handbasins and sewerage. But when he had finished, he added up the cost of this delivery and it totalled $350,000. When I approached the builder, who gets no work in New South Wales, and who runs, as I said, a highly recognised business—he is not some fly-by-night—he could not get any quotes. Do you know why? Because the New South Wales government had two identified suppliers to initially build a small number of additional schools that were going to be needed under the budget arrangements of the New South Wales government. When the flood of cash came along under the BER, did they go back to tender? Did they open the field up to the best competition available in New South Wales? No. They just told these two companies they could share the business. What a bonanza for them: ‘Write your own cheque.’ They had no capacity whatsoever to do it, so they got steel bases built in Victoria—a great help to the New South Wales industry, or the ‘tradies’ as the minister calls them. Those steel bases were then transported, by truck, to Queensland where the classrooms, the roof, the lighting and whatever else were put on, and then they were trucked back into New South Wales. And you wonder why they are so expensive! In that process, a particular well-established builder, with evidence on his website of classrooms of very good standard, could not get anything. That is what we are confronted with. It is all right for the minister to get up here and say, as she did today, ‘I challenge you to tell me we should not have spent money on 30 schools in your electorate, Mr Backbencher.’ That was not the criticism. The criticism was that there was enough money to do twice as much. On the figures that I went through on this particular example, and it is all in Hansard, I could not get past $178,000, and I am a frustrated builder of many years. I know what things cost. I made a proper inquiry. I went to the IKEA website to cost the furniture, and that would be at retail when, I would imagine the New South Wales education department could get it for much less. That is the point I make. If that is the standard of estimates that were being delivered to this government by the New South Wales education department, there is a real issue therein. I was interested in some of the other remarks made by the member for Lowe. He talked about toxic assets and toxic debts, which the IMF wants to tackle. Those were the result of the horrendous growth of the derivatives industry. In the end, one could argue that they were virtually trading in fresh air. I do not know if anybody else listens to NewsRadio or the BBC at night-time; I do frequently, and there has been almost a play put together about the crash of Lehman Brothers. It is a drama, and all the interviews and everything that happened in all of that are well worth listening to. But here were all these major banking concerns all running around betting with one another—and I know a bit about horseracing; I have a couple of horses in work at the moment—and they were betting in a way that no punter on a racecourse would even consider. They were putting down in their books that they had all these assets—’toxic debt’, to use the words of the member for Lowe—all derivative based. Everybody was betting that they could find someone more stupid than themselves, and they were blowing up assets that virtually did not exist and always looking for a new deal. Why do I raise that specifically and why do I quote the member for Lowe? It is because we have got one of those in this parliament at the moment. It is called an emissions trading scheme. It is a process by which people are going to bet on fresh air. I guess that one day they will be told, ‘We did it because the IMF said.’ It is going to give renewed respectability to the hedge funds and the screen jockeys, because they can argue that they have gone back into this punting regime to save the planet. How do you save the planet by allowing a totally unrelated group—their only relationship to energy consumption is their computer and the light overhead—to make profits from the scheme? And who has to pay? BlueScope Steel obviously has to use carbon and burn carbon to make steel, and so they have to go to the marketplace to buy the right to pollute—and of course we are told by the Treasury modelling, ‘You don’t have to buy the certificates in Australia if they get too dear. Buy them from China.’ China will have plenty, because they are building 20 nuclear power stations, which will give them credits under Kyoto to sell to Australia. We have already got a problem with steel manufacturing. I read in the media today that all of the specifications for steel profiles that will be used in Gorgon and some of these other manufacturers are not consistent with the profiles manufactured in Australia. It is a sort of reverse non-tariff barrier. Again, maybe it does not matter, because if an ETS is delivered upon BlueScope Steel, then they must pay. And when they pay, the cost of those certificates could be grossly exaggerated or increased, because the hedge funds are in there playing with one another and using the weight of huge volumes of finance to escalate the cost. In other words, while the member for Lowe and, no doubt, the minister who introduced this bill—what is he: the governor of IMF Australia or something like that—were talking up resolving the $3 trillion of debt that the member for Lowe quoted from some acceptable publication, the IMF were talking about making sure that this never happens again. Increased regulation over the banking sector and the finance sector: I agree with that. Australia had it, which is one of the reasons that our financial institutions are not as badly off. We saw what happened with the price of oil; it went through the roof. Yet, when the financial crisis arrived and these people had no more money to play with, the price dropped to one-third. It was not all supply and demand; there was a component of that but not much. It was all about the way they had forced the price up, and we have a debate going on in this parliament that the same thing should apply. I do not know how you explain that to the IMF. They tell us to have economic stimulus, and I have mentioned how that works. They tell us that we, the G20, have to get together and prevent that ever happening again. Yet this government is trying to deliver a new system which the screen jockeys and hedge funds can play with to the expense of Australia. There is no excuse for that. I have said on other occasions: why have a scheme whereby you license people either with free certificates or at cost to pollute? How does that reduce pollution in Australia? Why let the hedge funds play with that when a simple investment of the $1.7 billion that was handed over the other day could have put high-voltage DC transmission between the Pilbara and the Western Australian network and opened the opportunity to reduce emissions by hundreds of thousands of tonnes that are exerted pumping gas down a pipeline? 8701 17:53:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to support the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009. I have to make some comments in relation to the contribution made by the member for O’Connor. It was interesting to hear his summation that, in some sense, part of the International Monetary Fund’s purpose is to support the Labor government of Australia. I do not think anyone has actually made that submission in this place before. I am sure that we are all very happy about that, but I somehow doubt whether that is in fact the case, and of course it is not. The fact is that the International Monetary Fund is made up of representatives from around the world. Just because there is consistent economic advice from those countries, which conflicts with the member for O’Connor’s views, he raises some sort of magical conspiracy theory that their purpose is to support a Labor government. The member for O’Connor’s contribution continued to be interesting and highlighted the problem that the coalition have in terms of the economic crisis. They simply do not get what the problem is and what the solution is. He made complaints about the money in terms of the cash payments and said that they were going overseas. He said that they were providing money for China and Indonesia, which were the two examples that the member for O’Connor raised. Quite simply, you only need to look at the affect that the cash payments had on retail sales and the direct affect they had on employment, particularly in the retail sector, to understand in the short term how important those cash payments were to make sure that, in an industry very vulnerable to downturns, people continued to be employed. I know that because on the Central Coast retail is the biggest employer of labour and without those cash payments the unemployment figures would have been much, much more. The member for O’Connor was incredibly confused in relation to the infrastructure spending, particularly on schools. He seemed to be, first of all, arguing that we should not have been spending money on schools and should not have been spending infrastructure money making our schools better. But he then spent the second half of his speech complaining about a particular school where we should have spent money but were not. So it was a highly confused contribution. On one hand he said we were spending too much money on schools, and on the other he said that there were schools that we should be spending money on. Quite clearly the member for O’Connor would prefer the position where he decides which schools money is spent on. I suppose it is kind of reminiscent of some of the problems with the Regional Partnerships programs when there was not a proper process to decide where money was spent. So it is little wonder that the member for O’Connor made those sorts of comments. The proposed bill will simplify the process for Australia to accept amendments to the International Monetary Fund and World Bank agreements while retaining policy and parliamentary scrutiny. At a time when there is a world financial crisis we know just how important the role of the international community is in tackling and making sure that measures are put in place. No matter what Australia puts in place to cushion the blow from the international financial crisis, it still feels the effects. The whole world feels the effects of Lehman Brothers and the whole world feels the effects of what came out of the subprime market in the United States. That is why, increasingly, the world economy and the global institutions are going to play a much more important role than they did when they were first brought about in the late forties and early fifties. The purpose of this bill is to amend the International Monetary Agreements Act, to alter the definition of the International Monetary Fund articles of agreement, the fund agreement, and the definition of the World Bank articles of agreement, the bank agreement, so that they include any amendments of the relevant articles of agreement that enter into force for Australia without the need for further legislative amendment when these amendments are made. These are both very important organisations, and I want to spend a little bit of time talking about them and the importance that they play. Looking at the International Monetary Fund and what it does, the IMF’s main responsibilities are: promoting international monetary cooperation; facilitating the expansion and balanced growth of international trade; promoting exchange stability; assisting in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments; and making resources available with adequate safeguards to members experiencing balance of payments difficulties. The IMF is responsible for promoting the stability of the international monetary and financial system. Its job is to promote economic stability, help prevent crises, and help resolve them when they occur, thereby promoting growth and alleviating poverty. Its three main activities: surveillance, lending, and technical assistance, are intended to meet these goals. The IMF works to promote global growth and economic stability, and thereby prevent economic crises, by encouraging countries to adopt sound economic policies. This process is known as surveillance. Surveillance comprises multilateral surveillance, under which the IMF assesses global and regional developments and publishes the World economic outlook and the Global financial stability report, and bilateral surveillance, which is the regular dialogue and policy advice that the IMF offers to its members. Usually, once a year, the IMF conducts an in-depth appraisal of each member country’s economic situation and policies, and advises on desirable policy adjustments. The overwhelming majority of countries opt for transparency and agree to publish IMF documents pertaining to their economies. The IMF’s technical assistance and training help member countries strength their capacity to design and implement effective policies. Technical assistance is offered in several areas, including tax policy and administration, expenditure management, monetary and exchange rate policies, banking and financial system supervision and regulation, legislative frameworks, and statistics. In the event that member countries experience crises, the IMF’s resources may be tapped to help finance balance of payments needs. Financial assistance is available to give member countries the breathing room they need to correct balance of payments problems. A policy program supported by IMF financing is designed by the national authorities in close cooperation with the IMF, and continued financial support is conditional on effective implementation of this program. To help support countries during the global economic crisis, the IMF is strengthening its lending capacity and has approved a major overhaul of how it lends money by offering higher amounts and tailoring loan terms to countries’ varying strengths and circumstances. At the 2 April 2009 G20 summit, world leaders pledged to support growth in emerging markets and developing countries by boosting the IMF’s lending resources to $750 billion. IMF lending aims to give countries breathing room to implement adjustment policies and reforms that will restore conditions for strong and sustainable growth, employment and social investment. These policies will vary depending upon the country’s circumstances, including the causes of the problems. For instance, a country facing a sudden drop in the price of a key export may simply need financial assistance to tide it over until prices recover and to help ease the pain of an otherwise sudden and sharp adjustment. So, as you can see, the IMF is a very important organisation in the world’s financial affairs. And any statement or advice from the IMF is never taken lightly. Only at the end of last week the managing director of the IMF conveyed his thoughts about the situation in light of the global financial crisis. While those opposite continue to flounder for any policies as to what they might do in response to the world financial situation, the IMF is very clear about the effects of decisive action taken by governments, including this government, to that financial crisis. The IMF head, Mr Dominique Strauss-Kahn, in delivering the 2009 Bundesbank Lecture in Berlin, said stimulus measures adopted to combat the global crisis should be withdrawn only when the economic recovery has taken hold and unemployment is set to decline. And while Mr Strauss-Kahn acknowledged that the global economy appears to be emerging from the worst financial and economic crisis in the postwar period, he also emphasised that the recovery will be sluggish and that a jobless recovery remains a risk. Given the fragility of the recovery, the IMF managing director warned that ‘policymakers should err on the side of caution as they decide when to exit their crisis policy response policies’. But we continue to see from those opposite the call to wind back the stimulus package. However, that should not come as a surprise to anyone in this House—they voted against it in the first place. They did not support the stimulus package. They did not support the strong and decisive action that this government took to shield the Australian economy—action that has been supported by the IMF. And what we see now from the opposition leader and the opposition is again another example of poor judgment. Now they are saying that we should wind back the stimulus package before it has had the full chance to impact and shield this economy. We only have to go back to the words of Mr Strauss-Kahn, where he says in terms of his view and the view of the IMF that these measures should be withdrawn only when economic recovery has taken hold and unemployment is set to decline. Unfortunately, that is not the situation we are in in Australia at this stage. The World Bank, which is also subject to this bill, also plays a significant role around the world, especially in developing countries. The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. Despite its name, the institution is not a bank in the common sense of the word. It is made up of two unique development institutions owned by 186 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the International Development Association. Each institution plays a different but collaborative role to advance the vision of an inclusive and sustainable globalisation. The IBRD focuses on middle-income and creditworthy-poor countries, while the IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together they provide low-interest loans, interest-free credits and grants to developing countries for a wide array of purposes, including investments in education, health, public administration, infrastructure, financial and private sector development, agriculture, and environmental and natural resource management. So it is clear to see why Australia’s involvement with the World Bank is absolutely important. The World Bank’s work in more than 100 countries is challenging but its main objective is simple: to help reduce poverty. Over the past 20 years the proportion of people living in poverty in the developing world fell by half—from 40 per cent to 21 per cent. In the past few decades, life expectancy in developing countries has increased by 20 years, the number of children dying before the age of five has been reduced by half and adult illiteracy has also been halved to 25 per cent. But over a billion people still struggle to survive on a dollar a day. The World Bank is working with the help of countries like Australia to improve those people’s lives through the bank’s support for social services like health, nutrition, and education as well as for infrastructure and policies to improve governance and fight corruption. One might ask what relationship there is between talking about the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund and discussing projects that are keeping Australians in jobs. We have seen in just nine or so months projects in Australia which have been completed and many, many more under our Building the Education Revolution and nation-building programs well underway. These programs, which are part of the Rudd government’s economic stimulus plan, have saved thousands of Australian jobs. In my electorate of Dobell on the beautiful Central Coast of NSW I have been visiting some of the schools which are benefiting from the government’s economic stimulus package. The principal of one of those, Berkeley Vale Public School, told me that never in his teaching career had he dreamed of having such facilities as the infrastructure that is being provided under the Rudd government’s plan. As well as that, he was very pleased to note that the people working on his school were locals coming from the economy on the Central Coast. Berkeley Vale Public School will soon be replacing stuffy and cramped demountables with better-designed, roomier, permanent buildings to offer much better teaching and learning spaces. The school is also acquiring new high-tech interactive whiteboards which will open up a whole new world of education for the students and teachers. You can see that Australia’s stimulus measures have been and are continuing to provide the results we need, and the advice from such global institutions as the IMF is that the stimulus measures should not be withdrawn until the economic recovery has taken hold. I go back to the bill and what it means. The International Monetary Agreements Act 1947 established Australia’s membership in the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development and made provisions which allow Australia to meet obligations that may arise by virtue of our membership in these institutions. The funded bank articles of the agreement respectively form schedule 1 and schedule 2 of the IMA Act. The purpose of this bill is to amend the IMA Act to alter the definition of ‘fund agreement’ and the definition of ‘bank agreement’ to include any amendments of the relevant articles of agreement that enter into force for Australia without the need for further legislative amendment when these amendments are made at the fund and bank. The proposed bill will simplify the process for Australia to accept amendments to the fund and bank agreements that have recently been agreed to by members as well as any future amendments, while retaining policy and parliamentary scrutiny. Currently, an IMA amendment act is required to change the IMA Act to reflect amendments to the fund and bank agreements. However, this legislative process is largely an administrative task. The Treasurer, as Australia’s governor of the IMF and World Bank, is required to vote on any proposed changes to the articles of agreement of either institution. The agreements constitute international treaties for Australia and, as such, irrespective of the requirements for legislation, any amendments to the treaties will still require tabling in the parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. Amendments to the fund and bank agreements have recently been approved by the boards of governors of the IMF and World Bank. These amendments introduce no substantive changes to Australia’s obligations to the IMF or World Bank; rather, they are reforms aimed at improving the legitimacy of both institutions and the financial position of the IMF. The amendments in this bill will enact any amendments to the fund agreement and bank agreements for Australia, including those recently agreed, upon their entry into force. These include amendments to increase the number of basic votes allocated to each member of the IMF and World Bank, provide for a second alternative executive director for large constituencies at the IMF and expand the investment authority of the fund. The broad objective of the first two sets of amendments is to enhance the voice and participation of low-income countries in the two institutions and thus enhance the institutions’ legitimacy and effectiveness. The amendments to expand the IMF’s investment authority form part of a new income model for the fund to provide it with a more robust, stable and sustainable income base. Let us go over the reasons for this bill again. To implement the recently agreed reforms of the IMF and World Bank requires amendments to both institutions’ articles of amendment. As the fund and bank articles of agreement form schedules to the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947, separate IMA amendment acts have been required to reflect any amendments to the fund and bank agreements in the IMF Act. However, the legislative process is, as I have already said, usually a largely administrative task, as all proposed amendments go through rigorous approval processes both at the institution and within Australia. The Treasurer is Australia’s governor of the IMF and World Bank and is required to vote on any proposed amendments to the articles of agreement of either institution. The agreements constitute international treaties for Australia and, as such, any amendments to the treaties will require tabling in the parliament. This bill proposes to simplify the process for Australia to accept agreed amendments to the articles of agreement of the IMF and the World Bank without the need for further legislative amendments. Given the current G20 reform agenda, which includes calls for reform of the IMF and the World Bank, it is likely that further amendments to the fund and bank agreements will occur in the near future. This bill will allow Australia to adopt recently agreed reforms at the fund and bank, as well as any future reforms which require amendments to either institution’s articles of agreement, in an efficient and timely manner. We saw that in the recent crisis there was a need for this country to act decisively and quickly. Part of the reform process in this bill today is to make sure that the agreements that are reached at the G20 can also be put in place quickly and efficiently. Given the recent world financial events of unprecedented scale, any improvement in efficiency in the way in which we deal with important institutions such as the World Bank and International Monetary Fund is most welcome. Improvements in efficiency include simplifying processes, and that is precisely what this bill does. I commend this bill to the House. 8706 18:13:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —The International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009is a very practical bill and builds on the fact that Australia has been a good international citizen for a very long time. Certainly, we have been part of the international monetary system since 1947. The purpose of this bill, as the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law pointed out, is to simply the process for our nation accepting amendments to the articles of agreement of the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, known generally as the World Bank. We have been members of these two organisations, as I said, since the passage of the International Monetary Agreements Act 1947. The minister pointed out in his second reading speech that the articles of agreement of the fund and bank are schedules to the act. There are certain processes with respect to the international treaties which underline these organisations which require there be support of a certain percentage—85 per cent of total voting power and three-fifths of all members of the IMF—before there can be a change or amendment to the provisions. As has been indicated by other speakers, the Treasurer, as Australia’s governor in the IMF and the World Bank, must vote on any proposed amendments to the arrangements. The bill before the House is partly to recognise the fact that there have been certain amendments made recently and the government and Australia in fact voted in favour of those amendments. But under the provisions which have existed since 1947 it has been necessary, every time there is an amendment of the international arrangements, for there to be legislation passed through the parliament. While I imagine one could argue that that provides for debate in relation to the amendments, the reality is that those amendments will become law and effective and binding on us if the required percentages vote in favour of the changes. So I suppose one could say that this legislation is designed to recognise the fact that we ought not to have independent and separate legislation every time an amendment is moved internationally with respect to the IMF and the World Bank. Australia’s internal processes will still have to be followed. There will still be parliamentary scrutiny, there will be a tabling in the parliament and presumably the treaties procedures will be followed with respect to any proposed amendments. At the present time, given the legislative demand on the time of the parliament by any government, there are at times delays in introducing legislation to recognise the fact that amendments have been made. But this legislation, once passed, will mean that it will not be necessary every time there is an amendment to come back before the parliament to seek the approval of both houses. The agreements constitute international treaties for Australia and, as I indicated, irrespective of the requirement for legislation any amendments to the treaties will still require tabling in parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. So in a sense this legislation is practical legislation. It updates the act, which dates from 1947. It still keeps in place the safeguards that make sure that we as a country are very careful about treaties the government enters into. I am very pleased to be able to commend the bill to the House and I expect that it will enjoy a speedy passage. 8707 18:17:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —in reply—I thank the honourable members who have contributed to this debate. The purpose of the International Monetary Agreements Amendment Bill 2009is to simplify the process for Australia to accept agreed amendments to the articles of agreement for the International Monetary Fund and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. The International Monetary Agreements Act 1947—the IMA Act—established Australia’s membership of the IMF and the World Bank. The articles of agreement of the fund and the bank are schedules to the act. The purpose of this bill is to alter the definition of the IMF articles of agreement, the fund agreement, and the definition of the World Bank articles of agreement, the bank agreement, to include any amendments to the relevant articles of agreement that enter into force for Australia without the need for further legislative changes. Importantly, similar provisions are commonly used in Australian legislation to allow updates to international treaties to which Australia is a party. Currently, an IMA amendment act is required to reflect any amendments to the fund and bank agreements. However, this legislative process is largely an administrative task, as all the proposed amendments are required to go through rigorous approval processes at both the institutions and within Australia. The Treasurer, as Australia’s governor of the IMF and World Bank, is required to vote on any proposed amendments to the articles of agreement of either institution. For the amendment to enter into force, three-fifths of all members of the IMF or the World Bank, having 85 per cent of the total voting power, must accept the amendment. If accepted, the amendment enters into force for all IMF or World Bank members, whether or not a particular member has accepted it. The agreements constitute international treaties for Australia and, as such, irrespective of the requirement for legislation, any amendments to the treaties will still require tabling in parliament and consideration by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. A national interest analysis was tabled in parliament on 16 June 2009, outlining these proposed amendments for scrutiny by the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. This bill will allow Australia to accept a number of governance reforms which Australia has recently approved and which have been approved by the IMF and World Bank boards of governors when they enter into force for all members, including Australia, without the need for further legislative processes. Specifically, these amendments aim to enhance the voice and participation of developing countries in these two institutions and support a new income model for the fund aimed at providing it with a more robust, stable and sustainable income base into the future. As governor for Australia of the IMF and World Bank, the Treasurer voted in favour of each of these proposed amendments. Australia has a significant interest in seeing these reforms implemented, as they will enhance the effectiveness and legitimacy of both institutions and support the robust, stable and sustainable financial position of the fund into the future. This amending legislation will also deliver for Australia on the commitment of the G20 leaders at their meeting on 2 April to implement the April 2008 IMF quota and voice reforms and the 2009 World Bank voice and participation reforms. Given the current G20 reform agenda, which includes calls for reform of the IMF and World Bank, it is likely that further amendments to the fund and bank agreements will occur in the future. This bill will allow for Australia to adopt the recently agreed reforms, as well as any future reforms which require amendments to either institution’s articles of agreement, in an efficient and timely manner while maintaining policy and parliamentary oversight. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 8708 Mr BOWEN (Prospect —Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services) 18:21:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 8708 Bills R4151 Cognate bills: 8708 Bills R4153 8708 Bills R4152 8708 Debate resumed. 8708 18:23:00 Vale, Danna, MP VK6 Hughes LP 0 0 Mrs VALE —According to the explanatory memorandum, the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 supports the government’s 2009-10 budget measures purportedly by facilitating new arrangements to enhance and expand the role of nurse practitioners and midwives which allow them to take a greater role in providing quality health care. For eligible nurse practitioners and midwives the bill will provide the right to request certain diagnostic imaging and pathology services for which a Medicare benefit may be paid, the right to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and new Medicare items and referrals under the Medicare Benefits Schedule for midwives and nurse practitioners working in ‘collaborative’ arrangements with doctors. The Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009 provide for the Commonwealth to contract with an insurer through a national tender process to provide indemnity insurance for independent midwives and the imposition of a run-off cover support payment as a levy on insurers’ midwife professional indemnity insurance premium income. I note the coalition supports the referral of these bills to a Senate committee inquiry. The committee was due to report by 7 August 2009, but I understand that the committee’s report has been delayed for the time being. I look forward to seeing the committee’s ultimate report, because I share the concerns of many Australian women about the kind of health care they and their babies will receive at a most vulnerable time in their lives—that is, when giving birth. I understand that the provisions in these bills regarding midwifery were recommended by the Maternity Services Review. New medical benefits items and pharmaceutical benefits provisions are to be available from 1 November 2010. The new MBS items will provide for collaborative working arrangements between nurse practitioners and midwives and doctors, although there is a lack of certainty as to what form ‘working collaboratively’ will take in practice. It is expected that for participating midwives it will include antenatal, birthing and postnatal care arrangements between those midwives, obstetricians and GP obstetricians. The government points out that nurse practitioners will be limited to providing those services within their competency and authorised scope of practice. However, there is still no detail on exactly what this means. The legislation does provide that both nurse practitioners and participating midwives will be able to refer their patients under the MBS to specialist consultant physicians, and these measures are welcome. Many of my constituents will be aware that private midwife practitioners are unable to access professional indemnity insurance in Australia. The insurance industry says that this is because, firstly, there is no accurate and up-to-date data with which to make an actuarial assessment of liability and, secondly, the potential premium pool is too small to support a market priced premium that would be affordable for midwives. Pursuant to the national accreditation and registration scheme, it will be a requirement of registration from 1 July 2010 that all health professionals have indemnity insurance. The government plans to contract with an insurer to provide professional indemnity insurance to certain midwives. In doing so, a database will be established and maintained to allow the insurance industry to then develop appropriate insurance products in the future. This is a sound provision. Provisions in the Commonwealth contribution bill will allow the government to pay certain amounts for claims against an eligible midwife and, in the case of practising eligible midwives, these are as follows: (1) for each claim, the insurer will pay the first $100,000; (2) for each claim over $100,000 the government will pay 80 per cent of the cost that exceeds that threshold, up to a ceiling of $2 million—claims between $100,000 and $2 million are classed as level 1 Commonwealth contribution payments; and (3) for each claim that exceeds $2 million, the government will pay at the level 1 rate for the first $2 million plus 100 per cent of the cost of the claim above that threshold, which is classed as level 2. This bill also provides for the government to change the $100,000 threshold, the $2 million threshold and the rate of subsidy applying to both levels by the rules. Provision is also made for ‘run-off’ cover for an eligible midwife who has ceased to practise. I note that these amendments providing for insurance cover for eligible midwives are largely in response to the recommendations of the Maternity Services Review and are welcome amendments. However, the main concern that I and many of my constituents have is that this legislation does not provide any indemnity insurance cover for midwives supporting mothers at homebirths. I note that the minister has been persuaded to change her mind on this point. She has extended the time frame for the next two years. This extension of time will allow for discussion and debate and examination of the issue, which I know will be welcomed by the midwives association. It is a reversal that is welcome, and I acknowledge the work of the shadow minister in this regard. The concerns raised state that privately practising midwives will not be able to provide homebirthing services after the introduction of the national registration and accreditation mandatory requirements for indemnity insurance in July 2010. It is claimed that this will drive the practice of homebirthing underground and increase the risks for mothers and babies. I understand that in 2006 less than 0.3 per cent of all births in Australia, approximately 700, were homebirths, so the minister’s reversal, allowing the debate and discussion to continue, is welcome. There are some jurisdictions in Australia that provide public midwifery homebirthing services in a limited number of locations, and that was never intended to be affected by the introduction of the national registration and accreditation scheme. While many of the provisions of these bills are welcome, there is much confusion in some of the provisions as well as a real concern amongst women that this legislation denies them the choice of a homebirth for their baby. Firstly, the concept of ‘collaboration’ needs to be explained. The AMA says it needs to be clearer and that there needs to be genuine collaboration. Medical practitioners should refer patients to nurse practitioners and midwives but do not need to be co-located. The Rural Doctors Association of Australia gives its broad support for greater PBS and MBS access for nurses and midwives and also expresses concerns that there needs to be a clearer protocol to: establish for midwives, hospitals and obstetricians how collaboration will work; articulate the circumstances when obstetricians and medical practitioners will be called in; ensure that the medical practitioner has knowledge of the history of the patient; and establish how the medical record of the patient will be managed. The Australian College of Midwives welcomes the introduction of indemnity insurance, strongly supports the MBS and PBS access for midwives and suggests that an electronic health record for mobile health records needs to be developed to enable collaborative arrangements to work effectively. The college also suggests that there will need to be clear guidelines and principles established regarding consultation between patient, midwife and medical practitioner, for example, in those circumstances when a patient is transferred from a midwife to a doctor. The college also suggests that it is essential that midwives have visiting rights—that is, admitting privileges—at hospitals to enable continuity of patient care and that the concept of collaborative should not be too prescriptive as there needs to be a flexibility to adapt to varying circumstances in different regions and centres. However, the real concern that many women have with this legislation, despite the welcome provisions and the two-year stay on the licensing of midwives who offer homebirthing, is that it will ultimately outlaw the traditional practice of homebirthing in Australia. We have this two-year gap, which the minister has agreed to extend, but there is still a real concern about afterwards, and I welcome the opportunity for debate on that. The shadow minister for health pointed out that the coalition strongly believes that women should be able to make their own decisions about such a private matter and that this government is effectively putting a $30,000 fine on midwives who practise homebirthing. That is just not acceptable. At least, that was the government’s plan. My concern is that this legislation would have driven homebirthing underground and would have presented risks to the mother and baby in such circumstances. The legislation initially took an extreme position on homebirthing but there is a middle ground and now hopefully this middle ground can be explored over the next two years. Apart from the important issue of freedom of choice for Australian mothers, which has been comprehensively addressed by other colleagues in the chamber, there is a case to be made, as the Australian College of Midwives points out, for being in a position to provide safe options for those women who wish to homebirth. While some jurisdictions already provide limited public homebirthing midwifery services, there is already a large unmet demand for these services. I understand that this will certainly be canvassed over the next two years. Not every mother-to-be is an appropriate case for home delivery. Personally, I never would have chosen it for any of my four confinements. Indeed, I was not an appropriate candidate, as all my four children were premature. I was very grateful to my obstetrician, the late Dr Alexander Mackay McIntosh from Sutherland Hospital. And, on the occasion I did have a second obstetrician in attendance, my thanks and deep appreciation will forever remain with Dr John Mathews of Engadine. I think that we all clearly understand that homebirthing is not appropriate for complex cases where the mother is known to have great risks. That is plain commonsense. That being said, there are many cases where homebirthing is appropriate and, given that there are many women who have had negative experiences giving birth in hospitals, they should be able to choose to give birth at home under the safe supervision of health professionals working in a cooperative and collaborative manner for their protection. Many women have expressed a need to have a greater input into and ownership of their own birthing experience. It is not rocket science. It is done in other jurisdictions and in other countries—for example, in New Zealand and England—and done very well. So why can’t it also be done in Australia? The new national registration and accreditation regime will address the concerns of the present inconsistent registration requirements across states and ensure that midwives throughout the country meet requisite education, training and currency of experience requirements for the better protection of their patients. The Australian College of Midwives wants mothers to continue to have access to qualified homebirthing services and suggests that the government consider a number of options, which include: exempting independent midwives from indemnity insurance requirements under the national registration and accreditation for a transition period; extending the Commonwealth subsidy for indemnity insurance to midwives providing homebirthing services; or encouraging state and territory governments to increase provision of public homebirthing midwifery services. I am sure the Australian College of Midwives will clearly articulate their concerns and will have a major role in the considered examination and debate, as promised by the minister, over the coming two years. However, the real issue for me with this particular legislation is that the provisions to ban homebirthing do not appear to take into account some very relevant considerations that constitute the reality for expectant mothers today. One is that there are fewer and fewer obstetricians amongst the medical profession today than there were even five years ago, and this seems to be a direct result of the extremely high indemnity insurance costs that obstetricians today must pay. My own obstetrician, Dr Mathews of Engadine, worked until he was well over the usual retirement age because he could not get another obstetrician to buy his practice. The other reality about which mothers are genuinely concerned is the current state of our hospitals. When they read recent newspaper articles about the terrible neglect of women presenting in some of our local hospitals, many are simply horrified. Many are intent on having a homebirth mainly because of such reports. As a case in point I refer to an incident in my electorate at my own local Liverpool Hospital that occurred in July. After headlines in the local Liverpool Champion dated 29 July this year which read ‘Hospital sent home pregnant woman’ and the Daily Telegraph dated 24 July 2009 which read ‘Mum gives birth at home after being sent away by hospital’, why wouldn’t any mother want to arrange a homebirth with a registered and accredited midwife if she was assessed as being an appropriate patient. The mother from Liverpool Hospital claimed she was forced to give birth on her bedroom floor after being turned away from the hospital because there were not enough beds. The mother was bleeding and in labour when she first arrived at Liverpool Hospital but was told the hospital did not have enough room on the night. She was told to go home because she would not be in labour for another 24 to 48 hours. Five hours later her baby was born on the bedroom floor of the family home, with the assistance of the shocked father and watched by her 18-month-old toddler. Is this the kind of experience the government offers to the mothers of Australia? Then there are the horrific stories of young mothers waiting long hours in the hospital waiting room only to be left alone to miscarry in the public toilet of the hospital. What a disgrace to have such events occur in Australia. How do we defend such a hospital system, which we would expect to find in a Third World country, and, to add further insult to injury, then deny young women the right to choose a homebirth in a safe environment with professional assistance? We can do better, and the advice from the Australian College of Midwives has some very sound suggestions whereby the provisions for collaborative, cooperative birthing support in these bills could well be the foundation by which all our health professionals work for the benefit and protection of Australian mothers and their babies—and not engage in what appears, to those of us outside the profession, to be a turf war. I do welcome the minister’s reversal of a former decision which will allow a further two years regarding the practitioners of midwifery for homebirthing. I think that is a very positive move and I know that it is one welcomed by the mothers and babies in my electorate. 8712 18:39:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I rise to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. I do so with great pleasure because this is probably one of the most significant pieces of health legislation that we have seen coming through this parliament in the last 18 months. Indeed it is an indication, once again, of the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to genuine and serious health reform. This government was elected on a platform of health reform and it is very clear from many of the announcements made by the Minister for Health and Ageing in recent times—whether it is the report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission; whether it is the report on preventive health or indeed the very significant reforms contained in these pieces of legislation regarding maternity services and the support for nurse practitioners—that the government is committed to honouring its election commitment to see major reform in the health system in order to support and improve the provision of health care to the broader Australian community. What is important about these particular pieces of legislation is that, first and foremost, they acknowledge the very valuable contribution that midwives and nurse practitioners make in protecting the health of our community and indeed improving health services for individuals in all electorates across the country. This demonstrates that we acknowledge the significant role that health professionals, not just doctors but all health professionals, play in contributing to the improvement of health services in this country. It also demonstrates that we as a government are very strongly interested in focusing more on primary care and preventive health. Indeed I think anyone who talks with the general community, and any of us who talk with our own GPs and with many health professionals and providers within our own electorates, will acknowledge that if we can improve the services of primary care—if we can improve the medical services and allied health services available to those in our communities and in our suburbs—then that is one of the best ways in which we can actually ease the pressure which we all know is on our hospital system. This is not just a question of more dollars; it is a question of where you target those dollars and how you can best provide the health services that will give the best care for those members of our community and that will hopefully prevent people needing to go to hospital in the long term because of the primary care service we are providing. This particular legislation does that by improving access and options for people—not just within our suburban areas but, most importantly, in regional and rural areas as well—by allowing nurse practitioners and midwives to prescribe certain medicines under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and to request or provide certain Medicare services, such as diagnostic imaging and pathology services. For midwives this will include antenatal, birthing and postnatal care and collaborative care arrangements with GPs and obstetricians. Of course these services have been argued for for a very long time by many within the health system. I know that, in particular, many nurses, nurse practitioners and those involved in midwifery have been arguing for many years that they should be allowed to have access to the PBS and to Medicare for the services that they provide and that there could be a greater easing of the demands on our health system if they were given the reforms contained in this legislation. But of course these reforms and changes cannot be introduced without a level of responsibility, scrutiny and accountability when it comes to enabling nurse practitioners and midwives to access these services. For that reason they will, of course, be required to meet certain eligibility requirements in accessing these new arrangements. They will basically be required to be eligible nurse practitioners or eligible midwives as defined under the act. This also applies to those midwives and nurse practitioners wishing to access the government’s professional indemnity scheme, and indeed this legislation also provides for the introduction of professional indemnity insurance. Once again, this is a significant reform, initiated by this government, which will enable midwives and nurse practitioners to provide a greater service to the general community. Currently, no private insurer offers an indemnity scheme, so the Commonwealth is introducing the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009 that will address this. The Commonwealth will subsidise claims against midwives as follows: 80 per cent of claim costs for those claims between $100,000 and $2 million, and 100 per cent of claim costs for claims over $2 million. It broadly represents the Commonwealth’s existing arrangements for eligible medical practitioners. As we know, there are requirements around eligibility, and midwives will need to be registered in order to take advantage of these reforms. The bills also improve choices for Australian women when it comes to maternity services in particular. It is, in fact, a key component of the government’s $120.5 million maternity reform package that was introduced in this year’s budget by the health minister. What I think is a particularly interesting part of this package and will indeed address some of the issues raised by the member for Hughes, the previous speaker, when it comes to issues around the availability of obstetricians and professionals in the maternity services area, is that $8 million in this funding package will be spent over four years for two key scholarships. The first will enable 110 eligible GPs to receive up to $40,000 for training to become obstetricians or anaesthetists. As I said, the member for Hughes had already indicated that there is a serious shortage of obstetricians within the country at the moment, and there may well be a number of reasons for that, but I am sure a scholarship of this kind that 110 interested and eligible GPs across the country will be able to access will go a long way to ensuring that there are more obstetricians providing services within the Australian community. On top of that, 20 midwives each year will also gain a two-year scholarship of up to $30,000 to obtain formal qualifications that they need to provide the Medicare services and prescriptions under the PBS as outlined in these bills. This is a significant contribution to ensuring the reforms and the outcomes that we want to achieve as a result of those reforms will come to fruition because we will have the qualified practitioners in place to do so. I do not think anyone could contribute to the debate on these particular pieces of legislation without acknowledging the statement that came out of the Health Ministers Conference on Friday and the concerns that have been raised by members of the midwifery community and many women who are obviously looking to homebirth as an option for their impending maternity. It is important that we address these issues and that we also address the criticisms that have been raised by the opposition. As a result of the Health Ministers Conference, a very practical compromise has been reached on this very issue, I believe. Midwives who attend homebirths will have a two-year exemption from requiring insurance to stay registered. This is an issue that has been raised; indeed, many women in my own electorate of Bonner have come to visit me, concerned that they would not have the option of a homebirth if it meant that, as a result of attending homebirths, midwives that they have previously dealt with would not be registered. They will of course only obtain registration if they do two key things: they must inform the expectant mother that she is not insured for a homebirth and they must also report the birth. I will come back to that matter in a moment because I believe that is one of the key conditions of registration that is very important if we are to address the issues, particularly the insurance issue of homebirth, over the long term. The first thing that we need is accurate data. We do not have that at the moment and this particular condition, as a result of the ministers conference on Friday, will give us the data that we need to address this issue for the long term. It means that many women, as I said, will have genuine choice. They will have access to homebirths but they will do so informed of the insurance issue when they choose that. It also means, as many members in this place have already indicated, that any fears that homebirthing would go underground or that any dangers that would result from that to both the mother and the child will be addressed and it will not mean that we will see those sorts of activities occurring. It actually means that the issues that the minister has announced in relation to registration should be applauded because, whilst many will still argue that midwives should have insurance for homebirths, I believe that this two-year exemption is a reasonable and responsible response. I say that because, whilst I, as a mother of three, am very clearly supportive of midwives and indeed of any woman having the right to choose the circumstances under which she wishes to give birth, including homebirth, we do need to be honest about the risks that are out there. I know that many women undergo quite serious risks even within the hospital environment. I was talking to a constituent only last week who is choosing a homebirth for her third child because of the very unpleasant and difficult experiences that she suffered as a result of going through hospital—not the public hospital system but the private system. She now wants the option of a homebirth. Nevertheless, we know that there are risks. As I alluded to before, the key thing about understanding those risks is that we actually do not have the data to give us the analysis of the level of risk. We do not actually know how many homebirths there are. We do not know the level of qualifications and skills of the practitioners who are delivering babies in a homebirth situation. I believe it would be irresponsible for us to support an insurance scheme that opened up a Pandora’s box such as this without really understanding what we are actually dealing with. It is important to remember that we are of course here to administer taxpayers’ money. We have to be responsible about the policies that we initiate when it comes to actually funding insurance schemes such as this. I believe that all practitioners of homebirth—indeed, all midwives—would readily agree that we need to get the data together to understand and develop proper policies and protocols that will ensure women have a choice but one that is safe and also accountable in terms of the spending of taxpayers’ money. That is why I believe the announcement that came from the health ministers on Friday is a very responsible, very practical one. I think it should be supported by this parliament and the broader community. We know that in two years—the period of the exemption that is being allowed for under the announcement—there will be a national nursing and midwifery board fully operating. We will have the professionals in this particular area operating as a board that will be able to give to this debate the sorts of expertise and guidance that we need. We know, as I have already said, that we will have two years of data collected to understand the needs of midwives who are practising homebirth and providing it for mothers and to understand what level of risk needs to be catered for. We will have an analysis of all of these things which will enable the government to develop protocols, options and good policy around indemnity insurance. It may well mean that in that time there will be private insurance options available; it may mean that the Commonwealth will have to look at a public scheme. But at least we will be able to have that debate and discussion with the information that we need to do it in a practical and responsible manner. I also say that I welcome the indications from the state ministers, as a result of the announcement last Friday, that they will look at public hospitals being able to work in partnership with midwives to explore options around providing homebirths. I see in the chamber the member for Page, who I understand has in her electorate a hospital that is actually exploring some of those options around the provision of homebirths via the hospital system. A whole range of options will come out of these reforms that will make it so much better for women who are giving birth to do it in the circumstances that best suit them and their child. I wish to conclude by putting on record my support for midwives and for the option of homebirths. I had three children through the public hospital system. I chose to do that because I support public hospitals and I knew that I would get the best level of care. On all three occasions, it was a midwife who delivered my children; I did not in fact see a GP until after the children were born. It was a great experience, and I want to say on a personal level that having a midwife in the birthing suite with me was certainly a very supportive, comfortable and encouraging environment. I think that midwives do a wonderful job when it comes to giving birth. We know that historically it has always been the role of midwives. Long before there were obstetricians or medical doctors, it was the women in the community who assisted other women in giving birth. Indeed, the word ‘midwife’ comes from the Middle English word meaning ‘with woman’. It was developed as a result of acknowledging that it was women who were with the women giving birth. The word dates back to about the year 1300. We know that midwives had existed for many, many centuries before that. It is important that, nearly 709 years since the word came into existence, we now have legislation which acknowledges very clearly the important role that midwives play when it comes to giving birth, that they are a genuine option for many, many women and that they support and nurture women when they are going through that amazing experience of giving birth—an experience terrifying and amazing at the same time. For that reason, I am very proud to support this set of bills, and I encourage everyone in this parliament to do so. 8716 18:57:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise to speak on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and cognate bills. The original intention of these bills was to provide Medicare benefits to eligible nurse practitioners and qualified, experienced midwives who request diagnostic imaging and pathology services as well as allowing them to prescribe certain medicines through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme under a collaborative arrangement and protocols with doctors and hospitals. The government will provide, through a contracted insurer, for professional indemnity insurance to eligible private midwives. However, just like the government’s proposed changes to youth allowance, these bills have not been thought through in practical terms and there has been a clear failure to consider the effects on women and families in rural and regional communities. As a result of sustained pressure, Minister Roxon and the government have done a partial backflip on the legislation and agreed to maintain the status quo, allowing midwives to continue to assist in homebirths for two years. It was clear that the bills, in the form presented by the government, are of particular relevance in regional and rural communities and demonstrated very directly how this government continuously and deliberately fails to understand how rural and regional communities actually function—communities like those in my electorate of Forrest, where we have a shortage not only of general practitioners but also of obstetricians and gynaecologists. We also have limited maternity care options. The Forrest electorate is located in a regional area where there is no birth centre or government funded community midwifery program such as those available to and accessed by women living in the metropolitan areas. There are women who, by choice, have already experienced a homebirth and want to be able to do so in the future, as well as those who want to experience their first homebirth. All these women need to have access to a midwife who will provide a particular type of maternity care for them in their own homes: the homebirth. A number of very concerned and upset mothers in my electorate, from Busselton and Margaret River, have spoken to me about the effects the original bill would have had on them and on the midwives they currently have access to, who have already safely delivered their babies. I rise to speak on behalf of these women from my electorate, to give voice to their issues here in federal parliament. The mothers I refer to are those who want to be able to have a homebirth with the same type of care and service they have already had in delivering their babies—or, alternatively, to have their first homebirth. However, the legislation as originally presented would have prevented them from doing so, because the midwife would have been acting outside their registration by not having the requisite indemnity insurance. The mothers and families whom I met are extremely angry that this legislation did not make provision for safe midwife home based maternity care in their own homes. However, by far the most important issue to them is the issue of choice. They absolutely and completely believe it is their right to choose their own birthing option. They made it very clear to me that this decision is their choice. They want to choose and they emphatically believe it is their right to do so. I met Jane, a homebirth mother of three from my electorate, and I quote Jane’s subsequent email: I live in a regional area where there is no access to a community midwifery program and I therefore depend on the independent midwives in the area for homebirth support. With the introduction of the proposed legislation I will be unable to access a homebirth with a qualified midwife. For any future births I would then have to choose between birthing in a hospital and freebirthing. In Australia, elective surgery is a government supported and subsidised choice. In the case of childbirth, the safety of both mother and child is the priority. To many women, the right to choose how and where to give birth is also a priority, as I found with the mothers I met in Busselton and Margaret River. Women are able to make a number of decisions regarding their birth options and maternity care, but women who choose to birth with trained midwives in their own homes will have no choice except to have a hospital birth or to have their babies in their homes without the support and presence of a trained professional to assist them should the government continue with this legislation in the future. I am extremely concerned about this. The health and wellbeing of both mother and child are paramount. I recently met with Andrea, a mother from Margaret River, in my electorate. Andrea has a 10-month-old daughter who was born in the hospital system but she is pregnant again and intends to have a homebirth. In fact, she was very relieved that, had the government persisted with the legislation, she would have delivered her baby in a homebirth situation before the legislation took effect. Andrea is a member of the Margaret River homebirth mothers group called Birth Choice. This free support group has approximately 40 members and meets once a month. I understand that at least one of the mothers in the group is prepared to have a freebirth if, as a result of this or subsequent legislation, she does not have access to a registered independent midwife. Freebirthing is a homebirth without the care or attendance of an experienced midwife or medical professional. It is an extremely dangerous practice where the safety of mother and child can be compromised. A reduction in the number of independent midwives as a result of this or subsequent legislation not only would lead to an increase in the number of hospitals births but could potentially increase the number of freebirths. Some of the mothers expressed serious concerns that, if legislation were passed either now or in two years time and home-birthing services were abolished, it would only take one freebirth complication or serious problem for home birthing to never be legalised again. At present, at least 35 women choose to give birth at home with a registered midwife in the south west. Many more would like to birth at home but simply cannot afford to do so. The costs of employing a registered midwife to provide a homebirth are directly borne by the woman or family who make the choice of the homebirth. Should indemnity insurance for independent midwives become available, it would need to be an affordable option because, in most cases, the cost would be passed on directly to the woman or family. For the mothers I met in Busselton the cost of a homebirth, which cannot be reimbursed from either Medicare or private health funds, includes 10 to 12 antenatal checkups, the actual delivery of the baby and home visits for the first five days following birth, with direct contact and postnatal support for up to six weeks following the birth. As mentioned, postnatal support is given to new mothers for approximately six weeks after birth. For the mothers I met, this postnatal support and the ongoing friendship are almost as important as the actual birth. They have a personal belief that both the homebirth experience and the postnatal support actually lessened their potential for suffering postnatal depression. As we are all aware, postnatal depression is a very serious problem for women and their families. I am concerned from reading this legislation, and given the minister’s backflip, that it appears to be yet another piece of this government’s rushed legislation, because it lacks detail on how this process will work on a practical level. There is no guidance as to what the definition of ‘eligible midwife’ is. If a midwife is not eligible, what further training or requirements will have to be completed for them to become eligible? Another flaw is the lack of explanation as to what level of ‘consultation’ will be required between independent midwives and general practitioners. Independent midwives in my electorate tell me they have a very sound working relationship with local GPs and with other independent midwives. They believe that the collaborative care process between mothers, midwives, general practitioners and hospitals is imperative for the safety of homebirths. Homebirth mother of three Sharon said: I felt safe and in capable care with all my children’s homebirths. My local GP was informed that I was in labour and phoned when my baby was born. Will the existing collaborative approach used by the mothers in my electorate be considered adequate consultation under the legislation? The intersection of the National Registration and Accreditation Scheme legislation with the midwifery and nurse practitioner legislation will make it impossible for independent midwives to register and practise as homebirth midwives. The NRAS, which is to be introduced on 1 July 2010, requires proof of professional indemnity insurance for midwifery registration. Under the original legislation, after 1 July 2010 any individual who practised as a midwife without registration was subject to a maximum penalty of $30,000. As we know, there is no professional indemnity insurance for independent midwives. Clearly, the government—until forced into a backflip—was deliberately excluding this choice for Australian mothers. It appears that homebirth midwives are the only health professionals who are unable to gain access to indemnity insurance. Susan is an experienced midwife who has been living and working in my electorate for the last 7½ years. She has worked in a hospital maternity unit for over seven years, but during the last 3½ years she has shifted to the role of a privately practising midwife, or what is known as an independent midwife. Susan has said: I find working as an independent midwife much more rewarding than working in the hospital system, as I am able to provide uninterrupted, continuity of care throughout the pregnancy, labour, birth and postnatal period. I am able to provide dedicated and thorough care to one woman at a time and because of this I believe it is SAFER, more COMPREHENSIVE and much more PERSONALISED than what I would be able to provide on the maternity ward. I note that results from a comprehensive study conducted in the Netherlands released on 15 April 2009 concluded that planning a homebirth does not increase the risk of perinatal mortality and severe perinatal morbidity among low-risk women, provided a well-trained midwife is available. I also note that at the Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs hearings into this legislation, Associate Professor Hannah Dahlen from the Australian College of Midwives commented: … what all this evidence tells us again and again is that homebirth for low-risk women attended by competent, networked, integrated midwives within a responsive system is safe. Midwives in my electorate only take on low-risk women. This, along with the collaborative relationship between the midwives, GPs and hospitals contribute to providing homebirth as a birthing option in the south-west of WA. I understand that in their current form these bills will enable Medicare funding, access to the PBS and professional indemnity support for midwives providing care for women giving birth in hospitals. However, this will not be available to midwives assisting the families in my electorate who choose to give birth anywhere other than in a hospital. The original legislation, in the form the government presented, would have abolished the independent midwives industry in my electorate and throughout Australia. Alternatively, as I said earlier, what concerns me greatly is the possibility of ‘freebirthing’—birthing at home without a midwife’s support. This legislation, in its original form, actually denied women the right to choose a homebirth. I well understand, as do the women in my electorate, that homebirthing is not an appropriate option for all women. But this is an issue that is fundamentally about choice. The women I met believe very strongly that they should have the right to choose how, where and with whom they give birth to their children. They feel so strongly, in fact, that four of them—Susan Mildwaters, Sharon Scott, Jane Reynolds and Catherine Evans, came from the south-west of WA, at their own cost and with their beautiful babies, to rally in Canberra today with other women from right across Australia. They rallied for their right to choose and they rallied against this government and this legislation. I note that a minority report by the coalition members on the Senate inquiry, Senators Judith Adams and Sue Boyce, made a number of very sound recommendations. Two of these are: … that the Department of Health and Ageing undertake an actuarial analysis on the risk profile of homebirths in Australia, with a distinction between professionally supported homebirthing and unsupported free births, and a full analysis of the costs involved in including homebirth midwives within the Commonwealth’s Professional Indemnity scheme. And: If the costs of including private homebirth midwives within the Commonwealth’s Professional Indemnity scheme proves to be feasible, Coalition Senators recommend that the Minister include midwives who perform homebirths as a category of ‘eligible midwife’ in the regulations and rules to be attached to the three Bills. I commend all of the recommendations made by Senator Adams and Senator Boyce to the government. The latest backflip by the government and Minister Roxon does not provide at this time any longer term certainty for independent midwives and mothers wishing to birth at home, and I call on the government to release the costing and the actuarial modelling for the provision of indemnity insurance for midwives. 8720 19:11:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I speak in support of the cognate bills: the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. One of the key things here is that maternity care is being brought into its rightful place of primary care: for the first time ever we are going to provide Medicare funding for midwives. That will increase opportunities for women to have more choice about how they have children. That is one of the significant features of the package of bills around maternity care. I am going to talk about homebirths, particularly from the perspective of my seat but also from that of the North Coast Area Health Service, which is broader in area, the number of homebirths, the options that we have and the issue of professional indemnity insurance. In the budget, the government committed $120.5 million over four years to maternity services. I commend them for that and commend the Minister for Health and Ageing. That was for maternity services reform and, over four years, $59.7 million of that is to expand the role of nurse practitioners. This is where the expanding role of midwives comes in. These bills will support the inclusion of nurse practitioners and midwives under the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the MBS, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme in line with these budget measures of 2009-10. They will also enable the establishment of a professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives, which is critical to supporting the new MBS and PBS arrangements. There are a number of independent midwives who practice, and do not have professional indemnity insurance. My memory is that professional indemnity insurance was taken away in 2001. When I say ‘taken away’, the insurers would no longer provide that. I do remember a particular case to do with an obstetrician, and I think there was a payout of around $12 million, or something like that. I remember it at the time and it has been written about again recently. I know it was after that time that professional indemnity was taken away. I listened to speeches and contributions about midwives and homebirths today from the other side, and the first one I heard was the member for Groom. He said, ‘Well, you know, it’s been put off for two years.’ He said if he adopted a cynical view it could be that it was put off until after the next election. I have to say, on his comments, there is no cynical view about this. Since I came into this place in 2007 I have been in conversation with the Minister for Health and Ageing and other members of government about the issue of midwives, and particularly midwives and homebirths. Minister Roxon has been trying to find a way to address the issue of midwives who do homebirths and professional indemnity. The scheme that is being introduced, and this great reform that is being introduced, is part of a COAG agreement. So it is the federal government but it is with all the states and territories. It takes some doing to get that negotiated with the different schemes that operate across each state and territory. I am pleased to say that I have stayed in that conversation with her up until even last week and continuing this week. Last Friday she was able to secure the agreement that made sure the professional indemnity issue would not be a barrier for the independent midwives. They practise now without it and most of them that I know do advise the women, the pregnant mothers, who are giving birth. A lot of women in that situation do sign the disclaimers. I have to commend her for that agreement because that was one of the things that was being worked towards. I just want to say something else about professional indemnity. I once was the president of a health service, North Coast BreastScreen. The program was the North Coast Breast Screening Program. When that was introduced it was part of the national mammography screening program. Every other service in Australia that provided mammography provided it through a health service; thereby it attracted immediately all the professional indemnity. Ours did not. It was a non-government organisation. We were incorporated under the Associations Incorporation Act. This was done with the permission of the federal and state ministers. There were certain agreements about what we would trial for attracting certain women, and particularly Indigenous women, into that scheme. So we did not have professional indemnity and I, as the president of that organisation, had to negotiate to get professional indemnity because we had to be covered. I did that with AMP. It took some time. It had to go to the national board—I think they had a meeting in New Zealand—and we actually got it. So I am speaking with a little bit of experience in the health field in getting that professional indemnity. It was not easy and I know it is not easy now, for all sorts of reasons. But that is why we need time, and the minister has got that time so that a whole lot of options can be looked at. That is just one option that I was able to do with that particular service, but we had to jump through a lot of hoops to get it. We had to undergo certain training—me included—that normally only medical people would go through and there were certain protocols we had to adhere to. I saw that the agreement that the minister reached with the states and territories on Friday through COAG also referred to some of those protocols having to be in place. There would be a requirement that the independent midwives would notify women that they did not have professional indemnity insurance. As I said, most of them that I know do that. So they are really reasonable measures that have been introduced, alongside this period of two years, which gives us some time. On that particular issue, I see that as a good step forward. Also, this is about accreditation and registration. This is one of those issues that has been lingering for a while. It has been in the mix but has never got to a point where we could have it. The minister has done that and there will be at least 10 areas that will come into that national scheme. That is a good thing. So there are a whole lot of good things about this bill. It was not that we were going to exclude independent midwives; it was about how we can find a way through this. I also want to talk a little bit about the figures in my area and say that there was a review of homebirthing in the Northern Rivers health catchment. That was undertaken in 2004 by the clinical midwife consultant Sue England, who was with the North Coast Area Health Service. She is now with World Vision. She is a very experienced midwife, with experience in many settings. There was also a paper prepared by M Spain and H Gulliver in 2005-06 that looked at figures in our particular area. I will quote from their paper—and this comes from that report Sue England prepared. It says: The Northern Rivers Area Health Service— as it was then— has a significant home birthing community and records the highest homebirth rate in the state outside of metropolitan Sydney. To date, reliable data on the numbers of women choosing to birth at home has been difficult to quantify. The New South Wales Mothers and Babies report recorded 99 homebirths in the state, or 0.1 per cent of total births, and in the Northern Rivers 14 homebirths were recorded—0.5 per cent of total births. The real figure for the Northern Rivers Area Health Service is more likely to be around 100—approximately three per cent—based on advice from many sources accessed confidentially during 2004. Thus we can assume that this area has a significant home birthing community and will continue to do so. Further in the paper it says: In 2004 a total of 58 births, and an increase in 2005 to a total of 65 births, were registered to have occurred out of hospital. This is from the register of births, deaths and marriages dated 2004. The paper goes on to say that, at the time the paper was written in 2004: An average of three per cent of births in the North Coast Area Health Service occur out of hospital. This compares with the New South Wales state average of only 0.1 per cent of births occurring out of hospital in 2004. My point is that there are a significant number of women who have their babies out of hospital settings as homebirths. I would like to quote from a couple of the women who are active in that area. I have an email, saying: Dear Janelle, Just wanted to say a big thanks to you and your staff for helping me to participate in yesterday’s consultation with the Prime Minister and Minister. That is, Minister Roxon and Minister Elliot. I thought it was a really productive few hours. I could sense they were very keen to listen and were very open to hearing new, innovative ideas. It was a health consultation and the writer was there with the express purpose of talking about independent midwives and where the legislation was going. That has been the approach all the way through. I would also like to mention that in my area, in Lindendale, which is just outside of Lismore on the road to Wollongbar, Alstonville and Ballina, there is a Natural Birth Education and Research Centre Inc. Women go there for homebirths in a supported setting. It is run by Margaret Spain. She is a midwife of longstanding and someone I have worked and collaborated with in the area of homebirths. I will talk a little bit about the centre. They have collected five years of data outcomes of their service, and the services at the centre have a clear standard of practice. Women receive information on the screening criteria and the knowledge that primary midwives are not insured. The centre has volunteer public liability insurance. They have a referring obstetrician who supports the centre, midwives and clients. He is informed of the outcome of each birth that occurs at home, hospital or the centre. All clients are required to book into Lismore Base Hospital should a transfer be required and all receive the appropriate 28-week and 36-week pathology. The Natural Birth Education and Research Centre has found the greatest deterrent to women receiving care through their services is financial because there are fees if you want to birth in such a centre. That is one of the issues that we are looking at. The centre has provided to me—and I have given it to the minister—a proposal about how the centre could operate in one of the models of care around midwifery. I note that this is not a new issue. The issue of midwifery has been around for a long time, as has the issue of women giving birth at home—or homebirths, as we call them. It is an issue of choice. It is not everybody’s choice but it is about choice. We have to make provision so that women can have that choice. I know that some of the medical profession say that there are no safe births outside the hospital; they want them to happen at the hospital. But when I look at the figures of the Natural Birth Education and Research Centre, all births there have been safe. When I look at figures from New Zealand and the Netherlands, where it is more normal to have homebirths, I do not see a problem there either. It is just that we operate differently. Everything that I have read shows that if women have that choice, they will take it up because having a baby does not have to be a medical event. It is a pretty natural thing that happens. Turning specifically to the three bills, I would like to make a few points about the particular arrangements regarding midwives. For midwives to be eligible to participate in the new arrangements they will need to meet advanced practice requirements and have collaborative arrangements with doctors. A lot of them already do. These requirements and collaborative arrangements are being developed in consultation with midwives, doctors and other stakeholders. The reform initiatives supported by this legislation allow for this incremental reform within a strong framework of quality and safety. It is expected that around 700 eligible midwives will be participating in this measure over the next four years, and another 700 eligible midwives being involved in the scheme is a good thing. I have not heard any midwives object to being asked to report each homebirth, but there has not yet been a scheme or a system to allow them to do that. The Natural Birth Education and Research Centre in my area which I talked about do that. They have worked out that system with the local obstetrician, so there are ways that that can happen. In supporting this reform, it was really pleasing that Minister Roxon initiated the Maternity Services Review, because it was really important to have that. We have had many reviews in particular areas. I have read so many reviews about birthing and about maternity. A lot of them are very informative and useful, but there is not one that looks at it nationally with a view to having a national scheme in place. That is the great thing about this one, and it was important to do it. I know that the Maternity Services Review did not recommend professional indemnity for midwives who do homebirths but, even though it was not recommended, it is one of the things that the minister has taken on in not only responding to it, but recognising and having knowledge of the situation in Australia—that is, a small number of independent midwives, a small number of homebirths. If they were brought into a system, if there were more choices available and if there were more financial incentive around it, I am absolutely certain, after everything I have read on this topic over the last 30 years, that a lot more women would choose to have either homebirths or births in centres such as the one run by Margaret Spain in my area at Lindendale that I described. I see these bills and this process as a way forward for all of that. It is a way forward for great reforms and, in commending the bills to the House, I also commend the work of the minister. 8724 19:30:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —I rise to address the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. In doing so, I wear a number of different personal hats. Firstly, I am the son of a midwife; secondly, I am the husband of a nurse; and, thirdly, on 6 July 2009, just over nine weeks ago, I was present at the birth of my son, James Anthony Allan Hunt, who was brought into the world at the hands of three midwives. The obstetrician, Dr Andrew Griffiths, who does a fantastic job—indeed, he was the guiding light during the recent confinement of the member for Dunkley’s wife—was not able to be there for the denouement and there were three midwives present. So I have a deep, personal family history with the role, the work and the majesty of midwives in our society, and I thank them for what they have done for my family and for so many other families. Having witnessed only a matter of weeks ago in the most humane of circumstances the calmness of the three midwives who helped my family—the way they were able to lift the umbilical cord from around the neck of our little child, who faced a serious risk as a consequence of the way nature delivers things into the world—I have a sense of the extreme professionalism and compassion of midwives. Against that background, I have a deep and powerful belief in the professionalism and competence of midwives and the importance of the midwifery profession to our healthcare system, to our maternity system and to our general hospital and homebirthing system. In that context, let me make it clear that I fully support the push by those who work in home based midwifery to allow continued choice. That choice has been under assault. The choice of mothers around Australia to determine whether they will bring their child into this world in a hospital, as is the case for the overwhelming majority of people, or in their own home was about to be taken from mothers around Australia and from the home based midwifery sector in our society. The women are for the most part dedicated, committed, professional and have an extraordinary history of success. We were about to see, at the hands of the Minister for Health and Ageing, an entire section of the health profession, and a major part of the personal choice of mothers, taken away. Fortunately the campaign waged by those involved in home based midwifery—with the common sense of the shadow minister for health, Mr Dutton, and the support of those on the coalition side, amongst others—has led to a reversal of the government’s position. This is a good thing. It is, however, only a partial reversal. We now have the grey situation where home based midwifery will be able to continue but only for two years. The government has given a two-year stay of execution on the entire profession and on the choice available to every mother in Australia. That is not an acceptable solution, we say to the minister. It is a partial, interim solution which gives no professional security, which gives no long-term choice and which is anything but an expansion of the services available to those who call upon midwifery in Australia. Our view is very clear. We accept that, as an interim solution, this is better than what was on offer until last Friday. But that is all—it is better than what was on offer until last Friday. It does not provide a solution to the magnificent women I have met who work in home based midwifery on the Mornington Peninsula and who represent the role of midwife to so many expectant mothers who choose of their own volition to give birth in their own home. It is one of the most deeply personal experiences in life, and it must surely be up to the mothers to make that decision. Yet the government’s decision is temporary, the solution is uncertain and the future of the profession is in doubt. Against that background, let me say this to Minister Roxon: you have a very serious and profound duty to an entire profession to provide them with certainty. The minister must ensure that all of the actuarial figures on the success rate, the complications and the tragedies are released. This data will provide an unimpeachable base for real public debate. That material should be released by the minister posthaste. There can be no reason for failing to disclose such information—it is within the grasp of the government, it will enlighten public debate and it will allow us to give home based midwifery a certain future. Having said that, I want to make two other comments. The first is specifically in relation to my electorate of Flinders. We have seen the closure of the midwifery unit at the Rosebud Hospital. This is a public hospital which has had its midwifery unit closed under a state Labor government. This in itself denies choice to mums and their partners on the Mornington Peninsula. In some cases it creates risk, in that emergency cases must be transported much further than they would otherwise have needed to be. It certainly creates inconvenience and in many cases it creates heartache. That support has not been provided by the state government in Victoria, and I urge them to rethink the closure of the maternity unit of Rosebud Hospital. They promised expanded services; they delivered diminished services. Against that background, it is absolutely clear that the peninsula has lost its maternity services, but so has Bass Coast. Bass Coast, however, has been more ill treated. The entire Warley Hospital at Phillip Island has been closed, and it was closed as one of the first acts of the new federal government. Warley Hospital was not a private hospital, as has been asserted. It was a community hospital. It was in fact a bush nursing hospital. Its original purpose was midwifery. It carried on a midwifery service until a few years ago, when again the state Labor government would not support midwifery on the Bass Coast. So the people there have had a double blow. They have lost their midwifery unit and they have lost their hospital. Against that background, there must be support for Warley Hospital. There must be support for a future hospital, whether it is a stand-alone unit or an integrated hospital, on Phillip Island. The federal government came to office claiming that it would end the blame game. Sadly, the first act of the Minister for Health and Ageing was to say, ‘It’s not mine; it’s the state’s.’ At the same time, the Victorian Premier, Mr Brumby, said, ‘It’s not mine; it’s the Commonwealth’s.’ So a hospital which we protected, nurtured, fostered and supported under the previous government lost its funding, lost its future and closed within the first three months of the new government, after eight decades of operation. That is a sad legacy to leave the people of regional Victoria. The third thing that I want to address is that all of this is part of a broader pattern. One of the foundation promises upon which the Labor government came to power was that, if the hospitals were not fixed by 1 July 2009, the federal government would take over the hospitals. The hospitals are not fixed. The hospitals that have been in the hands of state Labor governments have continued to deteriorate. Services have worsened and yet we see paralysis, inaction and a breach of a fundamental pledge to the Australian people. That must weigh heavily on the government. They should be called to account on this foundation promise which related to their election. This promise has been honoured only in the breach, which means that there is no calling to account the drift in services under the state Labor governments in our great hospital system. Ultimately we believe deeply in better health services for people. I have seen taken away in recent years the Rosebud midwifery unit. I have seen Warley Hospital, which, during our time in office, we fought to protect, to preserve, to keep open, closed by a federal Labor government that said it was not its business and ignored by a state Labor government which said that it was Prime Minister Rudd’s business. Neither tier of government owned the hospital, and that hospital passed out of existence because of that collective indifference. We will not let similar indifference cloud the future of the home based midwifery sector. We believe that sector is critical. We believe it provides choice. We believe we can trust those people. We do not take the view of Minister Roxon that these midwives are to be doubted, derided and denied the trust which is due to them on the basis of their historical performance. So I endorse wholeheartedly the push of the coalition to give certainty, to give a future and to give permanency to home based midwifery. Insofar as this legislation provides an interim solution, we will not stand in its way, but we will fight for permanency, certainty and a future for home based midwifery. 8726 19:42:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to support the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009. The purpose of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 is to amend the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953. This amendment will support the inclusion of nurse practitioners and appropriately qualified and experienced midwives under the Medicare Benefits Schedule, the MBS, and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, the PBS, in line with the 2009-10 budget measures. We have heard much in this debate about the coalition’s commitment to and undying respect for midwives and so forth, yet these aspects of the bill are issues that could have been addressed in the last 10 or 11 years but the coalition chose not to. It is worth pointing out that, since 2001, midwives in private practice have in fact been without indemnity insurance. Part of the purpose of these bills is to look at making a better situation for both the consumer and the midwives who are practising. The midwives and nurse practitioners bill will enable these health professionals to request appropriate diagnostic imaging and pathology services for which Medicare benefits may be paid and prescribe certain medicines under the PBS. The 2009-10 budget measures also provide for the creation of new Medicare items and referrals under the MBS from these health professionals to specialists and consultant physicians. MBS and PBS benefits are to be available from 1 November 2010. The Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009 and the associated Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009 will support the new MBS and PBS arrangements by enabling the establishment of a government-supported professional indemnity scheme for eligible midwives. The Australian government is proud to be implementing historic reforms in maternity care which recognise the skills of our highly trained midwives and provide more choice for Australian women while maintaining Australia’s strong record of safe, high-quality maternity services. The report Improving maternity services in Australia: the report of the Maternity Services Review highlighted the complex nature of maternity services, which involve a mix of Commonwealth, state and territory, and private arrangements. It was developed following consultation with a broad range of stakeholders, including individuals, health professionals, industry groups, researchers, professional organisations and national peak bodies. The report made a number of recommendations which focused on the need to improve the maternal and perinatal outcomes for Indigenous and rural Australians, improve choices available to pregnant women, increase access to high-quality maternity services and provide support for the maternity services workforce. The government responded to the report with a $120.5 million package to provide access for midwives to the Medicare Benefits Schedule and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme medicines and a government-supported professional indemnity insurance scheme for eligible midwives. On 24 June 2009 the health minister introduced legislation to facilitate these new arrangements. These arrangements will be available to appropriately qualified and experienced midwives working in collaboration with obstetricians and health facilities as recommended by the report and will not, at this stage, cover homebirths. Let us look first at how these changes will affect nurse practitioners, and then I will come back to homebirths and the whole issue that has probably dominated most of the debate on these pieces of legislation. Nurse practitioners can already provide health-care services and prescribe medications in a majority of jurisdictions. However, the midwives and nurse practitioners legislation will enable their clients to access MBS- and PBS-subsidised services and medication. There are currently around 350 qualified nurse practitioners in Australia, generally working in public hospitals. Initially, around 50 nurse practitioners are expected to access the MBS and PBS for their clients in certain private and community settings, particularly in primary care and rural areas, from November 2010. For midwives to be eligible to participate in the new arrangements they will need to meet advanced practice requirements and have collaborative arrangements with doctors. These requirements and collaborative arrangements are being developed in consultation with midwives, doctors and other stakeholders. The reform initiative supported by this legislation will allow for incremental reform within a strong framework of quality and safety. It is expected that around 700 eligible midwives will be participating in this measure over the next four years. The government understands the concerns in the community about registration and professional indemnity insurance and how this affects the involvement of midwives in homebirths. The three bills before the House expand Commonwealth support for midwives and nurse practitioners in our community. They improve choice and extend Commonwealth funding for a range of midwife and nurse practitioner services for the first time ever, including providing antenatal care in the community and attending births in clinical settings. None of these bills makes homebirth unlawful. The separate draft bill for the national registration and accreditation scheme for health professionals currently carries a proposal that will require health professionals from 10 professions covered to carry insurance as a condition of registration. The draft bill was prepared for all jurisdictions via a COAG agreement and is not yet before any parliament. Our government has been concerned about the unintended consequences of this provision on homebirth. That is why I am so pleased that last Friday, on 4 September, the Minister for Health and Ageing was able to achieve agreement from all health ministers around the country to a transitional clause in the current draft national registration and accreditation scheme legislation. This has been achieved with all governments working together to obtain an outcome that is progressive for the sector but will not make homebirths illegal. The decision on Friday was significant, a very important breakthrough in the national registration and accreditation scheme. The registration and accreditation for 10 professions is about lifting standards and ensuring that people are registered and accredited and that to be registered they have to be insured. This presented, of course, a particular problem for homebirthing midwives, where no insurance product is currently available and where the Commonwealth’s budget package was not intended to cover these arrangements. But the states, territories and the Commonwealth have now agreed to a two-year exemption for homebirthing midwives who are acting, of course, not within the state hospital system but in the private sector. There will be a number of conditions and requirements attached to that exemption, which include that a homebirthing midwife must disclose to a mother who is interested in having a homebirth that they will not be insured for that procedure and make sure that people are able to make an informed choice about undertaking a homebirth. The government will ask homebirthing midwives to report each homebirth. There is currently not any good data across the country of how many homebirths actually occur. Independent midwives are not currently required to notify state and territory authorities or hospitals, and nor have they been asked to. We will require, however, participation in quality and safety frameworks—for example, reporting the results of homebirthing and incidents that are related to it. The government wants this work to be done in a collaborative way by way of a peer review process. That consultation process will be overseen by Victoria, which has chaired the national registration and accreditation process. The national Nursing and Midwifery Board will provide advice and protocols for homebirthing outside the publicly funded and auspices services. Privately practising midwives—some of whom currently provide homebirthing services but do it as part of their employment, either with the state or with a private practising obstetrician—would not be affected by these changes as their insurance is already covered through their employment status. Clearly this arrangement will not apply in jurisdictions where there is no lawful homebirthing occurring. This two-year exemption allows plenty more time for those protocols to be established and to be worked on. In the meantime, the arrangements agreed to last Friday ensure that homebirthing midwives can lawfully continue to provide the services in the jurisdictions had currently allow that. They will continue to be uninsured, as they currently are. The government will be collecting more data on homebirthing and there will be a process to further work through these protocols that would either bring more homebirthing services into our public system or potentially open the way in the future for an insurance product to be extended to cover them. Homebirthing programs operate in a number of state and territory systems with participating midwives coming under the insurance cover of the public health system. Midwives who provide maternity services in an independent private capacity, including assisting with homebirths, currently do so without indemnity cover as there are no products currently commercially available. I have met on a number of occasions with my local representatives of the Maternity Coalition. In fact, I first attended a meeting at a park in Long Jetty some three months ago where these concerns were raised. They are legitimate concerns about making sure that homebirthing is there as a choice for women. While homebirthing has been very much in the minority—in fact, much less than one per cent of pregnant women choose to give birth at home in Australia—it has nonetheless been at the forefront of innovation in relation to birthing. Water births and the like were products of homebirths. And I think everyone in this place must be a little concerned at the extremely high rates of caesarean operations that we have in this country, well over 30 per cent, when the World Health Organisation talks about 15 per cent being around what would naturally occur in most communities. On the Central Coast that problem is even greater, with Gosford private hospital having caesarean rates in excess of 50 per cent and Gosford public hospital having caesarean rates in excess of 40 per cent. So you can understand that women on the Central Coast do want to have options that involve midwives so that a caesarean is much less likely in those circumstances. In March last year the Council of Australian Governments signed an intergovernmental agreement to implement a single indemnity scheme by 1 July 2010. The scheme will initially cover 10 health professions: medicine, nursing, midwifery, pharmacy, physiotherapy, podiatry, osteopathy, chiropractic, optometry, dental care—which includes dentists, dental therapists, dental hygienists and dental prosthesists—and psychologists. The current proposal under the draft legislation for the scheme requires professional indemnity insurance as a mandatory condition of registration for all health professionals, including midwives. This is an important part of raising standards and providing public protection for patients and consumers. The Australian government is committed to building on its 2009-10 budget maternity services reform package by working with the states and territories, and with key stakeholders, to develop a national maternity services plan to ensure coordination of maternity services across Australia. The member for Flinders spoke about his personal experiences in relation to midwifery. And I would like to share with the House some of mine too. Seven weeks ago I was at the birth of my daughter, Matilda Arnold Thomson, who is seven weeks old today. We chose in our circumstances to have the delivery take place at Wyong Hospital but at the birthing unit, which is run by midwives, at Wyong Hospital. There are no obstetricians at Wyong Hospital. You essentially are under the care of a midwife from the time you know about the pregnancy and they are with you through the whole pregnancy. When it is time to deliver, you go to the hospital to a room that looks very much like a room would at home with the big bath and a bed and your midwife is there with you. You do not have the option of epidurals, you do not have an obstetrician there, but of course this is carefully screened to make sure that it is aimed at women who will not have difficulties with the delivery of their babies. Should something go wrong or not go according to plan, you are immediately whisked 10 minutes down the highway to Gosford Hospital, where there are obstetricians and medical practitioners available. The reason that I am very much in favour of making sure that homebirths are an option is the terrific experience that we had with a first-class midwife, Val Paynter. She was in fact midwife of the year in New South Wales last year, and my experience with her leaves me in no doubt as to why she achieved that recognition. The experience we had could just as easily have happened at home at Bateau Bay, which is probably three or four minutes closer to Gosford Hospital had something gone wrong. What was essential was that we had a registered midwife who had indemnity insurance because she worked through the hospital, and we had the choice of this method of birth. The only reason that the birthing unit at Wyong Hospital is open is that it adopted a new model and went to a midwife led birthing unit; otherwise, the inability to attract an obstetrician to one of the most beautiful parts of Australia, the Central Coast, would have meant that this unit would have closed down. So the choice that was made by the hospital to adopt this model was probably one that was done out of practicality, but the result has been a terrific one for the citizens of Wyong and the surrounding areas. I very much want to place on record my thanks to the hospital and to the midwives who did such a magnificent job and do a magnificent job every day there. What this shows is that there are many different models and many different choices available to women at the moment. The announcement that the minister made on Friday of last week means that the option of homebirth is still an option that is there. But in all of these considerations and in all of these choices we also have to be mindful of the safety of the pregnant woman and the safety of the child who is going to be delivered, and that is why this legislation goes to the issues of accreditation and registration and the issues of making sure that the standards are raised and are uniform across the country, and also importantly goes to the issue of indemnity insurance so that there is that protection there for the consumer as well. This is a balanced package of legislation before this place, a package that meets the aims of improving midwifery, of placing a greater emphasis on it in our birthing models as well as balancing the issues of safety and accreditation. These are important pieces of legislation that do not outlaw homebirth, that make sure that there are schemes in place and the opportunity over the next two years to gather proper data on the Australian experience of homebirth and to see where that brings us in the evolving issues of maternity and birthing schemes operating around Australia. I commend these bills to the House as very important bills. 8730 20:01:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —As the federal member for Ryan it is a great pleasure to speak in the House of Representatives, this great chamber of democracy, on the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009 and related legislation. At the outset, let me extend my very warm congratulations to my colleague from the Labor government Craig Thomson MP, the member for Dobell, on becoming a father. It is a wonderful gift of life that we men have the opportunity of becoming fathers. One of the joys of my life is my little three-year-old and I know that as the member for Dobell’s son grows up he will bring him immense joy, immense pleasure and, I hope, immense pride as well. On behalf of my wife, I extend my congratulations to him and his partner. Being a father is my great joy and to some extent this collection of bills has relevance to fathers as well. I know on the surface of it, it seems it is all about mothers but I want to put on the record straightaway that I think this is not just about mothers exclusively or fathers exclusively; it is about parenthood. Fundamentally, it is about how those who are about to become parents choose to become parents. Very briefly: the legislation introduced here in the parliament provides MBS and PBS access for nurse practitioners and midwives, to commence in November 2010, and Commonwealth subsidised indemnity insurance for midwives working in a collaborative setting. The legislation is in response to recommendations of the Maternity Services Review. The indemnity insurance provisions will not cover midwives providing birthing services outside of a clinical setting. That is the starting point. I was going to speak on this legislation with substantial anger, substantial frustration and substantial disappointment but I am going to now speak with measured anger, measured frustration and measured disappointment. It is measured because the Minister for Health and Ageing from the Rudd government has, I understand, in the last few days done a triple somersault and backflipped because of the pressure from the public, the pressure from all those wonderful women throughout Australia who have urged the government to see common sense. I will come to that in a moment because in my presentation in the parliament I want to talk about the larger issue that this legislation goes to. Initially, a very significant part of these bills goes to midwives in the context of their registration and how they practise, whether they practise within the health system or external to the health system. On the face of it, those who practised as midwives without registration would have faced a maximum penalty of $30,000 had they not been exempted by the health minister’s backflip. Currently we know that insurers do not consider it viable to offer independent midwives indemnity insurance due to their small numbers and their lack of a risk profile. Women who have a homebirth privately contract with midwives without indemnity insurance, and this goes to the heart of the contention in this legislation. Some jurisdictions provide publicly funded homebirthing services, in a very limited number of locations, which should not be affected by this measure. Of grave concern to me and to the hundreds and hundreds of women who have contacted me by phone, email and fax and the dozens of women who I have had the opportunity of meeting—and I want to thank them for taking valuable time out of their day to come and see me—is that this legislation seems to take away the choice for women. It seems to take away their right to choose to have their child at home with the professional care and skill of a midwife, forcing them to be part of the hospital system. Had this legislation gone through without that backflip, midwives would effectively have been forced to practise their skill underground. They would have been breaking the law, because this legislation would have put them in a category which would not be covered with insurance, and clearly that is just untenable. I want to draw the House’s attention to the larger aspects of this bill, to its philosophical heart. The key aspect for the coalition in relation to the heart of this bill, as I touched on earlier, is the idea of choice for women. When Prime Minister Rudd gave his maiden speech on Wednesday, 11 November 1998, the very first lines were the following words: Politics is about power. It is about the power of the state. It is about the power of the state as applied to individuals, the society in which they live and the economy in which they work. I want to say to Mr Rudd, to all my colleagues in the House of Representatives—and, indeed, to my colleagues in the parliament—and certainly to all the constituents of Ryan: politics is not about power; politics is about empowerment. It is about empowering young people. It is about empowering individuals. It is about empowering businesspeople. It is about empowering entrepreneurs. It is about empowering women to make choices. That is what politics is about, and that is the fundamental divide between the government party and the opposition parties. We believe strongly, robustly, fervently and vigorously in choice. We believe that politics has a capacity to empower people. We believe that women should be empowered to choose to have their births at home if they so wish. They know all the risks. They are informed. They are educated. It is not something, surely, that they would have taken on board lightly. Women have the right to choose to have homebirths and with the protection, the skill and the professionalism of midwives, who have trained for it. That is their role. No less so than a surgeon or a gynaecologist, they ought to be respected for their craft. They ought to be respected as an important profession that caters to a need in the community. I certainly know that all the women of the Ryan electorate who came to see me, the dozens of them, and, I understand, the hundreds and hundreds who were here in cold, rainy Canberra today came to voice their statement of choice, to voice their preference for the right to choose. Why should a government say to these people, ‘You are criminals if you decide to have a midwife at home when you give birth’? Why should that midwife be classed as a criminal? Surely the government of Australia has bigger fish to fry. Surely the Commonwealth of Australia has greater priorities. Let us go out and catch the murderers, the rapists, those who destroy our society, the drug pushers. Let us go out and catch those people. They are the criminals. They are the ones who destroy our lives. They are the ones who destroy the fabric of Australian society. They are the ones that we should be pursuing with every national resource available to the Commonwealth government. Midwives are not criminals. But effectively, in two years time, when the provisions of this bill come up for review, when there is a reconsideration of the status of midwives, what will happen then? I want to state very strongly on the record for the benefit of the people of Ryan, for the benefit of the women of Ryan and for the benefit of those who believe in their right to choose: I am for your choice, I am for your empowerment and I will continue to make public and to raise at every opportunity that the Rudd government is about the power of the state. It is about the power of the government, not about the empowerment of women and of individuals. I went back to my maiden speech, just to compare it with what Mr Rudd had said in his maiden speech. This is what I said, for the benefit of the women of Ryan and for the women who believe in choice. This is what I said in my maiden speech, and it is very relevant: Australia must always be a land of … abundance—one that is rich in opportunities for our people to pursue their hopes and dreams. ‘Equal opportunity, not equal outcomes’ is a description that sits at the heart of my Liberal political views. It is in this context that my philosophical view of the role of government takes shape. It must be the role of government to do all in its capacity to ensure that its citizens have the greatest opportunity of pursuing their life’s dreams. There must never be powerful state hindrance or cruel institutional barriers to individuals wanting to fulfil personal or professional goals. ‘There must never be powerful state hindrance’—well, this is state hindrance. This is the power of the state hindering those women. These are ‘cruel institutional barriers’. This is the barrier of legislation, a barrier to individuals who want to fulfil their personal choice to have their children at home. I think a presentation like this would be remiss without me referring to the heartfelt thoughts of many women who came to see me to express their absolute anxiety, their absolute dismay, that a Labor government could go down this path, that a Labor government with, perhaps, a feminist minister would choose to close the door to women who wish to have their children at home, something which happens all around the world—where midwives are protected by law, where they are protected with insurance. It absolutely astounded them. I want to make a reference to Hazel from Bellbowrie, who wrote to me: Women will continue to exercise their right to choose where they give birth. By removing their option to be attended by a registered, skilled and competent Midwife, they will have no choice but to ‘free-birth’ (with no birth attendant at all) or employ a doula (an excellent supporter during childbirth, but not a practitioner trained and skilled in management of complications which may occur). This will lead to a totally unnecessary greater risk for mothers and babies, with potential for both neonatal and maternal morbidity and mortality. I want to thank Hazel for her views there, going to the issue of the health and safety of those babies who would be born at home where mothers chose to exercise their fundamental right to have their baby at home. This is from Carolyn of Kenmore Hills, a beautiful part of the Ryan electorate: I … cannot fathom the reality that my beautiful birthing experiences will be lost to legislation and politics. What I am saying is that the existence of CHOICE allowed me to choose the best birthing option for me. Hence allowing me to have the birthing experiences I had. Today I look into my daughter’s eyes and know I need to fight now for her right to CHOOSE her preferred place to birth. I will not take for granted the CHOICE I had and those who made it possible for me to choose. Nicole from Chapel Hill says to me: As my elected representative, I urge you to take women’s rights to maintain personal liberty and choose their care provider during pregnancy, birth and the postpartum period seriously. Please do not allow the Labor government to restrict women’s access to homebirth and midwives in private practice. There is that phrase again, ‘personal liberty’. It goes to the core of those on this side of the parliament—liberty, choice, freedom. Why would we decide to take that liberty away from individual educated, informed, smart women? These are not women that go into this decision lightly. We ought to respect that. Of course there are risks in doing that but they are being cared for by professional midwives and they are making that decision with the best information and advice. Let me go on to Jane from Taringa in the Ryan electorate, who says: However, as an academic at UQ, and a practising midwife, I am particularly concerned that her [Roxon] announcement excluded support for homebirth midwives. In particular I am concerned that Homebirth will go ‘underground’ and that women will be forced to birth at home without the support of a midwife, if they exercise their right to make a choice to birth at home. Thank you, Jane from Taringa, for that statement. Here is a dig in the ribs to a Labor government: But now I find that my ability to hire a private midwife is in jeopardy, and frankly I am quite disgusted. That was from Kara from The Gap. Thank you, Kara, for making your feelings very clear indeed. Here is another from another part of the electorate, from Mary in Karana Downs: Medicare funding for midwifery is long overdue. It is not acceptable however to exclude homebirth from the funding and indemnity arrangement. By doing this Australia is totally out of step with nations such as the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands and New Zealand. If Australia makes homebirth unlawful, it will be on par with the US state of Alabama where homebirth is unlawful and capital punishment still exists. Thank you, Mary from Karana Downs, for your very insightful remarks. As I said, I was going to speak earlier on with substantial anger, frustration and disappointment, but this is now more measured because the government has backflipped again. It has backflipped on this issue as it has backflipped, done a triple pike and a triple somersault on a whole bunch of policy issues. We should be accustomed to that by now from this Labor government. In power for 18 months, they are really out of their depth. They are all spin and very little substance and are superficially telling the people of Australia that they know best. They are extremely arrogant, and there can be no better example of the arrogance and the philosophical core of the Labor DNA. I remember during the election campaign we were told that Mr Rudd was very similar to Mr Howard, that a Rudd Labor government would be a safe pair of hands and that they would be doing things pretty much similar to the Howard government. It would be steady as usual with a few differences here and there. Well, of course, now we know, after 18 months, that this Labor government has nothing on the quality of the Hawke government, for instance. This Prime Minister has nothing on the prime ministership of Bob Hawke. Certainly, Prime Minister Hawke would not have said that politics is about power; he would have said that politics is about empowerment. I say to all those in the Ryan electorate, as I end my remarks, that the fundamental difference between the Labor DNA and the Liberal DNA is choice. It is about liberty, it is about personal responsibility and it is about empowerment. We are the party of liberty, we are the party of the individual, we are the party of personal responsibility and we are the party of empowerment. On this side of the parliament, I say to my colleagues very loudly, very clearly and very passionately that we must not let the Labor Party conquer that philosophy. We must stand firm. We must be resolute. Liberalism is about minimal state intervention and liberalism is about being the driver of opportunity and options, not about being dictated by them. This remains the fundamental divide between this side of the parliament and that side of the parliament. I say to all my colleagues that, if you ever needed any cause to doubt, this is one policy example where even with a feminist Labor health minister they will have no qualms at all about intervening and intruding into every corner of our lives and into our lounge rooms. I use the example of lounge rooms because another battle is looming in relation to censorship of the internet. That is another superb example of the different DNA between a Labor government and a coalition government. We are not for intruding into the bedrooms of Australians and we are not for intruding into the lounge rooms of Australians. Certainly, we are the party of choice. We stand resolute in favour and in support of all those courageous women around Australia who have said, ‘Enough is enough: get out of our lives, get your bureaucracy out of our lives and get your government out of our lives.’ Remember, politics is about empowerment; it is about choice and it is about liberty. It is not about power, Mr Rudd. 8735 20:20:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I have to say that was certainly a stimulating and empowering speech from the member for Ryan. Well done! I rise in the House today to speak in support of the Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009. This bill amends the Health Insurance Act 1973 and the National Health Act 1953. It formalises legislation already in place in many states and territories, recognising the role of midwives and nurse practitioners in the provision of primary health care. The bill provides patients under the care of nurse practitioners and midwives access to the Medicare Benefits Schedule. It is a great step forward and something not recognised by many speakers on the other side. It also allows these eligible nurses and midwives to prescribe certain medications subsidised under the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme. The focus of this bill is, first, to increase the capacity, effectiveness and efficiency of the healthcare system and, second, to encourage a multidisciplinary team approach to primary care. The minister has said that nurses and midwives are the backbone of the healthcare system, and this is completely and utterly true. This bill provides for long overdue recognition of the full scope of their capacities and contributions to primary health care. I am aware of concerns that have been raised by members of the community regarding the effect of this legislation on homebirth midwives. I myself had two births attended by midwives, not through planning but because the doctors did not get around to being there. But I have to say that I was probably lucky. I have been contacted by Central Coast residents such as Lisa Cuthbert, who has expressed her support for midwives in private practice and the service that they provide to some women in the community. This bill has always been about improving choice and extending Commonwealth funding for a range of midwife and nurse practitioner services—for the first time ever including providing antenatal care in the community and attending births in clinical settings. I would like to commend the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, for achieving agreement from all health ministers around the country to a transitional clause in the current draft national registration and accreditation scheme legislation—no mean feat in the present circumstances. This transitional clause provides a two-year exemption, until June 2012, from holding indemnity insurance for privately practising midwives who are unable to obtain professional indemnity insurance for attending a homebirth. In other words, there is an opportunity and a time delay to allow midwives to arrange appropriate indemnity insurance. The agreement provides a framework for collecting invaluable data and facilitating cooperation between different levels of government to move this sector forward. It also goes a long way to allaying community concern about the rights of women to choose the place and support that they want when they give birth. The minister’s swift and responsive actions have gone a long way to resolving concerns raised by midwives on this matter. Today, however, I will focus on nurse practitioners and their vital role in primary care in the context of this bill. This bill enacts the government’s 2009-10 nurse practitioners workforce budget measure, worth $59.7 million. Expanding the role of nurse practitioners in the provision of primary care has a particular significance for the electorate of Robertson. The New South Wales Central Coast Division of General Practice, which covers most of my electorate, reports that GP-patient ratios are at one to 1,140. This appears to be a favourable figure when compared to the national average of one GP for every 1,404 patients recorded in 2003-04. However, in Robertson we have a population in which 18.6 per cent of people are aged over 65 years. The national average for the same age group is 13.2 per cent around the rest of Australia. Clearly the Central Coast of New South Wales attracts a higher proportion of retirees. In assessing the impact of this concentration of older Australians, it must be highlighted that this additional population of seniors brings with it a more intensive and regular demand on primary healthcare services. Accordingly, the impact on Central Coast GPs’ time from this age group is disproportionately high compared to that for the average member of the Australian national population. It means more complex, chronic and high-need patients per head of population than the national average. Nurse practitioners have a vital role to play in addressing this increasing need for care in our ageing population. I know that in my electorate of Robertson, on the New South Wales Central Coast, the changes brought about in this bill will be warmly welcomed by hardworking healthcare services. They work overtime to provide adequate primary health care to patients in residential areas such as Gosford, Erina, Kincumber and Terrigal and on the Woy Woy Peninsula. Dr Jeremy Bramston is one of those hardworking general practitioners in my electorate, and he has said, ‘Co-locating general practitioners and registered nurses provides the most effective team to deliver the broadest range of treatment and medical support to patients.’ Of course, he is right. His general practice in Woy Woy on the New South Wales Central Coast, just 10 minutes from my home, already employs nurses to complement the work of the resident GPs. This one practice sees over 2,000 patients per week, and the contribution of nurses in the mix of healthcare practitioners is warmly acknowledged. This model reflects the intention of the bill, which is to foster and expand the uptake of a collaborative, multidisciplinary team approach to the provision of primary health care. I offer two scenarios to demonstrate how this collaborative and multidisciplinary approach expands the capacity of the primary healthcare system, an obvious focus of this federal government. The differing but complementary skill sets of doctors and nurse practitioners are what make this team approach so important. Firstly, by acknowledging the talents of nurse practitioners in the area of patient education, improvements can be made in health outcomes for patients with long-term chronic medical conditions. For example, suppose a patient walks into a general practice and is diagnosed by a doctor as having diabetes. That patient then spends time with a nurse practitioner to talk over what adjustments the patient must make to manage their condition in conjunction with the prescriptions provided by the GP. This patient is then able to return to the registered nurse with questions, and there can be follow-up testing and advice on managing that diabetes. This would occur in the context of the co-located doctors and nurse practitioners, with diagnostic oversight continuing to be the responsibility of the treating doctor. By drawing on a nurse’s undeniable educational skills to assist the patients with the ongoing lifestyle adjustments that accompany a diagnosis such as diabetes, the demands upon a GP are eased. The patient benefits from the communication and education skills that come as part of the nurse practitioner’s training. Arrangements such as these have the capacity to greatly boost a patient’s understanding and treatment of ongoing symptoms, complex care needs and prescriptions as well as expanding the capacity of the primary care system to meet increasing demand. A second example relates to maximising doctor time in diagnosis and the skills of nurses in ongoing management and record keeping. The hours dedicated by doctors to visiting aged-care facilities are time-limited due to the various constraints from attending to the patient workloads in their surgeries. In aged-care facilities, where a diagnosis occurs, paperwork for that patient must be filled out in triplicate. A script must be written and notes made at the care facility and then duplicate notes for the same patient made back at the doctor’s surgery. In circumstances such as these, nurse practitioners spend time in nursing homes— 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The member for Robertson will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 8737 Petitions 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: 83Z Mrs Irwin 358 8737 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: that a woman whose innocence has been confirmed in the South Australian Supreme Court, .............. of .............. is in danger of having her home seized by the Commonwealth. We therefore ask the House to pass a resolution to request that the Finance Minister, the Honourable Member for Melbourne, Mr. Lindsay Tanner, immediately waive the debt .............. owes the Commonwealth. 358 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 358 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 27 8737 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of General Practitioners servicing Gawler and surrounding communities draws attention of the House to the recent changes to Gawler’s Rural status in the proposed 2009 -2010 Federal Budget and the negative impact such changes will have on the delivery of health services to Gawler and the surrounding region. We, the undersigned General Practitioners, reject the ASGC-RA, implemented as part of the 2009-2010 Federal Budget, and its significant implications on the local workforce and ability to provide afterhours and emergency services to Gawler and surrounding populations. 27 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 27 citizens) Petitions received. 8737 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: 8737 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009 about a petition regarding Indigenous languages which was submitted for consideration of the Standing Committee on Petitions. As Minister for Indigenous Affairs, I am aware of the complexity of issues relating to Indigenous languages. However, policy matters relating to Indigenous languages fall within the portfolio responsibility of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett MP. I am advised that Minister Garrett’s Department is working on an Indigenous Languages Action Strategy. The petition includes a request to support the provision of Indigenous interpreting and translation services. You may be interested to know that, through the 2009-10 Budget, funding will be provided to the Northern Territory Government for three years to support Indigenous interpreting services in the Territory. Additionally, the Council of Australian Governments has agreed to the development of a national framework for Indigenous language interpreters and translators under the Remote Service Delivery National Partnership Agreement. Components of the framework will include increasing the supply of interpreters and mentors, training and accrediting Indigenous interpreters, developing a national recruitment and retention strategy and increasing the demand for interpreters through training for government and non-government employees. from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin 8738 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 8 May 2009 concerning a petition regarding the excise on fuel. I apologise for the delay in responding to you. On 13 May 2008, I announced a comprehensive review of Australia’s tax and transfer system. While the terms of reference reflect the Government’s policy not to increase the rate or broaden the base of the goods and services tax the Review Panel has been asked by the Government to examine enhancing the taxation arrangements on consumption, including on the taxation of fuel. On 10 December 2008 the Review Panel released a consultation paper in which Chapter 12 discusses issues concerning the taxation of fuel. The Review Panel has sought submissions from interested parties on this and other issues to help shape its recommendations for their final report to be provided to me in December 2009. I have asked that the petition’s comments be passed onto the Review Panel and I would encourage all interested parties to submit their concerns to the Review Panel. For more information on the Review, including how to access the consultation papers, please visit www.taxreview.treasury.gov.au or call 1800 614 133. I trust this information will be of assistance to you. from the Treasurer, Mr Swan 8738 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009, forwarding a petition recently considered by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Petitions regarding changes to Indigenous bilingual education programs in the Northern Territory. I apologise for the delay in responding. The Australian Government is committed to maximising the learning opportunities and life chances of Indigenous Australians. The Government is also committed to languages education in Australian schools, and recognises the important role Indigenous language learning plays in some schools. In recognition of this commitment, Australia formally endorsed the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples on 3 April 2009. The Northern Territory Government’s policy that programs in its schools are to be conducted in English for the first four hours of each school day is about ensuring that Indigenous children have the opportunity to be taught and learn English. The learning of English is a fundamental skill that all Australians, including Indigenous Australians, must have to successfully progress through school and participate in life beyond their schooling years. As indicated in other related correspondence, I recognise the importance of Indigenous languages and I am pleased to advise that my Department will be working with the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts to develop an Indigenous Languages Action Strategy. It is important to note that the teaching and learning of Indigenous languages and culture may be scheduled in Northern Territory schools during afternoon sessions. Significant funding for languages education in government schools is being provided to the states and territories through the National Education Agreement, allowing jurisdictions flexibility to determine how funding is allocated. Funding can be used to support Indigenous language programs. $56.4 million is also being provided over 2009 to 2012 through the Schools Assistance Act 2008 to support the teaching of languages, including Australian Indigenous languages, in non-government schools. The Government is providing an additional $56.4 million over four years through the Indigenous Education (Targeted Assistance) Act 2000 to expand intensive literacy and numeracy programs to assist Indigenous students who are not achieving at the level of the rest of their class, and to provide professional development materials and support to teachers to enable them to prepare and maintain Personalised Learning Plans for Indigenous students. The Melbourne Declaration on Educational Goals for Young Australians, agreed to by all Australian Education Ministers in December 2008, commits Australian schools to work in partnership with local communities to promote learning outcomes for Indigenous students. Finally, through the Council of Australian Governments (COAG) processes, all Australian Governments have committed to halving the gap in the reading, writing and numeracy achievements between Indigenous and non-Indigenous students within a decade. I thank you for bringing this important matter to my attention and trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard 8739 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009 referring to a petition from Gippsland residents requesting that the second and third elements of the workforce participation criterion to qualify for the independent rate of Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY be retained. I apologise for the delay in responding. On 12 May 2009 the Australian Government announced a package of reforms to student income support to respond to the recommendations and findings of the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education. The proposed reforms will increase access to, and better target, income support for students who need it most, through a fairer and more equitable allocation of existing resources. More students will be eligible to receive Youth Allowance as a result of the changes the Government plans to make to student income support arrangements. Around 68 000 more young people will be able to access Youth Allowance in 2010 and almost 35 000 existing recipients will benefit from an increase to their payment as a result of an increase to the Parental Income Test threshold for maximum payment from $32 800 to $44 165 from 1 January 2010. Many students who previously considered themselves forced to gain eligibility through the former workforce participation criterion for independence will now be eligible to receive Youth Allowance as a result of the increases to the Parental Income Test. They will not need to take a ‘gap year’ to do so. Under the changes announced in the Budget, students from families with two children aged 18 years and over living away from home and a combined income of almost $141 000 may now be eligible to receive Youth Allowance, compared with around $107 000 for families with two students aged 18 years and over living at home. Previously, students in this age range and living away from home were not eligible for Youth Allowance through the Parental Income Test once their family income reached around $79 000, or $62 000 if at home. In addition, the Government has proposed a new annual Student Start-up Scholarship of $2254 in 2010, and indexed in following years, which will be paid to each university student each year they are receiving income support. This is equivalent to around $43 per week. The full value of the scholarship will be provided to all university students receiving student income support, whether they receive a part-rate or full payment. These changes will benefit 146 600 students in 2010 and 172 600 students by 2013. University students who need to move away from home to study may also be eligible for the new Relocation Scholarship of $4000 in the first year of study and $1000 each year following. This scholarship will be provided to dependent students on Youth Allowance and is in addition to the Student Start-Up Scholarship. Unlike the limited number of Commonwealth Accommodation Scholarships currently available, the Relocation Scholarship will be an entitlement for qualifying students and of particular benefit to those students from rural and regional areas. Importantly, many students will also qualify for Rent Assistance. To fund these measures, the workforce participation criterion for independence under Youth Allowance will be tightened in line with the recommendation of the Bradley Review and funding redirected to students who need it most. The Bradley Review found that student income support was poorly targeted. It found that 36 per cent of independent students living at home and accessing student income support were from families with incomes above $100 000. The same survey estimated that 18 per cent of students in this situation came from families earning incomes above $150 000 and 10 per cent came from families earning above $200 000. Students who have worked full-time for a minimum of 30 hours a week for at least 18 months in a two-year period since leaving school will still be considered independent but students who have undertaken part-time work or earned more than $19 532 over 18 months will not. Instead, many students who are no longer eligible through the workforce participation criterion for independence will become automatically eligible through the changes to the Parental Income Test. To find out more, students and their parents may find it helpful to refer to a new online Student Assistance Estimator which allows prospective students to enter their parents’ income level and family type to gain an indication of the level of support they might expect to receive under the Government’s proposed changes to Youth Allowance. The estimator, together with a number of fact sheets providing more information on the proposed changes, can be found at: www.deewr.gov.au/youthallowance. Centrelink will also be able to provide further advice on the new arrangements after the enabling legislation has been enacted. I trust my comments are of assistance to the Standing Committee on Petitions and the petitioners of Gippsland. from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard 8740 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009 concerning a petition presented by the Member for Chisholm in relation to alternative energy. I am also responding on behalf of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, as I have portfolio responsibility for this matter. The Australian Government is committed to achieving deep cuts in Australia’s carbon pollution levels and to supporting ambitious global action to reduce the risk of dangerous climate change. The Government is committed to reducing national emissions to 25 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020 in the context of a comprehensive global agreement capable of stabilising atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases at 450 parts per million (ppm) CO2-equivalent or lower. This recognises the finding of the Garnaut Climate Change Review that fair and effective global action that stabilises greenhouse gases at this level would be in our national interest. If global commitments in the next few years fall short of being capable of achieving this stabilisation goal, the Government remains committed to the medium term target range set out in the December 2008 White Paper. This includes an unconditional commitment to reduce emissions to 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, regardless of the commitments and actions of other nations. It also includes a commitment to reduce emissions by up to 15 per cent on 2000 levels by 2020 in the context of an international agreement where major developing economies commit to substantially restrain emissions, and advanced economies take on commitments comparable to Australia’s, but global action falls short of stabilisation at 450 ppm or lower. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS) will help bring renewable energies into the market over time. As a transitional measure, the national Renewable Energy Target (RET) scheme will accelerate deployment of renewable energy technologies by providing a guaranteed market for renewable energy. The expanded RET will increase the previous Mandatory Renewable Energy Target by over four times, from 9,500 gigawatt-hours to 45,000 gigawatt-hours in 2020. The Government is also providing direct funding for the development of renewable energy technologies. On 12 May 2009, the Government announced the Clean Energy Initiative, which will invest $1.6 billion in solar technologies, including $1.5 billion for the Solar Flagships program and $100 million for the Australian Solar Institute. In addition, $465 million will be provided to establish the Australian Centre for Renewable Energy, which will support leading-edge technology research and bring it to market. Furthermore, the Government has announced $1.3 billion in assistance for the Green Car Innovation Fund, to help Australian companies with projects that enhance research and development and commercialisation of Australian technologies that significantly reduce fuel consumption and/or greenhouse gas emissions of passenger motor vehicles. The Government recognises that coal currently provides around 40 per cent of global and 80 per cent of Australia’s electricity generation. The world needs to find and answer on low emissions technology for coal and that is why the Government is putting so much effort, internationally and domestically, into programs to develop these technologies. In addition to the Carbon Capture and Storage Flagships program, the Government has established the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute, which will help deliver the G8’s 2008 goal of developing at least 20 fully integrated industrial-scale demonstration projects around the world. Further information about climate change and actions the government is taking is available from the Department of Climate Change’s website: www.climatechange.gov.au. Thank you for bringing the petition to my attention. from the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong 8741 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009 concerning a petition on climate change. Tackling the challenge of climate change is one of the Australian Government’s highest priorities. The Government has committed to ambitious emissions reduction targets and is implementing a comprehensive nationwide response to climate change: reducing emissions; adapting to unavoidable climate change; and helping to shape a global response. These actions will safeguard our environment and support our economy for the years ahead. The Government has developed a comprehensive and integrated suite of climate change policies and programs to guarantee that emissions come down, that provide incentives for action as we meet our ambitious 2020 pollution reduction targets, and which will transform our economy over time. This suite of policies and programs involves: a legislated cap on carbon pollution, through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), which will place an explicit price on carbon; measures to improve energy efficiency in our homes, shops, offices and workplaces; measures to deploy existing clean energy and low emissions technologies; support for the creation of new clean energy and low emissions technologies and products; opportunities for households to engage in individual action; and measures to help business and community groups prepare for a low carbon future. The Government’s substantial investments in developing clean and low carbon energy technologies; ambitious action on energy efficiency; and well designed, limited transitional support for our emissions intensive industries will provide the long-term framework and confidence required to create the new jobs and businesses of the future. The Government is strongly committed to reducing Australia’s carbon pollution. The CPRS is the main driver to achieve this important environmental goal. When it commences on 1 July 2011, it will guarantee that Australia meets its expanded emissions reduction targets of as much as 25 per cent of 2000 levels by 2020. The stationary energy sector produces approximately 50 per cent of Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions, so renewable energy will have a key role in moving Australia to the clean economy of the future. The Government is expanding the Renewable Energy Target (RET) Scheme by over fourfold, to increase the use of renewable energy to 20 per cent of the electricity supply by 2020. The $4.5 billion Clean Energy Initiative announced in the 2009-10 Budget complements the CPRS and the RET by supporting the research, development and demonstration of low-emission energy technologies, including industrial scale carbon capture and storage (CCS) and solar energy. The Clean Energy Initiative has three components: a CCS Flagships Program to support construction and demonstration of large-scale integrated CCS projects in Australia; a Solar Flagships Program to support construction and demonstration of large-scale solar power stations in Australia; and a new body called Renewables Australia, which will promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable technologies through a commercial investment approach. The Government also recognises the important contribution to be made through action on energy efficiency in meeting its targets. Through the $3.9 billion Energy Efficient Homes investment package, under the $42 billion Nation Building—Economic Stimulus Plan, we will provide the resources to enable almost all Australian homes to be operating at a minimum two-star energy rating. To further support voluntary action by Australians to lower emissions, funding of almost $76 million will be provided over five years to establish the Australian Carbon Trust, which will provide information and tools for households and businesses to participate in Australia’s climate change response. Since the Prime Minister, the Hon Kevin Rudd MP, ratified the Kyoto Protocol as the first official act of the new Government, Australia has played an active and constructive role in efforts to secure a new global agreement to tackle climate change. Ratifying Kyoto means that Australia now has the standing to positively contribute to an international framework that addresses climate change beyond 2012, the first compliance period of the Protocol. To effectively tackle the global threat of climate change, it is essential that more countries—especially those that produce large amounts of carbon pollution—reduce their emissions. Developed countries need to take the lead and, by developing a flexible and workable emissions trading model, Australia is showing the world that it is possible to take on emissions targets while maintaining economic growth and increasing living standards. Australia is engaged in a range of bilateral, regional and multilateral partnerships and initiatives, including the Government’s $200 million International Forest Carbon Initiative, which supports reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries. Even if global mitigation efforts are successful, the science shows that some climate change impacts are unavoidable. Those impacts threaten assets, investments, environments, communities and regional economies around the country. The Government is building capacity to adapt to the unavoidable impacts of climate change through a range of programs including the Australian Climate Change Science Program, the Super Science Marine and Climate Initiative, the National Climate Change Adaptation Research Facility and the National Coastal Vulnerability Assessments. Further information on steps the Government is taking to address climate change, including details of key measures, can be accessed at www.climatechange.gov.au. from the Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong 8742 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 8 May 2009 to Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig regarding a petition received by the Committee requesting a Medicare office be established in Mirrabooka, Western Australia. As the new Minister for Human Services, I am pleased to respond to your query. Currently, there are five Medicare offices located within 15 kilometres driving distance from Mirrabooka: Shop 177, Centro Galleria Shopping Centre, Collier Rd, Morley; Shop 152, Karrinyup Shopping Centre, Karrinyup Rd, Karrinyup; The Terrace, 81 St Georges Terrace, Perth; Shop 1, Subiaco Village, 531 Hay St, Subiaco; and Shop 44, Whitfords City Shopping Centre, Whitfords Avenue, Hillarys. A range of criteria is applied when conducting analysis to establish a new Medicare office. This criteria includes, but is not limited to, claiming patterns or volumes of claims. Other important factors include the population and demographics of the area, the availability of surrounding Medicare offices, the level of bulk billing, establishment costs and the suitability of a site. Bearing in mind these factors, Medicare Australia has no plans to establish a Medicare office in Mirabooka at this time. However the Government is committed to ensuring that all Australians have ready access to Medicare services. Medicare Australia has developed a range of alternative ways of accessing its services with the aim of providing a more convenient service for the public. Electronic Claiming Traditionally, Medicare benefits have been limited to either cash or cheque payments. There has been a significant increase in the service delivery options available to the Australian community through electronic business channels since the inception of the Medicare program. As a result, Medicare Australia has introduced electronic Medicare claiming. Members of the public can now claim their Medicare rebate when they pay their account at the doctor. The claimant submits their claim electronically and the rebate is paid into their nominated bank account. The take-up of electronic Medicare claiming continues to increase. For the month of May 2009, 88.6 per cent of bulk bill and 18.48 per cent of patient claims were transmitted electronically. Medicare Australia encourages members of the public to consider electronic payment due to the convenience it offers through the choice of claiming options. Access Points Medicare Australia Access Points also allow members of the public to pick up a handset and be connected directly to a service operator who will guide them through the claiming process step by step. If paid accounts are lodged at these facilities and the claimant provides the operator with the BSB and account number of their chosen bank account the refund will be deposited into their bank account within two days. Where an account is unpaid, a cheque made payable to the doctor will be forwarded to the claimant. Medicare Australia Access Points can also assist with enquires about lost Medicare cards, change of addresses and other information on services such as the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, Australian Organ Donor Register and the Medicare Safety Net. There are two Medicare Australia Access points located in Mirrabooka: Savings Plus Chemist, Shop 100 Mirrabooka Square, Yirragan Drive Pharmacy Help Mirrabooka, 22 Chesterfield Avenue. Online Services Mirrabooka residents can also access Medicare services online. Medicare Australia’s Online Services enable individuals to check and update their details; view their Medicare safety net balance and Medicare tax statement; view their Medicare claims history; or request a replacement or duplicate Medicare card. Full details about registering for online services can be found at Medicare Australia’s website at www.medicareaustralia.gov.au. Alternatively, it is also possible to claim the Medicare rebate over the telephone by calling 1300 360 460 for the cost of a local call. Once again, thank you for writing. I trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Human Services, Mr Bowen 8744 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 4 December 2008 about a petition on quarantining social security income recently received by the Standing Committee on Petitions. I apologise for the delay in replying. The Government’s welfare payment reform agenda includes a number of initiatives to make sure that it provides the support that families need and protect vulnerable children. These include the continuation of income management in the Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER), trials of a number of other initiatives including linking parental responsibilities for their child’s school enrolment and attendance to receipt of income support, income management in cases of child neglect, the availability of voluntary income management, and the Cape York welfare reform trial. The Government’s view is that it has a responsibility to explore every avenue and use the full range of tools available to address the problems of child abuse and neglect and poor school attendance. There is a responsibility to ensure that the money that is made available from the Commonwealth to families in the form of welfare payments is put to the use for which it was intended, that is, to help families provide a safe and supportive environment to raise children. The petition notes the recent report of the Board of Review into the NTER. The NTER Review made three overarching recommendations that: the Australian and Northern Territory Governments recognise as a matter of urgent national significance the continuing need to address the unacceptably high level of disadvantage and social dislocation being experienced by Aboriginal Australians living in remote communities throughout the NT; in addressing these needs both Governments reset their relationship with Aboriginal people based on genuine consultation, engagement and partnership; and Government actions affecting Aboriginal communities respect Australia’s human rights obligations and conform with the Racial Discrimination Act 1975 (RDA). The Australian Government has accepted these recommendations and is committed to continuing and strengthening the NTER. The NTER Review found that the imposition of the NTER, without seeking the views of the people affected, left Aboriginal people feeling hurt, betrayed and less worthy than other Australians. The failure to consult and engage undercut the potential effectiveness of many of the NTER measures. The Australian Government is committed to building genuine, sustained and constructive engagement and partnership with Indigenous people in the Northern Territory and across Australia. The Government has already begun to act on this commitment nationally through: the Apology to Indigenous people, and in particular the Stolen Generations - an important and symbolic first step to build trust and good faith; a new commitment to be held accountable to closing the gap targets between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians; and consultations across the country on the establishment of a national representative body. The Government has asked the Northern Territory Valuer-General to determine a reasonable rent for all existing five-year leases that were compulsorily acquired by the previous Government. Payment of rent will then commence automatically. In particular, the Government will design and implement in consultation with Indigenous people an income management policy framework that conforms to the Racial Discrimination Act 1975. Legislation reflecting this policy will be introduced in the 2009 Spring sittings of the Parliament. Indigenous women and Elders who are vulnerable to intimidation or abuse have reported that they have greater control over their finances, and are more able to provide for children as a result of this policy. For this reason, it is important that there is an orderly transition from the existing arrangements. Through this process we will draw out the many voices in communities in a way that brings people together behind a common goal, fosters respect, and recognises leadership from Elders, men, women and youth. The Government will respond in full to the Review Board’s recommendations, including future funding arrangements, over the coming months. In the Northern Territory, the Government will legislate in the first half of 2009 to ensure people subject to income management have access to the full range of appeal rights, including through the Social Security Appeals Tribunal and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The Child Protection Income Management trial, which is currently being implemented in selected locations in WA, includes access to the normal social security processes of review, as well as the relevant WA State Government review processes. The School Enrolment and Attendance Measure also provides for access to the relevant Commonwealth and state review processes. With regard to school truancy, the petitioners may be interested to note that the Government has taken an alternative approach to this matter than that originally set out in the Social Security and other Legislation Amendment (Welfare Payment Reform) Act 2007. Instead of the use of income management, the Government has legislated for the use of a last-resort suspension model. Legislation for this effect recently passed through parliament as the Social Security and Veterans’ Entitlements Legislation Amendment (Schooling Requirements) Act 2008. Under this new approach, all parents receiving income support within the selected locations will be required to provide details of their child’s school enrolment to Centrelink. Parents who are doing the right thing and have their children enrolled in school will not need to do anything further. Parents who fail to provide enrolment information to Centrelink without a reasonable excuse will have their income support payments temporarily suspended. As soon as these parents enrol their child or provide enrolment information their payments will be reinstated with back pay, if the requirement is met within a 13 week period. Parents receiving income support will also be expected to take reasonable steps to ensure their children are regularly attending school. In instances where a child is not attending regularly, the relevant state, territory or independent education authority can inform Centrelink. Parents will be required to show they are working with the school and their child to try to improve the child’s school attendance. If they cannot demonstrate this, they may have their income support payments temporarily suspended until action is taken. However, suspension is not the first step; it is the last step. Families will be offered support from schools and from Centrelink social workers before any consideration is given to suspension. It is important to note that where a child has unsatisfactory school attendance despite the best efforts of their parents no penalty will be imposed on parents. It is also important to note that suspension of payments is for a maximum of 13 weeks. In most cases, it is expected that suspension will only last for a few days until the parents re-engage with Centrelink and the school, when full back pay will be provided. It is normal practice to suspend customer payments in certain circumstances—for example, if they fail to respond to requests for information about their income or their current address. Payments are usually restored with back pay as soon as the customer (in this case parents) complies with the request. As this initiative is designed to encourage parents to take positive steps towards improving their child’s education, any decision to withhold a parent’s income support will not be taken lightly. Other benefits such as Family Payment will remain available to parents during any period of suspension. Withholding payments will be a last resort where it is clear that the parent is refusing to engage with the school and the education authorities on their child’s attendance and/or enrolment despite case management support from the principal, teachers and Centrelink. The initiative will commence on a trial basis in selected communities. The decision to rollout this measure on a trial basis reflects the importance of getting it right. Results in the selected locations will be carefully monitored and evaluated to provide an evidence base for further action in this area. Finally, I would like to inform the petitioners that a trial of income management for child protection and voluntary income management recently commenced in Western Australia. This scheme responds to a recommendation included in the WA Coroner, Mr Alastair Hope’s, report into 22 deaths in the Kimberley. Under the trial, individuals can be referred to Centrelink for income management by the WA Department of Child Protection in cases where there is neglect of children and where it is assessed that poor use of financial resources is a factor. Voluntary income management is also available for people in the selected locations. In discussions between the Commonwealth and WA State Government, the two locations for the trial of income management were identified: the Kimberley and the Cannington district of Perth. Individuals being income managed will have access to a number of support services including financial management services. These financial management services are available to help those on income management to build skills to better manage their finances. Parent support services will also be available through the WA Department for Child Protection. As with the School Enrolment and Attendance Measure, this trial will be carefully monitored and evaluated in order to provide an evidence base. Thank you again for writing. I hope this information is useful and I would like to thank the petitioners for writing to express their views. from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin 8746 8746 20:31:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —I rise this evening also to speak about the work of the Standing Committee on Petitions. In my previous statements I have talked about various aspects of the committee’s work, including, among other things, issues raised in petitions received by the committee, the number of petitions that go through the system, our public hearings and core principles for petitions. This evening I want to talk about how the new arrangements work to increase transparency and the kinds of changes that have occurred over the life of the committee. In saying this, I am thinking in particular about ministerial responses to petitions. Prior to the introduction of the new system, there were few ministerial responses to petitions. In the period from 2000 to 2007 there were more than three million signatures for petitions presented in the House, but there were only three ministerial responses. By contrast, in the years 2008 and 2009 to date, after the introduction of the new system, petitions with 300,000 signatures have been presented. These received 113 ministerial responses. This is a dramatic change in the rate of response. This is reflected on the committee’s webpage, where petitions that have been presented are published along with ministerial responses. The webpage is worth a closer look; it bears out what I have said about ministerial responses. At present, for the 158 petitions current displayed on the committee’s website, 117 responses have been presented. Seven more responses have been presented this evening. For another seven petitions, responses have already been given to other very similar expressions of concern. Twelve petitions are still within the 90-day period allocated for a response. This means that, in this 42nd parliament, more than 91 per cent of petitions have received ministerial responses within the 90-day time frame. This is an outstanding result and, again, it shows just how much has changed since the new arrangements were put in place. The beauty of it is that anyone can visit the site and see the state of play on a petition for themselves: its terms, when it was presented and ministerial responses. That is in itself an important part of transparency. However, accountability does not stop there. It also comes into play in another part of the committee’s work: public hearings. Here, government departments come and give a further response in addition to the ministerial responses we receive. This gives us a chance to see how matters have progressed. The issues considered in these hearings stretch from local and immediate concerns to wider matters, including international affairs and arrangements for the future. In our most recent hearings in May, the committee discussed a number of matters raised in petitions with government departments. These included, at the local level, community radio stations, a local post office and mobile phone coverage. Roads—important to rural communities—also featured in this public hearing. Regarding petitions which voiced concerns about matters at a national level, we discussed funding for public broadcasting and concerns over sexual advertising and access to internet pornography. International concerns touched on matters of gravity, including human rights in Sri Lanka, the current situation in Gaza and the plight of Iraqi Christians. This says a lot about Australians, their interests and their heritage. While they have day-to-day concerns, they also care about the world and justice. I see it as a great strength that all of this can come before the House, receive a ministerial response and be the subject of public hearings. Not every concern in the community will get the attention of a separate parliamentary inquiry. But petitioners can have some of parliament’s and the government’s time and attention because of the way the petitions process is now structured. The response mechanism and the committee’s website together are a powerful means to enhance transparency and accessibility. This is underscored by the committee’s impartiality with respect to petitions. As you would be aware, the committee’s role is framed by the standing orders of the House. If a petition complies with the standing orders in terms of its form, content and language, then the committee believes it is required to approve it for the purpose of presentation in the House. In much the same way as a member who lodges a petition may or may not agree with its content, the Petitions Committee may or may not agree with the content of a petition it approves for presentation. This is a reflection of the historic nature of petitions and the House’s respect for freedom of speech. The committee holds this heritage in high esteem and aims to preserve and extend it so that it continues to be a viable pathway between parliament and the Australian public. 8747 Committees 8747 8747 8747 20:38:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee’s report on an inquiry into agribusiness managed investment schemes, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —A resounding unanimous carrying of the vote! 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —I was enthusiastic! 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —An enthusiastic, unanimous carrying! I am pleased to speak tonight on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report Aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes. These schemes are also known as MIS. The committee initiated this inquiry in response to the recent collapses of Timbercorp and Great Southern, which together affected more than 60,000 MIS investors. However, the inquiry was not into the details of those collapses per se but into the structural features, the taxation treatment, the marketing and the performance of the agribusiness MIS more generally. The committee received evidence on a range of MIS structural issues, including the taxation incentives for agribusiness MIS investment and related market distortions, the effect of high costs and uncertain revenue assumptions on scheme performance, the ability of the MIS structure to withstand restricted access to capital, potential measures to prevent responsible entity failure and arrangements for managing competing interests when a responsible entity collapses. The committee also examined the financial advice that leads people to invest in agribusiness MIS, the accuracy of disclosure material provided to potential investors and the importance of educating consumers about investment risk. The committee makes three recommendations in this report. The first relates to the potential for market distortions to be caused by the current tax deductibility arrangements applying to non-forestry agribusiness MIS investment. On balance, the committee considers that the tax deduction for non-forestry agribusiness MIS under the general business deductions rule is not unreasonable, where there is a clear focus on scheme profitability. But where investor focus is on minimising tax, there is a risk that capital will be directed away from profitable uses and that traditional farming enterprises will be disadvantaged. The committee believes that such distortions would be reduced if deductions for non-forestry agribusiness MIS investment were only permitted to be offset against future taxable income from the same MIS, and therefore the committee recommends that the government consider investigating and modelling the effects of amending the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to ensure that tax deductions for MIS investment under the general business deduction provisions of the act only be permitted to be offset against future taxable income from the same MIS. The committee’s second recommendation is that the government amend the Corporations Act to require the regulator, ASIC, to appoint a temporary responsible entity when a registered managed investment scheme becomes externally administered or a liquidator is appointed. Committee members are concerned that, under current law, insolvency practitioners, as officers of the responsible entity, have conflicting obligations to scheme members and to the insolvent corporate entity and related parties. The committee acknowledges that the Corporations Act already clearly states that the insolvency practitioners are required to act in the best interest of scheme members, but conflicting obligations are difficult to manage in practice, and generate an understandable lack of trust amongst investors. The committee also received evidence about why investors chose to enter agribusiness MIS. Under some financial services licensing arrangements, product retailers are licensed to sell only one type of product—that is, the MIS. The committee is concerned that clients who are funnelled into MIS through such arrangements may mistakenly believe they are receiving appropriate financial advice, when sometimes what they are really receiving is just a sales recommendation. The committee also heard evidence of conflicts of interest in the commission arrangements underpinning the sales of MIS. These concerns are not unique to MIS, but affect the financial products and services sector more broadly. The committee is currently holding a parallel inquiry into financial products and services and will therefore reserve recommendations relating to potential regulatory change in the financial advice industry more generally until it has completed its work on that inquiry and tables its report in late November. However, the committee had a specific concern about the accuracy of disclosure material made available to MIS investors in relation to predicted scheme performance. In particular, the committee considers it important that the qualifications of independent third parties used to justify claims about scheme performance are disclosed. Otherwise, there is potential for less qualified opinion to be used preferentially where it provides a more generous assessment of likely scheme performance. In order to better assist investors in judging the quality of the information being put before them, the committee recommends that ASIC require agribusiness MIS to disclose the qualifications and accreditation of third parties that provide expert opinion on likely scheme performance. In the short time I have left I want to thank on the record all of those who wrote submissions and appeared in the public hearings for their contributions—they are much appreciated. I also want to place on the record my thanks to the very hard-working team which is the secretariat of the committee; they do great work. I also want to thank the committee members themselves. (Time expired) 8749 20:44:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to lend bipartisan support to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report into Aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes. I thank the committee secretariat for their hard work, my colleagues on the committee and all those who gave submissions and put so much work into achieving an outcome. Managed investment schemes began with bipartisan support. In time over 5,000 registered MISs have come into being, operated by over 670 responsible entities. While it is difficult to quantify, there are some indications that almost a third of a trillion dollars is in funds management across listed and unlisted schemes, with at least 110 listed managed investment schemes. At Senate estimates on 4 June 2009, ASIC provided an overview of the managed investment schemes sector. They said it is: ... a generic term to describe a variety of structures for the creation and operation of collecting investment schemes or projects. Basically, it covers everything that involves an investor acquiring something other than a security; that is, a share or a debenture or an interest in a prudentially regulated entity such as a bank deposit, a superannuation interest or a life interest. The sector includes things like managed funds; public unit trusts; ASX listed trusts; common funds; limited partnerships; investment pools and clubs; cash management trusts; property trusts; property syndicates; mortgage trusts; serviced strata schemes; agricultural schemes including forestry, horticulture, viticulture; and alternative investment schemes such as horse racing syndicates. As you can see, the managed investment scheme within Australia is both broad in its reach and deep in its investment opportunities. It is also an incredibly large industry employer, especially at a time when jobs are so fundamental to the economy. Yet all industry needs certainty, and no industry more than the managed investment scheme industry needs certainty within its investment architecture. For some years that certainty has not existed. The history of MISs in this country, especially with ATO product rulings and federal court interpretations, has made that certainty uncertain. We have seen project sinking funds being used as cross-collateral for other projects and investor books cross-sold as quasi-derivative products to banks and other institutions. All of these practices have taken away the certainty that this industry needs. The spectacular collapses of Great Southern and Timbercorp precipitated the committee’s inquiry into managed investment schemes. The inquiry is making three key recommendations. The first is that the government consider investigating and modelling the effects of amending the Income Tax Assessment Act to ensure that tax deductions for non-forestry agribusiness MIS investment, under the general business deduction provisions of the ITAA, are permitted to be offset only against future taxable income from the same MIS. In some way drawing on the precedent of how investment and property losses are only claimed against future investment or property income, the same recommendation applies. The committee took much evidence that non-forestry agribusiness MISs have the capacity to stand on their own two feet, and the spectacular collapses of great Southern and Timbercorp will make investors more wary and look more into the details of the managed investment schemes. The second recommendation is that the government amend the Corporations Act to require ASIC to appoint a temporary responsible entity when a registered managed investment scheme becomes externally administered or a liquidator is appointed. This recommendation is fundamental to ensuring the integrity of managed investment schemes so that the whole shooting match of MISs, of which many may be under one responsible entity, are not sold up and liquidated where a responsible entity could salvage some of them. The third recommendation is to require agribusiness MISs to disclose the qualifications and accreditation of third parties that provide expert opinion on likely scheme performances. I look forward to a rejuvenated MIS industry that heeds the lessons of the past, works closely with rural communities and operates sound business models that can withstand difficult conditions in the future. 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—Does the member for Oxley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:49:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 8750 8750 Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:49:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 8750 8750 8750 20:49:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I present the committee’s report entitled Review of administration and expenditure No. 6. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —The Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security’s oversight of the Australian intelligence community is a key element of our national security architecture. I am therefore pleased to present the sixth review of the administration and expenditure of the Australian intelligence community by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security. The review examined a wide range of aspects of the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies, including the financial statements for each agency, the reorganisation and consolidation of agency structures, the impact of any recent legislative changes, their human resource management including separation rates, training, recruitment and accommodation and budget growth, and financial governance systems associated with expenditure. With regard to human resource management, the committee found that maintaining adequate levels of language skills, particularly with expertise in local dialects, remains a challenge for a number of agencies. The committee also noted that some agencies experienced higher separation rates in 2006-07, exacerbated by a competitive job market and internal policies encouraging staff mobility. All Australian intelligence community agencies indicated that performance management and evaluation continued to be a key service delivery priority. In some agencies this process has involved developing more user-friendly intelligence product, more stakeholder engagement programs, annual customer surveys and formal performance reviews. The committee also noted that, in recognition of an upward trend in its litigation workload, ASIO introduced a new Legal Division and a Terrorism Litigation Advice Branch within the Investigative Analysis and Advice Division. The committee identified the challenges associated with e-security across the Australian intelligence community. It heard that agencies are working collaboratively and diligently to maintain optimum levels of e-security in a fast paced and global threat environment. The committee found that despite facing the challenges associated with considerably increased budgets and the rapid, large-scale recruitment of staff all agencies are currently managing expenditure appropriately. The committee is satisfied that the administration and expenditure of the six intelligence and security agencies is sound. The committee found that all agencies continue to effectively manage rapid expansion while maintaining high standards of integrity and professionalism. On behalf of the committee I thank the heads of the Australian intelligence agencies and all those who contributed to this review, in particular, the committee secretariat: Dr Margot Kerley, Mr Robert Little, Ms Phillippa Davies and Ms Donna Quintus-Bosz. 8751 20:53:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —I thank the honourable member for his very erudite contribution in relation to what is on its face a fairly ordinary report. I want to say that I thought his contribution was one that, if I were speaking to the report itself, I would have made. It picked up all the right points and, more importantly, he took a moment or two to reflect upon the competency of the staff that served the committee and thanked them for their work. I thank my colleague but also the chairman and those who I worked with in relation to this committee. I think this report in its rather unassuming nature nevertheless does demonstrate why people ought to be confident in the way in which Australians’ security needs are met. This is the sixth review of the Australian intelligence agencies. It covers a wide range of aspects of their administration and expenditure, and when you go through it you find that there is little about which there is complaint. We have the work of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, IGIS. Very little of a critical nature is noted there. We have had issues in relation to the submissions we received as to whether there might be matters of complaint there. We canvassed a wide range of issues relating to e-security, accommodation, breaches of security and some of the delays in relation to security clearances. But, for me, it is important to look at this report in the context of what it says about the intelligence agencies of Australia. There was a time in which people were very suspicious about these agencies. They were downsized very considerably and when we saw, on 9/11, that we had new and very special demands to identify—potential security risks in Australia related with terrorism in particular—each of our security agencies in various ways contributed very significantly to ensuring that we were able to properly support our law enforcement agencies and to know something of the risks that we face. Having in another role in another life had one of the agencies in particular accountable to me and, as a member of the National Security Committee of Cabinet, having had the opportunity to witness each of the others and be briefed on their activities, I think this report is saying we should be well confident in the professional way in which they go about their duties. It is very interesting to look at the recruitment. These agencies have been growing very quickly because the risks that we face are very considerable. The potential for counterespionage activity in Australia still remains with us. The agencies are recruiting large numbers of people. The report makes it clear that ASIO itself had to recruit in one year something in the order of 350 people and to train them and develop their skills. The report outlines the way in which that training is undertaken. It outlines the special emphasis that is put on training, leadership, management, security awareness, IT, finance budgeting, strategic policy, languages, ethics and accountability and general administrative skills. I am grateful that there are people who have the experience who remain and assist with that training, but I am extraordinarily impressed with the quality of people who are devoting themselves to this service for the nation and I thank them for it. This report endorses the value of the work that they are undertaking. 8752 Business 8752 Mr KATTER (Kennedy) 20:58:00 —by leave—At the request of the member for Lyne, I move: That order of the day No. 1, private members’ business, be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. 8752 Private Members' Business 8752 8752 20:59:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I move: That, recognising the necessity to preserve manufacturing in Australia to address rising unemployment and the plight of people about to be dismissed at Pacific Brands, the House: calls on the Government to: introduce ‘an emergency measure under WTO rules’ to provide an interim 15 per cent tariff on goods that are imported to replace textile clothing and footwear (TCF) items such as those produced at Pacific Brands; and abandon its intention to abolish the existing TCF tariff regime; and directs the Government to finance a loan to allow Pacific Brands workers to purchase significant shareholdings in the company through salary-sacrifice arrangements in order to purchase a share issue made to provide the refinancing funds needed to enable continued manufacturing by Pacific Brands in Australia. My two Independent colleagues support this motion. They have asked me what it has got to do with my electorate. Frankly, it has absolutely nothing to do with my electorate. This is one of the very few times I have ever moved a motion in this place. But, as an Australian, I believe that each of us must confront the question: do we want to live in a country with no manufacturing? The Prime Minister has said that he does not want to preside over the death of manufacturing in Australia. This is the underwear and garment industry. It also makes the slouch hat and many other things in Australia. This is the last of our great manufacturing industries gone. If you want to feel slightly ill then have a look at what actually happened here. We do not know whether the former Chief Executive of Pacific Brands, Paul Moore, did not want to do the dirty work himself and brought in somebody else to do it or what his reasons were, but we do know that he received $3.4 million as a retirement payment, and that took his total package for 2008 to $5.8 million. What the people of Australia and the people who own shares in Pacific Brands got for that $5.8 million was effectively the liquidation of that company. The shareholders of Pacific Brands are listening to the lady who is now the chief executive. If they believe that the Chinese who come to sell those products in Australia would allow them to make a handsome agency fee on the way past then they would believe in the tooth fairy—that ain’t gonna happen! And if they think that Woolworths and Coles are not going to buy direct from the manufacturer overseas then they also believe in the tooth fairy. Great damage has been done to the interests of the shareholders in this case. The government stand very much criticised and condemned on this issue. They come in here and parade themselves as friends of the Australian workers. But 2,000 Australians are going to lose their jobs—the company does not deny that, nor do the government—and this country will lose the capacity to make clothing. It is very interesting to consider what capacity this country will still have. We will have the ability to sell real estate and shares to each other. All of the great energies and savings of this nation are expended on nothing else but predatory practices—‘I’ll take over your company’—or speculative practices. So tonight we are putting up a program that will enable this company to survive. We have proposed an interim 15 per cent tariff on goods that are imported to replace TCF items such as those produced by Pacific Brands. Under WTO rules, if there is an industry in your country that is in jeopardy then you can take emergency measures, whether it be an emergency tariff, a quota or whatever. It is not a breach of WTO rules. That can continue for two years. It can be extended for two years at the request of the nation involved and, under special circumstances, it can be continued beyond that point for another two years. So we have every chance here to buy time for this company. So what do they do in that time frame? If they are assured that there is going to be a continuation of the 25 per cent tariff regime then they will have the ability to survive. They could be given some government contracts, and indubitably they should be given government contracts. Mr Deputy Speaker Secker, you, like me, come from a rural area. I have always bought Baxter boots. But they have recently announced their closure, with 120 jobs to vanish, and they will make their products in China. I asked them: ‘What precipitated this move? I understand all the pressures that you are under.’ They said, ‘The government moved the contract for Army shoes overseas.’ So it was the government that actually brought down the coup de grace. This company has been around since the 1850s. Baxter has been making boots in Australia since the 1850s. So the answers are there. This motion calls on the government to abandon its intention to abolish the existing TCF tariff regime. No country in the world operates without a tariff regime, and I say that without any apologies. The Americans, without the slightest hesitation, said steel was going to be protected. It behoves the government to act in this area. (Time expired) 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—Is the motion seconded? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Mr Deputy Speaker, my Independent colleagues are not here this evening, so we will have to move the motion again. I apologise to the House for that. These are circumstances beyond my control. 8754 Adjournment Mr BOWEN (Prospect —Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services) 21:05:00 —I move: That the House do now adjourn. 8754 8754 21:05:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 0 Mr MURPHY —Much has been made in recent times by climate change sceptics of supposed false or misleading claims made by scientists about the reality of global warming and the impact of human activities on the climate. A large part of the contrary evidence presented by the sceptics can be explained in terms of the subjective experiences of individuals. In the past, subjective impressions produced beliefs such as that the earth is flat and the sun goes around the earth. Obviously the preceding fables have been falsified by objective evidence. Unfortunately, despite ample objective evidence indicating that human activities are affecting the climate, climate change sceptics still offer up myth as fact. Perhaps the most strident claim currently being articulated by the sceptics is that the world’s climate is actually cooling because the weather presently seems chillier. In fact, as explained by Dr Graeme Pearman, former Chief of the CSIRO Division of Marine and Atmospheric Research, the year-to-year variation in the mean planetary temperature is of the order of two- to three-tenths of a degree and the warming trend that we have seen over the last 100 years is only one-tenth of a degree per decade. According to Dr Pearman: … if you only look at one ten-year period, you’re never going to be able to see the trend. You have to have a longer period of observations. Senator Fielding has joined the debate by putting forward, amongst other misinformation, the unsubstantiated proposition that solar flares, which are large-scale explosive releases of energy from the surface of the sun, are causing the total output of heat from the sun to steadily increase and are responsible for the evident warming of the earth. And yet direct and highly accurate satellite and ground based measurements of the solar constant—that is, the radiant energy output of the sun—have been made since the 1970s and no such increase in the energy output from the sun has been detected, certainly none sufficient to account for the decades-long measured increase in average global temperatures. There is a regular 11-year variation in solar activity, known as the solar cycle, that has been observed since the early 17th century. The incidence of solar flares has been found to be related to the solar cycle. They occur at a rate of several per day, when the sun is active, or less than once per week when the sun is quiet, as it is at present. If solar flares were responsible for increasing global temperatures then these temperature measurements should be synchronised with the solar cycle. No such correlation has been found and no significant flares have been recorded for the past two years by the three satellites whose primary mission is the observation of solar flares. A survey of 3,000 scientists conducted by the University of Illinois in January this year found that 97 per cent of them think that humans play a role in climate change. This is a direct contradiction of the claim made by Professor Bob Carter of James Cook University in the Sydney Morning Herald of Wednesday, 19 August that it is untrue that ‘the vast majority of specialists in the field say that we have a major global warming problem, that it is caused by humans and it is probably getting worse’. Professor Carter has also claimed that ‘lower atmosphere satellite based measurements show little if any global warming since 1979’, and yet in July 2007 NASA published the results of a comprehensive review of surface and atmospheric temperature observations and trends conducted by the United States Climate Change Science Program, and that group identified and corrected errors in early versions of satellite and weather balloon data and concluded: For recent decades, all current atmospheric data sets now show global-average warming that is similar to the surface warming. Tonight I ask: how is it that Professor Carter can be apparently unaware of this information, two years old and now more than ever supporting the plethora of other evidence for global warming? The deliberate distortion of evidence has become a characteristic of the claims of climate change sceptics and is the sort of fallacious data that Senator Fielding has used to support his argument for opposing the government’s measures to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Australians gave the government a mandate to act on climate change at the last election. I implore the opposition to listen to the Australian people and to immediately support government action to mitigate the effects of climate change. 8755 8755 21:10:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I recently met with Phil McWilliams, who is the Australian Project Manager for the Mwika Hope Foundation, and Pastor Godsave Ole Megiroo, the Imara Foundation Assistant CEO. They told me of the great work taking place in Tanzania for the education and health of local people. It was not the first time I had heard of the excellent work of the Imara Foundation, founded by Mike and Lyndall Rothery. The Rotherys have been involved in Tanzania for more than 15 years, and they now support more than 1,000 local pastors. Their core team of 20 work on four major areas, being pastor and leadership development, an HIV-AIDS ministry, evangelism and community development and relief aid. Although the Imara Foundation is involved with many projects, I will specifically confine my comments to the Mwika Hope Foundation. Mwika is in the foothills of Mount Kilimanjaro, in Tanzania. In 2005 Mwika community leaders approached the Imara Foundation for assistance in a range of community development and aid projects. Imara Foundation provided the impetus to establish Imara Community Development in Australia to financially assist in a range of community development projects. They include education of HIV-AIDS orphans and the development of vocational training opportunities for children who are denied further education. They also include widow support and assistance in gaining economic independence and assistance in the developing of basic health services. Mwika Hope Foundation was established by Pastor Godlisten Mrina, the local Baptist pastor, and his wife, with the support of pastors from other denominations. Mwika comprises four villages. The Mwika Hope Foundation was established to comprise kindergarten and primary school education, vocational training for children and adults and support for HIV-AIDS widows and to provide basic health care to all registered children. Predominantly to provide the opportunity for education, land was purchased in 2005, and construction of the classrooms and administrative facilities commenced in 2007. The school is on terraced land. The top level has two classrooms under one roof and two admin offices in between. The water comes down from Mount Kilimanjaro and is plumbed into a 2,000-litre water tank which was provided by Australian funds. Mwika is committed to having 30 children in each class so that each child will have the better attention of the teacher, whereas in other schools it is common to have 60 to 100 children for each teacher. The first stage of the new primary school opened in January 2009 and provides classrooms for the kindergarten. Stage 2 will see one new classroom added each year. Uniforms have been made at the project using manual Singer sewing and knitting machines provided by Australian funds. Widows and other people are learning how to sew so that they have a skill that can provide some income for them as well. HIV-AIDS is widespread in the area, with the result of growing numbers of widows and orphans. The disease has affected the social fabric of the people in the area, and agriculture has declined due to the decrease in the numbers of young men and women available to perform the work. There are more than 150 orphan children whose parents have died of HIV-AIDS, 70 of whom have tested positive for the virus. There are 185 widows whose husbands have died of HIV-AIDS, 13 of whom have tested positive for the virus. Many have refused to be tested because of fear they may have the virus. Additionally, 18 women who are not widows have tested positive for HIV-AIDS. The aims of the project include providing a quality pre-primary school education for 72 children who have lost one or both parents to HIV-AIDS. The educational opportunity is to be available to the children regardless of gender. Another aim is to provide vocational training for children who have no opportunity for further education. As part of the project, there is a widow support element to provide the 185 HIV-AIDS widows with the means of becoming economically independent and able to support their families. Basic health services are also to be provided to all registered children. Recently at church, Phil McWilliams gave us a slide show of his latest visit to Mwika. The Imara mission is providing hope and a far better future for the people of Mwika through their involvement in Tanzania. For providing me with information, I thank Phil McWilliams, Godsave Ole Megiroo and Jenny Willdigg. I also thank them all, and all those who raise money and work at Mwika for the good of the people. They do great and valuable work. I will finish by saying that last year Global Development Group audited the project and found that it was an excellent project and appeared to be superbly run, both at an administrative and a project level. Organisations such at the Imara Foundation and the Mwika Hope Foundation are excellent examples of where great work is being accomplished. These are the sorts of projects that should be strongly supported by AusAID, and I will be writing to the government in support of these worthy causes. 8756 8756 21:15:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I rise this evening to congratulate all who have contributed toward the decision of this Rudd Labor government to allocate $1½ million this financial year towards the replacement of the King Street Bridge in Glenelg North, in my electorate. This is a vital piece of infrastructure in my electorate of Hindmarsh. The King Street Bridge is a vital link for the traffic route that parallels Tapleys Hill Road—passing through West Lakes, Grange, Henley Beach and West Beach, along Adelaide’s coastline, west of Adelaide Airport, connecting to arterial roads and suburbs to the south. But we are not celebrating just the $1½ million commitment. The project will get additional Roads to Recovery funding over the next two to three years to undertake the completion of the construction of a new bridge. I am incredibly pleased about this announcement. The King Street Bridge is a significant piece of infrastructure, not only for the people of Glenelg but also for the many other people who visit the area. The bridge has been in a worsening condition for some time and has had weight limits imposed on traffic, which has affected the movement of public transport. Last year we also saw buses being stopped from going over the bridge. This has, of course, caused a substantial degree of distress among many local residents of Glenelg North, who rely on the bridge to connect them not only to the majority of their own suburb but to the local community—shopping, transport facilities and other services. Local residents, led by John and Peter Bijok, have campaigned strongly on the need for the bridge to get the funding it needs to remain open. As I said earlier, it is a critical link for local residents as well as for the wider community. There has been public meeting after public meeting, lobbying across the governmental tiers and political divides, focusing community attention on the evolution of opinion toward the bridge, its condition and the funding that it requires. John and Peter Bijok and the community—including the mayor, Ken Rollond—can surely tick their local community campaign as a great success. This is thanks to this federal government for coming to the table with this year’s commitment of $1½ million and similar amounts in the years ahead. I am pleased to have given residents all the support I have been able to in their call for the repair or replacement of the bridge. I am both relieved and delighted that the bridge’s future is now assured. The Rudd government is providing $1.5 million towards this $3 million project to replace the bridge, with the local council providing a matching $1.5 million in 2009-10. The $1.5 million in federal funding will be provided to the City of Holdfast Bay through the Rudd Labor government’s Roads to Recovery program. Funding for this project builds on the $970,534 that the government is also providing to the City of Holdfast Bay through the Financial Assistance Grants Scheme in 2009-10 and the $1.356 million to be provided through the Roads to Recovery program over the five years from 2009-10 to 2013-14. The Rudd Labor government is investing record funding into national and local infrastructure. This is a very big win for the residents of Adelaide’s western suburbs. They know that we need to invest to get superior returns into the future. They know that doing nothing gains nothing and only loses opportunities. Again, I congratulate all those involved in this historic achievement. The bridge is a vital link for the Glenelg residents who live on the western side of the Patawalonga. It connects them to shopping, doctors and public transport. It is especially important for those who do not drive and who would otherwise have to walk an extra three kilometres to be connected to their community. The King Street Bridge is a significant piece of infrastructure, not only for Glenelg but also for the many others who visit the area—just about every South Australian visits Glenelg at some stage during the year. It is a tourist destination. This bridge is also a vital link for the local residents, who can now be assured that—due to the link in the bridge—in the future they will be able to walk across the bridge, do their shopping and be connected to their community and public transport, and it will ensure there is no disruption to their lives. We saw last year that public transport was closed over the bridge because the state of its infrastructure deemed it unsafe. So I am very pleased that the Rudd Labor government will invest $1.5 million in the replacement of the King Street Bridge in 2009-10, with an option of another $3 million in future years to ensure that the bridge is completed and that a vital, important piece of infrastructure for Glenelg residents takes place. (Time expired) 8758 8758 21:20:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —Last Thursday, 3 September, I hosted a community meeting at St Peter Chanel School, in The Gap. The meeting was to bring together constituents of the Ryan electorate—particularly those who live in The Gap—to discuss ways in which they could be assisted by a number of insurance companies. This is relevant, because on 17 November 2008 the beautiful suburb of The Gap endured what one constituent called a mini tornado. That mini tornado destroyed so many homes and so much property and brought incredible physical damage to The Gap. It also left an incredible emotional and mental scar on the suburb, on the people and on the families of The Gap. Amongst the scars was that of coping with recovery. A key aspect of that was claiming insurance for the enormous physical damage that was done to property, home and physical infrastructure such as cars. We thank God that no-one’s life was taken. The enormous stress that visited the families of Ryan was there for all to see last Thursday at St Peter Chanel School. At that meeting scores of Ryan residents expressed their dismay at how difficult it was, how stressful it was, for them to recover compensation or insurance from the insurance companies of Australia that they had been insured with for property damage, for infrastructure damage. The tales of grief and the emotion that was expressed on that evening at The Gap is something that will stay with me for a long time to come. I want to thank all those who came along and confronted probably demons, because I know many people have said to me that the last 10 months have been hell on earth, the last 10 months have been months of sleepless nights. They express gratitude for bringing together insurance company representatives to try and resolve outstanding issues. I want to reveal to the House the words of one constituent of mine who has very kindly allowed me to use her name, Simone Mackinder, from The Gap. I think her experiences eloquently paint a picture of exactly the terrible stress that Gap residents had to endure. After waiting patiently for the three months for anything to happen, someone suggested asking for the money and organising repairs for ourselves. By this point, we had already been making most of the phone calls and getting quotes anyway, as the insurance company people were not making many, or any, efforts to that effect. …            …            … We also had one car written off and another requiring a week’s worth of repairs. When I went to collect the ‘repaired’ car, I was pretty much treated as if I was a liar and a fraud by the insurance company. Only some of the damage to our vehicle was deigned to be repaired by the assessor. Incredibly obvious storm damage was instructed to be ‘left untouched’ by the repairer. When I promptly called the insurance company to ask why all the damages had not been repaired, I was made to feel like I was attempting to make false claims and told to ‘call back when I had calmed down’. Simone goes on to say in her in email to me: We have almost finished our repairs, after nine months, and yes, while the insurance companies did finally come to the party, I’m sure I’m not alone in feeling a very bitter taste in my mouth still when insurance companies are mentioned. We did not ask to be put in the path of a freak storm, but there you have it. We also did not ask to be treated with suspicion and feel like we had done something wrong. Simone goes on very eloquently in her email. I want to take this opportunity to thank in particular the insurance companies that did send representatives. They do deserve acknowledgement, Suncorp in particular but also Apia, RACQ and CGU as well as NRMA. I want to thank very much Ruth and Pierangelo Molachino from The Gap, who rang my office to say that their stress miraculously disappeared when Suncorp called them on the Friday and said to them that they now have no worries because they will be paid out, a reversal of their previous decision where Suncorp did not want to pay for retaining wall damage but now they will do so. I want to thank very much all those insurance companies that have supported the people of The Gap in this terrible hour. (Time expired) 8759 8759 21:25:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —This month the Rudd government is sending its bill on donations to political parties back to the Senate for a second time. The coalition parties have already rejected the bill once. I hope this time they will do the decent thing and pass it. Australia has a very clean election system by world standards. We do not hear complaints in Australia that elections have been rigged, but one area that has caused concern recently is the non-transparent donation of large sums of money to political parties. This raises the possibility of corruption, which can be addressed properly by openness and transparency. In 1984 the Hawke government brought in laws that required all donations to political parties, whether by individuals, companies or organisations such as unions, to be promptly declared to the public if they exceeded $1,500. At the same time, public funding was made available to political parties so that they would not be dependent on donations. This system worked well for 20 years. But in 2004 the Howard government gained control of the Senate, and one of the first things they did was to change the laws on political donations. They lifted the disclosure threshold from $1,500 to more than $10,000. This would have allowed large amounts of money to be donated to the Liberal Party without being disclosed. It would be possible to make separate donations to each of the eight state and territory divisions of the Liberal Party, which meant that donations of up to $80,000 could have been made without disclosure. The Liberals also made other changes to our basic electoral laws, such as requiring people to produce photo ID when enrolling to vote and when casting a provisional vote at elections. This was designed to make it harder for groups of people the Liberals thought likely to be Labor voters, such as itinerant workers, or new citizens, to enrol and vote. Labor opposed all these changes when we were in opposition, and we said we would reverse them in government. Leading election experts such as Malcolm Mackerras and Professor Brian Costar agreed with us that these laws were partisan and unfair, and bad for our democracy. No-one can say we do not have a mandate for our legislation. The bill on political donations will reduce the disclosure threshold from more than $10,000 to $1,000. It will require people who donate to political parties during election campaigns to report the donation within eight weeks of the polling day. It will close the loophole which allows people to donate to each state branch of the Liberal Party and claim each donation as a separate donation. As I said earlier, the Senate has blocked this bill once. The bill having been rejected, the government is taking the opportunity to refine it. While the Senate will see the refined bill in coming weeks, it is my view that the bill needs to address certain key issues. The first issue it needs to deal with relates to the inclusion in this bill of a measure that meets the government’s pre-election commitment to roll back the early closure of the rolls introduced by the Howard government. This was outlined in the excellent report brought down by the member for Banks and the Joint Standing Committee on Electoral Matters that also said the requirement for evidence of identity to enable provisional votes to be included in the count should be repealed. There is a deadline at every federal election after which the roll will be closed for an election. This is known as the close of rolls and defines the date that the electoral roll is closed to changes prior to an election. The roll at the date of the close of rolls is the list of electors who are entitled to vote at an election. The Electoral and Referendum Amendment (Electoral Integrity and Other Measures) Act 2006 provided for two close of roll deadlines. The first deadline is 8 pm on the day the writ is issued. The second deadline is 8 pm on the third working day after the writ has been issued, for electors who are currently enrolled but need to update enrolment details. This made it so complicated that many people, particularly young people, were unable to get their enrolment in on time. It was a process which the previous government had been elected on in the elections from 1996 to 2004 and at no stage did they claim those elections were bodgie. They were quite happy to be elected with a one-week closure of the roll and to allow younger people particularly to enrol. We are going to, in my view, accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Electoral Matters and roll back this regressive change to our democracy that was agreed before the last election precisely to cut out younger people. Similarly, evidence of identity in provisional votes needs to be taken into consideration by this government when it brings legislation back into the Senate, because we do not want tens of thousands of Australians to be excluded, as they were at the last election, when they had never been excluded in the periods prior to the 2007 election. The Liberal Party were quite happy to be elected on their votes previously and never said the elections were bodgie. We are going to go back to the days when tens of thousands of Australians were allowed to vote provisionally because they lived in the electorates; there was no attempt to scam the electoral system. We have a very honest system of elections in Australia and we should go back— (Time expired) 8760 8760 21:30:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I take the opportunity to again raise in this House the plight of the flood victims on the Coffs Coast from the flood event of 31 March. I also take the opportunity to commend the local newspaper, the Coffs Coast Advocate, for its work in campaigning on behalf of the flood victims. We saw in this Saturday’s copy of the Coffs Coast Advocate an open letter to Minister Macklin requesting justice for Coffs Coast flood victims. We have a situation where, if you had a flood in February or you had a flood in May and it was declared a natural disaster, you received a Centrelink emergency disaster payment but, if you had a flood on 31 March on the Coffs Coast and it was a declared natural disaster, for some incredible reason you did not get access to that same Centrelink emergency disaster payment. It has been a subject of great inequity; it has been a subject that I have brought to this House on numerous occasions. This House received a petition on this matter signed by some 6,002 petitioners protesting about this injustice. That our Prime Minister would come into this House and promise assistance to these people in the glare of the lights here and in front of the whole press gallery and then the very next day deny that assistance is an absolute outrage. Part of being Australian—and I think most people agree—is that you should get a fair go. People expect a fair go and Australians expect to be treated equally—not any better, not any worse, but equally. Yet this Prime Minister and this government are denying assistance to the Coffs Coast flood victims who had their property damaged or destroyed, who had their lives tipped upside down on 31 March. We have seen nothing but excuses from this government; we have seen nothing but excuses from Minister Macklin. It is an interesting chronology of events. On 3 April, after the disaster occurred, Minister Tony Burke came to the area and had a look around the Coffs Coast. To his credit, he came and he had a look around and he saw the devastation inflicted on private homes; he saw the devastation that was inflicted in the CBD and other badly affected areas around Coffs Harbour, and I was pleased to be able to show him around some badly affected areas. I give full credit to him: he came to Coffs Harbour, he had a look at the situation on the ground and, quite obviously, he reported back to the Prime Minister. The concern is that some time later, when Minister Macklin was asked for input by the Prime Minister, she indicated that the problem was that the destruction was primarily to public infrastructure. She had received reports; Minister Burke had been to Coffs Harbour and seen the damage. Yet Minister Macklin, obviously living in a dream world, claimed that the damage was to public infrastructure. We corrected that straightaway. As soon as I received the advice from Minister Macklin that that was why the flood victims were not offered assistance, we immediately contacted the council, which gave us the statistics: some 2½ thousand homes damaged, people still out of their houses months later, still unable to move back into their homes. We provided all the statistics that were available to correct the minister’s mistake. You would reasonably expect that, having given the excuse that damage to public infrastructure was the reason the victims did not receive any money, once that was corrected it would be fixed. But we then had another excuse from Minister Macklin: in fact, there were only four local government areas affected in that 31 March event. That became the new reason why Coffs Coast flood victims were not paid. Then the minister, suffering from incredible embarrassment, decided to blame the volunteers of the SES: they obviously gave her the wrong information! That was the next reason why she was not able to pay. We have the situation where, months later, this government is denying Coffs Coast flood victims their rightful entitlement to be treated just as other Australians have been treated in recent flood events. We have had our local newspaper, the Coffs Coast Advocate, campaigning on behalf of the local victims. I certainly made the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government aware with my megaphone. He came to do a local council event and I was there with my megaphone. A range of locals protested and made him aware that they will not take this lying down and that they expect justice. (Time expired) Question agreed to. 8762 21:36:00 House adjourned at 9.36 pm 2009-09-07 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 4 pm. 8763 Constituency Statements 8763 8763 16:00:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise today to pay tribute to a former federal member for Mitchell, Labor Party member John Lindsay Armitage OAM of Seven Hills, who passed away this year at the age of 88. He was born in Sydney on 11 November 1920 and entered parliament in 1961 as the member for Mitchell. In those days, the seat of Mitchell covered a very wide area between Blacktown and Normanhurst and included communities such as Baulkham Hills, Castle Hill, Pennant Hills and Windsor. John Armitage was defeated at the 1963 election by the Liberal Party’s Les Irwin, but he returned to federal parliament when he was elected to the newly created seat of Chifley at the end of October 1969. He held the seat of Chifley between 1969 and 1983, retiring at the 1983 federal election. John Armitage was the last surviving member of the caretaker Australian Labor Party New South Wales central executive, which administered the party during the split of 1955—and we certainly praise him for that work. He served on the executive between 1954 and 1962 and again from 1964 to 1965. John Armitage is still fondly regarded by many of his ilk in my electorate. He certainly did a great deal of good work for many of my communities. In particular, today, the John Armitage Child Care Centre at Mount Druitt has been named in honour of his endeavours and activities in this sector of our community. He was presented with the freedom of the City of Blacktown, and he is one of only three persons upon whom this honour has been conferred. He served his time as a federal MP in an important role, attracting employment to his electorate and expanding health, education and childcare facilities—for which he is still fondly regarded. Following his defeat at the 1963 election, he worked with the department of decentralisation and development in the state government and became the assistant general secretary of the ALP in 1965. Still today you can find many people who remember him, and I have met a number of residents of some of the aged-care facilities in my electorate who speak very highly of his services and of him as a person. I want to record in this place my appreciation for his service. I think it is fitting that he was awarded the Medal of the Order of Australia in recognition of his service to this country and his service to the people of Mitchell. On behalf of the people of Mitchell, past and present, I record our thanks and pay tribute to his life and service to the parliament of Australia. 8763 8763 16:02:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Health 1 0 Mr BUTLER —Last Wednesday was proclaimed Battle for Australia Day, a day when the nation pays homage to the men and women who defended Australia when it came under direct attack in 1942 and 1943. As we know, the fall of Singapore in February 1942 was followed by the bombing of Darwin. The Battle of the Java Sea was followed by the bombings on Broome, Wyndham and Katherine. As invasion anxiety gripped the nation, three Japanese midget submarines snuck into Sydney Harbour. Today, I want to remember and honour an unsung hero from that night, Warrant Officer Herbert Anderson, whose decisive action and bravery played a pivotal part in defending Australia’s most celebrated harbour but whom history has sidelined. On 31 May 1942, allied fighting ships were anchored in what was then considered a safe harbour. Most of the crew of those ships were off duty, with the commander and senior officials of the USS Chicago being wined and dined that evening by the Australian Rear Admiral—an event which may well explain some of the evening’s events. On entering the harbour, the first enemy submarine got caught in the boom net. Guarding the net’s ends were two channel patrol boats. One was the Yarroma and the other was the Lolita, under the command of Warrant Officer Herbert Anderson. Communication systems at that time were vastly different from today. The night watchman who spotted the trapped object, which was the first midget submarine, had to row out to the Yarroma to alert them to investigate. Concerned that the submarine might in fact have been a mine, the Yarroma compounded signalling delays by sending the Lolita instead. By now the second submarine was in the harbour and the third was on its way. Warrant Officer Anderson and his crew acted decisively, signalling confirmation of a submarine and, despite the risk to their lives, attacking by dropping a depth charge. Unfortunately, the shallowness of the water prevented the first depth charge exploding, so the Lolita attacked again. Again the depth charge failed to explode. After their third attempt, the Japanese commander, harried and no doubt recognising the futility of the situation, released his scuttling charges and self-detonated his submarine. Vitally, the explosion cut through the confusion and alerted other vessels to the threat, despite Naval Command’s lack of an urgent response. The rear admiral, on boarding the Lolita an hour later, was still ridiculing reports of enemy submarines, but 30 minutes later the torpedoing of HMAS Kuttabul removed any further doubts. There are still questions about that night. The third submarine was located only a few years ago and its final movements remain unknown. Unfortunately there was no inquiry, leaving the official version of events reliant on the rear admiral’s report—a report that failed to mention the Lolita’s pivotal role. Warrant Officer Anderson was a quiet, unassuming man from my electorate of Port Adelaide whose heroic actions played a major role in preventing a successful attack on Sydney Harbour. (Time expired) 8764 8764 16:06:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I rise to present a petition on behalf of Canning constituents and Western Australians calling for the government to reject the adoption and notion of a charter or bill of rights in Australia. The petition has been approved by the Standing Committee on Petitions and I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about the petition and reiterate the views of the signatories. There has been a significant debate about a charter of rights in recent months; in fact, former Prime Minister John Howard spoke in Western Australia last week about this very issue. Coinciding with the 60th anniversary last December of the signing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Attorney-General commenced the consultation process into the necessity of a charter of rights. The signatories to the petition have entered this national debate and today I present their petition about the introduction of an Australian bill of rights. The 600-plus signatories confirm their strong support for the ‘protection of God-given human rights’, but they believe that those best placed to protect these rights are elected representatives of the people. The petition says that the signatories: … are opposed to a Charter of Rights which would allow judges to determine if laws are incompatible with human rights. It goes on to say: We … wish to see elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges, determine the laws protecting these rights. It is then for judges to uphold those laws through the courts … this current system has functioned well. The petitioners rightly note that Australia’s democratic nature means that the protection of human rights is already well-founded. We have protections in the Constitution and in a multitude of state and federal laws. Australia has embedded freedoms and its human rights record is among the best in the world; it is actually envied. The Liberal Party itself is founded on the core notion of individual rights, and the coalition does not believe that a bill of rights is the best way of protecting human rights in Australia. There is widespread concern that the effect of a statutory charter of rights would result in the transferring of public power from elected representatives of the people to unelected judges. Attempts to codify the fundamental human rights could in fact restrict rights rather than embed them in law. The breadth of power then placed in the courts to determine the scope of these rights not only would result in significant judicial lawmaking but could also result in the clogging of the court system to the nth degree. As my colleague Senator Brandis said recently: It is easy to say that everybody in Australia supports a greater recognition of human rights; of course we do. But the very specific issue of whether there should be a charter of rights is not an issue which commands widespread support, or even much community support, outside the subset of the cultural elites. Let me take this opportunity to commend the organisers of the petition, particularly principal petitioner Gary Kleyn and those who widely circulated it. Signatures have come from far and wide. As Australians we respect the democratic process, and by circulating this petition those signatories are playing a role in that process and putting their views on the record. I therefore present the petition on behalf of the signatories. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives We the undersigned are opposed to a Charter of Rights which would allow judges to determine if laws are incompatible with human rights. We support the protection of God-given human rights but wish to see elected representatives of the people, not unelected judges, determine the laws protecting these rights. It is then for judges to uphold those laws through the courts. We note that this current system has functioned well. Australia is one of the freest countries in the world with a human rights record the envy of people all over the world. We call upon the Australian Parliament to reject a Charter of Rights. We pray that the Government may receive the wisdom from God to act in a just and fair manner in this matter. from 642 citizens Petition received. 8765 8766 16:09:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to talk about an event I held in my electorate to salute volunteers in the local area. I would like to take this opportunity to thank Tom Koutsantonis, the state Minister for Volunteers, and also Ursula Stephens, the federal Parliamentary Secretary for Social Inclusion, who is responsible for volunteers, for coming and making this event a real success. We had a number of volunteers who were nominated and I would like to go through those to salute them for the great service they do for the local community. We had John Drew, Don Dixon, who collects cans for the southern suburbs and donates the proceeds to cancer research, Steve Cox from the South Adelaide Panthers Football Club, John Richardson, who is the chairperson of the Happy Valley Community Child Care Centre, Maureen ‘Gidget’ Ledgard from the Rotary club of McLaren Vale, Matthew Long from the Flinders Medical Centre, Lester McInerney from the Hackham RSL, Delia Conlon and Luz McVeigh from the Goodwood Community Centre, Merilyn Pfeiffer from the Happy Valley Tennis Club, Kay Wickes from Meals on Wheels at the Aldinga branch, Hazel Splawinski from the Noarlunga district seniors club, Paul Murray from the HUB gymnastics club, Joan Harris from the Morphett Vale Neighbourhood Watch, from the Scouts Dianne Broughton, John Bryker, Debbie Jiggins, Margaret Featherstone, Andrew Thomas and Bernie Jacques and, finally, Graham Thompson and Mark Bradley from the Hackham football club. These volunteers all work in a whole variety of places, dedicating their time and effort to their local communities. As you heard, there was a range of different ages from right across the age spectrum, with Mr Matthew Long being the youngest. These are people who give their time, efforts and not some service in length of years. There was more than 25 years of service from some of these individuals. For others, it is the number of hours they do each week. All of these people contribute significantly to ensuring that the southern suburbs have vibrant community groups, whether they be service groups such as Meals on Wheels and Rotary or sports clubs to allow our young people to have sporting activities in the area. I would like to thank everyone for coming. It was a great success. All of these volunteers were supported by their friends and families. I was very pleased to be able to put on this event to recognise the significant contribution. We are hoping to do it again in the future because these volunteers are critically important to our local area in ensuring that we have a vibrant community in the south of Adelaide. 8766 8766 16:12:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —It might interest the member for Kingston that I recognise quite a few of those names, having grown up in Happy Valley and having played football for the Happy Valley Football Club. In fact, I was the president of the Happy Valley Football Club. I played cricket and tennis for Happy Valley. A number of residents in Angaston, which is located in the Barossa region of my electorate, have contacted me with concerns about the lack of television reception they are receiving. The residents are concerned about the upgrade to high-definition signals given that they cannot get good enough reception for digital broadcasting at present. Residents are spending quite a lot of money on new digital technology televisions only to find the result is well below the desired level when they set it up. I am extremely concerned that around 1,400 residents in Lyndoch and Angaston remain without digital television reception and may not receive digital television until 2013 when the analog system becomes obsolete, and there is no guarantee of course that that black spot will be fixed up under the present government. The Howard government ensured that there were no analog black spots in rural and regional areas under the Television Black Spots Program, which established retransmission facilities in Angaston and Lyndoch. It is now the responsibility of the Rudd government to upgrade the retransmission towers to assist the transition to digital television. The communications minister has failed to outline any alternative digital television plan and he is buying time in a bid to mask Labor’s lack of policy and planning for Australia’s digital future. I first raised this issue with the minister 18 months ago, so it seems as if there is a lack of will by Minister Conroy to fix this problem. I was especially disappointed when a member of my staff attempted to contact the minister’s office for advice about digital reception problems in Angaston but was advised that Minister Conroy would not assist us. For a strong digital television service a line of sight to Mt Lofty is required. In Angaston the analog television service has been available through a repeater. I believe a similar system could be used to transmit the digital signal also. The analog system will eventually be switched off and residents in my electorate will be left with neither analog nor digital television reception. The lack of response from the minister was just another example of a city-centric federal government, and unfortunately it seems to be a trend that this Labor government does not care about regional Australia. I compare this with the situation with analog telephones when we first came into government in 1996. Many of the rural areas in my electorate were left without any sort of mobile phone service. It was the Howard government that was left to fix that problem by introducing CDMA telephone services. I hope the same does not occur in the future. 8767 8767 16:15:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I take this opportunity to applaud and support the work of the national organisation Meals on Wheels, which was founded in South Australia in 1953 by Doris Taylor. Because of a childhood accident, Doris was permanently disabled by the age of 16 but spent her entire life trying to assist the aged, the housebound and people with disabilities. The first Meals on Wheels kitchen opened in Port Adelaide on 9 August 1954. From a service which began by providing meals to eight people, Meals on Wheels South Australia today has 10,000 volunteers who service 5,000 clients through 100 branches, including 40 kitchens. As many of us know, the Meals on Wheels model started by Doris Taylor has been copied around Australia and overseas. This year, Meals on Wheels Modbury branch, in my electorate of Makin, celebrated its 35th anniversary. I place on record my personal thanks and appreciation to all those people who, to date, have volunteered their service to the Modbury branch. I was able to attend their AGM last Monday and touch base with a number of them. Nationwide, Meals on Wheels Australia relies on some 78,000 volunteers and serves over 50,000 meals per day. Meals on Wheels provides the support and care needed by elderly people and people with disabilities who want to live in their own homes. It ensures that elderly people receive one hot meal per day, which represents about a third of the daily nutritional and energy requirements for an elderly person. As well as delivering food, the daily visit is a way of checking on the welfare and wellbeing of an elderly person or a person with a disability living in their own home. If the resident does require medical assistance, the Meals on Wheels volunteer is able to call for help. The service provides peace of mind to the person’s family, knowing that their elderly relative who still lives independently receives a daily visit from a Meals on Wheels volunteer. Meals on Wheels volunteers donate their time and sometimes their vehicles to deliver meals, often without any sort of financial assistance towards the cost of fuel and other expenses. Volunteers work as drivers and deliverers as well as cooks and kitchen helpers. On 18 August the CEO and the Chairperson of Meals on Wheels, Cam Pearce and Leon Holmes, addressed some federal parliamentarians here in Canberra on the services, the national benefits and the needs of Meals on Wheels nationwide. The Meals on Wheels service not only supports vulnerable people who remain within their own homes but also saves the government millions of dollars in hospital and healthcare costs. The financial assistance provided to the organisation by the federal government represents very good value for money. I support the organisation’s request for additional federal government financial assistance. 8768 8768 16:18:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to table a letter from Graeme York, Chief Executive Officer of International Power, the owners and operators of Hazelwood power station in Gippsland. Leave granted. MT4 Broadbent, Russell, MP Mr BROADBENT —There is going to be a protest at Hazelwood on 12 and 13 September. We do not have a problem at all with people protesting, but we do have a problem with misinformation. The activist website and promotional material claim that Hazelwood was due to be shut down this year because of excessive carbon emissions. This is not true. Hazelwood was sold to a consortium including International Power in 1996, with a projected 40-year life to 2036. In 2005 the Victorian government endorsed the environmental effects statements on the relocation of the Morwell River and Strzelecki Highway to enable Hazelwood to gain access to coal it had already purchased in 1996. That decision reaffirmed the business life of Hazelwood to at least 2030. In making this decision, the government imposed a cap of 445 million tonnes of CO2 emissions from Hazelwood over its remaining operating life. International Power are fully committed to operating within that limit. It has also been claimed that Hazelwood is a dangerous, polluting and outdated way to make electricity. Again, this is untrue. Hazelwood power station operates under a strict EPA and other licences which ensure it has minimal impact on the environment. The reality is that since 1996 the Hazelwood business has reduced its CO2 intensity by 10 per cent, representing a saving to date of more than 15 million tonnes of CO2. International Power have invested more than $500 million on environmental and thermal efficiency improvements across the business in this time, including the development of wetlands and preservation of native grasslands. Perhaps the most mischievous claim of all is that Hazelwood is the world’s most polluting power station. This erroneous claim has been based on a discredited WWF report prepared in 2004, which claimed that Hazelwood is the industrialised world’s most polluting power station. This biased report excluded all smaller thermal and cogeneration plants, relied upon incorrect WWF produced data, and excluded all plants from major developing economies, such as India and China. Brown coal fired power stations account for 94 per cent of Victoria’s energy needs. This low-cost and reliable form of baseload electricity generation has underpinned the development of the state as Australia’s manufacturing heartland and will continue to do so for many decades to come. Right now there are no alternative technologies capable of delivering the baseload power generation. IPR is the largest independent electricity generator in Australia, with investments in coal, gas and wind businesses as well as an electricity retail business. International Power is one of the world’s largest owners of wind generators. The Hazelwood business supports 900 jobs, supplies up to 25 per cent of Victoria’s electricity needs and, along with other Latrobe Valley generators, contributes some $800 million annually to the regional economy. These stations are very important to my electorate, to Gippsland, to Victoria and to Australia. We have thousands upon thousands of years of a very good resource available to us. We should not let it go. (Time expired) 8769 8769 16:21:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —In my electorate of Page there are a significant number of people who are referred to as forgotten Australians and lost innocents. I have been privileged to get to know some and become friends with them. I have supported their calls for an apology and forms of other redress covering reparation, compensation and a whole range of things. I know that some states have given apologies. I know that some forgotten Australians and lost innocents though want a formal apology and acknowledgement from the Australian national government. I have been supporting for some time the locals in my area who have been advocating for this—notably, Nicholas Kostyn, Deborah Lowe and Graham Wilson. I name them as they have been very public about this. They recently attended a morning tea I hosted on 16 July for forgotten Australians to hopefully raise more awareness in the community and make some who feel forgotten feel included. A man turned up at my office before the event because he saw it in a local newspaper. He was actually reading it when he accompanied his wife to an appointment. He came in and saw me. I encouraged him to come to the morning tea, and he did with his wife. It was the first time he had talked about the issue. He left behind a book for me to read. I have started to flick through it—I cannot quite face it yet because of some of the stories I know that are in there. I promised him that I would read it, and I will. All of us in this place have heard many stories about physical and psychological abuse. Reading some of the things that people have gone through sounds like torture. Nicholas Kostyn in my area has been very active in trying to establish a place for forgotten Australians to go locally. I have been supporting him and will continue to do so. I have approached the Australian government and the minister. I hope the state will pick up this responsibility as well. A lot of the people are left with poorer health and educational outcomes. They are poorer in general. It is not everyone, but statistically we know that there are a lot. They require support beyond what the general system gives. After the Prime Minister visited my electorate one person SMSed me: ‘Janelle, does the Prime Minister know about us?’ I said: ‘Of course the Prime Minister knows about you, as does everybody in this place. People do care.’ I said to him that something will happen. He asked whether I had advanced notice. I said: ‘No, I did not. I just sensed it.’ I was really pleased when I heard Minister Jenny Macklin on 30 August announce that by year’s end we would have a formal acknowledgement and apology. 8770 8770 16:24:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Tomorrow is White Balloon Day, the day that highlights the problem of child sexual abuse and assault. I personally have had no experience with this problem, but as an adult it is my responsibility, as it is the responsibility of all adults, to take all possible action to ensure that children are always protected from assault and abuse of any kind but particularly sexual assault and abuse. I take this opportunity to acknowledge the work of Bravehearts and its founder and executive director, Hetty Johnston, for her work to raise the profile of this problem. As I said, I have had no personal experience of the problem of child abuse or sexual assault. As far as I know, no members of my family or any close friends have had such experiences. I hope that is true and I am very thankful for it. Bravehearts has provided information, however, that each year there are 55,000 substantiated allegations of child abuse and neglect. I have also been informed that one in five children will be sexually assaulted by the time they are 18 years old. These are terrible statistics, indicating that these crimes are happening in our suburbs, in our communities, right now. It is scary, the magnitude of the risk that faces our children. The question that remains is: what must be done? Governments have an important part to play, and I applaud government involvement. However, the policy level must be backed up by action throughout the process. Clearly, there are laws which say that the abuse, sexual abuse and assault of children are all against the law, and perpetrators can be dealt with. At the judiciary and government level, the police must be resourced to detect and fight these crimes, the judiciary must be very hard on offenders, and government agencies must be completely intolerant of offenders. With regard to those agencies, it is my view that child protection bodies should be more prepared to take children away from dangerous and abusive homes, and they should do it permanently. That should occur in cases where children have been abused or assaulted. They should rigorously screen adoptive parents. There should not be second chances, and there should be charges against not only the perpetrator but also anyone who knew or suspected and did nothing. I also say that parole should not occur, as child molesters cannot be rehabilitated. As strong as reaction to these crimes must be, prevention is always the primary objective. Research is clear about the need for public awareness of the prevalence of the problem as a means of reducing the incidence of abuse and assault. Australian families must be aware that these crimes are being committed every day and we must all be on our guard for the signs. As parents we must accept the responsibility to ensure that our children are always safe. We must act if we suspect. As I said, those who suspect and do nothing, and those who know and do nothing are guilty of betraying our children and should also be dealt with firmly. I would like to be very clear on that. An adult may say nothing about suspected or known sexual abuse or assault of a child and give the excuse that they were afraid for their own safety. I reject that excuse. There is no more important role for any adult than the protection of the weak and the defenceless. There is no excuse for not acting in the face of such crimes. I conclude by saying that, from individual citizens to governments, we all have a role in protecting our children. There is nothing more important. Those that commit these crimes are evil. They are less than human and I have no respect for them. They should be treated harshly and never released. 8771 8771 16:27:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I wish to update the House on the opening of the new Landcare resource centre in my electorate of Charlton, which coincided with Landcare Week being celebrated nationally. Landcare, of course, is a unique partnership formed between the local community, government and business whose primary goal is to protect and repair our environment. Community Landcare groups tackle land degradation across Australia, with individual groups focusing on particular ecological issues that challenge their local environment. Last Saturday, 5 September, I had the pleasure of attending a Landcare minimuster in Teralba, in my electorate of Charlton. The minimuster was held to celebrate 20 years of community Landcare in Australia and included the official opening of the new Landcare resource centre, which unfortunately was necessary due to the old one being the subject of an arson attack. The new resource centre will play a vital role in supporting groups committed to tackling land degradation and nurturing the local environment. The development of the centre underscores the important role Landcare plays in sustainable land use, community participation and biodiversity conservation across Australia. It will provide a base for volunteers to develop and share their skills in natural resource management to participate in public relations and administration, and to network with other Landcarers. Additionally, it will be a meeting place where members can work with local government, state agency staff and the wider community to plan and carry out environmental projects. In Lake Macquarie, which includes the electorate of my colleague the member for Shortland, there are more than 270 Landcare groups supported by the Lake Macquarie Landcare network and Lake Macquarie City Council through the Landcare resource office. These groups are located throughout both my electorate and the electorate of Shortland, and bring together individuals from very diverse backgrounds with a common interest in the protection of Lake Macquarie. Some of the achievements of Lake Macquarie Landcare include the pollution reducing bioswale, which has become a focus for stormwater education and is a best-practice stormwater quality improvement device. The groups have also revegetated 20 hectares of weed-infested bushland around Lake Macquarie, stabilised 5.5 kilometres of foreshore and stream bank erosion, planted over 140,000 shrubs, included 1,700 people from the local community in their projects and protected over 30 hectares of remnant vegetation. The opening of the resource centre in Teralba will build on this commitment and ensure that Landcare groups in my electorate will foster the development of sound land management practice and support groups as they continue to work towards sustainable land use. I wish all of the groups all the best for the future and every success with the new resource centre. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 8772 Bills R4010 8772 Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Garrett: That this bill be now read a second time. 8772 16:30:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —Unfortunately for visual artists in Australia, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, and of course the government’s handling of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, bring into question just how committed the minister and the government actually are to this legislation. This was demonstrated originally when the minister brought the legislation into the House of Representatives in March before he had responded to the recommendations from the parliamentary inquiry, an inquiry he requested from the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts to examine the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, the bill I am speaking on today. I am a member of that committee, Madam Deputy Speaker, and we were asked to examine whether the bill would achieve the stated aims and objectives as outlined in the minister’s second reading speech and supporting documentation as stated in the chairman’s foreword of the subsequent report tabled in February 2009. After extensive consultation the committee made a number of bipartisan recommendations based on a range of issues. But the two issues that were most prominent throughout the inquiry process, as noted in the foreword, were the issues of whether existing artworks should be included in the scheme from day one, and whether individual artists should be able opt out completely and have the right to collect the royalty themselves. Given the evidence received by the committee and consideration given to and provided in the recommendations, I expected the minister to respond to these, certainly prior to rushing the introduction of the resale royalty legislation into the parliament in March. It took the minister until the end of May to respond to the standing committee’s report and recommendations. I am aware that more than 30 countries have resale royalty schemes including New Zealand and members of the European Union. The resale royalty bill deals with the complex issue of establishing a resale royalty right for visual artists that will endure both for the life of the artist and for 70 years beyond that time. It will entitle visual artists to a royalty payment on the sale price of any commercial resale of their original works of art over $1,000 or works acquired after the legislation takes effect. Effectively this bill is not retrospective and will only apply from the second resale after royal assent of the bill. The scheme will apply to Australian citizens or permanent residents, with foreign nationals covered on a reciprocal basis. The aim is to allow visual artists to share in the commercialisation and value of their work in the secondary market, benefiting visual artists who currently derive their main creative income from the initial sale of original works, who do not have the same range of opportunities as other artists and creators such as writers and composers who can continue to earn through licensing reproductions, public performances or broadcasting of their work. This is the droit de suite of the Berne convention, literally translated as the ‘right of follower’, something very important to the majority who gave evidence and provided submissions to the inquiry. The coalition supports the need to provide our visual artists with appropriate recognition of their intellectual and creative property rights. However we are debating this bill without the shadow minister, the standing committee, or artists and affected groups being advised of the Solicitor-General’s advice on the constitutional issues contained in the contentious clause 11 of the legislation. Why hasn’t the minister released this advice particularly given that, to my understanding, the eligibility of at least 1,600 artists is contingent on clause 11 and effectively over $30 million of potentially eligible royalties from 1997 will now be excluded as a result? The artists have every reason to request the advice that the minister received—they are the ones most affected by this decision. Under this legislation as it has been presented, the resale royalty right will only apply upon the second resale of a visual artist’s work after this bill takes effect. The retention of the contentious provision, clause 11, in practical terms means that many artists will now have to wait one or more decades before they, or potentially their estates, see a return from the scheme. The Arts Law Centre of Australia and Viscopy both indicated in evidence to the inquiry that the average turnover of artwork is nearly 20 years. It was noted in the standing committee report that it is likely to be around 40 years before all artists will benefit from the resale of their artwork, and further that the uptake of the royalty and the benefits flowing to artists would be very slow under the proposed prospective scheme. I note that in a Sydney Morning Herald article of 25 May, Tamara Winikoff, executive director of the National Association for the Visual Arts, is quoted as saying: For most living artists there will be no benefit in their lifetime— and that— This legislation has alienated all sides of the arts sector. It is a pale shadow of what we were led to expect prior to the last election. The standing committee recommended that: In the event that clause 11 remains in the Bill, the Minister provide a full explanation as to the reasoning behind this decision in any revised Explanatory Memorandum and at the resumption of the second reading debate on the Bill. And the committee chair seriously urged this consideration in her foreword of the report. The minister has very bluntly and directly ignored these recommendations by failing to include a full explanation in the revised explanatory memorandum or in his resumption of the second reading debate. Given the conflicting legal advice and evidence presented by two lawyers, Mr Robert Dearn and senior ANU law lecturer Dr Matthew Rimmer, there are very genuine reasons for the minister to provide that advice. As a direct result of the minister’s failure to respond to this recommendation, release the legal advice on why the first resale may be unconstitutional or provide a detailed explanation in the explanatory memorandum, it is not surprising that the bill has been widely criticised by all corners of the arts sector. Katrina Strickland confirmed in the Financial Review that the scheme proposed by the minister would be next to useless for decades as this would represent the time it takes for most works to reappear on the market. Katrina also stated that even those supporters of the principle of this bill have argued the Rudd government’s current scheme is unworkable. Artists and vendors have serious concerns with the bill as presented by the minister. Unfortunately, Australia’s arts community is becoming all too familiar with the conflicting decisions of this minister. Last year the minister attempted to close down the Australian National Academy of Music, and we have seen $9.5 million cut from Screen Australia in the recent budget in spite of the Labor government’s record debt and deficits. This is one third of Screen Australia’s total funding. The committee’s recommendation 9 is a very important one, and states: Given the very tight reporting timeframe for this inquiry, the Committee recommends that the Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts undertake a review of the scheme within three to five years of the commencement date. Given the mechanics of the collection, the conduct of the collecting society in administering the collection of royalties must be delivered in the most cost effective way possible so that royalties are directed back to the artist or their families. Mrs Helen Ablett from the Featured Wood Gallery and museum in Australind in my electorate expressed her concerns about the scheme and how it will be administered. With the resale royalty scheme operating during the life of the artist and for 70 years beyond for his or her heirs, the ongoing role of the collecting agency, vendor and collector in the second and subsequent sales of an art piece, the tracing of transactions royalty will be difficult. I have concerns also where galleries and retail outlets purchase artworks to onsell basically on consignment. How and when the royalty is payable under this legislation needs to be very clear to all parties. I have serious concerns for the information, education, administration and review processes in relation to Indigenous artists and Indigenous artist communities. I also refer to recommendation 4 of the committee: In the event that indigenous visual artists do not make a will, the Committee recommends that clause 15(2) of the bill be amended by adding the following words after ‘rules of intestate succession’ – add ‘and in accordance with Aboriginal customary law.’ The government has not agreed to either this recommendation or recommendation 5 regarding Indigenous community ownership. The review is therefore an extremely important recommendation by the committee, and, thankfully for the artists, one of the few recommendations that the minister actually agreed to include in the legislation. The minister also included the committee’s recommendation that artists retain their right to elect whether or not to take part in the resale royalty scheme. This was an issue that was also raised strongly during the submissions and hearings of the standing committee by artists such as John Walker. Given the minister’s handling of this bill I can well understand the reactions of all those in the art world. I have some extremely talented artists in my electorate. I am committed to the principle of ensuring the rights of visual artists, not only those in my electorate but around Australia, are appropriately recognised. 8774 16:40:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I rise to support the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The bill addresses the key issue within the operation of the Australian art market, namely the question of a royalty for the resale of visual artworks. The measures put in place by this bill will have the effect of giving visual artists a residual financial interest in their creative works. This is a step forward that has been under consideration for a long time and that the arts community has advocated for a long time. With the implementation of this measure, Australia will join more than 50 countries that already have some form of artist royalty in place. The introduction of a resale royalty will allow the art market to operate in a way that produces a fairer outcome because it will ensure that the creator of artistic value can continue to receive a small, but appropriate, financial share of any commercial value derived from the resale of their visual artworks. It has been said in the past that fairness is not a proper imperative of the market. I wholeheartedly disagree with that. As I have observed in this place before, markets are not natural phenomena. Markets are not ruled by physical laws like gravity, even if the global financial situation appears to indicate otherwise, and they are not in any sense elemental. A market is a mechanism created by humans. It is a regulated environment that shapes, and is shaped, by human behaviour and by human values, both good and bad. Markets take many forms and can produce varied outcomes. Those varied outcomes can sometimes be produced out of identical conditions. A market is by its nature dynamic, both in its processes and in its capacity to adapt over time to changing external conditions. Unfortunately, the term ‘free-market’ carries with it two associations that are not accurate or useful. The first is that markets are somehow natural; that they arise naturally and, like nature, should be left to exist in their natural state. The second is that markets and regulation are somehow inimical to one another. While preparing to make my contribution to this debate I reflected on the incisive and even iconoclastic thoughts of a Fremantle constituent, Gary Burke, who I met earlier this year. Mr Burke is a musician and arts entrepreneur of note in Fremantle with a background in economics, a passion to which he has now returned out of a fundamental conviction that the frames through which we regard and analyse public policy have become fixed through a kind of normalised faith in a set of all powerful economic precepts. Gary Burke calls this fixed view, or orthodoxy, ‘economism’. I think he is right that certain assumptions about what is, and is not, good public policy spring from a kind of economic political correctness that has gone unquestioned for too long. A market and its framework of assumptions and regulations are not antithetical; they are co-dependent. The truth is that markets are entirely defined by regulation and by the laws and institutions that underpin them, including the right to property, the laws of contracts and an established national or international means of exchange. This bill adds a design feature to the Australian secondary art market that responds sensibly to the idiosyncrasies of that particular market. The secondary visual art market trades in a product whose value has the following more or less specific characteristics. The value in a work of a visual art is not empirically quantifiable and its true value is commonly revealed or determined over time and through a series of transactions. The value in an art product grows with the development of the artist creator’s own reputation. It is a value that accrues over time to single works of art but is in fact a product, or outcome, of all of an artists’ work. In addition, the value of visual art is chiefly derived from the artistic or creative spirit that gives rise to it. Though a work of visual art is therefore made valuable by its creative concept and design rather than by the material or even the labour that forms it, the design value or intellectual property is almost entirely vested in the physical work or object itself. So, unlike musical performance or literature, there is little scope for visual artists to receive any ongoing reward for the growing popularity and value of their work. It should also be noted that in the Australian art market, as in so many areas of Australian life, Indigenous artists have often fared worse than non-Indigenous artists when it comes to having their work acquired at less than its true value. ‘Struggling artist’ is a tautology, so the joke goes, and Indigenous artists, like Indigenous Australians across the board, generally stand at a comparative disadvantage to non-Indigenous Australians. It is a truism of the market that the strength of your bargaining position depends to some degree at least on your financial position and on your market knowledge. Artists, especially young and Indigenous artists, commonly make their bargains from a position of financial weakness and sometimes from a position of market ignorance, relatively speaking. There is nothing efficient or reasonable about that and there is certainly nothing fair about it. There is no larger economic benefit to having certain art market dealers profit in their dealings with artists simply because they know more about the business or because they are bargaining from a position of financial strength with a person who may be desperate for a sale at any price. One might say that the unfairness that results, in such circumstances, is just part of the rough-and-tumble of the free market, and that may be so. But that is no argument against the change that is made by this legislation, a change that will partly remedy those situations where an artist is gulled out of their work at an unfair price only to see it subsequently change hands for many times that amount. For all these reasons, it is appropriate that this legislation create an ongoing financial interest for the artist and their heirs in transactions that involve their works of art. This legislation gives to Australian artists a right that is already recognised and in practice in more than 50 countries. The right to a resale royalty has existed in Germany, which is the EU’s third largest art market, since 1965. By joining those countries that already have a resale royalty for artists, we are acting in a way that is entirely consistent with the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works and the World Trade Organisation’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. So, by introducing an Australian art resale royalty, this government is doing three very important things: we are honouring another election commitment, we are honouring the spirit of international treaties and conventions to which we are a party and, as a result of honouring those obligations, we are giving our artists reciprocal access to the resale provisions that exist in other countries. Under the Berne convention, Australian art sold overseas has not attracted a payable resale royalty in those countries for lack of an equivalent scheme here. It is a matter of national pride that art from a country as small in population as Australia nevertheless has a place of significance on the world stage, but really it should come as no surprise that a country whose Indigenous heritage includes the oldest known works of art in the world, and whose Indigenous culture is with us now as the longest continuous strand of human civilisation, should produce art and artists of such quality, power and magic. For artists, however, while recognition and national pride are important, financial security and wellbeing are absolutely essential. The passage of this legislation will mean that Australian artists will be appropriately rewarded for their international success when their art is resold in countries that have an equivalent resale royalty scheme, and this is long overdue. The Fremantle electorate is an important centre of activity in the Australian visual arts. It is home to significant galleries like the Moores Building Contemporary Art Gallery; to arts organisations like Artsource, which provides advice, advocacy, administrative support and studio facilities; and of course to many individual artists, including Indigenous artists. As this bill has been under consideration, I have been contacted by artists and arts organisations in the Fremantle electorate who welcome the introduction of a scheme that will give them a lasting financial connection to their creative work. The arts community in Fremantle and in Australia as a whole has campaigned for the introduction of a resale royalty for many years, and I commend their persistence on this important issue. This creative piece of market design adjustment brings about a small but significant change to the way that the secondary visual art market will operate. The bill will deliver a financial benefit to many visual artists, and it is a benefit that is well earned and overdue. This is a case of refining a market so that the market operates more fairly, though no less efficiently. Indeed it will operate more efficiently in that it will direct more of the financial benefit from the developing value of an artwork to the creator of the artwork’s value. It will in turn mean that many artists receive a financial return from their work as their creative reputation matures. As noted in an opinion piece in the Australian last month by David Hetherington, Executive Director of Per Capita, the progressive think tank: … markets are a means rather than an end. They’re an effective mechanism to harness in support of our society’s development. This is indeed legislation that harnesses the market in support of our society’s development in the visual arts area. This is legislation that effectively helps artists to help themselves. It gives them an appropriate stake in their own artistic development and improvement. I welcome it and I am confident that it will provide greater financial support to many Australian artists, particularly in the latter stages of their lives and careers. 8777 16:50:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 0 0 Dr WASHER —I seek leave to speak again so that I can complete my speech. Leave granted. 84F Washer, Dr Mal, MP Dr WASHER —The second key issue raised by the committee was whether individual artists could be able to opt out completely and personally and have the right to collect royalties. Clause 33 states that the resale royalty right is absolutely inalienable. This is in line with article 14(2) of the Berne convention. Clause 15 allows an artist to transfer this right to a charitable institution that works for the benefit of the community. The intention is to create not a right that is tradeable as a commodity or to be held by a commercial entity but one that can be passed to natural heirs or to not-for-profit organisations. Clause 33 provides a safeguard for artists being pressured to give up their rights to obtain a royalty for the resale of the artwork. However, clause 23 states that artists can exercise their right to say no to the collecting society to collect the royalties or to enforce the right on their behalf. This clause appears to give artists the ability to collect the royalty themselves or come to some other arrangement with an auction house or art market professional. The concern for the committee was that even if artists were able to collect the royalty themselves the collecting society would still be required to publish details and monitor upcoming auctions and sales where they believed resales would attract a royalty payment. This administrative cost would be borne by the collecting society. This means that artists or resale royalty holders who choose to have their rights administered by the society would bear these costs, which are applicable to all resale royalty holders. The current opt-out clause seems to be at odds with the desire to establish one collecting society as per clause 35. Therefore the committee recommended that clause 23(1) be redrafted to give artists the right to opt out of the scheme on a case-by-case basis. But if they elect to receive royalties from future resale of artwork then this must be done through the appointed collecting society. However the government is confident that, although clause 23(1) allows an artist to opt out, clause 35(3) prevents an artist from establishing an alternative collecting society. Although not all recommendations made by the committee were agreed to by the government, the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 will allow visual artists to benefit from the commercialisation of their work in the secondary art market, and I commend this bill to the chamber. In passing, I would make mention of the fact that I think this is a very good example of a House of Representatives committee doing something to get what we think is workable legislation into place. 8778 16:54:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to speak in support of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The bill creates a right which will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on resales of original artworks which sell for $1,000 or more on the secondary art market. The right will apply for the same period as copyright—for example, for 70 years after the death of the artist. Royalties will only be payable on resales of works of art which were acquired after the legislation takes effect. The bill creates a statutory scheme to enforce the right and collect royalties. A single collecting organisation to manage the scheme will be appointed by the government through a competitive tender process. Historically, the achievements of our visual artists have not been recognised to the same extent as those of our composers, authors and performers, who are able to earn copyright and performance fees from their work and thus have an ongoing financial interest in their creative efforts. Visual artists, on the other hand, have very little ability to earn income from their work other than through its initial sale. When a work sells for a large sum on the secondary art market, the artist receives no direct financial benefit from that sale. The scheme will have a positive economic impact on artists and their families, including the families of deceased artists, who may receive royalties for up to 70 years as beneficiaries of an artist’s estate. Royalty income over the medium term will contribute to the economic wellbeing of the Indigenous artists, their families and their communities, although it is possible that this could also place additional pressure on artists to support their extended families. The scheme will not, however, provide an income support mechanism, as the majority of funds will go to successful artists. Australian visual artists and their advocates have been campaigning for the resale royalty rights for at least a decade. They have emphasised its importance both as a significant statement of the esteem in which Australia holds its visual arts culture and as an economic reward and incentive for the creators of high-quality art. As the resale royalties scheme grows throughout the years, Australia’s artists, like artists from the United Kingdom, France, Germany and a growing list of other countries, will share in the proceeds of the trade in their works on the secondary market. The bill has the support of my colleagues as it implements a Labor election commitment. The government’s resale royalties scheme addresses an inequitable situation by creating a right of visual artists to a royalty payment each time their work sells on the secondary art market. This is a right that has now been recognised by over 50 countries around the world, and it is long overdue in Australia. The scheme that the government has developed delivers the rights for visual artists. It also, very importantly, introduces the right in such a way as to ensure minimal impact on the Australian arts market. The scheme is administratively simple and straightforward to understand. The flat five per cent royalty rate is fair to all artists, with no cap on the maximum royalty which may be earned on an individual resale. Joint creators of artwork will also be recognised under the scheme. The royalty will apply for the current period of copyright, as I have already said, which is 70 years following the death of an artist. That is very important as it can often be the case that the artists only achieve recognition and success late in life, having spent a lifetime developing their creative skills with modest means. Resale royalty rights are not just about raising additional income for artists; they introduce a right that will significantly increase the transparency of the art market, which is particularly important for Indigenous artists, who have, sadly, continued to be exploited by unscrupulous people. I have often spoken about the need we have for a really close look at how art is sold and who is making money on art, particularly Indigenous art. The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means the collecting agency will keep detailed records of all relevant sales occurring and will need to publish key data in its annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament. Importantly, the royalty right will only apply to resales of art that is acquired after the right comes into effect—in other words, after this bill is passed. This is to ensure that purchasers of artworks are aware at the time they make their purchase that a royalty may be payable to the artist if they choose to resell the work. It will also allow the art market to adapt gradually to the new right. It is important that the resale royalty right be introduced in such a way that it does not have a negative impact on the art market, which, in the end, would not help artists. I recently had the pleasure of attending the 26th Telstra National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Art Award. It was a great occasion. It is an important annual survey of the abundant and varied expression of Indigenous artistic practice, and this year’s award exhibition demonstrates the ever-widening range of artistic endeavour. At the national art award, the Director of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory said: It is surprising, challenging and indeed splendid. The award encourages participation from across the country, and it is exciting to witness the continued participation of artists from remote communities. It was a truly memorable night for the artists involved. In my electorate we have quite a few artists who have become renowned around Australia. Kenny Reid is a local Larrakia man, a traditional owner of Larrakia through his grandmother. He also has family ties to Alice Springs. He is an artist and a carver and does both very effectively. Joe Raymond is another Larrakia artist from the Darwin area. Christine Christophersen was highly commended at the prestigious 2004 Telstra awards. She received an Australian arts council grant in 2005. Her paintings are in the permanent collection at the National Gallery and the Darwin Museum and Art Gallery. I have a painting of another Larrakia artist, Dorothea Fejo, in my office. Aunty Dottie Fejo is a Larrakia mother who has lived in Darwin all her life. She started doing art in 2000, specialising in painting on canvas. She picked up a brush because she was bored and since then she has not stopped. She was taught painting by her father and uncle, who are known for their carving and art within the Larrakia community. Pedro Wonaemirri from Goose Creek on Melville Island, born in 1973, is a very well known practising Tiwi artist. He is also a traditional dancer. He first performed a Tiwi ceremonial dance in public in 1981, when he was only five years old, for the opening of the Museum and Art Gallery of the Northern Territory in Darwin. During his secondary education his favourite subject was traditional dance. They are just a few of the artists in my area, the Top End. The Northern Territory has a very strong history of art, in particular Indigenous art and people leading the way in it. This bill further supports them in earning a livelihood from their talents, and I fully support and commend the bill to the House. 8780 17:02:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —I rise to speak on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. This bill establishes a scheme that allows visual artists to claim a share of the proceeds of each successive commercial resale of the original artwork. It also maintains the artist’s interests in the ongoing sale of works for 70 years after the death of the artist. This scheme, which was an election commitment by the Labor Party more than 18 months ago as part of the Labor election platform, has taken an extraordinary time in incubation, and sadly the minister still has not got a great outcome. Other countries in Europe and the UK have developed such schemes. It does not seem, however, that the Labor government has selected the best elements of these other international schemes or learned from their mistakes. For example, the bill will only apply to the resale of artworks acquired after the bill comes into effect. The works will attract a five per cent royalty, with no maximum cap. The scheme applies from the second sale of eligible art over $1,000 or more in value, including GST but excluding any other charges. The government plans to establish a collection organisation; however, individual artists can choose not to use this organisation or not to receive a royalty at all. Unfortunately, the bill limits the scheme to artworks only sold a second time after the effective date of implementation of the bill. Real auction data provided by Viscopy, or the Visual Arts Copyright Collecting Agency, for the period between 1998 and 2008 shows that only six per cent of artworks were sold a second time. This would provide an income of $460,000 for artists over the 10-year period. This is in stark contrast to the government’s exaggerated projected income figure of some $34 million for artists. The payment of the resale royalty is further complicated as it lists four possibilities of persons who are jointly and severally liable to pay the royalty. Allowing artists to collect the resale royalty right themselves may reduce the capacity of the government’s collection organisation to sustain its operations, particularly if Australia’s top artists choose to collect their own royalties, leaving only the more difficult to locate—for example, impoverished Indigenous artists—with the collection agency as part of their responsibility. The growth in the value of the Australian art market, particularly the rapid rise in value of Indigenous art, and the growing tendency of international art trading markets to operate royalty schemes mean that Australia should have a much better, more comprehensively thought through scheme. I am very concerned that our most vulnerable and exploited Indigenous artists may not receive royalties owed through this scheme. Traditional Indigenous artists living in remote places often do not have a will or final testament that identifies which family members or others they wish to receive future royalties after their death. This means that the benefit of the 70 years royalty flow is likely to be lost to the family or the next of kin of the people that the artist chose to be the beneficiaries. The coalition funded a program to send legal officers into remote communities to help artists write their wills and place those wills in appropriate storage. This was a great success and greatly appreciated by the artist communities. In the 2008-09 budget the Rudd Labor government chose not to renew funding for this Artists in the Black program. This travelling legal service also provided legal advice and support as well as the preparation of the wills and testaments for Indigenous communities, so it is sadly missed and should be reinstated. This Labor government is not serious about Indigenous artists, it would seem. Through Labor’s defunding and neglect, many Indigenous artists will continue to be exploited. Sadly, anecdotal evidence is that the exploitation is growing even worse, not diminishing. The coalition had a very strong record of investment in the Indigenous arts sector and we are very concerned that the carpetbagging and exploitation of Indigenous artists will not be diminished in any way, it would seem, by any Labor strategy or policy. In 2006 the then Minister for the Arts and Sport, Senator the Hon. Rod Kemp, asked the Senate to investigate the Indigenous arts sector to identify future opportunities and threats in the sector and what assistance governments could provide to assist and protect Indigenous artists’ rights. There was widespread discussion within the industry around many remote communities about the difficult situation of remoteness, the exploitation and the unhelpful practices that were found throughout, in particular, Northern and Western Australia. The Senate was asked to investigate these types of issues. The report was finalised in June 2007 and the coalition gave unqualified support to the vast majority of the recommendations. A number of those recommendations have not seen the light of day since. They have been overlooked by the Labor government of today, but they still deserve special attention as they will enhance the outcomes for Indigenous artists into this century. In particular, I would like to refer to recommendations 17 and 18 of that inquiry. They referred to the setting up of an Indigenous art commercial and government code of conduct. Many commercial organisations representing the interests of Indigenous artists already have a code of ethics or conduct in place which members of those bodies are expected to follow. This is to ensure they act with fairness, honesty and integrity and they know precisely what is expected of them. This bill does not directly protect the intellectual property rights of Indigenous artists’ work. However, there is some protection under the Copyright Act and the Designs Act 2003. The Designs Act provides for particular designs to be registered, while the Copyright Act covers original artwork put into a material form. However, there is no rule allowing the copying of artwork without permission if there are a certain number of changes made. This leaves Indigenous artists exposed to the possible reproduction and imitation of their style. We have all been to the tourist shops and seen the tea towels, the bush caps, the blankets, and wondered whether the Indigenous artists who put together those amazing designs have ever been acknowledged, much less paid. Indigenous notions of intellectual culture and property are sometimes different to non-indigenous notions of personal intellectual property. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property refers to the rights of Indigenous Australians to their heritage. Indigenous cultural and intellectual property rights entrust the ownership of material representing Indigenous heritage to the particular Indigenous group it emanates from, emphasising the maintenance of the culture from generation to generation. This, of course, makes it different from the artist working alone in mainstream Australian society. The Arts Law Centre of Australia has identified some of the major concerns in relation to Indigenous cultural intellectual property, including the lack of copyright protection for art and craft works produced by Indigenous communities. While Indigenous artists are employed to produce artistic works, there is a question about who owns the copyright: is this person an employer or the Indigenous artist? The government has had the opportunity, through this bill, to recognise Indigenous cultural ownership of visual arts but has failed to address this complex question. Authenticity of art works is another issue that has not been addressed in this bill, yet the bill is to assign some royalty payments to a particular individual. Some art works by Indigenous communities are the result of communal participation, perhaps with one community member signing the work as the artist on behalf of all of the others. This will become an issue when it comes to the sale and the resale of artwork as prospective buyers may be concerned about the legitimacy of the artists’ role in the work and, indeed, who should receive ongoing royalty payments. This situation also raises the issue of style copying and the infringement of Indigenous cultural intellectual property rights. Australia’s Indigenous art is one of the great cultural assets of our nation. It is unique not only in style but also in its importance in maintaining the history and continuity of Indigenous culture. The majority of international tourists visiting the Northern Territory, Western Australia and Northern Queensland seek out some Indigenous art to purchase, or they seek to see a performance of music or dance. Over two-thirds of domestic tourists who visit those same places, go to Indigenous art centres or experience the unique Indigenous culture in some form. In the Northern Territory, the Indigenous art industry is estimated to produce $28 million in sales. Australia’s Indigenous art sector has grown exponentially since it was first studied in the 1980s. In 1979-80, the industry was estimated to be worth some $2.5 million. Ten years later, its estimated worth is $18.5 million—more than a sevenfold increase. By 2002, it was estimated that the value of the industry was somewhere between $100 million and $300 million. Although the value of the industry has increased, there is no evidence that the number of artists has increased or their individual wealth or wellbeing has benefited from the popularity of their work or the prices paid after they sell their product, often wholesale. In 2006, the main bodies representing Indigenous artists indicated they served about 6,000 Indigenous artists in over 80 remote Indigenous communities. Indigenous artists continue to be the most disadvantaged artists in Australia. The genesis of Senate recommendation 4 was to ensure appropriate art centre facilities across remote Australia to enable Indigenous artists to have a place to store art and supplies, to stretch canvasses, to display their completed works and to allow those places to become centres of learning and great cultural pride. The inquiry found that art centres in remote communities provided not only important safe places for women—typically, women are the majority of Indigenous artists—but also an important community reference point when the art centres were functioning well. They assisted visitors and tourists to locate artists and the work they wished to sell. I have to say that this bill is disappointing in that it does very little to acknowledge the difficulties of paying resale royalties to Indigenous artists or to groups of Indigenous artists in communities who together produce and own the work. It is an unfortunate situation that an opportunity has been lost, while Indigenous artists themselves appear to be even more exploited as the days go by. I am afraid to say that Indigenous arts, like arts in general, have been forgotten by the Rudd Labor government. We have to hope for better things from future governments. The coalition remains committed to ensuring that artists and the arts sector are strong and treated in a fair and generous way. 8783 17:14:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —I am very pleased to be able to speak today on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. The introduction of this bill is a great day for Australia’s visual artists, who will now, for the first time, have the right to an ongoing economic interest in their works in Australia. Other creative professions—composers, authors and performers—are able to earn copyright and performance fees in some form from their work and have an ongoing financial interest in their creative efforts, whether it be theatre, music, films or other forms of professional arts. The achievements of our visual artists have not been recognised to the same extent as those of the other types of artist that I spoke about. Visual artists have had very little ability to earn income from their work other than through its initial sale—in other words, through the first sale that is made of the painting or work of art. When a work sells for a large sum on the secondary art market, the artist receives no direct financial benefit from the sale. We have seen this, as we heard earlier from other speakers, with many, many Indigenous artists who create some work, sell it and then that particular piece of art is on-sold in the future for far more than it was sold for at that first point. Indigenous artists in particular stand to benefit from the introduction of the resale royalty scheme. Minister Garrett has raised the example of a Johnny Warangkula Tjupurrula painting which was called Water Dreaming at Kalipinypa. It originally sold for $150 and was resold in July 2000 for $486,500. That is a huge difference. This highlights what has become a very common situation in the Indigenous market, usually with the Indigenous community and Indigenous artists being the ones missing out after there has been a resale for an enormous amount that could have contributed quite a bit not only to that particular artist but to the entire community. It is clear that the situation faced by artists in general is that they often struggle to make a living. A 2003 report on artists’ working conditions called Don’t give up your day job: an economic study of professional artists in Australia found that 50 per cent of artists earn less than $7,300 from their art in a year. The situation is arguably worse for Indigenous artists. The government’s resale royalty scheme addresses this inequitable situation by creating the right for visual artists to receive a royalty payment each time their work sells on the secondary art market. It implements an election commitment made by the Rudd Labor government. This is a right which has now been recognised in over 50 countries around the world and is long overdue in Australia. I will provide an example of how it will work. Suppose that, in July 2009—which is the date from which the resale royalty right legislation takes effect—a gallery owner negotiated with an Indigenous arts centre the outright purchase of a range of works and one canvas was purchased for $10,000. The gallery owner puts the work up for sale at an exhibition in December 2009 and the canvas is purchased by an investor for $16,000. This means a royalty payment to the artist of $800, less administration costs, is automatically triggered, as the gallery owner acquired the work following the introduction of the resale right. The scheme the government has developed delivers a right to visual artists but also, very importantly, introduces the right in such a way as to ensure minimal impact on Australia’s art market. The scheme is administratively simple and very straightforward. A flat five per cent royalty rate is fair for all artists, with no cap on the maximum royalty which may be earned on an individual resale. Joint creators of artwork will also be recognised under this scheme. The royalty will apply for the current period of copyright—that is, 70 years following the death of the artist—so that artists can pass on their right to their families and heirs. This is important, as it can often be the case that artists achieve recognition and success late in life, having spent a lifetime with modest means developing their creative skills, or after they are long gone. The royalties will be collected by a single collecting organisation, which will be appointed by the government through a competitive and transparent tender process. The collecting organisation will be vested with the powers necessary to access the information required for it to determine quickly when and to whom royalties are payable. Importantly, the right will apply only to the resale of artworks that are acquired after the right comes into effect. This is to ensure that purchasers of artworks are aware at the time they make their purchase that a royalty may be payable to the artist if they choose to resell the work. It will also allow the art market to adapt gradually to the new right. It is important that the resale royalty right is introduced in such a way as to not have a negative impact on the art market, which in the end would not help artists. The resale royalty right is not just about raising additional income for artists. Introducing the right will significantly increase the transparency of the art market, which is particularly important for Indigenous artists, who have sadly continued to be exploited by unscrupulous people. We have seen many examples of this in years gone by. The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means that the collecting agency will keep very detailed records on all relevant sales that occur. It will need to publish key data in its annual report, which will be tabled in the parliament. Australian visual artists and their advocates have been campaigning for a resale royalty right for at least a decade. They have emphasised its importance; they have emphasised how significant this is. It is a significant statement of the esteem in which Australia holds its visual arts culture and it is an economic reward and incentive for creators of high-quality art. As the retail royalty scheme grows throughout the years Australia’s artists, like artists from the United Kingdom, France and Germany, to name just a few—as I said before, there are over 50 countries that have similar schemes—will share in the proceeds of the trade in their works on the secondary market. The government’s response to an inquiry into the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was tabled in parliament on 28 May. In its response the government agreed to review the scheme within five years and expand the definition of an artwork to include forms of fine art textiles, installations, fine art jewellery, artists’ books, carvings and multimedia artworks. Again, these are areas where there is usually no benefit to the original artist when the work is resold. This bill finally provides for the rights of artists, giving them a fair go. This government values the work of visual artists. We are committed to enlarging the creative endeavour and recognising artists’ contribution to our culture and to our economy. The decision to introduce a resale royalty right for visual artists has been a long time coming. Australian art is a great asset. It forms part of our culture. As I said earlier, in theatre, film, music and other art industries there is some acknowledgement in monetary terms when that art is passed on. Unfortunately, for visual artists that has not been the case. Our Indigenous artists are the most disadvantaged artists in this area, and this bill will go a long way towards assisting them. I commend the bill to the House. 8785 17:25:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I too rise today to support the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. For too long, our visual artists have not been recognised in a way that enables them to earn a sufficient living from their trade. This bill seeks to put in place legislation that will enable visual artists to receive the same financial recognition that other artists receive, whether they be composers, conductors, musicians, actors, recording artists or authors, so it is a very important piece of legislation. The passing of this bill will deliver on another Rudd government election commitment. We made a commitment to introduce this legislation and, like all of our other election commitments, we are delivering on it. This bill will enable visual artists to earn income not just from the initial sale of their work but from ongoing sales, as is the case for other artists. At the moment, visual artists sell their work and earn some income from that, but if their work is resold they get no cut of that resale. This legislation will change that. The resale royalty right will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on the resale of original artworks which sell for $1,000 or more on a secondary art market. The right will apply for the same period as copyright—that is, for 70 years after the death of the artist. While an important benefit of this bill is the extra income royalties will bring to artists, another clear benefit that should be highlighted is the improved transparency it will bring to the art market. The right will be inalienable and unable to be waived, protecting artists from potential exploitation, which unfortunately is more common in Indigenous communities. Sadly, many have been exploited by unscrupulous people over the years. As a member who comes from Far North Queensland, from tropical North Queensland, and represents large numbers of Indigenous peoples I am very passionate about ensuring that they have greater rights and greater economic opportunities into the future, and art provides them with a real opportunity to not only protect and promote their culture but also earn an income to support them and their families. The bill requires sellers to notify the collecting agency each time a work is resold on the secondary art market. This means the collecting agency will keep detailed records of all relevant sales occurring. Key data will be published in its annual report, which will also be tabled in parliament. The Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was referred to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. The committee did good work, and the government agreed to make some minor amendments to the bill as recommended by the committee in their February report, to further clarify its intent and to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. The definition of what constitutes an artwork has been amended. The change is consistent with the existing policy intent of the bill but will clarify the situation for stakeholders. This gives more certainty for both artist and art market participants. The commencement date of the scheme will also be altered. July 2009 was initially set down as the start date but, due to the bill’s referral to the committee for inquiry, the date has been revised to allow sufficient flexibility to accommodate the passage of the legislation and the appointment of a collecting society. The provisions will automatically commence at the end of six months from the date of royal assent if they are not proclaimed. So we are putting in place good legislation that is going to support visual artists. We are also doing it in a responsible way that recognises that those people working in the sale of art and the purchase of art need certainty and time to adjust to this new framework. The work of the committee and the subsequent delay of this legislation will enable it to be put in place in an appropriate way. This bill is delivering an election commitment, as I said earlier, and will be warmly welcomed by artists all across the country but particularly artists in tropical North Queensland where I come from and which I seek to represent. Some of Australia’s best contemporary art comes from tropical North Queensland. We who are fortunate to live in this part of the world are very lucky to be surrounded by such a diverse natural environment. While we have the reef, beaches, rainforest, outback and savannah all at our doorstep, on top of this we also are lucky enough to live amongst a hugely diverse mix of cultures. I believe this remarkable diversity is a real gift and is part of the reason why art in tropical North Queensland is so vibrant, innovative and exciting. Last month the inaugural Cairns Indigenous Art Fair was held at the Tanks Art Centre, bringing together and showcasing the incredible talent from the Far North Queensland region possessed by Indigenous artists. Artwork from our best known artists as well as emerging new artists was on display at the fair. Galleries from across Australia and Indigenous art centres from Cape York and the Torres Strait, studios, collectives, arts organisations and book and magazine publishers were all represented at the fair. The fair was opened by the Queensland Premier, Anna Bligh, and the Australian government is working in partnership with the Queensland state government in support of Indigenous artists in the tropical north. Indigenous art and culture offer many opportunities for local Indigenous people. One that warrants further consideration and investment is the tourism potential of Indigenous art products. Our local Indigenous culture is very rich and with the region already a major player in the nation’s tourism industry this avenue offers great economic development potential for local Indigenous people and their communities. We are already known for the Great Barrier Reef and the wet tropics rainforest. Cairns is the gateway to the Cape York Peninsula and the Torres Strait. This is home to some fantastic Indigenous culture, some fantastic Indigenous artists, and we are developing and building on what is already good work happening in that area. This bill will provide further incentive for artists to do good work and to see the rewards of that. There are real opportunities for us to continue to build links between the arts community, and in particular the Indigenous arts community, and our tourism sector, and I certainly encourage that. There are also a number of social benefits which can flow from this. Art is a platform by which to engage Indigenous youth. Elders possess extensive knowledge and experience of their culture and this is a means by which their tradition and history can be preserved and passed on to younger generations. I have been to a number of art centres in my electorate where you see older Indigenous men and women working, doing and developing visual art, and you see young people with them, learning the skills and about their stories and about their culture through the work that they are doing in developing art. It is a fantastic area to engage with Indigenous young people and ensure that they are given new opportunities to learn about themselves and their culture and also, through this legislation, opportunities in the future to earn an even greater income from the production of visual art. There is a plethora of artistic talent in the region and we are fortunate to have a number of strong local organisations that have the force and ability to harness this talent. Arts Nexus is a leading arts organisation in Cairns which facilitates strategic sustainable development across the cultural and creative industries in North Queensland. They have recently been involved in the development of a cultural tourism strategy for the region, a strategy that recognises that we need to strengthen the links between the tourism sector and the cultural sector in tropical North Queensland. KickArts is a great contemporary visual arts organisation based in Cairns that is dedicated to facilitating and promoting contemporary arts and extending the experience and cultural life of Northern Australia. It seeks to support local artists but also to run exhibitions that demonstrate and provide an opportunity for artists to showcase their work in Cairns to visitors from all across the world and the country as they come to visit Cairns. We also have a peak Indigenous art organisation in Cairns, UMI Arts. UMI Arts is a not-for-profit company that is managed by an all-Indigenous board of directors. Their current board consists of Leo Akee, from the Torres Strait; Priscilla Major, from Kowanyama; Henrietta Marrie, from Cairns; Roy McIvor, from Hopevale; and Alberta Hornsby, from Cooktown; and their chairperson is Lisa Michl, an accomplished young artist from Cape York. I have seen Lisa’s work being presented at a gallery down here in Canberra. She was showing her Story Places of Pinnarinch exhibition at the local Helen Maxwell Gallery, and it was great to be able to go down and see Lisa’s work. She is a young Indigenous artist and leader in Cairns and tropical North Queensland and she and the board of UMI Arts are doing a fantastic job, as are KickArts with their director, Rae O’Connell, and her team, and Arts Nexus. We have some fantastic organisations in Cairns and tropical North Queensland that are looking to support the arts community, and I am very proud to be part of a government that is introducing the legislation that provides the support they need to support their artists towards having an ongoing income from the work that they do. We have some fantastic Indigenous artists also in the Far North. I have mentioned Lisa Michl but we also have Thancoupie Fletcher and artists like Arone Meeks—great people who are doing good work. The Rudd government is supporting visual artists through this bill and that will be very welcome. This has been a long campaign and one which has been strongly supported by the visual arts community. We are also supporting arts, particularly Indigenous arts, in my electorate through a range of other mechanisms. As I have said, Indigenous arts need support. They need some initial support and funding from the government. We have done this through delivering on commitments and strengthening our support for the Australian arts and cultural sector with an investment of $62.3 million in the 2009-10 budget. This includes boosting support for Australian Indigenous artists—a key source of Indigenous employment—and developing opportunities for young emerging artists to build sustainable careers. Locally, in recent times we have been able to deliver over $90,000 to UMI Arts, an organisation I spoke about earlier, to help with operational costs and to allow them to deliver professional development and advice on best practices to artists and art centres in the region. This was under the National Arts and Crafts Industry Support program. I know they are looking for further funding. I am looking forward to working with them and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett, to continue to build their capacity, ensuring that there is long-term support for the organisation going forward. We have also been able to provide support to the Aurukun and Lockhart River arts and cultural centres—$174,840 for Aurukun and $124,000 for the Lockhart River arts centre. This has been a significant funding boost for these centres in their training and development of local Indigenous visual artists. It was also funded under the National Arts and Crafts Industry Support program. Recently I was in Hopevale and visited their arts centre up there after it was officially opened. Unfortunately I could not go to the official opening because I was travelling in the Northern Territory as part of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs inquiry into remote Indigenous stores, but they are doing a fantastic job up there. Roy McIvor, the chair of the board, is a well-known Indigenous artist and does great work, and I managed to purchase a piece while I was at the Hopevale arts centre. So we are supporting centres like the Aurukun centre, the Lockhart centre and the Hopevale arts centre in my electorate. In an effort to promote and maintain the traditional languages of Pormpuraaw and surrounding outstations, we committed $32,000 in a grant last year to the local council under the Maintenance of Indigenous Languages and Records program. This is not directly for visual artists, but language is particularly important to Indigenous communities and supporting and strengthening language in Indigenous communities will indirectly lead to local people strengthening their culture. They will represent that and deliver that through visual art. That will directly benefit as a result of this bill. Combined with a strong commitment from the Queensland state government, particularly through their Backing Indigenous Art program, we are building a strong Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander arts industry. I have travelled through the Torres Strait over an extended period of time now, not only as the member but during campaigning. I have been to the Kubin arts centre up in the Torres Strait, to the Gab Titui arts centre on Thursday Island and out to other arts centres in the outer islands. They are doing fantastic work. Really strong visual artists exist not only in the cape but in the Torres Strait and in Cairns. This legislation will be welcomed by non-Indigenous artists. After this legislation is passed, it will enable visual artists to get an economic return from their artwork. They will also get a five per cent return through subsequent sales. We have seen people in other areas—the recording industry, authors, conductors and the like—continue to make money out of their work long after their work is first published. It is appropriate that visual artists are rewarded in a way that enables them to get a return from their work after it is sold the first time. This bill will be welcomed by the arts industry and by visual artists. It is further good work by the Rudd government, which is again delivering on an election commitment. This legislation is something I know the Prime Minister is very committed to, as are all members of the government. I strongly commend this bill to the House and I look forward to talking about it with local artists in my community. 8789 17:41:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I congratulate the member for Leichhardt for his contribution to the debate on the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. Having spent some time up in Cairns on various family holidays, I certainly know the importance of Indigenous visual art to that community. I believe that the legislation will be very important in strengthening the culture of Indigenous communities, enabling them to continue to tell the Dreamtime and to derive a lasting economic benefit from their work. So I congratulate the member for his contribution and particularly recognise his Indigenous community and the significant contribution it makes to the visual arts community in Australia. It is a great pleasure to rise and speak on this bill. When I was first elected to parliament I anticipated that bills would be of a much more mundane nature and of a much more concrete nature. Today, we are speaking on a bill that is about recognising and rewarding people’s talents and creativity. That, of course, is very important in our civilisation. Rewarding creativity and providing encouragement are the base values that we as Australians instil in our kids. We encourage people and the unique talent that everyone undoubtedly has. That is what we teach our children and we should continue to do that. But this bill is also about people’s livelihoods and the worth of their livelihoods and the significant creativity that particularly reflects upon our Indigenous friends. These people do have a story to tell and visual arts can play a very significant role in telling that story and they ought to be able to derive a lasting economic benefit in the telling of that story. I believe this bill is groundbreaking because it opens the way for us to provide lasting economic benefit for many creative artists in our communities. We are extending the formal, legal recognition of, and the recompense for, a much broader range of art than was previously the case. In doing that, this bill goes to the fascinating question which is always fraught with danger and difficult to answer, and that is ‘what is art?’ Many people say that that question is unanswerable. In my view, there are some answers—even if they are not of a complete or definitive nature. I think this bill has got some of those answers right—some of those answers that we as a community continue to seek. This bill has got the principles right, and it has done that by providing important recognition and reward for our visual artists. The rights bestowed by this bill will entitle visual artists and their heirs to a five per cent royalty on the resale of original artworks which sell for more than $1,000 on the secondary market. This right will apply for the same period as copyright has provided for, which of course is 70 years after the death of the artist. The right will be unwaivable in its application. The right will apply to many types of artworks but will exclude buildings and plans and models for buildings and circuit layouts and manuscripts. The right will acknowledge artwork created by more than one artist. Not surprisingly with a bill of this nature, its development has been a bit of a trial. The Resale Royalty Rights for Visual Artists Bill 2008 was introduced to parliament and then referred to the House Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts. The committee’s report was released on 20 February 2009. In response to the House of Representatives standing committee, the government has agreed to make some minor amendments to the bill to further clarify its intent and to ensure the smooth operation of the scheme as envisaged by the bill. The government has partially agreed to a number of the committee’s recommendations for amendments to the bill. The amendments relate to two areas—the definition of what constitutes an artwork, which is spelt out in clause 7, and the commencement of the scheme, which is spelt out in clause 2. The first amendment addresses the government’s acceptance of the committee’s recommendation 1, to broaden the definition of what is an artwork to include further examples that were previously listed in the explanatory memorandum, such as batik, weaving or other forms of fine art textiles, installations, fine art jewellery, artists’ books, carvings, multimedia artworks— 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that he will have an opportunity to speak to the amendments when we go into consideration in detail, so it would be good to stick to the bill. HW7 Cheeseman, Darren, MP Mr CHEESEMAN —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that. The change also requires some consequential amendments later on, and we will deal with those in due course. The government has spent some time talking to stakeholders in order to understand which artworks qualify for the scheme. That is very important, and the committee has spent a lot of time working through some of these questions. I know that there are some traditionalists who say that getting some of these things right is a very difficult challenge. I am positive that the actions of the government with respect to this particular bill have struck the right balance between the rights of artists and the rights of those who may wish to acquire art from future generations. I would like to conclude with this particular point: for a long time our traditional Indigenous artists have not been recognised to the same extent as the European masters. I think this bill will go a long way towards providing recognition for those Indigenous masters who have contributed significantly to maintaining Indigenous culture. It will go a long way towards enabling our Indigenous communities to become economically sustainable in the work that they undertake. This bill is important in terms of its process and its implementation. The second amendment, which I think is very important, will deal with a number of very important recommendations that did come out of the standing committee and I certainly look forward to seeing further developments on this. Royalties for artists will be collected by a single organisation appointed by the minister following a competitive process. The government has committed $1.5 million over the next three years in the 2007-08 budget for the establishment of this scheme to enable its operation to continue. I believe this is a landmark day for the people’s artists. I believe that this day will very much encourage our arts communities to continue their development. I believe that on this day we can celebrate the worth of many of our artists, particularly our traditional artists, and it is a day on which we bring back to the arts community the equality that has long been sought. This is another strong Labor bill and I certainly commend it to the Main Committee. 8790 17:51:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I rise to speak in support of the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. I am pleased to be able to speak on this ground-breaking legislation that fundamentally alters the way that visual art is bought and sold in Australia. Currently, any economic gain by an artist from a piece of art is limited to proceeds from the original sale. Once the item is sold the original artist cannot receive any further financial benefit from that item. This legislation proposes that artists receive a flat five per cent of the sale price every time a piece of art is resold. It recognises and continues to reward the intellectual property that is part of all pieces of visual art. The resale royalty right is to last for as long as copyright currently lasts, which is life plus 70 years. This will provide a benefit not only to the original artists but also to their families and heirs. Resale royalty rights are to apply to all commercial resale of original works of over $1,000 from when the legislation takes effect. This is to moderate the administrative costs involved with the system. To be eligible, a potential right holder must be an Australian citizen, a permanent resident of Australia, or a national or citizen of a country where a reciprocal agreement is in place. The government has recognised that there will remain an administrative cost implicit in the system. Therefore, $1.5 million has been allocated to fund the implementation of the resale royalty scheme. There are significant options open for reciprocal agreements with other countries that have resale rights in place for visual artists. Many countries have already recognised the value of resale royalty rights and more than 30 countries have schemes in place, including the UK, Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France and New Zealand. There are controversies that exist with any piece of legislation, and discussions on the resale royalty rights for visual artists in Australia on previous occasions have been controversial. Opponents have argued that the main beneficiaries will be popular artists, that the scheme is inherently difficult with administrative costs, that art is often owned for a significant length of time, that the system differs from accepted notions of property ownership, and that collectors may hesitate to purchase works where resale rights still apply. That said, in my electorate of Forde we have amazing community and cultural groups, including Indigenous groups, and a developing art community in places like Tamborine Mountain. The implementation of resale royalty rights for visual artists will bring to fruition another 2007 election policy that I stood proudly behind as a candidate for Forde. From the rainforests of Lamington National Park to the sweeping mountainous views of Tamborine Mountain, if you can get the imagery, to the picturesque farming lands around Beaudesert, the beauty of Forde has long attracted visual artists to the local area— 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— HVQ Raguse, Brett, MP Mr RAGUSE —and from where the member for Moncrieff sits in his office I am sure he can look across at the Gold Coast hinterland and wish that he could have his corflute not only on the coast, on the beach, but also on Tamborine Mountain. Tamborine Mountain holds a regular quality arts market, which I have enjoyed attending for a number of years, at the Tamborine Mountain showground. Numerous art galleries adorn areas like Eagle Heights and attract significant numbers of tourists each year, as does the well-known Gallery Walk, which is part of the Tamborine Mountain experience. Many visual art, hobby and social art groups can be found across Forde, including groups like the Beaudesert Camera Club, the Beenleigh Craft Group, the Beenleigh Lapidary Club, Logan Artists Association and Tamborine Mountain Creative Arts. The Scenic Rim Regional Council, once known as the Beaudesert council, takes an active role in supporting artists and has an appreciation of the arts in the southern parts of Forde. Among other services, the Centre for Scenic Rim Arts and Culture at Beaudesert provides a modern hub for local artists. In 2008, the centre launched an open art studio trail for the Scenic Rim, featuring many local artists and craftspersons operating in the local area. The open studio arts trails were so successful that they are planned to be an annual event. The Scenic Rim Regional Arts Development Fund, Scenic Rim Regional Council and Queensland state government partnership is currently seeking applications from local artists, and funding is available for professional development workshops and the arts and cultural research projects. Of course, one of the benefits of this legislation—and other speakers have spoken about it—is that it will assist the Indigenous community, the culture that has developed around them and their art, which explores and explains their Dreamtime in a visual sense. In my electorate of Forde, the Yugambeh nation and other Indigenous people have a very strong, rich and wonderful cultural history to be told. They talk about the Dreamtime and reflect that in some of their sculptures and paintings in areas like Tullamore, which has the Dreamtime stories of the sleeping Ilbogan serpent. If you ever go to the Beaudesert Race Club you cross an old bridge called the Ilbogan bridge. The serpent and lagoon are a very significant part of their Dreamtime. The Scenic Rim Regional Council has been involved for many years in the rural sector’s industry. I must reflect my experiences in growing up in Queensland during a period of interesting political times at the state level. We had a Premier who was once challenged on his understanding of culture. He was asked, ‘Do you understand culture?’ and of course he said, ‘I have, we have, we do have lots and lots of culture—we have agriculture, aquaculture, horticulture.’ In jest, the reality is of course that he was reflecting on the fact that Queensland is an interesting place and our arts history and our culture are very strong. Areas of Beaudesert in the old Beaudesert shire show that there is a need to capture that visual history either in art form or in other forms. I am pleased to see the member for Moncrieff here because I believe that he is very supportive of this bill. The government prior to ours, the Howard government, could never quite get to the point of resolving the issue, and I am very pleased that we have now brought it to this chamber. I will be very keen to hear the member for Moncrieff’s input on this particularly important piece of legislation. This is not directly related to the bill, but, with the draft redistribution, the seat of Forde is going to lose many parts of this beautiful Scenic Rim area. I hope that those who follow after I move to the new boundaries, if so elected, have just as much input into, concern for and resolve in the area. If a conservative member takes on the area, I hope that they also understand the importance of the legislation that we are putting in place. Members in this chamber for this debate certainly support what the government is trying to achieve with this particular legislation. In conclusion, resale royalty rights are a positive move forward for artists in Australia. These changes will provide a tangible benefit to artists, particularly those whose works sell for low prices initially or who are only recognised later in their career. It is a very important piece of legislation and I commend it to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 8792 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 8793 18:00:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I intend to speak only briefly, because I note that the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is not here to move amendments. Once again, we see another complete debacle by this haphazard minister, who, frankly, could not organise his way out of a wet paper bag. This has been a debacle from day one. We now see yet another example of the minister being unable to be present. On that basis, I confine my remarks until the minister arrives. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—It is my intention to just wait for a minute until the minister arrives. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr CIOBO —Madam Deputy Speaker, there is no provision for that— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The minister has arrived. I thank the honourable member. Minister, do you have a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill to present? HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr Garrett —I do. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —If you do, could you please present that? Thank you. The honourable member for Shortland has the call. 8793 18:02:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I rise to speak on this legislation. The bill creates a— 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Before the honourable member has the call, there are some procedural matters that I have to attend to. The first is this: Minister, that is the explanatory memorandum? Thank you. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Madam Deputy Speaker, I raise a point of order. It is confusing as to what is going on. We have the minister, who is apparently tabling a secondary explanatory memorandum. Who has the call—the minister or the member for Shortland? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The honourable member will please take his seat. We are moving through the procedures. Minister, are you seeking leave of the Main Committee to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together? 8793 18:02:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am actually presenting the supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill, which I have here, and seeking leave of the Main Committee to move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together. Leave granted. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —I thank the Main Committee. I move government amendments (1) to (4), as circulated, together: (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (lines 1 to 12), omit the clause, substitute: 2   Commencement          (1)    Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Provision(s) Commencement Date/ Details 1.  Sections 1 and 2 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2.  Sections 3 to 5 A single day to be fixed by Proclamation. However, if any of the provision(s) do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the first day after the end of that period. 3.  Part 2 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 2. 4.  Part 3 The day on which this Act receives the Royal Assent. 5.  Parts 4 and 5 At the same time as the provisions covered by table item 2. Note:   This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.          (2)    Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act. (2)    Clause 3, page 4 (after line 10), after the definition of unlawful non‑citizen, insert: works of visual art has a meaning affected by subsection 7(2). (3)    Clause 3, page 4 (lines 11 and 12), omit the definition of works of graphic or plastic art. (4)    Clause 7, page 5 (lines 7 to 14), omit the clause, substitute: 7   What is an artwork?          (1)    An artwork is an original work of visual art that is either:               (a)    created by the artist or artists; or               (b)    produced under the authority of the artist or artists.          (2)    Works of visual art include, but are not limited to, the following:               (a)    artists’ books;               (b)    batiks;               (c)    carvings;               (d)    ceramics;               (e)    collages;                (f)    digital artworks;               (g)    drawings;               (h)    engravings;                (i)    fine art jewellery;                (j)    glassware;               (k)    installations;                (l)    lithographs;              (m)    multimedia artworks;               (n)    paintings;               (o)    photographs;               (p)    pictures;               (q)    prints;                (r)    sculptures;               (s)    tapestries;                (t)    video artworks;               (u)    weavings;               (v)    any other things prescribed by the regulations. The Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008 will deliver on the government’s election commitment to introduce a resale royalty right for Australia’s visual artists. It will create a right for artists to receive royalty payments from subsequent sales of their artworks and, importantly, will establish a statutory scheme to enforce the right and collect and distribute royalties. This bill reflects the government’s commitment to enlarging the creative opportunities of our artists. It will complement existing copyright and moral rights legislation, providing artists with due recognition and a potential additional source of income. The resale royalty right created in the bill is intended to allow visual artists the benefit from the commercialisation of their work in the secondary art market. Visual artists derive their main source of income from the first sale of original artworks and do not currently have the same range of opportunities as other creators, such as authors and composers, to earn money through exercising their copyright in their work for reproductions, public performances or broadcasts. The proposed model as set out in the bill has been developed to reflect the particular characteristics of the Australian art market. Here it is worth recognising that the visual arts sector in Australia is vast and varied. This bill sets out a model that carefully balances the interests of artists, dealers and consumers. It is thoroughly researched. All options were considered and, most importantly, it was carefully tailored to suit Australia, and that included giving particular consideration to the Australian constitutional and legal system. The bill was referred to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts to examine the bill’s content and structure to ensure it met its stated objectives. The committee’s report was delivered on 20 February this year. I acknowledge and thank the committee for its work in conducting the inquiry and delivering its report. The government has carefully reviewed the committee’s report and recommendations and has also taken into consideration the views expressed by stakeholders. The government’s official response was presented to the parliament on 28 May. The important thing to note is that the committee found there was widespread support for a resale royalty scheme and on almost every single issue the bill gets it right. But it is the case that the government decided to accept four of the committee’s recommendations and agree partially or in principle with another two recommendations. These matters will be dealt with through minor amendments to the bill and clarifications of the EM and through the tender documentation and contract with the appointed collecting society. The government has also decided not to agree to four of the committee’s recommendations in relation to prospective application and special provisions for Indigenous artists or art centres on the basis that they have the potential to compromise the validity of the legislation, create significant legal issues or counteract the integrity of the government’s resale royalty policy. The one critical issue raised by the committee relates to the prospective application of the scheme, which means that the right will apply to resales only where the seller has acquired the work of art after the legislation takes effect. The committee requested that further legal advice be sought on this matter but that following that the bill should proceed. The government received further legal advice on the recommended matters, and following that advice I believe that prospective application of the scheme continues to provide a constitutionally and legally sound model for introducing a resale royalty right in Australia. Furthermore, the government remains of the view that applying the scheme retrospectively would expose the Commonwealth to significant risk. As well as responding to the government’s legal framework, the government’s model protects the rights of existing owners of artworks and ensures that everyone purchasing an artwork after the scheme commences will do so with the knowledge that a royalty payment may be required when that artwork is sold. This arrangement will also allow businesses in the Australian art market to adjust to the right gradually, thus ensuring a smooth transition for the scheme. The scope of the scheme will grow over time, delivering benefits to artists and their heirs. The government’s proposed model is the one that will actually deliver a resale royalty scheme for visual artists, giving them greater access to rights in their artworks and potential future income. It is a system that will stand the test of time. It ensures certainty. It will provide support and recognition for generations of artists to come. I wish to speak briefly on the matter of the government’s proposed amendments and seek leave from the committee to continue my remarks. (Extension of time granted) The government’s proposed minor amendments to the bill further clarify its intent and ensure the smooth operation of the scheme. Firstly, the government proposes to accept the committee’s recommendation to broaden the definition of what constitutes an artwork to include further examples that were listed previously in the explanatory memorandum. Clause 7, which explains what is an artwork, will now include examples such as batik, weaving, other forms of fine art, textiles, installations, artists’ books, carvings, multimedia artworks, and digital and video art. This list will provide guidance to art market participants without excluding forms of art that are not specifically listed. The term ‘graphic or plastic art’ has been replaced by the broader term ‘visual art’ to reflect the broader list of examples. This change is consistent with recommendations that were put forward by artists’ representative groups. In addition, a new regulation-making power has been included to allow further examples to be added to the list of artworks if this becomes necessary to reflect future changes in artistic practice. These changes have clarified the situation for anyone affected by the bill and make it easier to understand which artworks would qualify for the scheme, thereby reducing the potential for uncertainty or disputes to arise, creating greater certainty for artists and art market participants. The second proposed amendment will alter the commencement date of the scheme, as set out in clause 2. The government proposes that clauses 3 to 5 and parts 2, 4 and 5 of the bill should commence on a day to be fixed by proclamation. These elements of the bill refer to the nature of the resale royalty right and its enforcement, which cannot be implemented until a collecting society is selected to monitor and administer the scheme. As an open and transparent selection process cannot be conducted until after the legislation is enacted, it will not be possible for these elements of the scheme to commence on 1 July 2009, as currently proposed in the bill. I commend the bill to the chamber. 8797 18:10:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —When it comes to the arts, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts could not organise his way out of a wet paper bag. I am afraid that, once again, we have seen in evidence this evening this government’s completely botched attempts to deal with legislation—botched in a whole range of ways. The first was when the original piece of legislation introduced by the minister was immediately referred to committee for further review, and the committee report, which the minister has referred to, outlined a number of recommendations. It was botched again when this minister in this Labor government sought to have the bill listed for debate prior to actually having responded to the committee’s report. It was then botched for a third time—and from memory it was ahead of the budget recess—when the minister was asked in the chamber whether the legislation would be up for debate and whether he would be seeking the opposition’s response to the legislation, and I was assured, ‘No, that would not be the case.’ Yet, about 10 minutes later, I found myself requiring to seek the call from the Speaker to debate the legislation—legislation put forward by the government that did not incorporate in any way the government’s response to the committee’s recommendations. Now, we have another botch from this government. It is only by the skin of his teeth that the minister has been able to serve the interests of the Australian arts community, he would claim, by moving the four amendments that he has spoken to. I note that recently the minister received an award in France for his service to the arts community. Can I say to the minister: I am glad he received that retrospectively because I am certain he will not receive one prospectively based on his performance over the past 12 months. In speaking to the manner in which these amendments have been brought forward, I would like to briefly run through what has actually happened with respect to the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008. On 3 October 2008, the minister released a media statement heralding the introduction of the resale royalty right; 19 days later a ministerial statement was provided in the House to which I provided the opposition’s point of view; 56 days after that, legislation was introduced and the second reading speech took place, and the matter was referred to committee; 141 days after that the committee tabled its report; 168 days after the introduction of the legislation, I was required with less than 10 minutes notice to speak to the legislation that I had been assured would not be listed for debate—legislation which I knew at the time the government would be seeking to amend to respond to the committee’s report but which the minister had not yet formally done; and then 238 days late, the minister finally tabled his response. So, 321 days later, nearly a full year, debate on the bill has resumed after I agreed to allow debate to occur in Main Committee—otherwise, I dare say, we would still be waiting for the legislation to become enough of a priority for this government to introduce it in the House of Representatives. Here we are in September: this debate is continuing and I expect the legislation will be passed by the lower house. As I have said, the opposition will not seek to frustrate the passage of this legislation. Bear in mind that this piece of legislation—so called Labor’s honouring of its election commitment—was meant to have taken place on 1 July 2009. Having now seen this timetable completely eroded, completely slipped through the fingers of the muddling Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, we now have a new start date being the date of assent. From day one, we have seen botched handling of this piece of legislation, this so-called Labor election promise. I certainly know that those in the arts community who have watched this debate closely for some time now recognise that this has been a debacle. (Extension of time granted) On 28 May 2009, the minister released a media statement in which he says: The resale royalty scheme is one of the Government’s key election commitments— if this is a key election commitment, I would hate to see a non-key election commitment— and will give artists the right to earn ongoing income from their work—long after the initial sale. How prophetic those words are—‘long after the initial sale’. The reason they are prophetic is that the National Association for the Visual Arts said in a press release on the same day, 28 May 2009: The Australian art community could not be more disappointed in the artists’ resale royalty bill which passed through parliament today. …            …            … Especially in the current economic downturn, this— the legislation, the framework— could have provided urgently needed help to some of Australia’s lowest income earners. This compromised scheme will take about 20 terms of government before it is fully functional. In lay terms, NAVA predicts it will be about 60 years before this scheme is functional. So when the minister says that this will provide support for Australian artists ‘long after the initial sale’ he means to be taken quite literally. According to NAVA, it will be about 60 years before these artists start to see any real income as a result of their labours. I have outlined, from a coalition perspective, our support in principle of resale royalty rights, but make no mistake: the coalition’s proposal would have been quite different from the government’s approach. That is why I have committed the opposition to reviewing this botched scheme when we are elected at the next federal election. So from my perspective I think all Australian artists recognise that this government’s so-called interest in the Australian arts community is little more than lip service. It certainly could not amount to anything other than a botched debacle from day one. We know that Australian artists are extremely concerned about the way in which this legislation not only inadequately provides for the needs of Australian artists, not only inadequately provides for the particular needs of Indigenous Australian artists but also fails to provide for the needs of art dealers and the arts community and those engaged in the sale of art works. I had have some concerns raised with me by, for example, eBay who have very genuine concerns about what this framework will mean on those selling art works via eBay and whether or not eBay itself will be responsible. Because of this government’s approach to the liability issue in terms of who is required to pay, we know that they have effectively sought to paint the entire wall as to who may be responsible for the liability to meet the need of paying the resale royalty. There is so much uncertainty about this legislation. There is such a long lead time with respect to this legislation. I know from speaking with a number of people, not only artists but also operators who are selling art works, that the communal voice is that the scheme put forward by the minister reeks of debacle and reeks of not having been paid due care and attention. That is the reason we have seen that this framework will no doubt continue to be an ongoing sore for this Labor government. If we were elected, it would be an ongoing sore for the coalition. That is the reason we remain committed to ensuring that this particular framework, in due course, is corrected and puts Australian artists, and most importantly the protection of their intellectual property and the ability for them to earn income from their intellectual property, high up where it should be while not unduly encumbering those who are engaged in secondary art market sales. So right from the get-go we have seen problems with this. Whilst I commend the work of the committee, and I certainly recognise that the minister has in good faith adopted a number of the recommendations of the committee, there is no doubt that this simply is not a priority for the minister and that is detailed and exemplified by the sloppy approach when it came to even passing this legislation, whether it was listed for debate, whether it was pulled for debate, whether the minister was on time to move the amendments and whether the amendments would have lapsed because the minister arrived 15 seconds late. Australian artists, among the best in the world, deserve better care and attention from this government. 8799 18:20:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —Can I just make one observation in respect of the shadow minister’s remarks. I think that he would agree with me that it is important to get this legislation, the Resale Royalty Right for Visual Artists Bill 2008, right. That is what the government has aimed to do. It has done that by listening extensively to the stakeholders in the visual arts community—the artists, those who are involved in the art market and those who are involved in the secondary art market. I think it is entirely appropriate for us to have significant opportunities both for that consideration and for the debate to unfold. I am very pleased to be able to come into the Main Committee to continue that debate and to reflect how seriously the government has taken this resale royalty legislation. I think it is important, particularly in light of what the shadow minister said, to point out that we do want to make sure that everybody has an opportunity for all the issues of importance to be fully canvassed and represented to the government. I have had the opportunity to hear from the auction houses, from the visual arts community itself and from individual artists. I have to say that I do not share the pessimism of some, including NAVA, that this scheme will not bring any benefits for a period of some 60 years. In fact, I am very confident that it will bring benefits much, much sooner than that. I am particularly confident of that because the scheme that the government has brought forward and is proposing is one which strikes the right balance between the need of the art market for certainty and the desirability of visual artists actually having a copyright, which in the medium and longer term can derive some ongoing benefit for them and for their heirs and successors, and I think that is critical. I say that particularly in the context of Indigenous artists in this country, who have long suffered the ignominy of seeing resales of their work at greatly appreciated values not returning them any benefit whatsoever. I know that everybody here in this Main Committee would agree that that is not a desirable situation. So I do want to thank the shadow minister for his commitment to not frustrate this legislation and for his recognition that we have taken into account a number of the matters that were raised by the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts in its consideration. But I will just make this point: Australia’s visual artists have had to wait 12½ to 13 years for this legislation. It was important that we gave every opportunity not only for the parliament but for the public to consider very fully what the government was bringing forward, and I believe that we have done that. The time is now due. As I flagged in my summing up speech, the amendments that are in front of us further clarify the bill’s intent. They will ensure the smooth operation of this scheme. I am very pleased that we are able to reach this point of commending these amendments to the chamber. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. 8800 Bills R4160 8800 Debate resumed from 22 June, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 8800 18:24:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009. This bill is principally directed to the case management processes in the Federal Court of Australia, although there are some relatively minor amendments also directed to the Family Court and the Federal Magistrates Court. Case management is the practice whereby judges control the progress of a case through the preliminary stages prior to trial so as to ensure that the parties keep to an appropriate timetable, that the issues in the dispute are narrowed and that unnecessary costs and delays are avoided. The bill introduces an ‘overarching purpose’ to case management, which is ‘to facilitate the just resolution of disputes according to law and as quickly, inexpensively and efficiently as possible.’ This is further defined, inter alia, to require ‘the resolution of disputes at a cost that is proportionate to the importance and complexity of the matters in dispute.’ Parties to a dispute must conduct the litigation in a way consistent with the overarching purpose and legal practitioners will be obliged to assist their clients to comply with that duty. Costs orders will be used to compel compliance and they will also be available against lawyers personally. Other sanctions may include orders for the dismissal of proceedings or limitation of the case a party may wish to present. In addition, there are amendments to curtail appeal rights in respect of interlocutory orders to refer any matter for alternative dispute resolution and to charge the heads of each federal court with responsibility for the effective discharge of the business of the court. While the intention of the bill appears fairly innocuous, it is important that the bill be closely scrutinised for potential problems. In particular, it needs to be recognised that there can be a tension between the concepts of efficient case management and the interests of justice. This was recognised by the High Court in State of Queensland v JL Holdings Pty Ltd, 1997, where it was held that case management principles could not supplant the attainment of justice. The overarching principle proposed by the bill seems intended expressly to equate efficiency with justice. As mentioned in the Bills Digest, the bill proposes that certain alternative dispute resolution processes be used in federal civil proceedings as a means by which disputes may be resolved more cost effectively and efficiently. Alternative dispute resolution is a general term referring to processes other than litigation used to assist people to resolve various disputes. It is important to note that there are different types of such processes, and particular types of alternative dispute resolution processes suit particular types of disputes. This bill has been referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee for inquiry and report by 17 September. As at 7 August, only one substantive submission had been posted on the website of the legislation committee’s inquiry into the bill itself, and that was from the Law Council of Australia. The Law Council generally welcomes the reforms which are the subject of the bill, and states: The concept of ‘mega-litigation’ has in recent times drawn attention to the impact that private disputes can have on the courts and the strain that such litigation can impose on the scarce public resources required to fund the court system. The costs of lengthy and inefficient litigation are carried not only by the parties themselves but also by taxpayers who fund the operation of the justice system. Judicial salaries, court officer and registry staff salaries and court premises costs are incurred unnecessarily by litigation that is not efficient or cost-effective. If inefficient litigation monopolises court resources, then those that cannot afford protracted litigation are prevented from accessing the justice system. However, the Law Council points out that there are certain provisions in the bill that should be considered further. They include: in respect of proposed paragraph 37N(2)(b), requiring a legal practitioner to assist clients to comply with the overarching purpose of the litigation extends the obligation on legal practitioners beyond acceptable limits and potentially creates difficulties which could effectively frustrate the whole aim of the overarching purpose; in respect of proposed clause 37N(4), application of this provision could effectively enable the court to consider matters ordinarily the subject of settlement privilege, thereby impliedly abrogating that privilege; in respect of proposed paragraph 37P(3)(c), this provision exceeds the acceptable level of control by the court by fundamentally affecting the way a party through its legal representatives makes decisions about the best way to present its case, which the Law Council believes is the prerogative of parties in adversarial proceedings; in respect of proposed clause 24(1AAA), decisions about the security of costs are not ‘minor interlocutory decisions’ and should be subject to appeal, as such decisions could have profound consequences for parties to proceedings; and, in respect of proposed paragraph 21B(1A)(b) of the Family Law Act and related proposed provisions in the Federal Court and Federal Magistrates Court acts, enabling the chief judge to restrict a judge to non-sitting duties potentially interferes with the exercise of those judicial powers and may compromise judicial independence if that power is misused. While several other submissions have been received in relation to the inquiries undertaken by the Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee, these generally relate more narrowly to the terms of reference of those inquiries and not to the provisions of the bill itself. In conclusion, the coalition foreshadows amendments to the bill pending recommendations made by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs References Committee. 8802 18:30:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak on behalf of my constituents who really believe that access to justice is important. I speak in favour of the Access to Justice (Civil Litigation Reforms) Amendment Bill 2009. We have inherited the British legal system. In the UK the courts ran themselves for many centuries, usually with the support of the monarch of the time. After Australia was settled, the law of the UK was brought over in 1828. The rise of equity overcame so many of the failings of the common law. The judicature acts in the 19th century in the UK brought much needed reform to its court system. But for much of our legal system, which was established at Federation, there was not much change until we saw the rise of the federal court system in this country. Law reform was initiated by then Attorney-General Sir Garfield Barwick, to give him his due, in relation to the Matrimonial Causes Act and then by Attorney-General Lionel Murphy in the 1970s. But for much of Australia’s legal and constitutional history there was not much change when it came to how courts operated and functioned. Effectively, under our adversarial system, litigants and their lawyers determined how cases would proceed. Judges stood back and listened. They participated, gave sage advice, gave a sage summing up if it was a jury or made a judgment at the end of the case. But that involved lots of delay. When I started practising as a lawyer in the early 1980s that is really how the system operated. We still saw that in the civil courts of the states. There was reform with the federal Family Law Act and the establishment of the Family Court and the Federal Court, but they were in an embryonic state even in the early 1980s. Courts cost money—they cost a lot of money to run. Litigation costs a lot of money for litigants. It is extremely expensive. The Attorney-General in his second reading speech on 22 June said: Put simply, without an accessible system of justice, the public’s confidence in the rule of law is compromised. If justice is accessible only to the very wealthy, it loses relevance for the vast bulk of Australians. I agree with what the Attorney-General had to say. What we need is court systems—federal and state—which are efficient, inexpensive and expeditious. In my years practising as a litigation lawyer I saw many cases turned away, many cases frustrated and many cases delayed not only by the conduct of other lawyers, litigants and the inadequate funding of the court system but also by the idiosyncrasies and eccentricities of certain judges who might not have wanted to hear a case on a particular day. On many occasions discovery, interrogatories and the appearance and preparation for an interim or a final hearing were delayed, allegedly for good reason, without costs orders being imposed on those litigants or the lawyers who procrastinated and obstructed the operation of the court system and the expeditious hearing of litigation. What we need in this country is to make sure that the rules and regulations for uniform civil procedures that we saw, say, in Queensland and New South Wales and elsewhere are put forward into the legal system at a federal level. We have seen, for example, under the Family Law Act in the Federal Magistrates Court, regulations and rules. Perversely, the Federal Magistrates Court often has different rules from the Family Court, even in exercising family law jurisdiction. We need to make sure that our judges have clarity when it comes to the statutory guidelines in making decisions. But we also need our judicial system to provide an efficient, cost-effective service to the Australian community. The amendments here do provide for streamlining and for more efficient appeals with respect to the Federal Court in civil proceedings. They also enable the chief justices of the Federal Court and the Family Court and the Chief Federal Magistrate to ensure that they can efficiently discharge the duties and responsibilities of the court in the administration of justice in a way that is cost-effective and smart. I really appreciate the amendments that we are seeing here today, because they will enable courts to more actively manage, in terms of the case management proceedings of the courts, the kind of cases in civil proceedings which are dealt with by the Federal Court and, indeed, the Family Court as well. So the legislation before the chamber is about effectiveness, accountability, transparency and accessibility. The amendments include an overarching obligation on the Federal Court. That overarching obligation covers both litigants and legal practitioners, to ensure that there is a resolution of disputes in a just and timely way, quickly, inexpensively and as efficiently as possible. There is clarification with respect to the kinds of directions a court can make to ensure that court proceedings progress through to a resolution by alternative dispute resolution methods or by way of mediation outside of the alternative dispute resolution proceedings of the court or, indeed, to a final hearing or an appeal. I am pleased that costs are, potentially, able to be imposed upon litigants and lawyers who fail to comply, consistently, with the overarching purpose or objective, because there were many times in my experience as a lawyer where I turned up to court with a client, prepared, only to find that the sloppiness, the failures, and the downright deliberate acts of the other side intentionally to frustrate the court system, resulted in no cost penalty being imposed upon that litigant or upon their lawyer, who often participated or collaborated in the way in which his or her client frustrated my client’s attempt to have justice done on that particular day. The sections dealing with costs are important and timely. It is important that we know that if someone misbehaves with respect to the directions of a court then there are consequences, because if there are no consequences then people simply feel that they can get away with it. What happens then is that we all pay, because litigation is delayed. It means that litigants suffer. And many of these cases involve companies and businesses, and lives are affected in terms of economic loss, emotional cost to the litigants and, in matters to do with family law, real familial dislocation, conflict and aggravation. So the legislation before the House is very important in terms of dollars, but it is also important in terms of people’s domestic arrangements and the business operations of our economy. I think it is important that we should support this legislation. It makes clear that costs orders can be imposed upon people if duties and specific conditions and directions made by the court are disobeyed. There is much confusion with respect to rules and regulations and guidelines— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 6.40 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 8803 Statements by Members 8803 8804 18:40:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I take this opportunity to congratulate a group of young Canning girls on their outstanding efforts in raising awareness about poverty in Third World countries. Last week I welcomed the opportunity to visit the Roleystone based 11th Perth Girls Brigade. During this year’s Simply Sharing Week the Girls Brigade participated in the ‘Make poverty history—not just about food’ campaign. The Girls Brigade have presented me with 19 drawings representing issues causing poor food security and linking them with ways they can be improved. The campaign is designed to raise awareness about the accessibility of food in developing countries, unequal distribution of food and unfair trading policies. The girls impressed me by realising that food security is not just about hunger and malnutrition. They are calling on Australia to keep its Millennium Development Goals promise to help eradicate hunger and extreme poverty by 2010 by increasing aid. The girls have taken a particular interest in the Bangladesh situation where water pollution often contaminates food supplies and two million children under five years old are malnourished. They have really done their homework and learned a lot. Congratulations must go to group leaders Jane Hawkins and Yvonne Waddell on encouraging such a strong sense of social justice in the girls. It is great to see young girls taking an interest in policy matters and gaining a genuine understanding of the challenges facing developing countries. 8804 8804 18:41:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I recently had the pleasure of meeting with young motor trades pre-apprentices and apprentices who have been given a head start by the Motor Traders Association Apprenticeships Plus program. This program is a federally funded, six-week training course for pre-apprentices. The most recent class was generously hosted by Jim Kalamiotis at Penrith Mazda, who opened his dealership to 16 young people aged between 15 and 22, to help begin their motor trades training. The pre-apprentices who recently graduated from the MTA program completed the first six subjects of a motor trades course and have learned some of the basic skills needed in the industry. This not only makes them more attractive to potential employers looking to take on new apprentices but also helps to give them confidence and direction. I would like to congratulate Jim, service manager Robert Borg and the team at Penrith Mazda for their commitment to giving young people opportunities to begin their trades training. I would also like to acknowledge Michael Wentworth of the MTA for his enthusiastic support of each program participant and his passionate belief in giving young people a go, and Ian Palmer of the Schools Industry Partnership, who has been involved in linking the MTA with young people in the area. A trades qualification is just as valuable as a university degree. Combined with the two trades training centres in my community funded by the Rudd government, programs like the one run by the MTA are helping to give young people a chance to realise their potential and make a positive contribution to our community. 8804 8804 18:43:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to bring to the attention of this parliament a very serious problem which is threatening the livelihoods and potentially the health of fruit growers on the Granite Belt in my electorate of Maranoa. The Granite Belt boasts highly reputable wineries and fruit orchards. However their viability is being threatened by the city-centric Queensland state Labor government, which cares more about securing Green votes than it does about the orchardists who grow our apples, cherries, olives and many other summer fruits. Last year the Bligh government revoked damage mitigation permits and imposed a ban on using lethal methods to control flying fox populations. Despite their promise to have non-lethal deterrents in place in time for this next season, they are nowhere near ready and so the Granite Belt orchards remain vulnerable and in danger of being destroyed by flying foxes. But this is not only an issue for the viability of these orchards and the families they support. It is also a health issue. Bats are a natural reservoir for many deadly diseases, including of course, the Hendra virus. Just last week, Rockhampton vet Alister Rodgers lost his life after contracting the disease from an infected horse. It may only be a matter of time before this virus is transmitted directly from bat to human. Of course, I am against the mindless culling of these animals. But in order for us to protect one of Australia’s strongest fruit-growing regions, to protect the viability of these businesses and ultimately to protect lives, we must accept that lethal control methods are the most effective and most humane option. (Time expired) 8805 8805 18:44:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —Postnatal depression is a very serious illness. It affects many women in our community. Terry Tindall, the prime petitioner associated with the petition I have in my hand, lost his daughter, Gemma, to postnatal depression. Since the loss of his daughter, he has been involved in trying to get more resources for women that suffer from postnatal depression. He wants to set up a regime that promotes recognition of this serious illness and he wants to promote this to medical practitioners and organisations within the community. Terry believes that in the area that I live in, the Hunter, there needs to be some sort of facility where women suffering from postnatal depression can stay with their baby whilst they recover from this serious illness. Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to present this petition, and ask that the Standing Committee on Petitions examine it and put their mind to this very serious issue. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The document will be forwarded to the Standing Committee on Petitions for its consideration. It will be accepted subject to confirmation by the committee that it conforms to the standing orders. 8805 8805 18:46:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —The New South Wales Labor Party has increased power bills by over 20 per cent this year, with more increases to come. Already small businesses and farmers are struggling to make ends meet with this massive fixed costs impost. One small business owner in Molong has seen his power bills skyrocket by $4,000 a month from four years ago. A local fruit grower told me that from June to July this year his electricity costs for cold storage increased by $1,000. This is before any ETS is foisted upon us, which ABARE states will increase power bills by a further 24 per cent in five years. The nation cannot afford Rudd’s ETS, and people in regional Australia know that they will have to bear the brunt of Rudd’s desire to make himself look like a hero at Copenhagen. In the central west we grow pretty much all the food you can think of, from fruit and vegetables in Bathurst and Orange to cereal crops and meat further west. Because food producers are price-takers they cannot afford major increases in costs associated with the production of food and fibre because the margins are not there. Food processing, including abattoirs, is also a very important source of employment in Calare. Rudd’s ETS will put Australian businesses out of business, not only because of the increased costs imposed by the carbon tax but also because they will have to compete with a flood of products from offshore that will not be subject to any carbon tax. Coles’ and Woolworths’ loyalty to buying Australian grown produce is only as skin-deep as their next PR campaign. (Time expired) 8806 8806 18:47:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —Fremantle has a rich history, going back thousands of years with our Indigenous people and more recently with our migrant history. Women have played an integral role in that history, but to look at the public art, monuments and celebrated stories of Fremantle you would be forgiven for thinking that no women were present in any of this. The idea of giving proper public recognition to the contribution of women to the Fremantle community has been around for a while. There have been efforts over the last several years to take the idea forward by such women as my predecessor, Dr Carmen Lawrence, June Hutchison, Jean Hobson, Shirley Mackay, Kathy Anketell and Zita Pal. On Thursday, 3 September I convened a meeting of interested community members at the Fremantle Film & Television Institute to continue this discussion of the celebration of Fremantle women, past, present and future. Among the many people present, it was pleasing to see a number of Fremantle city councillors. A great number of ideas were generated. In particular the creation of a significant piece of public art, the designation of a public park and appropriate street names, and the publication of a book on Fremantle women were some of the ideas that captured the imagination of the group. The group will be meeting again soon to further these proposals and to discuss ensuring that International Women’s Day is proudly celebrated in the Fremantle community in future years. I look forward to reporting to the House on the progress of this project, and I encourage all members to ensure that the contributions of women are appropriately publicly recognised in their own electorates. 8806 8806 18:49:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I wish to bring to the attention of the House the need to continue our moves across the nation to advance recycling so that it becomes a core part of life, and, in the words of Bob the Builder, to reduce, reuse and recycle. I recently had the pleasure of a visit to the Visy recycling plant on the Gold Coast, and my thanks go to Greg Cowling, the Supervisor Waste And Recycling Services, and Councillor Bob Le Castra, the chair of the relevant Gold Coast City Council committee for facilitating the visit. The Gold Coast recycles up to 300 tonnes a day, and has a vibrant domestic and export market for the recycled produce. I particularly want to acknowledge one of the coast’s leading recycling proponents, Kenton Campbell, the CEO and founder of Zarraffa’s Coffee. Kenton’s initiative to look at the life of a cup demonstrates clearly how companies can take a leading role in recycling much of the waste from their company activities. Kenton’s move was to track the life of a simple coffee cup used in many coffee shops around the world. He looked at how that coffee cup starts and then moves from being ordered to being used by a consumer to going into recycling bins. He looked especially at cups that have no liners but, rather, use fully recyclable materials so that the cups no longer become waste going into landfills but can be properly recycled. I commend the work he is doing and I commend the work of the House in moving towards sustainable recycling in everything we do. 8807 8807 18:50:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —Last Thursday two significant events were held in my electorate of Page. One was in Grafton and was called Deadly Days. The other was in Lismore and was a jobs forum called Keep Australia Working. Deadly Days was supported by the Australian government and overwhelmingly supported locally. I commend the TAFE’s North Coast Aboriginal Learning Partnerships for their work and in particular Tony Driese for his work and commitment to making sure it was successful. There are actually three of them over the whole North Coast, but this particular one was in my electorate. I also want to thank local musician and Indigenous woman Evette Clague, who represented me at the Deadly Days and gave a lovely speech, which was prepared in braille so Evette could read it. I want to publicly thank her for that. I also thank the 110 community members, representatives of business, industry, unions and local government, including the mayors of Coffs Harbour, Tenterfield and Lismore, for their part in the success of the jobs forum. I thank Jason Clare, Parliamentary Secretary for Employment, and Bill Kelty, who was there as a local jobs champion, particularly a jobs champion for regional Australia, for helping to run it. I thank Christine Williams, the interim local employment coordinator, and I welcome on board Terry Watson, just appointed as the local employment coordinator. 8807 8807 18:52:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —In the past I have spoken on many occasions about the suburb of Girrawheen in the south of Cowan. It is without doubt an area of unfulfilled potential, but it is challenged by lower socioeconomic circumstances. In moving around Cowan I have found there is generally a feeling of optimism for the future, and in most places retail sales remain strong. However, not everyone is doing well and today I will mention a group of people I recently met who work hard to help those who are struggling to put food on the table. I was recently driving through Girrawheen and stopped to visit the Northway Christian Centre. The Northway Christian Centre is under the leadership of senior pastors John and Julia Warwick. However, I would specifically like to mention their ‘Jesus Bread’ ministry, which involves the distribution of food to local less fortunate people. On the day of my visit I saw a line of people receiving a box of nutritious food and they were grateful for that food. Con Opranesu and Kevin McAloon explained to me how the ministry works and I saw the volunteers hard at work providing for the needs of the community. Included amongst those volunteers were Allan McFadyen, Marjorie McFadyen, Aneta Opranescu, Dannielle Gardener, Carmen Savencu, Gary Burton, Claudia Gherca, Iris and David Bunton, Dante Mariani, Rob Harvey, Mihai Sica, Diana Sica, Carmen Wiltshire, Naomi Kum Sum Park, Ray Tomlinson and Michael Mulligan. I understand some of the volunteers have themselves turned from their own paths of self-destruction, leaving alcoholism and other challenges well behind them, yet they now serve God and show his love to the people of Girrawheen. I wish them well in the work they do and I appreciate their efforts, as I am sure do those who have need of the ‘Jesus Bread’ ministry. 8808 8808 18:53:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I rise to congratulate the parents, teachers, principals and supporters of each and every primary school in Parramatta on the fine work they are doing to roll out the Building the Education Revolution in the Parramatta community. I have been doing my own inspection tour of proposed works in Parramatta and I cannot commend highly enough the commitment, flexibility and talent of our local principals. Already I have turned the first sod at St Monica’s, North Parramatta, on a $3 million multipurpose hall—rather, I did not turn the sod, I stood and gave the thumbs up to a man in a giant borer nearly two storeys tall who proceeded to drill a large hole in the playground. I remembered that borer a few days later when the school captains and I struggled through the rocks and root-bound dirt at Dundas Public trying to turn the sod there: it took us 10 minutes, and it was only the raucous barracking of the other students that got us through in the end. But at St Monica’s it was smooth sailing with the borer, and the Catholic Archdiocese of Parramatta deserves congratulations for how creatively they have used the stimulus investment. Their already high level of preparedness has meant that they have been able to incorporate the new stimulus hall into the heart of a complete rejuvenation of the school. The new school design is amazing and will deliver a truly 21st century learning environment for the children at St Monica’s. Last week’s round 3 announcement added more than $22 million for more than 30 projects in 13 Parramatta primary schools and took the total BER investment in Parramatta past the $100 million mark for the first time. I am looking forward to many, many more sod-turning ceremonies. (Time expired) 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—In accordance with standing order 192A, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 8808 Private Members' Business 8808 Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Parke: That the House: notes that: over 2,000 nuclear weapons tests have been conducted between 1945 and 2009; the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) bans all nuclear test explosions in all environments, for military or civilian purposes; the sixth Article XIV (Entry Into Force) Conference of the CTBT will be held 24-25 September 2009; for more than half a century, countless scientific experts, political leaders and community organisations have pursued the goal of a more secure world free of the dangers of nuclear weapons test explosions; the CTBT is important to all states because it stigmatizes nuclear testing, halts the qualitative and quantitative nuclear arms race and the development of increasingly more destructive weapons, and protects human health and the global environment from the devastating effects of nuclear weapons production and testing; and nine states required for the entry into force of the treaty have not yet ratified the treaty; and calls on the Government to: renew and sustain dialogue with those nine states that have not ratified the CTBT, urging them to do so without delay, most notably those states possessing nuclear weapons, the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People's Republic on Korea; call on all states possessing nuclear weapons to refrain from research and development efforts that could lead to new warheads and the possibility of the resumption of nuclear testing; participate in the Article XIV Conference at the highest level; and continue to participate and support the development of the CTBT verification regime, including the international monitoring system. 8809 18:55:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —In January 2007 the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists announced that they were moving the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock from seven minutes to midnight to five minutes to midnight. They said: We stand at the brink of a second nuclear age. Not since the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki has the world faced such perilous choices. This issue can be said, without exaggeration, to mark a line between two starkly divergent human destinies, between a future in which human civilisation—with all its many flaws and challenges—nevertheless manages to move forward to a nuclear-weapon-free world, or a future in which humankind continues to inflict upon itself and the planet the Promethean curse of nuclear weapons. The fact that we have existed with nuclear weapons but without nuclear war for several decades should not create the impression that this is a sustainable state of affairs. As long as nuclear weapons exist in the world the chance of their use not only persists; it grows. The reality is that with every passing decade the number of countries in possession of nuclear technology and capability has increased. We now face the further frightening prospect of non-state possession of nuclear weapons. This notice of motion is timely for three reasons. The first is that the sixth Article XIV (Entry Into Force) Conference of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty will be held later this month, on 24 and 25 September. The second is that the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties is currently undertaking an inquiry into nuclear non-proliferation and disarmament. Its recommendations are intended to contribute to the work of the International Commission on Nuclear Non-Proliferation and Disarmament. The last and perhaps most important reason is that, on this issue, every day is a timely occasion. Every parliamentary and public consideration of the need to work against the threat and the spread of nuclear weapons is timely. The dual tracks of non-proliferation and disarmament have been identified as the paths to a nuclear-free world. However, recent years have seen global negotiations stagnate. The comprehensive test ban treaty, which bans parties from carrying out any nuclear tests, has been identified as one of the most important steps towards revitalising global efforts to achieve non-proliferation and disarmament. The CTBT is designed to stop both the a priori development of nuclear weapons capability and the enhancement of any existing capability. It is therefore both a non-proliferation measure and an effective step towards disarmament. However, this important treaty, which has already been ratified by 149 countries, cannot come into force until it is also ratified by the following nine countries: United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Israel and Iran. It is thought by many that US ratification will create the impetus for ratification by other states. In this regard, recent statements by President Obama that his administration will immediately and aggressively pursue US ratification of the comprehensive test ban treaty are very heartening. I note the statement in the President’s inauguration address: With old friends and former foes, we will work tirelessly to lessen the nuclear threat… We in Australia can count ourselves in the category of old friends. I endorse the remarks of the member for Wills, my colleague and chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, when he said in a recent speech to the Medical Association for Prevention of War that Australia can make a contribution by signalling our support for US nuclear disarmament notwithstanding the benefit we derive from our defence alliance with America. Australia can further contribute by taking the actions enumerated in this motion. Finally, I want to mention Jo Vallentine, a former Australian senator and long-time antinuclear campaigner and Fremantle community activist. Jo was arrested a couple of months ago in Fremantle while making a robust but peaceful protest against war and nuclear weapons. I am not in a position to comment directly on her arrest, and that would not be appropriate. But on this occasion, in speaking about the international effort to combat nuclear weapons through agreements like the comprehensive test ban treaty, I want to recognise the efforts that Jo and others, including Greens Senator Scott Ludlam and Fremantle ALP member and Vietnam veteran Chuck Bonzas, have made and continue to make. It is only through action at every level—government and citizen, local and international—that we can seriously hope to make progress towards a world without nuclear weapons. Otherwise, as perceptively penned by Judith Wright, ‘in one stroke we win the world and lose it’. 8810 19:00:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I welcome the opportunity to make a contribution on this motion, as it relates to the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. The treaty was established in 1996, and the core provision of the treaty is the prohibition of all nuclear explosions by all nations. When the treaty was created, there were 44 nations specifically mentioned as having nuclear capacities. The treaty must be signed and ratified by all those 44 nations. Unfortunately, nine of those nations are yet to ratify the treaty, meaning that nine more ratifications are needed before it can come into force. Those nations are China, North Korea, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Pakistan and the USA. Australia has a proud record on this treaty. It should be recalled that the treaty in its draft form did not receive the consensus agreement required at the Conference on Disarmament. Disregarding the Conference on Disarmament, the Howard government went forward on this issue and submitted the draft treaty to the General Assembly of the United Nations. The treaty was sponsored by Australia and attracted the co-sponsorship of 127 other nations. The treaty was adopted by a very large majority. Australia was a signatory on the day that the treaty opened for signature, 24 September 1996, along with the five declared nuclear weapons states. The treaty was signed by the Howard government and it was also the Howard government that ratified the treaty in 1998. Whilst it is true that we have a good record on this treaty and on disarmament as well, there is still much to be done. The coalition remain fully supportive of the aims of the treaty and continue to call on nations to ratify it. We also urge the government to use its influence to encourage other nations to ratify the treaty. Further to that, I serve on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is undertaking an inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation. I share the strong interest of other speakers on this motion and note that we are all members of the committee. With regard to further action by Australia, it is certainly my view that every time one of our committees, delegations or individual study tour participants travels overseas the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, along with other treaties that relate to issues of key importance to Australia, should be raised as a matter of course. Australia can send a very clear and consistent message to the world in this way. I spoke before about the actions taken by the Howard government in stepping past the Conference on Disarmament’s inability to achieve consensus in 1996. Having had the opportunity to recently observe the Conference on Disarmament, I wonder whether that organisation has become any more effective in the intervening period. It is my view that it has not. Yet it is not the Conference on Disarmament that stands in the way of this treaty. That is now about the nine countries that have not ratified it. The final resolution of this matter represents a very complicated scenario if one considers that this is as much about foreign affairs as it is about weapons. We already know that France, the United Kingdom and the Russian Federation have not stood in the way and have ratified the treaty. We now face a situation where the future of this treaty depends on unreliable nations that play completely by their own rules. It is hard to see Iran or North Korea signing up to the treaty. It is open to speculation that the key to getting most of these nations to ratify the treaty is the USA. If the USA ratifies then it will be all the more difficult for the other nations, such as China, Egypt, Indonesia, Israel and Pakistan, to stand back. That of course brings it down to whether President Obama is able to get the US Senate to agree to ratification. It has been suggested that if China made a supportive statement on the treaty that would also assist in providing the domestic goodwill that would ease the opposition in the USA. The harsh reality is that there is great doubt whether nations like Iran and North Korea can be negotiated with and whether they can be relied upon to honour agreements. The other point is that what these countries may ask for may be too much to give. In closing, I will say that Australia has an excellent record regarding the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. We have a good history of work at the Conference on Disarmament. We can use this history for effective negotiation and advocacy in the ways that I have previously described. Every elected representative at federal or state level, together with every official in the service of Australia, must take the opportunity to speak for and advocate for the treaty and for every other treaty that Australia wishes to see in force. We have great potential and we must achieve that potential. I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion forward and I commend the other speakers for the strong and bipartisan support that exists in this place for the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. 8811 19:04:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —The fact that we have now survived over 60 years of the age of nuclear weapons without descending into nuclear holocaust has been the cause of a lot of analysis and discussion. I think one factor that should be acknowledged is the role of the non-government organisations around the world that have stubbornly refused to recognise any legitimate role for nuclear weapons. They have helped ensure that a climate in which the use of nuclear weapons might seem legitimate could not arise. Just this afternoon I met with representatives of the United Nations Youth Association. Their South Australian president, Catriona Standfield, gave me a document making the case for nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. It is a great credit to these young people. It reminds me of this expression: never doubt that a small group of committed and dedicated people can change the world—it is, in fact, the only thing that ever has. It is important to understand that the friction between the nuclear haves and the nuclear have-nots is alive and well. Throughout the history of the nonproliferation treaty, the nuclear haves have stressed nonproliferation—that is, making sure that no other country gets nuclear weapons—while the nuclear have-nots have stressed disarmament—that is, obliging the nuclear armed countries to get rid of their bombs. Developing countries complain of double standards. They point out that all of the IAEA inspections are of the non-nuclear states and say, ‘We don’t see “disarmament agencies” being set up by the nuclear haves, the countries with nuclear weapons.’ Too often this difference of approach has led to international stalemate. Clearly, we need to have action on both fronts—nonproliferation and disarmament. That is where the comprehensive test ban treaty comes in. This treaty bans parties from carrying out any nuclear weapon test explosion or any other nuclear explosion and requires them to prohibit and prevent any nuclear explosions in their territory. It is both a practical step towards disarmament and an effective non-proliferation measure. This treaty is incredibly important in halting the momentum for nuclear proliferation and ultimately ringbarks the nuclear weapons tree. In order for the treaty to come into effect it still needs to be ratified by the United States, China, India, Pakistan, North Korea, Indonesia, Egypt, Israel and Iran. That is a very tall order—small wonder it has not happened. The announcement by President Barack Obama that he supports ratification of the CTBT and will seek to have this treaty ratified by the Senate has given it new life and momentum. Its fate in the Senate is, however, uncertain and it is pretty apparent that prospects in the US could not withstand another unsuccessful attempt at Senate ratification. Therefore, President Obama is not expected to move on this until he is confident he has the numbers. The timing of this might not be helpful in terms of the forthcoming NPT Review Conference. This need not reduce us all to impotent bystanders, wishing and hoping for the best from the Senate. Dr George Perkovich, from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said in evidence to the parliament’s Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, which is carrying out a major inquiry into these issues, that friends of the CTBT should go to the countries whose ratification of the CTBT is needed and seek their agreement that, if the United States and China ratify the CTBT, they will do so as well—that these countries will not be the impediment to the comprehensive test ban treaty entering into force. His second suggestion was very specific for Australia—that we should say to the United States Senate that signing of the CTBT is not abandoning US allies and that we do not seek the protection of the US nuclear umbrella and would welcome a world without nuclear weapons. I support both of those proposals. Borrowing a little from the late great Edward Kennedy, the dream of a world without nuclear weapons is a dream that must never die. We must never accept that it is alright to live in a world where some people have the power to kill tens of millions of their fellow human beings and make the planet uninhabitable in a heartbeat. This must never be acceptable. I congratulate the member for Fremantle on bringing this motion before the House. It is very timely. I also commend the other members of the treaties committee who are contributing to this debate. This is an issue whose time has come. We have the NPT Review Conference scheduled for next year. We need to re-energise the debate on both nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. Given the shot in the arm, the stimulus, given to it by President Barack Obama in Prague earlier this year, this is the time for action to be taken. 8813 19:09:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I commend the member for Fremantle on this motion and I am pleased to join her in supporting it. As the members who have already spoken about its nature have said, there is no doubt that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty is a very valuable and important plank in the whole suite of measures to rid the world of nuclear weapons. It has been in existence for over 60 years, and I can remember as a child not being able to sleep at night because of the media talking about the threat to the public of other countries’ nuclear weapons. In those days, it was different countries from the rogues of the modern era. I am very pleased that Australia plays an important and significant role in the treaty, and we are well regarded for the contribution we have made internationally in that respect. The member for Wills mentioned the parliamentary Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and the recent reference from the government to conduct an inquiry into nuclear nonproliferation and disarmament. While it is not my purpose to breach the normal rules of privilege that cover committee inquiries, I would like to say it was a very fulfilling task. With other members of the committee—the member for Wills, the member for Cowan and the member for Shortland—I was privileged to visit Geneva, Vienna, Washington and New York, which are the central locations for discussions on this matter. The member for Wills is quite right about the timeliness of the motion by the member for Fremantle here today. There is a new optimism, and we all remain hopeful that President Obama can bring his congress along with him to back what he has made clear is his aim—to overcome the stagnating progress on the whole issue of nuclear nonproliferation and particularly disarmament, because it holds back those who want to challenge the ‘haves’ because they allegedly are ‘have-nots’. The years of lack of progress have been very frustrating, but this new sense of optimism has actually renewed my own sense of enthusiasm. I had become somewhat cynical about the world’s capacity, even the capacity of the United Nations, to assist in the acceleration of progress on nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation, particularly progress on this particular treaty. It is a very sad reflection on the capacity for progress that the big ‘haves’ have not been willing to ratify the CTBT. So I am encouraged by this new optimism. The motion moved by the member for Fremantle mentioned the international monitoring system, and it was very encouraging to see the part that Australia has played in the implementation of that monitoring system and to see where all the data is collected on the receiving end in Vienna, where it is housed. Not only has Australia provided sites for monitoring; professional Australian staff are also providing their expertise and experience to implement the rollout of the monitoring system as well as authenticate it so that no-one will doubt the observations that it records. It was very impressive to see that display. That system involves the collection of data on not only earth tremors but also gas emissions, which makes it unquestionable that a test has occurred when one does occur. When North Korea recently conducted a test, the world knew straightaway that somebody had set off a nuclear charge. We need to engage with and fund the ongoing activity to verify this monitoring system so that the data is unquestionable. Then we might all be able to sleep at night. In conclusion, I commend the member for Fremantle for moving this motion. I express my renewed hope that we can establish a corporate world determination to bring nations like North Korea to account and I express my own renewed confidence in the capacity of the UN and its resources to progress the matter. While my view was once that the UN was an expensive and convoluted talkfest, it has been modified by the recent visit I was privileged to be part of. I commend the motion to the House. 8814 19:14:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I would like to commence my contribution to the debate by commending the member for Fremantle for bringing this motion to the parliament and also for the work that she has done on the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties in relation to the current inquiry that the treaties committee is holding into nuclear disarmament and nonproliferation. This is one of the issues, if not the most important issue, confronting civil society. Unless we can resolve this issue, unless we can have a world free of nuclear weapons, the challenges and the implications for the future are enormous. As the member for Fremantle notes in her motion, there have been over 2,000 nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 2009. In 1995 I travelled to Tahiti at the time that the last nuclear weapon was detonated in that country. Whilst I was there I met with many people that had lived there through the whole series of French testing. I kept in touch with them for quite a while after that visit to Tahiti. But over the years there have been fewer and fewer of them, until now there are none that I keep in touch with. And you might ask why. The answer is quite simple: they have all died. They have all died of cancer related diseases. That in itself is one of the issues that should make it so important for us as a parliament, and for the world as a whole, to confront. When it comes to nuclear weapons, there is no winner. That is the important message: there is absolutely no winner. The country that has the biggest and the most weapons, the largest stockpile, is not the winner. Any nation that is depending on one of those countries for support is not a winner. And those other countries that do not have supplies of nuclear weapons are not winners either. As the member for Wills pointed out, there is a definite divide between those that have and those that have not. Those that have want to ensure that there is no nonproliferation and those that have not want to bring about disarmament. I, like the other members that have spoken on this debate, am a member of the treaties committee. I went to Geneva, Vienna, Washington and New York and whilst I was there I felt some optimism, as did the other members. But I also felt that, after so many years and so many efforts by so many people, we still seemed to be debating the same issues over and over again. When we attended the Conference on Disarmament I was really pleased that an agenda had been agreed to, an agenda of work. But then I was quite disillusioned when I heard speaker after speaker with one particular view standing up and pontificating and delaying the appointment of chairs of those committees. So, whilst there was an agenda to be debated, it could not be debated because the proper framework was not in place. I have been very heartened since President Obama came to power. I think that his speech on 29 May in Prague was one of those watershed speeches, one that set the agenda and showed that he is a person who is absolutely committed to nuclear disarmament. I think that the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty must be fully ratified and I urge those nine countries that have not signed it—including the United States, China, India, Pakistan, Israel and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea—to sign it. I know that President Obama is working within the US to see that that country actually does sign up. It is very, very important, coming up to the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty next year, that this issue has the support of all nations. Once again, I commend the member for Fremantle for bringing this to the House and I think it is one of the most important motions that could be presented. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 8815 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Hartsuyker: That the House: condemns the Government’s decision to allow the importation of bananas from the Philippines in view of the direct threat such imports pose to the disease-free nature of the Australian banana-growing industry; and expresses concern that: there is a high prevalence of banana pests and diseases in the Philippines; the decision has apparently been taken in disregard of previous failings by the Australian Quarantine and Inspection Service to secure our borders against damaging infections and diseases; and the health of the Australian banana-growing industry will now depend on the inspection regime in the Philippines. 8815 19:20:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —The private members motion which I have moved today represents an opportunity for the government to show that it does care about Australian agriculture and that it does understand the concerns of banana growers. Across the farming and horticultural sector the Rudd government’s Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry is starting to be referred to as the minister for Punchbowl. Members would all be aware that Punchbowl is a major part of the minister’s city seat. There is, of course, nothing wrong with Punchbowl, except that members would be aware that it is not a region renowned for its agricultural production. Farmers are becoming increasingly concerned that the government’s minister for agriculture is demonstrating that he has no understanding, no empathy and no comprehension of many of the key issues which relate to agriculture. Instead of standing up for the sector which he is meant to represent, we now have a minister who is simply becoming an apologist for the poor policies of the Rudd government. The issue of importing bananas from the Philippines is a prime example. The Australian banana industry has more than 800 growers and employs some 5,000 people. Despite declining prices for their excellent product, the industry survives because growers operate efficiently and because they produce quality product which is essentially disease free. That will all be at risk if the Rudd Labor government gives the green light to the importation of bananas from the Philippines. There are many reasons that we should not permit bananas to be imported from the Philippines. There is the risk of disease, there is the threat to our food security and there is the impact on banana-growing communities if such an industry were shut down. However, the overwhelming issue here relates to the science and risk management measures which have been applied in Biosecurity Australia’s import risk assessment of Filipino bananas. There is a real threat of disease from these imports which could wipe out our local industry. The Australian banana industry boasts a clean green image. Unlike in many other countries, our bananas are relatively disease free. That makes the Australian banana a quality product and the envy of many other nations. It therefore defies belief that the Rudd Labor government would consider permitting bananas to be imported from a country which has a disease record as prevalent as the Philippines has. Biosecurity Australia’s import risk assessment into Philippine bananas is long on rhetoric and short on detail, particularly in relation to the risk management measures aimed at preventing disease being imported into Australia. It is of great concern that our national industry is dependent on processes taking place in the Philippines. Of primary concern is BA’s visual inspection process which they say will be put in place to mitigate the threat of disease. We have no idea who is going to conduct these inspections. We have no idea how thoroughly it will be conducted. We have no idea as to whether those being charged with the responsibility of protecting Australia’s interests may be subject to a conflict of interest. Will Australian quarantine officers be inspecting the bananas on the ground or will they be hiring Filipino contractors to perform this role? What processes are in place to guarantee the integrity of these inspections? How comprehensive will these inspections be? How comprehensive will the sampling process be? I see the member for Kennedy in here and he is obviously concerned about the import of bananas into this country. There are also significant costs in relation to this process. Who will bear the costs? What processes are in place to check whether there is any prospect that there is corruption in this process? We all remember the EI outbreak, which almost brought the equestrian industry to its knees. That was caused by an AQIS mistake. That was something we were able to recover from, but with the banana industry there are no second chances. For the benefit of members, let me put on the record for the House that once a foreign disease enters into this country there will be little or no chance of eradicating it. From that point of view and that point of view alone, the risk of importing Filipino bananas is just too great. The recent inquiry by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport ordered that, prior to any permit being issued for Filipino banana imports, AQIS and BA shall provide the committee with a detailed list of the risk management measures and the administrative requirements relating to them. The important part of the committee’s recommendations is that they focused not on the theory of how this might work and the procedure manual that is dumped in the corner and disregarded. They were more concerned with how these risk management measures would work commercially on the ground in the Philippines—the actual way they would work in practice, not in theory. During a visit to my electorate by the National Party leadership team of Warren Truss and Senators Joyce, Nash and Scullion, we took the opportunity to meet with a number of banana growers. We met with Ron Gray, Wally Gateley, David Pike and David Tate in Coffs Harbour. They were very concerned about the prospect of banana imports. They were very concerned, indeed. They were very concerned about the fact that, in the area of the Coffs Coast and around Coffs Harbour, if disease was to get into those plantations on the steep hillsides where access for machinery is very difficult it would be virtually impossible to eradicate. So any imported disease whatsoever would be the end of the Australian banana industry. That is of great concern. Coffs Harbour banana growers do not want to see their industry decimated. Coffs Harbour banana growers do not mind fair competition, but they do not want competition that is going to introduce diseases and pests which will be impossible to eradicate, which will decimate our industry and which will be bad for Australia in general. The growers also raised the issue of food security. The fact is that we have had drought in this country and the world’s growing population means that, more than ever, Australia needs to be able to guarantee that it is able to feed itself and that it is able to continue to produce high-quality fruit and vegetables into the future. Importing Filipino bananas can only work against that end. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter interjecting— 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —But we are talking about— 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—The honourable member will not respond. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr HARTSUYKER —Thank you, Member for Kennedy. I am sure that you are as passionate about the import of bananas as I am. You are very much an outspoken member on the issue of bananas. But we have the opportunity today for the Labor members opposite to actually support their local industry, to actually support the call that the government not permit the importation of bananas into this country. We have the member for Leichhardt here, and I am sure that his local growers would be very keen to see our local clean, green image maintained and the potential threat from imported Filipino pests averted. Also, the member for Page, who will be speaking in this debate later, has growers in her electorate. I know that they will be very keen to see that the importation of bananas from the Philippines will not go ahead. It is vitally important that we ensure the integrity of our quarantine system and that we ensure that we have an effective quarantine system. Despite that, the fact is that there is a risk. What we are talking about here is the fact that importation from a place where pests and diseases are as prevalent as they are in the Philippines means that it is not a question of if pests and diseases will be imported into Australia on Filipino bananas; it is just a question of when. If we allow imports from the Philippines, where there is basically every banana pest and disease known to man, it is an absolute certainty that our industry will ultimately bear the brunt of those diseases. It is an absolute certainty that these diseases will arrive on our doorstep. It is an absolute certainty that our industry will be decimated. I for one do not want to see our local banana industry decimated. I for one want to see the Rudd Labor government stand up for our local banana growers, stand up for our local industry and stand up for the fact that we need to maintain our clean, green image. The risk from Filipino banana imports is too great. It is a risk that the local Coffs Harbour and Coffs Coast banana industry cannot bear. It is a risk that the Australian banana industry cannot bear. Filipino bananas must not come into this country. 8817 19:30:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise to speak on the motion concerning the importation of bananas. This is a very serious issue, and it is an issue of particular importance to the region that I represent—Leichhardt and tropical North Queensland. I see the member for Kennedy, who is from that part of the world, in the chamber. I look forward to his contribution because he is very clear on this matter. He does not change his point of view, and he stands by what he says. His position is very different from that of the National Party. The member for Cowper spoke on this motion prior to me. It was the National Party who started this process back in 2000. It was their idea. It was the National Party, who, when in government, were working through and implementing this import risk assessment. We have picked up the National Party process and have continued on with it. That is the reality of being in government. I do not seek to move around on this issue. What I seek to do is outline the situation of the import risk assessment and the quarantine system in this country. The reality is that the National Party are political opportunists. They do not actually represent or stand for anything. When they were in government, they were like mice on this issue. Now that they are in opposition they are like elephants on the issue, stomping around the place and wanting to make a big noise, but they did nothing while in government. They did not deliver anything. I can assure members that this government has moved through the process. It has recognised that the import risk assessment process needs to be scientific. We went back and made sure that the bar was raised significantly higher than the import risk assessment established under the previous government—and the bar is now significantly higher. Like the member for Kennedy, I do not want to see bananas imported into this country. I do not want to see that, but the reality is that we export sugar, which also comes from tropical North Queensland. And we export beef and wheat. We are out there in the international community arguing that countries should open up their markets. We cannot make the simple statement that we are not going to accept bananas from the Philippines while we are out there arguing for our wheat, beef, wool and sugar to be exported to other countries. We need to make sure that our scientifically based quarantine inspection process is properly run and assessed, and that is what the government is seeking to do. I come from a rural background. I was born on a property in the Territory. My parents grew bananas around the Adelaide River. When I was a kid, we sent the bananas to Darwin to be sold. That is how my mum and dad made a quid. I have packed bananas. I have worked in a banana packing shed. I have been down to Innisfail and Tully—the areas that Mr Katter represents—to help people there to clean up after tropical Cyclone Larry. I have great empathy and great passion for the industry. I do not have many banana farmers in my electorate—maybe none—but I do know that it is an important economic driver for the community that I represent. It supports a range of different people—local Indigenous people and other local community people. It also supports tourists from all around the world who come to Australia to backpack around the country and to work in the local communities. It is an important industry and it drives my local economy. I recognise that there is real risk from banana imports from the Philippines, but we cannot just say no. We need to work through properly established quarantine processes and laws. That is what the government is doing. Minister Burke also appreciates the situation. I have written and spoken to him about it and he has responded to the issues that I have raised. The government appreciates and understands the concerns of banana growers who want to ensure that their industry remains free of pests and diseases. This is why the Australian Director of Animal and Plant Quarantine has established a stringent quarantine policy for the importation of bananas from the Philippines that is consistent with Australia’s conservative approach to quarantine. The Philippines will be required to demonstrate to Australia’s satisfaction that the risk management measures set out in the determination can be achieved under commercial conditions on an ongoing basis before trade can commence. AQIS officers will be applying Australian quarantine conditions in the field, including inspecting, verifying and auditing processes in the Philippines both before and during the export of bananas. In addition, the Philippines will need to undertake laboratory and field experiments prior to exports occurring. Australian quarantine inspectors need to go to the Philippines and they need to ensure that our quarantine standards are met. We do not want to see bananas imported into this country, but we cannot just say no. We have got to go through a proper quarantine process. We have raised the bar very, very high, and I do not think that we will see bananas imported into this country. But we cannot say no; we have got to go through appropriate quarantine processes. This motion has been moved by the National Party, but I do not think there are any Nats north of Bundaberg anymore. This is supposedly a party that represents rural and regional Australia but cannot win a seat up in North Queensland. It does not represent too any people in rural and regional Queensland. We have a Liberal up in Herbert, Mr Lindsay; we have got an Independent, Mr Katter; and we have got the member for Flynn, the member for Dawson and the member for Capricornia—who are all good Labor Party members. Like me up in Leichhardt, they are looking to represent rural and regional Australia. The National Party are opportunists. They do not actually seek to do things in government; they seek to take opportunities and they do not actually stand for anything. But we do. 84F Washer, Dr Mal, MP Dr Washer —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The motion is about pests and diseases, it is about inspection in the Philippines. The member is not being relevant. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—I think the member is responding very closely to the comments that were made by the mover of the motion, so I would say that the member is relevant. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —The National Party does not like a few home truths being told to them. The reality is that this process was started under Warren Truss, the current Leader of the Nationals. I am sure that the member for Kennedy will not only talk a bit about the banana industry but also about the dairy industry, and he will make some comments about the National Party— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —And the grapes. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —And the grape industry. The import risk assessment analysis was commenced in 2000, an issues paper was released in May 2001, and three draft reports were released between 2002 and 2007. On 3 July 2000, Warren Truss stated that the IRA would allow for a ‘careful scientific assessment of quarantine risks as well as opportunities for widespread consultation with all stakeholders’. This is the Leader of the National Party today. This is what he was saying back in 2000, which is quite different from what we are hearing from the opposition benches today. On 28 March 2002, Mr Truss stated that the IRA would be a ‘rigorous one based solely on sound science’ and that ‘neither threats of trade retaliation by the Philippines or publicity campaigns by the Australian industry will be taken into account in the decision’. Following the change of government this process, which was already underway, was inherited by the current government. So when they were in government they were talking about taking a scientifically based approach and working through the quarantine processes. In opposition they are grandstanding on an issue for cheap political point-scoring. That is the reality of what they are doing here tonight. They are not dealing seriously with this issue, a really important issue. They are seeking to grandstand and to generate some votes in their supposed ‘heartland’, but they do not have any heartland up in North Queensland anymore. A draft final report was provided to the Eminent Scientists Group in mid 2008, and the final report was published in November 2008. It was then subject to an appeal period before being provided to the Director of Quarantine to consider the making of a policy determination. In line with Biosecurity Australia’s final import risk assessment report, issued in November 2008, the Philippines will be required to demonstrate to Australia’s satisfaction that the risk management measures set out in the determination can be achieved under commercial conditions on an ongoing basis before any trade can commence. Bananas from the Philippines will be approved for importation to Australia only if the Philippines can demonstrate that they can implement Australia’s required quarantine measures. The measures are designed to limit the risk of pest and disease entry to a very low level, consistent with the Australian appropriate level of protection. We have raised the bar very, very high. I do not want to see banana imports into Australia but, like I said, we export beef, wheat, wool and other things. We are arguing for the opening up of trade in other countries. We cannot simply say no to banana imports from the Philippines. We need to base our quarantine policy on solid science, and that is what the government have sought to do with our import risk assessment and the decisions that we will make about whether bananas can come into this country. Last Friday, I met Mark Nucifora, the Chairman of the Innisfail Banana Growers Association. When we won government I facilitated meetings between Minister Burke and the banana industry—with people like Patrick Leahy, the immediate past president of the Australian Banana Growers Council; Nicky Singh, the President of the Australian Banana Growers Council; Cameron Mackay, vice-president of the Banana Growers Council; and Len Collins, the imports committee chairman. So I have been talking to the banana industry. I understand how important it is. My door is open and I am keen to talk to them about further issues and concerns they have got. But I will take a scientific based approach to this—I will not seek to politically grandstand on this issue as the opposition have done tonight in bringing this motion on. The reality is that they started this import risk assessment—they started this process. The Rudd government have taken it over. We have raised the bar in terms of the import risk assessment. We have made a very difficult decision. I do not believe that we will see banana imports coming into this country. It was their IRA. We are getting on with the job of supporting rural communities in electorates like mine. 8820 19:40:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —It gives me great pleasure to support my colleagues on this private member’s motion tonight because I do not mind a bit of fun, quite frankly. I thought this was going to be a rather dry debate but here we have all manner of parties, and a ring-in, trying to prove who it was who did not introduce the risk of destroying Australia’s clean banana image. We have a reputation. I am going to refer specifically to— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Madam Deputy Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was referred to as a ring-in. I have been in parliament for nearly 35 years. I do not know how long this gentleman has been in parliament. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—The member has made his point. The member for Kalgoorlie will refer to members by their seat. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —I humbly refer to the ringer from Queensland as the member for Kennedy. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —The member should withdraw that. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —I withdraw any reference to you being a ring-in. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Kalgoorlie willing to give way? 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —Is it a question, Madam Deputy Speaker, or an interjection? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Yes, it is a question. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —I will accept a question, yes. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour —Given the way the opposition speaker is going on about this issue, I wonder whether he actually thinks it is a joke. This is a very serious issue. I wonder whether he actually does understand the importance and the seriousness of this matter. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —No, I do not believe this is a joke. I reject the mere insinuation by the member opposite—the member for Leichhardt—that I may think it is a joke. I have a responsibility for the Ord Valley, and the ever-increasing acreage of the Ord Valley, and the Gascoyne River plantation area, which has some of the finest bananas grown in Australia. This area is the origin of the lunchbox banana and the Sweeter Banana Company. How would I, Member for Leichhardt, consider taking this as a joke? What I am confronted with is a situation where there is a very strong likelihood that, under this government, including the member for Leichhardt, our internationally recognised green image is going to be destroyed; and that is no joke. The reason it may be destroyed is that you are going to make platitudes about the necessity of free trade and you are going to assume the position that you are all righteous in this matter, and I do not believe you have that righteousness. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Kalgoorlie willing to give way? 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —Yes. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr Turnour —I ask the speaker whether he thinks it is hypocritical to do one thing in government and another in opposition when it comes to banana imports. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr HAASE —I believe that it is right to do what is right, and today and tomorrow is what is important to banana growers in Australia—t yesterday, quite frankly. I can include in that logic the member for Kennedy, because he is a logical fellow and he knows that, regardless of the cause and regardless of the conduit, what we need is a disease-free banana industry in Australia. To put that at risk, for any political or philosophical view, is simply not good enough. I do not care about yesterday; I care about my growers, their reputation and their sales in Australia tomorrow. I know quite well a banana grower who has invested in Philippine banana production. He is also largely represented in Australian banana production. Even though it is his bananas that could be introduced from the Philippines into Australian markets, at possibly great profit, our green image is worth more to him, as an Australian banana grower—rather than to be opportunistic and import bananas from the Philippines to Australia, because a bird in the hand in this case is not worth two in the bush. He knows that our reputation, so bitterly fought for and so well deserved, could so quickly be lost. I, as I said, represent the expanding Ord River region—a potential additional banana growing area in Australia, and we need to keep that area pristine and green. There is no justification for relaxing quarantine protocol in Australia. (Time expired) 8822 19:45:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I take the issue of banana growers seriously, as I do the issues of horticulture and agriculture. I just wish that those opposite took the issue as seriously. The fact is that they have this motion before the parliament, when it is something that they initiated, and they should have the guts to stand up and say, ‘That’s what we did.’ It is absolute political cowardice to come in here and say one thing— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —You don’t understand what you’re talking about. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—The member for Kennedy will get the call to have his five minutes, and the member for Page will be heard. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —It is just total political fraud and political cowardice to do this. You should be honest with your constituents, honest with the members in the electorate. Of course we care about biosecurity. Of course we care about clean and green. Of course we care about the banana industry. But to act as though you have had nothing to do with this—that it just all of a sudden appeared—is absolutely ludicrous and duplicitous. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Page willing to give way? HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —Yes, I will. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —I wish to know what the Rudd government will do to stop the importation of Philippine bananas. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —The issue is about having the best possible biosecurity regime in place to give protection to our banana farmers. That is what the issue about. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Page willing to give way? HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —No. I have five minutes and I want to talk. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —Madam Deputy Speaker, I am still seeking an answer to my previous question. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —That is not a question. The member for Page has the call. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —This is actually duplicitous. I sit side by side with the member for Cowper, so I see what he does. He writes things down and says one thing here and then says another thing at home. I do not. I actually say what is going on. You remember Mr Truss? Mr Truss, your leader—the new face of the Nationals—has dishonestly tried to blame the federal government, when he himself initiated the very process which led to the decision. I am all about taking responsibility for decisions, and that is what the nine members of the National Party in the lower house should do—and not duck and weave and say one thing here and another thing back out there. It is absolute humbug. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the member for Kalgoorlie seek to ask a question? 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —No, Madam Deputy Speaker; I rise on a point of order. The member for Page would appear to be inferring that on this of the House sit three members of the National Party. Is she well informed or totally ignorant? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Member for Kalgoorlie, that is not a point of order. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —There is no point of order, but I am not ruling. This is just ridiculous. Banana farmers are owed— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! Would the member for Cowper like to ask a question or take a point of order? 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —I would like to ask whether the government will pay compensation for— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Are you seeking to ask a question? 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —I would love to ask a question. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Will the member for Page take a question? HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —No. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Cowper will resume his seat and the member for Page will be heard. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —You should have asked the question to Mr Truss, your leader. The key issue is about honesty with farmers. There is a biosecurity regime and it is a tough regime. The reality is that I cannot see bananas getting in here from the Philippines with the biosecurity regime. However, it is tough and it is one of the toughest. It is about being honest with the banana farmers about that. Colleagues in the National Party have really short memories about this issue, and that is just not good enough for people in the electorate. Yes, I care about what the banana growers want. Yes, I wrote to the minister for agriculture. I was in the media talking about it, saying I strongly supported— (Time expired) 8823 19:50:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I applaud the motion we are debating on the importation of bananas and I applaud the LNP for taking up the issue. By the same token, the comments by the government members are entirely valid. In seven years there was not a single application to come into this country that was rejected, so it is an act of extraordinary hypocrisy if they are coming up here and criticising the ALP. If the ALP deserve to be criticised for this decision, which they do, then those on the other side should be condemned a hundredfold because pork, salmon, vannamei prawn, grapes, durian, oranges and apples were all allowed into this country. The list is a mile long. We asked the AQIS people in North Queensland at their big meeting on bananas: ‘What application has been rejected?’ They went out and rang up Canberra and they could not find anything that had been rejected. There was an IRA produced. In fact, there were actually four IRAs produced, and at each stage there was a chance to object. The final IRA was done not by the ALP. The fourth IRA was done by the National Party. And the only question was whether these blokes were going to rubber-stamp your decision or whether they were not. Well, they did. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker interjecting— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —No, he said there is no decision. He does not understand what he is talking about, Madam Acting Speaker. An IRA is a decision—that is the decision. You do not seem to understand the process. I am quite happy to explain it to the honourable member afterwards. I have fought rearguard actions, as has the member for Mallee, on these issues continuously for a protracted period of time. Devastation has been wrought upon the Australian economy by the decisions which, in the main, were LNP decisions. Most of them took place under the LNP, not under the ALP. I am sure if Mr Keating had been there they would have taken place under him, but he was not there. They were there when all of these things happened. The net result is that this country is now a net importer of fruit and vegetables. This did not happen under the ALP. This happened under you. Each year it got progressively worse, and we have cried and screamed. The honourable member for Leichhardt says that we have got to be truthful and scientific. Well, I am very sorry but, being honest and truthful and scientific, these have endemic contaminating diseases. You should not allow anything that is an endemic contaminating disease to come into your country. Look at what they have permitted. They permitted beef to come in from Brazil! NV5 Forrest, John, MP Mr Forrest —Madam Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I apologise to the member for Kennedy but the whips have declared this discussion would take 30 minutes. The member for Kennedy has made his points. In accordance with the whips’ wishes, I suggest we move on to the next issue. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—I thank the whip for drawing that to my attention. I allowed an extra speaker as we had a few extra minutes, but he is correct. I am sorry, Member for Kennedy—the 30 minutes for debate has expired, even though your time has not. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Those on my right will not cast aspersions on the chair! The time allotted for the debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 8824 Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Collins: That the House: strongly objects to recent announcements by corporations, such as Telstra, that they will charge an administrative fee for payment of accounts by cash in person; notes this fee for payment of accounts impacts adversely on those people that can least afford it; and calls on the: Australian Competition and Consumer Protection Commission to investigate the impact on consumers of these type of charges; and Treasurer to review whether it is necessary to amend the Currency Act 1965 or the Reserve Bank Act 1959 to ensure that all Australians are able to make payments in legal tender in person if they choose. 8824 19:55:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I think it is really important that we in this place put on the public record our concerns about Telstra’s recent announcement that it will charge an administrative fee of $2.20 for each bill paid via mail or in person at a Telstra shop or an Australia Post outlet. From 14 September, anyone who chooses to pay their Telstra bill in person or even by mail will be charged $2.20 for each payment. I stand here tonight not on my own behalf but for the concerns I have received from my constituents, who are extremely angry and very upset about Telstra’s outrageous decision. The question is: why should anybody, young or old, rich or poor, be penalised for wanting to pay their telephone bill? But the bigger issue that really stems from this administrative payment is its impact on low-income families and individuals. Those who can least afford it will be slugged an additional administrative fee for a communications service—a service that I consider to be a vital part of their day-to-day lives. This decision has broad consequences, not only across my electorate of Franklin but for every other electorate across Australia, where the low-income earners and working mums and dads will no longer have a range of payment options that are free from administrative fees. When you consider the profit that Telstra has made over the past years, you have to question why it has introduced this $2.20 bill payment fee. Recent announcements about Telstra’s net profit in the last financial year state that it rose by 10.3 per cent to more than $4 billion. So we know this fee is not being introduced because Telstra is struggling. Those of us in this place know the history around Telstra’s journey to become the privatised company it is today. The decision to privatise was that of the former Howard government. Therefore, the current government has no ability to direct Telstra any longer. In my home state of Tasmania this administrative fee is really going to affect a large proportion of consumers, because there are two significant consumer issues in Tasmania. One is that Tasmania has the lowest proportion of households with broadband of any state or territory—39 per cent, compared to the Australian average of 52 per cent. So the electronic options to pay your Telstra bills, which are exempt from the fee, are out of reach for so many Tasmanians. The other issue in Tasmania is that Telstra has a very high market share, particularly in relation to landline services. The competition between telecommunication companies that we have on the mainland means that people have different options when it comes to service provision and customer care, but in Tasmania people find it much harder to vote with their feet and move between carriers and service providers because, when you look at the landline and mobile phone coverage in Tasmania, there are not exactly a lot of options. I know that many people living in rural and regional areas come across similar issues when it comes to competition. There is no market competition and people are forced to use the one company rather than have access to choice. I do acknowledge that Telstra has exempted registered pensioners from this new administrative payment. However, when you consider the number of low-income earners and working families who will be charged this fee, particularly in the state of Tasmania, which has the highest proportion of people in receipt of government support payments, it is really unfair. I believe Telstra should reverse its decision. If we do not speak up now, we could very well see other companies following in the same footsteps as Telstra, conveniently charging fees for people who choose the normal day-to-day activity of walking into a shop or an Australia Post outlet, or mailing their bill. They will be slugged with an extra charge for doing so. I hope that this private member’s matter is supported by both sides of the House. There is no doubt that this administrative fee will impact on many areas across Australia. It will mean that, if you do not have access to the internet to make electronic payments, you will be charged for paying your bill. If you read Telstra’s bill payment fee information, you will also be slugged more if you pay by credit card. I want to quickly read from this. If you direct debit from a credit card, you get an increased administration charge for processing credit card payments. A fixed direct debit from a credit card is the same. If you pay by phone with a credit card there is a higher percentage. For Telstra bills paid on the internet by credit card there is a higher percentage. If you pay by mail there is a $2.20 fee. If you pay in a Telstra shop by cash, cheque or EFTPOS there is a fee. If you pay in a Telstra shop by credit card there is a fee and the credit card fee—so two fees. If you pay in Australia Post by cheque, cash or EFTPOS there is a $2.20 fee. Quite frankly, I think that this is a really bad decision. I want to take as much action as I can to try and get it reversed. I am writing to Telstra to see if it will review this harsh, unfair and unjust charge. I am writing to the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ask it to investigate the impact of this inequitable and unreasonable charge. I am also going to write to the Treasurer to ask him to see whether it is necessary to amend acts of parliament to ensure that Australians are able to make legal payments in legal tender, if they choose to, without any additional financial penalty, because I believe we should all be able to. (Time expired) 8826 20:00:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I am pleased to join the member for Franklin in supporting this motion. I am hoping the debate will not be as rancorous as the one we had on the last subject in this chamber. I would like to add the voice of the hardworking people of Mallee in objecting to the strong-arm tactics being used, particularly by Telstra as the major telecommunications provider in Australia. The proposal to add the cost of $2.20 to each account payment not remitted electronically has not gone down well at all amongst my constituents. Over the years, as a member of parliament you get used to reading what will be an immediately significant issue. The phone switchboard lights up and the emails start flooding in when people take a strong objection to things that are done and they want to let their member of parliament know how they feel. There have been hundreds of emails on this subject. In fact, on this issue my office has had to implement some special monitoring to ensure that each complainant is registered so that I can get back to them. I am hoping that Telstra will recant this announcement. It certainly was extremely poorly handled by them. You would think that a prestigious organisation like Telstra would have access to better public relations sources than have been demonstrated by this announcement. The problem with Telstra’s approach on this issue is their vested interest. Forcing their customers to use electronic means by enforcing an account management fee if they do not, when Telstra also own that electronic resource and will earn the revenue which will come from the increased use of it, clearly declares their conflict of interest and is anticompetitive. The motion calls for the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to take an interest in this. I hope they are. It is one thing for Telstra to say it will save them costs, but it is another thing when they force customers to use services which they have the majority ownership of and hence will receive monetary benefit from. The way that this announcement was made was very disappointing. It has been hard to establish the facts on what Telstra now say are exemptions for people on social security benefits and the like. I cannot believe that Telstra missed a golden opportunity here. Instead of this big stick approach, if their assertion is that their collection costs are prohibitive, why not use a carrot? Why not offer a discount for the use of electronic services for the payment of accounts? That would create an incentive for people. Any loss of revenue as a result could clearly be taken up by what they allege to be their extra costs of collection through conventional means. This is an approach that has legitimacy if Telstra are genuine in their claim to be incurring unacceptable costs for the conventional payment of accounts. I also do not accept explanations from Telstra that low- and fixed-income customers will be exempt. It has been like extracting hen’s teeth to get advice out of Telstra about these exemptions. The fact that pensioners and welfare recipients will be exempt took too long to establish. Even then, the position was not clear. I have one particular example. Representations were made by my office to clear up the issue of how this would affect those people who are on an age pension but have no fixed loan account, only a mobile phone account. They were not to have exemptions. Telstra had not thought that through. I am advised that they are prepared to recant that somewhat, but in the next month or so of remittance of accounts we will see what Telstra’s real intention is. Then there is the position of self-funded retirees who are of an age where they do not want to be bothered with the internet. People in their 70s do not want to be bothered with the use of electronic gadgets or even the phone. What is the position for them? Will they be exempted as well? It is not clear. This is very arrogant behaviour by Telstra. It is not too late for them to recant this outrageous measure. I am very disappointed at this approach by one of the nation’s largest corporate citizens. If they wanted to save administration costs—and I will repeat what my constituents repeatedly advise me, and representations are still coming in—then they should focus on what they paid their CEO. He was paid far more than he was worth and far more than the alleged savings of this outrageous measure. I support the motion and the request implied in it for detailed examination of this matter. I appeal once more publicly to Telstra to recant. (Time expired) 8827 20:05:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I thank the member for Franklin for moving this motion on administration fees. I notice that the member for Page is in the chamber. The member for Page and I also have a similar, quiet pointed motion on the Notice Paper. Both of us, in the middle of last month, wrote to the new CEO of Telstra. This morning I received a phone call directly from Telstra’s Group Managing Director, Public Policy and Communications. He asked me specifically about the issue, which the members for Franklin and Mallee and others have mentioned in this place—as have I twice before. Essentially, he was asking me to reinforce the arguments that have been put. Most of us share the same demographics, and I put that clearly to him. I did say to him that Telstra has introduced the stick, which the member for Mallee alluded to, instead of the carrot. Telstra talk publicly about becoming a customer agent again, being customer focused and customer friendly, yet they tell us in a letter that on 14 September they are going to whack on charges for people who pay their bills across the counter and double penalise people who use a credit card. I said that was not customer friendly. My other point was—and it has been reiterated—in relation to the whole question of computer literacy and access to the internet. The older population are not happy, and in the main do not have the capacity, to use this. I am not saying that they cannot, but in the main they do not want to. When they go out to pay their bills once or twice a week social interaction takes place, and they are being charged for it. I hate to use the term ‘un-Australian’, but this is very un-Australian from an Australian company that has been performing in a very un-Australian way for several years now. I made clear to the policy director that this is their opportunity to change. There are concessions for health card holders. I suggested to him that many people just over the threshold experience difficulties with this. They are in the same age demographic as those on pensions yet are not able to access a concession. I suggested that he look at expanding the concessionary side of this un-Australian charge for paying your bills to Commonwealth seniors health card recipients. He gave a commitment that they would look at that. I also said that I wanted to speak to the CEO himself, Mr Thodey. I am expecting a phone call from him so I can make the views known—no doubt they are monitoring this. I made it very clear to him that this was an issue that is spreading across the parliament. I have letters here from Bass, which is not my electorate. I have several letters from my own electorate of Braddon. We have petitions going out in about nine or 10 different agencies. We have to send more petitions now because they are being filled up rapidly by people who are very upset by this. I am sure my colleagues in this House would have similar cases, particularly those with similar demographics to my own. We have to keep the pressure on Telstra. You have to continue to raise it on radio and television and through your newsletters. People are inundating us with phone calls and writing us letters. Here is one from Sorell in the electorate of Lyons. A chap claims that it is discrimination because they are allowing concessions for some and not others; they are forcing or herding people onto the internet when they do not want to be on the internet; they are setting up an anti-social system; and they are not accepting the coin of the realm, behaviour which he regards as illegal. So there is another movement going around that says, ‘Just don’t pay them full stop; throw your money over the counter and go “ta-ta”.’ He says, ‘They are that pathetic in giving their itemised accounts anyway that it’s going to take them months to catch up with you and by then they should have come to their senses and will phase this in properly.’ Like my friends the member for Mallee, the member for Franklin and certainly the member for Page have said: use the carrot, not the stick. At least phase it in, expand the concessionary element and start acting like a service agency, which is what Telstra, a mighty company, once used to be. Instead of paying out millions of dollars to CEOs to go ‘ta-ta’ to a failing company, set up a new standard of service in this country. 8828 20:10:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —To begin with, I would like to commend the member for Franklin for moving the motion before the House and also associate myself with the comments by the previous speakers. The motion refers in part to Telstra’s recent announcement that it will introduce a new bill payment fee of $2.20 for customers who choose to pay their bills by mail or in cash in person. The Telstra media release of 20 July 2009 announcing this decision said: Commencing on 14 September 2009, Telstra will charge a $2.20 administration fee for each bill payment sent by mail or made in person at a Telstra Shop or Australia Post, unless an exemption applies. It is obviously an effort by Telstra to coerce customers into using the bill-paying options which suit Telstra—that is, direct debit or internet based options, or phone options using credit cards. For many cards, the press release continued: The existing credit card payment processing fee will increase to one per cent of the payment amount … Telstra has informed my office—and I assume that many other members have been contacted by Telstra in recent times—that these other payment options are free to use, but the cynic in me wants to ask for how long their use will be free. Will Telstra guarantee that such options will remain free to use in the future? I seem to recall the Australian banking system encouraging more and more customers to use automatic teller machines, which were free to use when they were first introduced; then came limits on the number of transactions and, of course, fees for use. I can understand the business rationale behind Telstra’s decision but I am inclined to think the company is definitely putting profits ahead of people. I believe the decision is mean spirited and shows a lack of respect for the millions of Australian customers who support the company and its products. Changing customers’ behaviour through such punitive measures, even a relatively modest penalty of $2.20, is something I am not personally comfortable with, and my reservations are shared by many others in my electorate. I have received about 20 phone calls and letters of complaint from Gippslanders who are not happy about the changes, and I have asked the minister for communications to investigate the legality of introducing this fee for customers who are already on a contract with Telstra. There is no doubt that electronic transactions are becoming more popular, and it is probably an inevitable transition as younger, more tech savvy customers move through the system. But I fear that Telstra is trying to force a social change for economic gain, and it is effectively punishing its older customers and those who are less inclined to adopt new technology. Many people are simply not comfortable using new technology to conduct their financial affairs; they either do not trust the systems or have not developed the necessary skills. And I take up the point made by the member for Franklin that, in many of our regional communities, people simply do not have access to the broadband services required. This decision will tend to impact more heavily on people who can least afford it and those who are less educated, who are likely to have a lower income in the first place and may not even own a computer or have access to credit cards. Telstra says this is a commercial decision and the increases are consistent with industry practice—and, to its credit, Telstra has announced a range of exemptions from the new fees applying to pensioners, healthcare card holders and people with disabilities. But it does seem an odd situation when Australian residents are being penalised for using our legal tender. I welcome the motion’s further call on the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to ‘investigate the impact on consumers of these types of changes’. I also take up the member for Braddon’s remarks in regard to broader concerns about the more impersonal systems of automation which are replacing face-to-face contact, which has fallen out of favour as companies chase bigger profits. I do not think it is drawing too long a bow to relate that to the increasingly impersonal nature of many of our communities, particularly our major cities. If you walk down the street of any Australian city, you will pass dozens of people plugged into their iPods, mobile phones or other electronic devices; they will be talking to or texting someone else or listening to music. It seems to me that, the more connected we have become in terms of communications technology, the less connected we have become in terms of our personal interactions in our own communities. I am not suggested for a second that this is Telstra’s fault, but the decision to discourage people from actually popping into a Telstra shop or Australia Post to pay their bills is another small step down that path. It may seem like a relatively minor point, but discouraging another opportunity for people to actually talk to each other while conducting their business, rather than tap numbers on a keyboard or use some other form of automation, simply adds, I believe, to the social disconnect in our community. It may suit Telstra to force its customers away from paying their bills in person, but it certainly does not suit many Australians who do not trust electronic transactions and like the security of knowing they have actually handed over money to pay their bills. In the grand scheme of things, a $2.20 penalty may not appear to be a big issue, but it is amongst the people who have contacted my office and, I think, in the broader Australian community. This fee impacts more heavily on people who can least afford it and adds to the increasing social disconnection within our communities. I commend this motion to the House and I congratulate the member for Franklin for bringing the House’s attention to it. 8830 20:15:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I am also very pleased to support his motion and to highlight the growing disappointment of many of my constituents who are finding it harder to pay in cash for goods and services. This issue has once again been placed in the community spotlight after Telstra announced that a $2.20 fee will apply for each bill payment that is sent through the mail or made in person at Australia Post or at a Telstra shop from 14 September. While I acknowledge that Telstra are one of the last telecommunications service providers to implement such a fee and they have taken into consideration the need to make automatic and other exemptions, Telstra have contributed to the growing inequity of payment services which are rightly expected by the general public. Companies have set a dangerous precedent by isolating loyal customers who enjoy the interaction of one-on-one customer service. Unfortunately, this growing trend is not just isolated to telecommunications. Many other services are following suit by favouring electronic or phone payment services rather than encouraging face-to-face cash payments. There are still people in our community who are not comfortable with these payment options. The previous speaker alluded to that. While many of our seniors have embraced technology, others have been left behind. It is unfortunate that they will be the ones directly affected by this trend. Being required to provide one’s personal details over the phone or on the internet is just not accepted by some members of our community. It is disappointing that the alternative method of cash payments is now being charged for. Often many of the new payment options require one to have a credit card. While many people in our community have a credit card, there are community members who do not use a credit card because they do not wish to fall in the debt trap. Even though others may want to pay by credit card they may not be able to obtain one and therefore will not be able to use that method. As the motion states, it is likely those who can least afford who will be adversely affected by these extra charges to pay in cash. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom —It is a poverty tax. HWA Rishworth, Amanda, MP Ms RISHWORTH —It is a poverty tax. Many of my constituents often complain about the lack of customer service which they once enjoyed when purchasing goods or services. They remember a time when they built a relationship with their local service providers. Now these customers are today being charged to enjoy the pleasure of face-to-face customer service. I want to mention a couple of issues brought up by my constituents. Paul, a resident of Woodcroft in my electorate of Kingston, emailed me with his great disappointment over Telstra charging this fee in what he deemed an unnecessary charge for customer service. Paul raised a very important issue. He believes that this fee discriminates against people with no online access. We must keep in mind—and I know that members here today experience the same issue as I do in my electorate—that a lot of people do not have access to ADSL broadband and, even if they want to pay online, they are unable to do so. As an aside, I would like to commend the government’s visionary approach to building a national broadband network because this is very important, but there are many customers and people who do not have access to broadband and they need to pay in cash. From the correspondence I have been receiving from both Telstra and Optus customers, it is not just the fee increase that has angered them. They are frustrated that they will have to pay extra for what they see as a very basic service. Peter from Christies Beach has highlighted to me via email that it is an unfair charge, one which he believes is nothing more than a fee for nothing. This motion which seeks support for looking at this in a very detailed way is really just asking for a standard service in our community—the ability to make payments in legal tender in person if people choose to do so. I really support the part of the motion that looks at the need to investigate the impact that these types of charge have ant I commend the motion to the House. 8831 20:21:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —I congratulate and thank the member for Franklin for her very thoughtful contribution to this issue and her motion. One thing I hate is exploitation. The thing that comes just after that is opportunistic behaviour. This is a typical example of both. The old PMG and Telecom were known for their commitment to service. In recent years we looked to the changes in Telstra—and I will not bore you to tears by telling you about the last administration of Telstra but I thought it was appalling—and I had great expectations, as did my colleague from Tasmania, that with this change of administration we would see a commitment to customer friendly service and all those sorts of things. But what did we see? We saw a raid on our back pockets. The payment in cash in return for a service is the most fundamental form of payment there is. You can go back to pre-Biblical times and that was the way. You handed over your shekels for the service that was delivered or for the goods you were buying. But no, not with Telstra. No, no; they are different. They can charge you $2.20 for paying your bill in cash— An honourable member—And on time! KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —And on time—yes, of course. And then on top of that, what if you send it by post? Dear God! The temerity of putting it through Australia Post in an envelope! It is $2.20. And then on top of that again, if you have the further temerity to get out your plastic and pay for it then they will have another go. This has been going on for too long in Australia, and you do not expect one of the leading corporations of the country to be leading it. American Express. We will have to charge you a levy.’ It is as if you have got some sort of fungus on your hands. Or it is, ‘Oh, you are on Diners Card.’ The latest one I have seen is, ‘To even this all out we will charge you all another one per cent.’ I saw that in a prominent hotel in Sydney not more than two months ago. And the whole idea of this is to screw a bit more out of the client. In fact, I went to Gladstone not so long ago and I was actually charged $8 more for using an American Express card. I think it was $5 plus three per cent of the bill. That is sim-ply outrageous. If you are a businessperson and you accept the facilitation of American Express, Diners, Master-Card or Visa or whatever it might be, you are committing to that form. You are saying, ‘I am prepared to accept business on your terms.’ You cannot then say, ‘Well, I have accepted it on your terms but there will be a bit more for me.’ And that is what it is. Then when you come to Telstra, not only do they want to charge you the $2.20 for posting in your bill or paying in cash—paying in cash, I just cannot get over this!—but on top of that, if you are paying on Diners Card then you are up for another two per cent. So all in all, if you are a Diners Card customer, it is four per cent. I reckon this is wrong. It diminishes the quality of legal tender. We have 800 years of developed law that came from Magna Carta and the monasteries, the British parliamentary system, our own parliamentary system, and partly the American system. We have international codes of conduct and behaviour with finance, and it ill behoves a leading Australian company to be guilty of this sort of thing. I commend you, Member for Franklin. I support you in getting the ACC to give this a real working over. I really think that the Treasurer should seriously consider strengthening the legal tender provisions of the Currency Act. 8832 20:26:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I strongly support the member for Franklin’s motion and commend her for raising it. I note that the member for Braddon in his contribution cited the notice of motion that he had on the Notice Paper that he put forward and that I was seconding. It just shows that a whole lot of people in this place are responding to the anger, the disappointment and the dismay in the community and across the electorate. I can associate myself with all the comments of all the members who have contributed tonight and beyond tonight, because everybody is at one. It is something that has really ignited the whole community. I am a Telstra customer and I have got my bill, and in the bill it said a couple of things. It called it an ‘administration fee’. I call it a penalty. It is not an administration fee. There is a whole thread running through our common law system that does not allow penalties. There are ways around it, I know, but through our system penalties were not allowed for loans and all sorts of other things. So, yes, it is couched as an administration fee, but it is clearly a penalty. If you are front up in a certain number of ways in paying your account, then you are penalised—you have to pay $2.20. That is the first thing I want to say. It is not an admin fee; it is a penalty, and penalties are just not on. It should be removed. The other thing in the letter I got from Telstra with my bill said, ‘Exemptions may apply’. It did not say that they will apply; it said they may apply. That means that people have to jump through hoops to get them. Yes, it says, ‘Exemptions may apply, including for pensioner concession card holders. For more details see over the page.’ Well, it was not clear to me exactly who would get them. I think that it is offensive to think that, if you pay a bill in certain ways that are just the informal social intercourse that you have, you are going to be penalised for it. It is just bizarre. With indulgence I would like to read the letter that I sent to Mr David Thodey, the CEO of Telstra. I said: I read recently about your new approach to customer service and the appointment of customer ambassadors to better serve Telstra customers. I will take you at your word and ask that you put customers first, vis-a-vis their bills, and that you immediately retract the new billing fee scheduled to be introduced next month. As the federal member for Page, an electorate with many people on low incomes, I can tell you that there has been an immediate and widespread angry reaction to this new billing policy. The very idea that people are billed for Telstra services and then they have to pay for the privilege of paying their bill in certain ways goes against any concept of fairness and customer service. And it does. It is just not fair. That is why it struck a chord with everybody. It is just not fair. Australians rise up against that or rail against it. I will quote from a couple of the letters—and there were a lot—that I received from people. I said to people, ‘One of the banks went through a process of removing some of their fees and penalties after a whole lot of people complained about it; people power. That is what we have to do. If you are a Telstra customer, yes, complain through your local members’—and many people are—‘but also complain directly to the organisation. You must take it up with them directly. If you cannot access them, then send your complaint to me and I will send it off.’ One person who was concerned about reports of Telstra charging the community to pay their bills wrote: Not all people have access nor the ability to pay for or use the internet. Is this ethical of a utility serving the means of commu-nication for our vast country? I pay my bills on time but would despise being charged extra to do so. Not all people have the opportunity, ability, access nor capability to select another provider as an alternative means of payment. I note that one of my local newspapers, the Daily Examiner, has also been active in this area. It has been running a campaign, along with the community, to try to get Telstra to change its mind. I have had one person in my elector-ate of Page express support for it as a shareholder. They are the only one. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 8833 Grievance Debate Debate resumed from 17 August. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—The question is: That grievances be noted. 8833 8833 20:31:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to be able to contribute to the grievance debate tonight and to mention a few important issues in my electorate of Farrer. But, before I do so, I firstly acknowledge a special event that is taking place in the parliament tomorrow night. It is a significant event, I believe. A dinner is being held to mark the end of the Ramadan fast, which is an important occasion in the Muslim calendar. This is the Iftar, as many of us here have come to know it. It is an occasion when, for a month’s duration, people of the Islamic faith fast between sunrise and sunset. The breaking fast dinner that we will hold tomorrow night is supported by many members and senators. It is also supported by my colleague the member for Calwell and by the Australian Intercultural Society and Mr Orhan Cicek, who has been indefatigable in his resolve and determination to promote issues that are important to his constituency, the Muslim faith, here in the parliament. I believe this will be the third such dinner. The first dinner was held in 2003 and that was also a special occasion. Tomorrow night will be an important occasion for this place not just to talk about matters relating to the contri-bution that Muslims make to Australian society but also to recognise that with a dinner held in honour of our Aus-tralian citizens who are of the Islamic faith. I very much look forward to that occasion, and I know that members and senators who attend will join with me in recognising the significant contribution and the place that all faiths play in the hearts of Australian citizens. I now turn to matters affecting my electorate. It will not surprise colleagues to note that I am going to talk about water once again, because the electorate of Farrer is very much defined by the Murray River of New South Wales. The Minister for Climate Change and Water, Senator Wong, visited the southern Murray-Darling Basin last week. She had a message for the communities there, which was highlighted on the front page of the Deniliquin Pastoral Times. Her message was: ‘Prepare for a future with less water.’ I had an entry posted on my Facebook page on the morning that she attended and it was not particularly complimentary, I have to say. It simply noted: ‘The queen was visiting from on high, looking down at us from her throne, refusing yet again to meet members of the com-munity.’ I say to the minister that we appreciate the undertakings that she makes in her travels around the Murray-Darling Basin and we appreciate the fact that she visits, but it is important to talk to community members who represent the community as opposed to irrigator groups with particular interests. The community is just as worried as the farmers and the irrigators are. The community is the small businesses, the schools, the mums and dads and those who have lived their lives in these little towns and who fear they are going to be forgotten by this govern-ment. Those communities also want a dialogue with the minister. I heard Minister Wong on our local radio and, of course, did not agree with a lot of what she said. But I was heartened when she said that the government was not prepared to give up on the Murray-Darling Basin. I thank her for those words, because we who live there are never going to give up on our communities, on our family farms and on our productive enterprises that mean so much. But it would be good if we could understand the sort of future that the government actually has in mind for us, and I am concerned that the government itself is not aware of what that future might be. We know we have to prepare for a future with less water, and we know that it will mean sacrifices—in fact, it already has—but I am not certain what the government has in mind. The govern-ment talks of a basin plan taking place in 2011, and the Murray-Darling Basin authority, with input from the CSIRO, is preparing that plan. That will, according to Minister Wong, give us a lot less water than we have got now. But what will happen at the end of this long process is that the government will own, having purchased, an enormous amount of water in the Murray-Darling system, particularly from the New South Wales Murray. Until not long ago, 96 per cent of the water buyback had come from the New South Wales Murray. I understand that a little bit more has now been contributed from Victoria, with a relaxing of the four per cent cap trade-out rule. Once this water is held by the federal government, further planning will need to be done, and it needs to be determined what will actually happen when the water is there. At the moment we have just got airspace in the dams, but when there really is water there will have to be a serious effort to manage it—whether it is stored, whether it waters wetlands or environmental sites, or whether it goes back on the market to irrigators. I think it has to go back on the market, because there could be a time when there is so much that that is the only sensible use. How will that reapplication of water affect the market, the price and people’s certainty about doing business? Next Sunday in Balranald in my electorate there is going to be a rally to take on an issue that we are very famil-iar with and that we are fighting, and that is the willingness of so many in our region to allocate the central Murray red gum forests back to national parks. An extremely effective campaign is being run by the Wilderness Society. I have not found a single truthful statement that the Wilderness Society has made in connection with cen-tral Murray red gum forests or the red gum industry, but our communities are rallying in Balranald on Sunday, and I know that the turnout there will be enormous. It will be many times the population of that small town, because we know we are under great threat from this initiative. The New South Wales government, in an attempt to ap-pease the green vote in the New South Wales Legislative Assembly, has ordered yet another study by the Natural Resources Commission of its government into the use of these red gum forests. We have had so many inquiries over the years, and we have already demonstrated so many times that these forests are used in an environmentally sustainable way. They are harvested sensibly, the products that are used are essential in so many areas of life and, if replaced, would be replaced with alternatives that would be largely concrete. In debating the Wilderness Society on my local ABC radio, I was shocked to hear an individual from that or-ganisation say that very little of value came out of these area—really just fence posts, railway sleepers and fire-wood. The alternatives, I suppose, might be that you would use concrete instead of wooden fence posts and you would use concrete sleepers on railway lines instead of red gum sleepers, and you would heat your homes with coal-fired electricity. Actually, it is not correct that that is all that comes out of these red gum forests. They also produce an amazing red gum veneer that goes on chipboard-type, cheaper wood product and is absolutely brilliant. The other thing that I must say about the forests is that in harvesting them we are saving them for the future. We are using them sustainably. That is recognised by the Ramsar convention on wetlands, which acknowledges the sustainable use of these forests. If we go the way of the Victorian forests, we will simply lock up our red gum for-ests and, if they do not regenerate by sustainable harvesting, they will regenerate by fire. In fact, they will not re-generate by fire; they will simply burn. Unlike the alpine forests in Kosciuszko, they do not need fire to regener-ate. They need water to grow. It is getting to the stage where the nature of the forest is so dense that, in order to let light in to accelerate further growth, a small amount of each area has to be patch-felled, and this is what the Wil-derness Society takes great objection to. These areas are probably 50 metres by 50 metres, so they are not large and they are not significant in the overall patchwork of the forest. But they have to be removed in order to let the light in. It is the silvicultural practice that is analogous with the harvesting of a crop. The Wilderness Society and other green groups take great exception to this, and I do not really understand why, because they reside in the in-ner suburbs of Sydney. In fact, if you drive through those suburbs you will see signs saying ‘save the river red gum’. I can guarantee that almost every person who drives past those signs has no understanding of the river red gum industry. We will confront this latest challenge, but I do fear that the New South Wales central Murray forests will go the same way as the Victorian ones, and that would be devastating. It is a not insignificant area of timber and we do not want to see a repeat of the fires that have ravaged other parts of Australia when similar natural vegetation management practices have persisted in the past. I commend all those who care for their communities to attend that rally next Sunday in Balranald. I know that the fight is beginning, and when we have an opportunity to make our presentations to the commission we will argue our case very strongly. 8836 8836 20:41:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —The visit during early July of an unofficial Australian parliamentary delegation to Dharamsala, India, to meet with His Holiness the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan parliament in exile caused a bit of a stir back here in Australia—among both Australians and Chinese officials. It was my experience and that of my fellow delegation members—Michael Danby MP; Peter Slipper MP; and Senators Sarah Hanson-Young, Scott Ludlam and Nick Xenophon—that the overwhelming majority of Australians who contacted us about the trip, including many people in my electorate of Fremantle, were delighted and encouraging. The official Chinese response, as reported, was almost the complete opposite: furious and insistent that this was interference in Chinese internal affairs. We saw this happen again, more recently, in the Chinese response to the showing of a film in Melbourne about the plight of the Uygur people, called The 10 conditions of love, and to the appearance of Uygur leader Rebiya Kadeer at the National Press Club. It is important to state at the outset that our visit to Dharamsala was not in any way anti-China. Indeed, we wish to support China—as we support all countries, including our own—in its progress towards greater respect for hu-man rights and freedoms of speech, movement, religion, culture and language. One of the simplest ways for this progress to continue is for it to re-engage in genuine dialogue with His Holiness the Dalai Lama. On those occasions when Chinese officials have attempted to portray the Dalai Lama as an ‘evil splittist’, or when they sought to blame the Dalai Lama for last year’s uprising in Tibet, the only effect has been to reinforce within the global community the sense that China is being unreasonably rigid and antagonistic on this issue. It is my strong belief that the global community is willing the Chinese government to express its strength of character and dynamism through a new, open, and flexible approach to issues like Tibet and to leaders like the Dalai Lama. For decades, the Dalai Lama has reached millions of people around the world with his teachings on non-violence, compassion, tolerance and universal responsibility. Twenty years ago, when he received the Nobel Peace Prize, he noted the inspiration he had received from Mahatma Gandhi’s program of non-violent action for change. On 10 December this year, the Dalai Lama will be in Melbourne for a celebration of the 20th anniversary of his acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize. This year also marks the 50th anniversary of the establishment of the Tibetan community in exile, and the Dalai Lama’s 74th birthday was on 6 July. It was therefore an auspicious time for the Australian delegation to visit Dharamsala. I described the visit in an article published in Crikey on 22 July as fol-lows: India has played graceful host to the Tibetan community in exile since 1959 when Indian Prime Minister Nehru invited them to stay in Dharamsala, also known as Dhasa (a mixture of ‘Little Lhasa’ and Dharamsala). The town, in the northern Indian state of Himachal Pradesh at the foothills of the Himalayas, is laid out on narrow ridges and festooned with colourful Tibetan prayer flags. Upon arrival, we were met by the Speaker and Deputy-Speaker of the Tibetan Parliament in Exile, and the Tibetan Prime Minister, all learned and articulate yet extremely humble people. Over the next 6 days, in addition to an enlightening one and a half hour meeting with the Dalai Lama, we had an intensive series of meetings with other high-level lamas and Tibetan parliamentarians in exile. We also met with recently arrived refu-gees from Tibet and with human rights NGOs representing women, youth, students and political prisoners. The delegation was treated to a fantastic cultural dance and music performance by the Tibetan Institute of Performing Arts and visited the Nor-bulingka Institute of Tibetan Art and Culture. We were moved by our visit to the Tibetan Children’s Village which houses and educates orphans and refugee children. The school mottos are ‘others before self’ and ‘individuals can make a difference’. The Tibetan Children’s Village managed to be simultaneously the saddest and the happiest place we had seen. Happy because the children are welcomed and loved within this exiled community; sad because many have been sent from Tibet for their protec-tion into the care of the Dalai Lama—some never to have contact with their families again. Many of the kids’ drawings depict some of the difficult and terrible circumstances that they have experienced. We visited the Tibetan library and archives containing ancient manuscripts smuggled out of Tibet for safekeeping, and the Institute of Tibetan Medicine where we learned that the first ever international medical conference was held in Tibet in the 8th century. What we saw was democracy enhanced by spirituality. We saw both the careful preservation and the joyful celebration of Tibetan culture and language. We also saw the quiet hope and determination of these people to return home to Tibet. The visit was an extraordinary window to the Tibetan world and we were welcomed at all levels, leaving us humbled and inspired. Our delegation has returned to Australia with a number of goals. Among other things, we would like to engage with Chinese community and government representatives on the subject of Tibet and visit Tibet to see for ourselves the situation on the ground. If the Tibetan people are as happy as the Chinese government says they are, there should not be any objection to our visiting and verifying. We will advocate for the release of Tibetan political prisoners, including filmmaker Dhondup Wangchen, whose distraught wife we met in Dharamsala. Dhondup was detained in March 2008 on grounds of inciting separatism, after interviewing Tibetans in Qinghai about their views on the Dalai Lama, the Beijing Olympics and the Chinese government. His footage was later turned into the film Leaving fear behind. We will also seek the release of the Panchen Lama, the second-highest ranking lama after the Dalai Lama in the Gelupga sect of Tibetan Buddhism, who has been kept in ‘protective custody’ since 1995 when he was six years old by the Chinese leadership, who took it upon themselves to name another six-year-old boy as the Panchen Lama. We will also do our best to inter-act with and support the Tibetan community living in Australia, for whom Tibet must feel impossibly far away. I am very grateful to the Tibet Information Office, the Australia-Tibet Council, the Tibetan Parliament in Exile and to all the Tibetans in Delhi and Dharamsala who met with us and shared their stories, philosophies and hopes. And I felt blessed to have met with the Dalai Lama, one of the great modern leaders and advocates in the cause of peace. At the conclusion of the visit to Dharamsala I travelled under my own arrangements to visit some UNICEF health and education projects in the Indian state of Rajasthan in my capacity as Chair of the UNICEF Parliamen-tary Association. I visited an Aganwadi community centre, managed through assistance from UNICEF, the Rajast-han government and community groups, where mothers bring their young children to be weighed and to receive nutritional supplements. The children also receive some elementary education at the centre—while Mahatma Gandhi smiles at them from a photo on the wall. Education for these kids is first about getting fed, recovering from malnutrition and warding off anaemia. In Rajasthan 44 per cent of children under three years are under-weight and 79 per cent are anaemic. I then visited the Sare sub centre, a small health clinic in the mountains some distance from Udaipur, where the government of Rajasthan, with the support of UNICEF, is taking proactive steps to address the high infant and maternal mortality rates in the area. A nurse-midwife lives full time at the subcentre; therefore being available 24 hours a day to assist with safe delivery and newborn care for the local tribal women, who must trek many kilometres in mountainous territory to go there. Finally, I visited the State Institute for Educational Research and Training, which oversees curriculum and text-book development and teacher support and training. Among other projects, UNICEF is assisting the institute with its adolescent anaemia control program by providing iron and folic acid supplements for school-going girls. I was impressed with the institute’s clever development of teacher training materials involving everyday items and waste products that may be easily procured at no or low cost to a school. I also appreciated the constant message in the curricula and on posters throughout the community health and education centres I visited which advocated against child marriages. It was incredibly heartening to see women and children in extreme poverty being assisted and empowered in very practical ways by grassroots projects managed collaboratively by UNICEF, the Rajasthan government and community centres. The Millennium Development Goals were brought to life before my eyes. I am grateful to UNICEF Australia, UNICEF India and the Rajasthan government and to the health and community workers and their clients, who are among the most disadvantaged women and children in the world, who were kind enough to meet with me. I admire their courage and determination in the face of tremendous hardship. In Delhi it was fascinating to visit the parliament of the world’s greatest democracy, with the giant statue of Mahatma Gandhi at the entrance. It was interesting, too, to learn that it had adopted electronic voting back in 1964. Why is the Australian parliament so reluctant to make this leap to a more efficient system? My trip to India was only 11 days long, which, as I noted in the Crikey article, was hardly enough time to gain more than a passing sense of this country, of its multitudes and myriad riches. I was glad, however, for the opportunity to make this engagement with a nation and regional neighbour that will be of such significance to Australia and to the world in the years to come. As I noted on 18 August in my presentation of the report by the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade into Australia’s relations with India as an emerging world power, the ties be-tween our countries go beyond the oft cited notion of ‘cricket, curry and Commonwealth’ to a much deeper and more meaningful relationship which will be vitally important as we face challenges together, including poverty, climate change, financial instability, regional security issues and terrorism. 8838 8838 20:51:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise this evening to talk about matters that are very important to so many Australian families and quite important to me in my shadow ministerial portfolios and to many families in my electorate, and they are child care and the significant challenges and costs that have grown in the area of child care for many families. The Labor Party made a lot of promises at the last election. Some of those included commitments and promises for early childhood education and child care. A central promise related to affordability of child care. Everywhere they went they said it loud and proud: Labor would increase quality and make child care more affordable for parents. We had Kevin Rudd say, on 1 February 2007: We’ll pay it directly to centres and the objective is to make sure that we do get that extra qualified early childhood education teacher in place and at no extra cost to parents. We had Jenny Macklin say: At $240 a week, it is not easy to afford childcare on a tight family budget. And she went on, a couple of months later, to say: We want to increase quality, increase availability and that way, bring down the price of child care. So there you have it, and there are many, many more quotes. But they never told you how they would do it, and it is probably one of those things that will keep on getting re-announced and re-announced but never really delivered. In the document on Labor’s so-called Affordable Child Care Plan it states on page 6: ‘A Rudd government will slash parents’ childcare costs.’ And in their New Directions for Early Childhood Education they say there will be ‘no increase in costs of early childhood services for parents as a result of expanded learning programs’. This sounds all very good, but a lot of parents want to know how this is going to be delivered. The coalition have asked the government for some time now how it was going to increase staff ratios in childcare centres, ensure higher staff qualifications and insist on higher standards in centres without increasing the cost to centres or to families. Someone actually has to pay for these changes; they do not just happen. In spite of everything Labor has said in the last two years, we know at the end of the day who is going to have to foot an increased childcare bill, and that is families. It is interesting that recent media reports have estimated that parents could be facing up to $1,500 a year in increased childcare fees as a direct result of the government’s proposed changes. When you look at some of the additional changes that have not been fully costed, this figure could be even more in some states. It was also interesting that, in response to these reports, the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth said that Australia ‘could not successfully reform the industry without some out-of-pocket expenses for families’. Well, fancy that! Finally, we have gone from, ‘We’ll slash childcare costs,’ and, ‘No extra costs or increased costs,’ to, ‘Well, of course families are going to have to suffer some out-of-pocket expenses.’ The minister tried to allay concerns, as if to imply that the government was there to foot the bill, when she said: It is important to consider that any cost implications would be offset by the government’s 50 per cent Child Care Rebate, which means that the government would effectively foot the bill for half of any increases. That is correct, but of course the government would continue to provide the 50 per cent rebate. But, Minister, if fees go up parents still have to pay more, and you and your party specifically promised that would not be the case. That is clearly a broken promise that this Labor government has to own up to. Now we have independent economic analysis, commissioned by Childcare Queensland, finding that costs in that state will rise by over $13 a day, not the few dollars that the minister has tried to assert. It is very clear that parents are not being told how much costs are expected to rise by because of this government. In fact, they have been deliberately misled into thinking that the rise is going to be minimal. This is clearly not going to be the case when the government itself cannot calculate the costs of all of its proposed changes to child care. We see that even the government’s own published estimates of out-of-pocket costs for parents from some of these changes—hidden on page 37 of the regulation impact statement—do not give an accurate picture, as they relate only to a small fraction of the so-called reforms. Parents do have a right to believe that there were not going to be any increases in childcare costs caused by government changes, because they were told at the last election that the government would slash childcare costs. At a time when families are increasingly under enormous economic stress, particularly in many parts of rural and regional Australia—and I know many families have suffered in rural Victoria—the Rudd government is deliberately mishandling its so-called reform process and misleading parents about the childcare costs that are part of its agenda. But that is no surprise, if we look at many of Labor’s broken promises in the area of early childhood education, child care, women and youth—my portfolio responsibility area. The government, in opposition, claimed they were going to build 260 childcare centres across the nation. They promised to make child care more accessible by establishing 260 new long day care centres on school, TAFE, university and community sites. They were supposed to ease the childcare crisis and reduce the double drop-off. While 38 centres have been budgeted for, I am not aware that any of them are currently operational and I wait to see whether we will get any by the next election. I am sure they will rush to get something fixed so that this particular promise does not go the way of the new Aboriginal housing policy debacle, where $45 million has been expended and not one house has been built. But it is interesting that, while 38 centres have been budgeted for, this year on budget night Minister Gillard’s ministerial statement announced: The remaining up to 222 early learning and care centres will be considered when the childcare market is settled and based on the experience of the priority centres. So, in other words, they have broken another promise. There are not going to be 260 childcare centres; there may not even be 38. But they have gone very quiet on that. The reason that has happened is that they did not do the work in opposition. They did not do the work to understand what was needed by the industry. They made motherhood statements that they thought would be really popular and their attitude was: ‘Let’s just try and sort it out later.’ That is similar to borrowing and putting the country in debt to the tune of over $300 billion and thinking: ‘Oh, well. Someone will pay it down the track. It’s not going to be us.’ Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard are not going to be there when it all has to be paid back, so the attitude is: ‘Make it up as you go along,’ and that is what they seem to be doing in these very important areas that affect families. Look at another promise: universal preschool. Labor promised: Federal Labor will ensure all four year olds have access to early learning. All four year olds will be eligible to receive 15 hours of Government-funded early learning programs per week, for a minimum of 40 weeks a year. …            …            … As one of the most significant additions to Australia’s education system in more than a generation, a year of universal preschool will take time to implement. Guess what? Both the government website and the new minister, Kate Ellis, have stated that the terms ‘universal access’ and ‘government funded’ do not mean it will be free. So, again, they have broken their promise to parents, and they are going to force parents to pay. Why make these promises in the first place? Is it to look good, to look as if you care for families? Again, they have not done the hard work. The list goes on. There are broken promises regarding quality rating systems for child care and broken promises relating to the release of vacancy data. There is the big broken promise of making child care more affordable. What we see is a government scrambling for the five-second grab, trying to deal with the media spin cycle and delivering nothing in substance. They are saying, ‘We’ll throw enough money here and there; we’ll make enough right-sounding noises,’ but achieving nothing for families, lying to them and making child care more expensive for families across Australia. 8841 8841 09:01:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —Jonathan Sacks, the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth, offered the following comment in response to a recent speech by Iranian President Ahmadinejad: There can be no doubt as to the most tenacious ideology of modern times. German fascism came and went. Soviet Communism came and went. Anti-Semitism came and stayed. Rabbi Sacks went on to note that the re-emergence of anti-Semitism is one of the most frightening phenomena of his lifetime because it is happening after 60 years of education after the Second World War, anti-racist legislation and interfaith dialogue. As a member of parliament in this great democratic country of Australia, I am saddened to have to agree with the Chief Rabbi of the Commonwealth. Indeed, there is a modern resurgence of anti-Semitism, although Australia, with its unofficial doctrine of a fair go, is perhaps the most tolerant and pluralist of all global societies. Constituent communities contribute to the success of pluralism. The Australian Jewish community has made a substantial and durable contribution to this country, offering a distinct culture that nonetheless furthers cohesion and the national interest by its commitment to core democratic values, secularist laws and the constraints of our parliamentary system. As members will no doubt know, the Jewish presence in Australia began with the First Fleet and has grown to some 120,000, according to the authoritative Jewish population survey just published by the Australian Centre for Jewish Civilisation at Monash University. Recent generations of Australian Jews have never forgotten the debt to the Australian people who provided refuge to our parents and grandparents, the remnants of European Jewry, during and before the darkest period of Jewish history, the Nazi genocide of the Second World War. Within this history and context of Australian tolerance and pluralism, I recently spoke of the bigotry that has attended the exponential rise and proliferation of the internet. In particular, I focused on two Australian online magazines, Newmatilda and Crikey, with their slanted commentary on the Middle East which has been used as a cover for unmoderated, unleashed and unhinged comments on their websites. My analysis prompted an exchange of letters between well-known civil rights organisation the Anti-Defamation Commission and Newmatilda’s editor, Marni Cordell. In April of this year the Anti-Defamation Commission sent Cordell a sober, detailed and careful analysis of the magazines’ contents for the first three months of 2009, highlighting ADC’s concerns over not its partisan opinion but the broad slabs of hate speak published in the comments section following each article. En passant, Cordell virtually agreed that her online publication presented no semblance of fairness, asserting her publication’s role was as a counterweight to the biased, pro-Israel media. One wonders what planet she lived on during the war in Gaza. Cordell fudged why Newmatilda publishes blatantly bigoted commentary, even though the magazine explicitly reserves the right to moderate that commentary if it is abusive or promotes hate. Only since being exposed has Newmatilda stopped publishing race hate in its comment columns. I seek leave to table some of the comments that followed articles in these two publications during the first three months of 2009. Leave granted. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr DANBY —Crikey and its editor, Jonathan Green, have made no explanation or issued no apology. Eric Beecher, the owner of Crikey, who hails from a similar ethnic cultural background to me, owes an explanation for Crikey’s publication of these hate filled comments. Such comments would be suited for publication in Julius Streicher’s Der Sturmer. I take as my guide the definition suggested by former Soviet dissident and human rights activist Natan Sharansky in addressing these issues in total. Mr Sharansky distinguishes the two by his 3D principles. He warns to look for three things: demonisation, delegitimisation and double standards. Looking at the coverage in Crikey and Newmatilda we see a tiny country of seven million people portrayed as a manipulator of world events, a state engaged in ethnic separation—without any mention of the thousands of civilians murdered by homicide bombers—and an initiator of wars that have no strategic or defensive codex. That is demonisation. Of course people can be fairly critical of any state in the world and critical of particular actions of any state, but, following the Sharansky model, anyone who looks at Cordell’s Newmatilda or Green’s Crikey during this period could only conclude that Israel was a country deserving of rocket attacks on its citizens and not entitled to defend its sovereignty. That is delegitimisation. Scant attention is given in the same publications to Burma, Darfur, Zimbabwe, Tibet, North Korea, Chechnya, Eastern Turkistan or any other place witnessing gross abuse of human rights. That is a double standard. I was particularly outraged, however, by the tenor of readers’ comments which followed these articles and contained repeated examples of bigotry. I have tabled a small percentage of these verbatim comments from the Newmatilda and Crikey websites from the first three months of this year. Of course, all members will find these comments as abhorrent as I do. No doubt some members will ask the obvious question: how does this kind of vile commentary following the articles—I am not talking about the actual articles; people are entitled to have different views on these kinds of things—find its way onto a site that reserves the right to censor such comments? The editors of Newmatilda were not moved to address this issue until I publicly intervened. Thereafter, on 7 July, they responded by way of an editorial that began: Regular readers will notice that we have turned off all comments on articles about Israel/Palestine. Predictably, what followed was a long self-justification, which read in part: Historically, we have erred on the side of free speech—we did not pre-moderate comments on the site, which is rare in this litigious age, because we wanted to promote open and diverse debate. Open and diverse debate is different from publishing unregulated, vile racism. Again, I repeat that the Newmatilda decision to moderate their own site happened not out of consistency or out of some sense of decency but because the searchlight of public opinion was shone on these dark and ugly recesses of the internet. Two regular contributors to Crikey and Newmatilda—Antony Loewenstein and his Sancho Panza, Michael Brull—also responded to my speech in a jointly authored article stating that my criticism could be condensed into the following: Michael Danby erodes his credibility by accusing two Jews of anti-Semitism because they don’t agree with him … I am certainly content to reiterate here that, in relation to their commentary of the conflict, the two individuals are guilty of double standards, demonisation and delegitimisation. However, contrary to their response, their ethnicity was not addressed in my speech at all because it was clearly not my principal concern. Their writing and the editorial bias of the online publications for which they write clearly puts them on the fringe of Australian politics. If one compares the things that they wrote with, say, Labor Party discussions at the recent national conference, one would see that they are completely outside the mainstream of the centre-left party in this country, for instance. For those writers to seek refuge behind their ethnicity is particularly craven. It is dishonest. The thrust of my previous speech and tonight’s lies with the creepier bigotry that their articles and other articles unleashed in these two online publications, which apparently had no problem with publishing them. I agree with Thomas Friedman, who wrote: Criticizing Israel is not anti-Semitic, and saying so is vile. But singling out Israel for opprobrium and international sanction—out of all proportion to any other party in the Middle East—is anti-Semitic, and not saying so is dishonest. In examining the evidence of lopsided coverage of these two internet publications, our toughest critique must be of their unadulterated racism: the perverse nature of their criticisms and the vitriol that is not present in the appraisal of other conflicts; the use of terms such as ‘ethnic cleansing’ and ‘Nazi’; and the dropping of all pretence of anti-Zionism by openly discussing Jews and so-called Jewish proclivities. George Orwell wrote: To see what is in front of one’s nose needs a constant struggle. Perhaps—but my fear is that the internet is now so pervaded by such views that they can attain a patina of truth and respectability. In many of the articles in both magazines, the ability to link and cross-reference to other sites and commentaries apparently bolsters and legitimises the views of the authors in circumstances where readers cannot vouch for the credibility of the concurring opinion. Opinions and commentary are therefore expressed in an ethical vacuum absent of the strictures which we have come to accept as inherent in the profession of journalism, such as fact checking and peer review. It is clear in my view that Newmatilda.com and Crikey.com disgraced themselves and the wider circle of Australian journalism—and the tolerant ethos that characterises Australia—by publishing clearly bigoted comments in the comments sections of their publications in the first three months of this year. 8843 8844 21:12:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I stand in this parliament tonight to raise a grievance on behalf of the electors of Paterson. It is clear to the thinking Australian that the Rudd Labor government’s education revolution is descending into something of a farce, and Australia’s roads—and by that I particularly mean Paterson’s roads—are turning into rubble because of Labor’s mismanagement of taxpayers’ funds. Labor’s philosophy is to spend big for spending’s sake, to create debt and deficit. There are the soon to be announced higher interest rates and an increase in taxes because of their gross economic management. And all the while our Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, proclaims himself to be an economic conservative—more like an economic vandal. Then there is the part-time education minister, Julia Gillard, who leaves a litany of failed education programs in her tracks. This is fact—stark, cold, disappointing fact. Let me give you some more facts. Fact 1 is that the primary schools stimulus debacle has already encountered a $1.7 billion blow-out. Fact 2 is that the Building the Education Revolution is under investigation by the Auditor-General for waste and mismanagement. Fact 3 is that the Building the Education Revolution display signs are under investigation by the Australian Electoral Commissioner for breaches of the Commonwealth Electoral Act, proof positive it is nothing more than all spin over substance, showing the BER to be a political strategy, not an economic or an educational strategy. Fact 4 is that the computers in our nation’s schools came at a $1.2 billion blow-out for taxpayers. Fact 5 is that the changes in Youth Allowance unfairly punish rural and regional students and young Australians already on a gap year. Fact 6 is that, in the lead-up to the last election, the Labor Party promised a trades training centre for every Australian high school; however, now only one centre is being delivered for clusters of up to 10 schools. I am no lawyer but I am a taxpayer and a father of three children who are busy acquiring an education. Let me be clear on this: if one of my children came home with a report card as dismal as the member for Lalor’s, I would be sorely disappointed and as a responsible parent I would want to take immediate remedial action. As I have said before, and I shall say it again, the alternative government believes that education is the fundamental, essential and enduring building block upon which to build opportunity for young Australians, and prosperity and cohesion for Australia’s future. Parents and students must be assured that our education system is defined by choice, values and high standards. The alternative government demands that every child have access to high-quality education from a high-quality teacher in a high-quality school environment. The alternative government supports choice and believes that every parent deserves some level of public assistance to support the education of their child, to instil in them that a good education is priceless as no matter what happens to them throughout life, the knowledge they acquire can never be taken away from them. If a child is exposed to a conducive learning environment it instils in them an opportunity to make informed decisions and to chose the best direction for their life. I am yet to be convinced that Labor are as dedicated to the task of providing the framework for inspiring educational facilities as is necessary for raising tomorrow’s leaders. Over the past two weeks I have been busy visiting a number of the 64 schools in the Paterson electorate includ-ing Booral Public School, Grahamstown Public School, Gresford Public School, Seaham Public School, Pacific Palms Public School, Millers Forrest Public School, Raymond Terrace Public School, Maitland Christian School, Hunter River High School and Martins Creek Public School, as well as the University of Newcastle, the Hunter Trade College and Maitland TAFE. There is a common thread throughout all these learning centres—that is, they have exceptional staff and students and each offers an exceptionally welcoming and unique learning environment. There is another common thread between these schools and that is fear for their future prosperity if they do not receive the necessary ongoing support from a flailing Rudd Labor government. With all of the largess at taxpayers’ expense, the question that needs to be asked is: where is the solution to an immediate and pressing problem that has been put on the backburner by the New South Wales Labor government due to costs? An issue that is affecting my constituents and their children is the desperate need for a high school for Medowie. I have raised that issue in this parliament on a number of occasions. The land adjacent to the Wirre-anda Primary School has been set aside for a local high school for a number of years. This Labor government could have invested wisely and acted responsibly for the school children in the catchment area. They could have started by introducing a middle school, maturing over a couple of years to a full year 7 to year 12 high school. If the much stated government goal of improved educational outcomes is to be achieved, then reducing travel time, stress and student numbers is a key part of that solution. The Rudd Labor government has failed to deliver on this desperate community education need. I remind the House of the words of our Prime Minister prior to the election when he said, ‘It’s time to stop the blame game’ and ‘The buck stops with me.’ Prime Minister you should not have taken your own words literally when you said ‘The buck stops with me’ in relation to the funding of a new high school for Medowie. It is not just the member for Lalor that gets an ‘F’ on her report card from the coalition and more importantly from millions of Australians, as we must not forget her substandard colleague, the member for Granydler, the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. The recent release of the Commonwealth Coordinator-General’s progress report on the government’s nation building economic stimulus plan demonstrates the flawed, wasteful and poorly targeted nature of the Rudd government’s $42 billion in spending. The government’s report reveals that a measly 370 projects out of 33,000 approved projects have been completed—just one per cent of the total projects. The Rudd Labor government is all talk and no action. It is all spin and very little or no substance at all. When it comes to making spending commitments, they are experts. However, when it comes to delivering these promises, they are missing in action. And if that is not bad enough, now the member for Grayndler is trying to take credit for a project set up and funded by the former Howard government and the New South Wales Labor government. In a radio grab aired on 2HD on the 25 August, 2009, the member for Grayndler was recorded as saying: The important thing about this is that it is part of the Government’s Economic Stimulus Plan, which is creating jobs today, but building the infrastructure that we need for tomorrow. Interestingly, the project he refers to is the 17 kilometres of Pacific Highway upgrade between the Tea Gardens turn-off and Nerong turn-off, which was started in September 2006, well ahead of his economic stimulus plan. Falsely misleading the Australian public and having them believe that the Rudd Labor government is responsible for the sound investment in the Pacific Highway upgrade in my electorate of Paterson is not acceptable and will not be tolerated, and it is no different for the completed Hunter Valley rail track works. Credit given where credit is due, but taking credit for others’ hard work reeks of political opportunism—disgraceful to say the least. The attempts to ‘pull the blankets’ over the Australian public’s eyes and take credit for projects, which Labor did not initiate or fund clearly emphasises that they lack substance to skite about their own achievements. What an appalling disgrace that after dwindling away thousands of millions of dollars of taxpayers’ money on cash splashes and plunging the Australian public into record deficit and debt, they have very few achievements of their own to boast about and instead have to lean on the achievements of the former Howard government and the New South Wales state Labor government to pull them through in their dark hour. To reinforce to the public just how committed the coalition is to improving roads and therefore increasing driver safety, I remind them that in the lead-up to the 2007 election the coalition pledged a $20 million package for the installation of passing lanes on the Bucketts Way, funding for the Nelson Bay to Fingal link road and funding to upgrade the Lakes Way. No such matching funding for local road projects was committed by Labor, and nor does it seem they intend to. I would also remind the House that it was the coalition that committed the funding during the last election for the F3 link road between Seahampton and Branxton and it was the Labor government that was kicking and screaming in delivering funds to bail out a failing member for Hunter in his darkest hour. My constituents have a justifiable grievance when they ask: where is the money? Where is the support and why is this government pork barrelling with their taxes? This government could show initiative by expediting the funding and therefore completion time for the Bulahdelah Bypass on the Pacific Highway to help deliver four lanes from Sydney to past Taree in the north. This government could take the initiative and fund local roads like Bucketts Way, Lakes Way and the Fingal to Nelson Bay bypass to improve motorist safety. But they will not. And why is that? Because Labor thinks that they can rest on their laurels and ignore the needs of coalition seats whilst injecting billions of dollars of funding into existing Labor seats, which they no doubt think will lead them into a successful election whenever it is next called. This is simply not good enough. The people of Paterson deserve better and, as their elected representative, I will continue to meet with my constituents to listen to their points of view and to air their grievances in this parliament. Not only that, but I will continue to monitor the government and hold them accountable for their inaction and for avoiding their duties to the entire Australian public, not just those in Labor seats. 8846 8846 09:21:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —This evening I want to speak in this grievance debate in relation to the very complex issue of parallel importation. The House will be aware that there is much debate in the community regarding this issue, and although the campaign being run in favour of lifting restrictions on parallel importation focuses solely on cheaper books, the reality is that this is a complicated issue which needs to go beyond primarily the notion of cheap books. We must recognise that this complex issue intersperses all the factors which go into building Australia’s book industry and as such this debate needs, as I said, to go beyond sole reference to price without considering all the other factors involved. The issue of parallel importation has been the subject of many reviews and inquiries which were put forward by the previous government. The House will recall that attempts to lift restrictions on parallel imports were rejected in the Senate by the then opposition. In November 2008, the then Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs requested that the Productivity Commission examine the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968 that restricts the parallel importation of books into Australia. Interestingly enough, the Productivity Commission’s reports concluded, amongst other things, that parallel importation restrictions do not differentiate between books of what we might consider to be of high and low cultural value. This point appears to me to be very significant and raises an important question: to what measures do we as a society wish to surrender the power of assessing the cultural value of our local authors? I, for one, do not want to see the contribution of a significant portion of the domestic artistic community subject to the financial sanctions of the British and US publishing markets. The only certainty in removing restrictions on the parallel importation of books is that independent authors, sectors of the education market, as well as certain retailers, will no longer be able to compete with big retailers. The proposed reforms fail to take into account that there is no guarantee that the proposed cost saving measures by big retailers would in fact be passed on to the consumer. Considering that all major English language markets also have parallel import restrictions in place, Australian authors will have to carry the burden of free-market ideology on their own. Such measures will be without any reciprocity from the markets in which Australian authors and publishers have to compete and it is on this point that the Australian public, as well as the association of authors, have a strong moral case for keeping the restrictions in place. As Text Publishing recently reported to the Intellectual Property and Competition Review Committee: The current regime provides an incentive for internationally focused Australian publishers to price their editions competitively, while also providing them with the same protection of territorial copyright that British and American publishers have. It is clear that the objective of ensuring a healthy, vibrant and cosmopolitan Australian book industry can only be achieved by the regulative practices currently in place. The removal of restrictions on parallel imports would serve to stifle the competitive nature of our local book industry as well as undermine the marketing and sales efforts of independent booksellers. As the Australian Copyright Council recently told the IPCR Committee: The effect of imported copies on the Australian rights owners is [that] ... other people unfairly benefit from the copyright owner’s investment in the work, and the copyright owner’s return from that investment is reduced. Many authors have already spoken publicly against the findings of the Productivity Commission’s report. I want to raise here today in particular the concerns of one prominent local author, Mr Shane Maloney, the creator of the very popular Murray Whelan series, who has directly expressed his concerns to me. Shane points to the Productivity Commission’s report recommendations which acknowledge that these changes are going to have an adverse effect on Australian authors and go as far as recommending that ‘financial assistance for encouraging Australian writing and publishing should be received immediately ... and that that new arrangement should be reviewed after 5 years’. For Shane Maloney and others like him, the Productivity Commission’s proposed solution to the ‘suffering’ it admits will result is to provide writers with a grant. What this suggests is that it wants the taxpayer to repair the damage it will inflict. Writers who are currently commercially viable will go from being self-sufficient to be forced to beg for government handouts. Authors such as Shane Maloney refute the argument put forward by both the Coalition for Cheaper Books and the Productivity Commission that suggest that lowering the cost of books will have a positive effect on levels of literacy. Shane stated: ... to claim that cheaper books will increase literacy is like saying that the cure for obesity is cheaper shoes. As such, Shane’s position on the report is simple and clear: ‘... if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.’ We need to understand that financial regulation in the area of book publishing, printing and sales is not just about the off-the-shelf cost of books. We have a well-established and prolific book culture and tradition in this country that ensures that the public can and does receive good deals on the price of books. We are also grappling with the future of our printing and publishing industries. It is in this context that I am inclined to reject recommendations that call for the lifting of restrictions on parallel importations. It is perfectly understandable that the public would like to see the cost of books come down. What is certain is that if this issue is viewed solely through the myopic lenses of the price of books, this debate will not produce an outcome we can all be satisfied with. Throughout this debate I hope that we can continue to remind ourselves of the equally important imperative of sustaining and fostering both our established and developing community of authors and the need to maintain our domestic capacity to publish and print their work. The imperatives surrounding this issue take on an increased significance when we remind ourselves of the need to foster and develop the work that captures the rich and colourful palette of the Australian lexicon. This cultural heritage must continue to be represented in an unaltered form, unaffected by the competing objectives of foreign based publishers and printers. A practical example to highlight what has just been said is the experience that Shane Maloney had in seeing his work being reprinted in the US and then regurgitated to Australian bookstores. An edition of his book mistakenly distributed in Australia contained dialogue altered to cater to an American market. I ask you, Mr Deputy Speaker, are these the cheaper books that we would like to see fill our shelves? We must also remind ourselves that ensuring the sustainability of our local publishers and printers is not just a theoretical debate about the possible futures of the Australian literary landscape. It is as much a debate about the livelihood of Australians. There are over 3,000 people working in the printing industry across Australia. This is a healthy and sustainable industry. The implementation of the commission’s recommendations will threaten this industry and all its accomplishments along with the livelihood of its workers. These are not abstract notions of supply and demand. In looking at Melbourne alone, streets such as Brunswick Street, Fitzroy Street and Sydney Road, which is adjacent to my electorate of Calwell, are areas which are renowned for their vibrancy and cosmopolitan nature. They have a vast array of independent booksellers that have the potential to go down the drain if we were to implement the recommendations of the report. We must not allow for the way in which books are bought and sold to become the sole domain of the major retail chains. The Productivity Commission’s report has the potential to stifle the ease of access to various forms of books written for Australians by Australian authors. As chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, I understand that innovation is a cornerstone for future economic growth. The productivity and innovation of Australia’s publishing industry is one which is reliant upon the way in which policy is formulated. In today’s knowledge based economy I do not believe the focus should be primarily on capital accumulation for large corporations, but should instead be focused on innovation as the main driver of productivity. Therefore in an industry where one of the main drivers of growth is creativity, the existing territorial copyright laws have fostered an environment of innovation. In doing so these laws have allowed both authors and publishers to withstand the enormous pressures that would otherwise have existed in a market in which 40 per cent is controlled by large retailers. The notion of market flexibility is the cornerstone of attempts to lift the parallel importation restrictions. It is a notion in which cultural progress is viewed as subordinate to what some might think to be the highest arbiter of progress: the profit motive. We must not allow for protections afforded to Australia’s book industry by territorial copyright laws to be undermined by ideology. It puts at risk the economic and cultural viability of the entire industry as well as placing a stranglehold on the creativity of our independent authors and publishers. The response to this issue needs to occur outside this framework. Australian authors and publishers will find that their artistic expression is stifled by the enormous weight of multinationals where competition overrides creativity. If we choose to end parallel import protections we will say to our young and aspiring authors that creativity and ideas do not begin at home. Finally, government should be focused on managing globalisation rather than allowing globalisation to manage the way in which the Australian literary narrative develops. We have an obligation to help keep Australian books in the marketplace and avoid a perilous future for Australian culture and education. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—Order! The time for the grievance debate has expired. The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 192B. The debate is adjourned, and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 21:32:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.32 pm 8850 Questions in Writing 8850 8850 717 8850 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 12 May 2009: In respect of visa categories 176, 457, 475, 886, 487 and 887, for each category: (a) how many visas were issued from 1 July 2008 to 12 May 2009 for principal and secondary applicants; and (b) have principal applicants with occupations not on the Critical Skills List been processed since 1 January 2009; if so, (i) which of these visa categories are affected by the policy to give processing priority to occupations on the Critical Skills List, and (ii) does the policy on this matter vary according to whether the applicant is sponsored by a State or Territory government or by a relative; if so, how. 8850 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Subclass 176 Principal Applicants 1886 Secondary Applicants 3517 Subclass 457 Primary Applicants 44910 Secondary Applicants 44800 Subclass 475 Principal Applicants 988 Secondary Applicants 1335 Subclass 886 Principal Applicants 2830 Secondary Applicants 792 Subclass 487 Principal Applicants 354 Secondary Applicants 113 Subclass 887 Principal Applicants 1126 Secondary Applicants 1595 Yes. A total of 546 applications without nominated occupations on the CSL were processed after 1 January 2009 to 12 May 2009 where there were exceptional circumstances, including: Applicants affected by the designated security issue; Applications remitted from the Migration Review Tribunal; Applications where the occupation was subsequently removed from the CSL; Onshore applicants required to depart Australia where a pre-grant letter has already been sent, and Other compelling and compassionate cases. 176, 475, 886 Yes. Applicants sponsored by a State or Territory government receive priority processing regardless of whether their occupation is on the Critical Skills List (CSL). Those sponsored by a relative receive priority processing if their occupation is on the CSL. 8850 8850 722 8850 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, in writing, on 13 May 2009: In respect of his letters to State and Territory education ministers regarding Building the Education Revolution funding and small business operators: (a) what response has he received from the (i) New South Wales Minister for Education and Training, (ii) Queensland Minister for Education and Training, (iii) South Australian Minister for Education, (iv) Victorian Minister for Education, (v) Tasmanian Minister for Education and Skills, (vi) Western Australian Minister for Education, (vii) Australian Capital Territory Minister for Education and Training, and (ix) Northern Territory Minister for Education and Training; and (b) what measures have the respondents in (a) (i) to (ix) undertaken to ensure participation of small businesses in the implementation of the Building the Education Revolution program. 8851 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 Dr Emerson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: I have received responses from all State and Territories education ministers. All State and Territory governments recognise the importance of effective participation of small businesses in the implementation of the Building the Education Revolution program and have developed a range of measures to provide effective opportunities for small and local businesses. While tender processes vary between jurisdictions, all States and Territories have measures in place that will facilitate the use of local contractors or sub-contractors and provide information to local businesses on how to take up work opportunities. Some of these initiatives include on-line registration of interest, requiring contractors to engage local sub-contractors, and simplifying procurement processes. 1 1 736 1 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP 0 Mr Andrews asked the Minister representing the Minister for Defence, in writing, on 13 May 2009: In respect of any intergovernmental agreements that exist in the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many exist; (b) what are their (i) names, and (ii) objectives and purposes; (c) what are the names of the parties to each; and (d) will the Minister provide a copy of each; if not, why not. 1 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr Combet —The Minister for Defence has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: For a list of Defence’s inter-governmental agreements I refer the Honourable Member to the Council of Australian Government (COAG) website (www.coag.gov.au) and the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) website (www.dfat.gov.au/treaties). An additional list of inter-governmental agreements (IGAs) that are not published on these websites can be found in the table below. However, due to the number of smaller IGAs Defence is committed to, the precise detail requested in the question is not readily available and I am not prepared to authorise the commitment of resources required to provide a detailed response. Defence also has a number of classified IGAs that can not be listed for security reasons. , (ii) and (c) Please see table below. Yes. However, two of the agreements listed below are Commercial-in-Confidence and the content of these agreements can not be released. Name of Agreement Objective and Purpose Party Party Non-disclosure Agreement – Off Axis Viewing Device For the exchange of confidential information on DSTO technology South Australian Police Department, Special Tasks & Rescue Group Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation Collaborative Agreement – Sensor Technologies (Commercial-in-Confidence) For undertaking collaborative research South Australian Police Department Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation Non-disclosure Agreement – Evaluation of target compounds for the development of anti-infectives (Commercial-in-Confidence) For the exchange of confidential information Royal Botanical Gardens Board – Victoria Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation Non-disclosure Agreement – Longford Royal Commission For the exchange of confidential information Victorian Government Solicitor - Solicitor Assisting Longford Royal Commission Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation Licence for Commonwealth Agency use of Keyword AAA (Commonwealth Modified Version) Licence for the use of data/software State Records Authority of NSW Department of Defence, Defence Science and Technology Organisation Deed of Agreement - Relocation of Amberley State School To authorise the transfer of funds relating to the relocation of Amberley State School State of Queensland Department of Defence and the Department of Education, Training and the Arts Kings Highway Improvement Program Works Package Memorandum of Understanding to contribute to the upgrade of the Kings Highway between Queanbeyan and Bungendore State of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth of Australia and the Department of Defence Kings Highway Upgrade Funding Deed Funding to contribute to the upgrade of the Kings Highway between Queanbeyan and Bungendore State of New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory Commonwealth of Australia and the Department of Defence Centaur Funding Agreement To outline the payment and funding arrangements for the program and activities associated with the search for Australian Hospital Ship Centaur. State of Queensland Commonwealth of Australia and the Department of Defence 8853 8853 780 8853 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2009: Did the Government pay external consultants to work on its policy position on the Productivity Commission Report Paid Parental Leave: Support for Parents with Newborn Children (28 February 2009); if so, who were they and what sum of money were they paid; if not, which department did the policy work and prepared the booklet Australia’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme (2009) released on Budget night. Exactly how will the $2.35 million allocated for “communication and evaluation” expenses under the scheme for the 2009-10 financial year be spent given the scheme is not scheduled to commence until half-way through the 2010-11 financial year. Has a special group or taskforce been assembled within her department to administer the scheme; if so, (a) how many people are currently employed in that capacity, and (b) will that number increase; if so, to what number and when. Given some businesses will become paymasters, (a) what role will her department play in the implementation of the scheme, (b) will another department play a part in administering the scheme; if so, which department; and (c) who will businesses be required to deal with to ensure they receive the advanced payments for paying their employees. Who will be responsible for benchmarking the (a) current levels of Paid Parental Leave, and (b) potential for employers to roll-back their support as the Government steps in with the taxpayer funded scheme; and can she guarantee that the current level of women with access to paid parental leave (54 per cent) will not drop under the scheme. On what modelling was the costing of the scheme based, and who provided the modelling. What overall modelling was done to examine the impact of Paid Parental Leave on, and its interaction with, the Family Tax Benefit transfer system and effective marginal tax rates; and will she release this modelling; if so, when; if not why not. 8853 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No external consultants were used to develop the Government’s policy position on PPL. FaHCSIA led the policy work and the preparation of the booklet on PPL, with input from the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations, the Department of Prime Minister & Cabinet, the Department of Finance and Deregulation and the Treasury. $200,000 is allocated for evaluation activity. Any Baseline data needed for the evaluation should be collected prior to the PPL Scheme’s commencement. $2.15 million is allocated for development of a communications and media campaign which will commence half-way through 2010. In order to have the communications and media campaign ready to commence half-way through 2010, expenditure is required in the financial year ending 30 June 2010. The purpose of the campaign is to ensure that parents, employers and the community are informed about how the scheme will operate. FaHCSIA has established a new branch to develop and implement the scheme from 1 July 2009. FaHCSIA was allocated resources for an Average Staffing Level (ASL) of 18 in the 2009–10 year, 18.33 in the 2010–11 year and 5 for the 2011-12 and subsequent years. FaHCSIA is leading the development and implementation of the scheme in close consultation with DEEWR and with input from other agencies. The scheme will be administered by the Family Assistance Office (Centrelink and Medicare Australia). The paymaster function will be administered and coordinated by Centrelink. The Government will be evaluating the Paid Parental Leave scheme and this will include monitoring the level of employer provided paid parental leave. The Government does not mandate the provision of paid parental leave by employers which is a matter for negotiation at the workplace level The costing of the scheme used Centrelink administrative data, ABS data and some of the assumptions used by the Productivity Commission in its final report. The modelling of the scheme was undertaken by the Productivity Commission and the results of this analysis are in Appendix L of its final report which has already been released. 8854 8854 792 8854 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 23 June 2009: In respect of the Access Economics report Burden of Heart Disease (June 2009): is she aware of the existence of this report; and will the Government respond to this report, particularly to the recommendation for the establishment and maintenance of a national database; if so, by what date and will the response be publicly available. 8854 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission has provided a long term, comprehensive view and options about health care reform, including recommendations directed towards ensuring timely access and safe care in hospitals. The Government is using the recommendations of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission’s report as a basis for direct consultation with the health sector and the Australian public between now and the end of the year. Consideration will be given to implementing these recommendations for hospital patients, including patients with heart disease. 8854 8854 809 8854 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 25 June 2009: In July 2008, August 2008, September 2008, October 2008, November 2008, December 2008, January 2009, February 2009, March 2009, April 2009, May 2009, and June 2009: what was the Job Network active caseload for each (a) current, and (b) new, Employment Service Area 8854 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Job Network active caseload figures for the 2008–09 financial year for the former Job Network Employment Services Areas are shown at Attachment A. Job Network active caseload figures for the 2008–09 financial year mapped to the new Job Services Australia Employment Service Areas are shown at Attachment B. These figures are only available for the September 2008, December 2008, March 2009 and June 2009 quarters. Active Caseload Data by Former ESA Structure Attachment A ESA CODE ESA NAME July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009 February 2009 March 2009 April 2009 May 2009 June 2009 AACT Australian Capital Territory 5,200 5,158 5,104 5,130 5,286 5,483 5,942 6,012 5,984 6,120 6,194 6,183 CHCO Christmas/Cocos 131 132 126 121 120 121 115 121 125 117 113 112 DALE Dale 2,388 2,384 2,398 2,473 2,556 2,548 2,849 3,027 3,316 3,402 3,592 3,645 ESPE Esperance 560 568 572 585 624 604 674 759 808 808 792 803 GOLD Goldfields 1,787 1,756 1,734 1,798 1,881 1,892 1,988 2,059 2,178 2,186 2,235 2,211 KWIN Kwinana/Rockingham 2,167 2,090 2,057 2,140 2,295 2,359 2,741 2,999 3,281 3,435 3,694 3,851 LOWG Lower Great Southern WA 1,863 1,832 1,757 1,736 1,755 1,716 1,804 1,819 1,847 1,920 2,008 2,136 MIWH Midlands/Wheatbelt 1,768 1,752 1,757 1,759 1,796 1,822 1,930 1,968 2,048 2,125 2,226 2,232 NBEA Northern Beaches Sydney 1,928 1,863 1,861 1,907 2,021 2,039 2,334 2,535 2,699 2,797 3,037 3,056 NBLU Blue Mountains 1,230 1,182 1,154 1,156 1,216 1,227 1,298 1,358 1,359 1,409 1,396 1,386 NCAN Canterbury/Bankstown 11,239 11,129 11,014 11,328 11,573 11,644 12,345 12,600 12,995 13,136 13,434 13,666 NCCO Central Coast Sydney 13,366 13,339 13,190 13,320 13,722 13,676 14,691 15,052 15,204 14,992 15,323 15,406 NCEA Central Eastern NSW 2,404 2,350 2,351 2,352 2,371 2,331 2,456 2,524 2,521 2,459 2,489 2,467 NCEW Central West Sydney 12,899 12,569 12,452 12,665 13,166 13,183 14,227 14,747 15,321 15,425 15,779 15,899 NCMU Central Murrumbidgee 4,466 4,422 4,146 4,175 4,186 4,147 4,213 4,202 4,172 3,977 4,027 3,923 NCOA North Coast Hunter 4,673 4,706 4,581 4,696 4,807 4,825 5,105 5,240 5,311 5,148 5,174 5,216 NCOF Coffs Harbour 4,891 4,856 4,820 4,827 4,938 4,930 5,232 5,343 5,270 5,201 5,184 5,150 NCWE Central Western NSW 1,889 1,881 1,883 1,864 1,928 1,939 2,022 2,055 2,015 1,978 2,015 2,017 NEUB Eurobodalla 2,368 2,404 2,404 2,473 2,523 2,502 2,560 2,591 2,661 2,592 2,630 2,634 NFAI Fairfield/Liverpool 16,051 15,846 15,573 15,920 16,494 16,455 17,397 17,952 18,444 18,652 19,185 19,289 NFAW Far West NSW 1,317 1,307 1,390 1,401 1,427 1,432 1,511 1,485 1,457 1,453 1,459 1,463 NGRA Grafton 3,254 3,264 3,237 3,265 3,296 3,318 3,437 3,458 3,394 3,333 3,316 3,287 NGWY Gwydir Namoi 2,969 2,986 2,944 2,912 2,922 2,915 2,957 2,994 2,999 2,854 2,861 2,822 NHAS Hastings 3,484 3,476 3,359 3,422 3,488 3,490 3,728 3,789 3,758 3,665 3,667 3,704 NHUM Hume 2,634 2,608 2,518 2,528 2,545 2,600 2,708 2,850 2,929 2,919 2,964 2,982 NHUN Hunter 5,920 5,821 5,612 5,621 5,745 5,802 6,162 6,321 6,376 6,274 6,333 6,375 NHWK Hawkesbury 1,794 1,778 1,706 1,682 1,772 1,758 1,917 2,004 2,069 2,043 2,119 2,173 NICI Inner City/Eastern Suburbs Sydney 8,532 8,608 8,539 8,860 9,233 9,426 10,171 10,709 10,919 11,066 11,251 11,148 NIWE Inner West Sydney 7,762 7,693 7,527 7,669 7,932 8,170 8,927 9,321 9,613 9,536 9,774 9,778 NKEM Kempsey 3,709 3,646 3,574 3,539 3,594 3,573 3,725 3,723 3,661 3,635 3,652 3,663 NKPT Keepit 4,364 4,375 4,342 4,343 4,397 4,394 4,609 4,665 4,632 4,557 4,502 4,514 NLHU Lower Hunter 15,979 15,845 15,482 15,425 15,880 16,106 16,944 17,317 17,248 17,088 17,169 17,357 NLSC Lower South Coast NSW 1,652 1,635 1,644 1,661 1,707 1,703 1,773 1,800 1,776 1,699 1,710 1,683 NMAC Macarthur 8,533 8,342 8,219 8,236 8,541 8,448 9,116 9,411 9,615 9,660 9,817 9,751 NMUR Murray Darling 411 412 411 413 410 411 419 424 427 420 444 450 NNEA North East NSW 3,549 3,523 3,443 3,448 3,463 3,518 3,695 3,706 3,663 3,646 3,634 3,621 NORA Orana 3,858 3,851 3,832 3,788 3,826 3,841 4,013 3,983 3,929 3,837 3,822 3,823 NOWE Outer West Sydney 17,530 17,481 17,216 17,553 18,185 18,070 19,596 20,420 21,061 21,025 21,655 21,927 NOXL Oxley 1,002 1,000 1,040 1,056 1,053 1,062 1,116 1,118 1,122 1,109 1,103 1,097 NPAT Patterson 4,235 4,213 4,052 3,913 3,957 3,983 4,156 4,138 4,044 4,089 4,085 4,081 NPRK Parkes 1,931 1,915 1,899 1,842 1,859 1,864 1,997 2,019 1,991 1,942 1,889 1,898 NQBN Queanbeyan 907 916 916 889 934 957 1,011 1,029 1,067 1,024 1,039 1,043 NRIC Richmond 4,624 4,472 4,332 4,359 4,468 4,412 4,673 4,809 4,807 4,731 4,695 4,674 NSHL Shoalhaven 5,063 5,039 5,067 5,134 5,201 5,208 5,462 5,505 5,537 5,269 5,320 5,311 NSHO North Shore Sydney 5,053 4,935 4,781 5,007 5,377 5,445 6,163 6,565 6,934 7,081 7,255 7,298 NSNO Snowy 643 596 581 602 625 647 682 650 625 615 645 747 NSOU Southern Highlands NSW 1,068 1,050 1,038 1,050 1,068 1,064 1,143 1,220 1,261 1,305 1,294 1,206 NSSU Southern Suburbs NSW 3,152 3,151 3,079 3,131 3,194 3,170 3,391 3,475 3,532 3,489 3,510 3,507 NSTA Southern Tablelands NSW 1,649 1,613 1,561 1,508 1,506 1,502 1,607 1,605 1,584 1,634 1,669 1,698 NSTG St George/Sutherland 8,517 8,484 8,353 8,558 8,912 8,963 9,892 10,380 10,585 10,452 10,756 10,576 NSTU Sturt 3,534 3,480 3,345 3,368 3,286 3,283 3,437 3,420 3,478 3,327 3,451 3,450 NTAL Alice Springs 4,443 4,429 4,448 4,473 4,482 4,340 4,416 4,469 4,444 4,510 4,450 4,478 NTAR Taree 4,958 4,894 4,879 4,903 4,985 5,018 5,194 5,293 5,260 5,150 5,170 5,171 NTDA Darwin 3,915 3,855 3,719 3,877 3,877 3,800 4,065 4,160 4,243 4,281 4,322 4,420 NTKA Katherine 2,711 2,679 2,634 2,635 2,607 2,588 2,666 2,622 2,606 2,617 2,612 2,609 NTTE Tennant Creek 1,021 1,027 1,017 1,032 1,019 1,005 1,025 1,067 1,083 1,098 1,099 1,109 NTTO Top End 5,653 5,692 5,725 5,663 5,665 5,532 5,633 5,680 5,588 5,578 5,611 5,590 NTWE Tweed 3,960 3,966 3,922 3,978 4,161 4,216 4,524 4,740 4,844 4,960 5,089 5,103 NUHU Upper Hunter 1,667 1,657 1,617 1,627 1,698 1,717 1,827 1,875 1,867 1,843 1,834 1,826 NWOL Wollongong 7,182 7,149 7,032 7,176 7,377 7,476 7,985 8,108 8,119 8,077 8,193 8,282 QBUN Bundaberg 5,362 5,291 5,142 5,342 5,424 5,414 5,848 6,153 6,246 6,187 6,193 6,013 QCAI Cairns 9,748 9,585 9,457 9,876 10,233 10,482 11,712 12,613 13,140 13,188 13,373 13,274 QCVE Western Downs 1,833 1,802 1,802 1,824 1,854 1,900 2,009 2,012 2,016 1,987 1,974 1,957 QEMR Emerald 762 762 742 765 805 798 919 990 1,008 873 823 824 QFRC Fraser Coast 5,288 5,218 5,072 5,165 5,272 5,387 5,806 6,082 6,122 6,200 6,233 6,125 QGLC Gold Coast 16,365 16,305 15,955 16,636 17,470 18,002 20,159 21,589 22,661 23,335 24,417 24,570 QGLD Gladstone 1,802 1,787 1,774 1,815 1,834 1,893 2,086 2,264 2,389 2,505 2,574 2,571 QGYM Gympie 3,862 3,756 3,712 3,835 3,882 3,992 4,231 4,366 4,580 4,646 4,691 4,696 QIPS Ipswich 7,234 7,073 6,913 7,093 7,448 7,661 8,382 8,796 9,172 9,132 9,312 9,368 QLOG Logan 11,129 10,971 10,864 11,270 11,523 11,678 13,070 14,200 15,057 15,275 15,568 15,758 QMAC Mackay 4,052 3,919 3,770 3,878 3,960 4,118 4,697 5,225 5,510 5,126 5,192 5,198 QMTI Mt Isa 2,308 2,413 2,414 2,468 2,540 2,558 2,808 2,925 2,951 2,914 2,939 2,926 QNBR North Brisbane 9,070 9,034 8,837 9,177 9,659 10,061 11,331 12,019 12,532 12,705 13,041 12,911 QRDC Redcliffe Caboolture 10,520 10,339 10,049 10,519 10,996 11,220 12,677 13,415 14,113 14,214 14,486 14,493 QROC Rockhampton 4,627 4,640 4,404 4,509 4,673 4,768 5,206 5,462 5,633 5,667 5,857 5,868 QSEB South East Brisbane 7,524 7,376 7,277 7,448 7,723 7,878 8,888 9,554 10,015 10,295 10,329 10,307 QSNC Sunshine Coast 9,611 9,464 9,303 9,681 10,089 10,283 11,572 12,510 13,218 13,513 13,778 13,846 QSWB South West Brisbane 8,083 8,046 7,951 8,075 8,257 8,536 9,477 9,961 10,461 10,633 10,863 10,860 QTAB Tablelands 2,541 2,568 2,435 2,453 2,502 2,538 2,814 2,964 3,026 2,999 3,036 3,024 QTOW Townsville 9,126 8,849 8,692 8,890 9,008 9,445 10,785 11,797 11,971 11,511 11,296 11,048 QTST Torres Strait 1,247 1,253 1,261 1,247 1,252 1,206 1,224 1,259 1,243 1,251 1,275 1,288 QTWM Toowoomba 4,226 4,249 4,248 4,308 4,328 4,335 4,717 4,939 5,046 4,966 5,079 5,052 QWAR Warwick 2,312 2,290 2,243 2,277 2,301 2,262 2,413 2,445 2,474 2,418 2,384 2,408 SADE Southern Adelaide 5,427 5,369 5,327 5,262 5,255 5,339 5,642 5,787 5,783 5,737 5,885 5,798 SAME Adelaide Metropolitan 9,850 9,804 9,558 9,636 9,789 10,024 10,663 10,745 10,561 10,651 10,629 10,431 SCED Ceduna 603 599 594 583 564 569 581 604 610 611 606 622 SFKI Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island 1,378 1,342 1,316 1,300 1,331 1,340 1,438 1,469 1,492 1,544 1,578 1,582 SGAW Gawler 2,357 2,342 2,345 2,335 2,317 2,380 2,543 2,700 2,738 2,744 2,818 2,793 SKAD Kadina 1,181 1,191 1,181 1,126 1,127 1,147 1,214 1,241 1,215 1,217 1,247 1,251 SMUR Murraylands 1,556 1,568 1,556 1,523 1,527 1,555 1,655 1,710 1,734 1,695 1,672 1,643 SNEA North Eastern Adelaide 3,383 3,341 3,303 3,200 3,278 3,386 3,567 3,595 3,605 3,641 3,781 3,697 SNTH Northern Adelaide 9,180 9,151 9,016 9,058 9,059 9,212 9,697 9,951 10,047 10,296 10,610 10,578 SNWA North Western Adelaide 6,204 6,172 6,106 6,158 6,215 6,270 6,625 6,782 6,732 6,821 7,172 7,250 SPTA Port Augusta 2,228 2,247 2,252 2,239 2,184 2,135 2,221 2,261 2,237 2,248 2,257 2,224 SPTL Port Lincoln 1,123 1,144 1,164 1,189 1,209 1,223 1,280 1,273 1,249 1,242 1,286 1,266 SPTP Port Pirie 1,859 1,829 1,832 1,868 1,876 1,883 1,958 2,000 2,028 2,082 2,086 2,082 SRIV Riverland 1,756 1,711 1,705 1,736 1,743 1,759 1,804 1,830 1,742 1,795 1,855 1,841 SSAH Southern Adelaide Hills 1,586 1,618 1,586 1,630 1,667 1,667 1,751 1,853 1,897 1,849 1,865 1,845 SSEA South East SA 2,566 2,562 2,494 2,400 2,521 2,511 2,591 2,646 2,592 2,582 2,676 2,761 SWAD South West Adelaide 4,058 4,048 3,999 4,053 4,170 4,311 4,584 4,596 4,634 4,657 4,747 4,735 SWHY Whyalla 1,373 1,360 1,341 1,360 1,346 1,345 1,391 1,402 1,409 1,449 1,475 1,462 THOB Hobart 9,639 9,630 9,493 9,686 9,849 9,944 10,283 10,208 10,222 10,273 10,359 10,451 TLAU Launceston 5,673 5,643 5,601 5,584 5,717 5,598 5,808 5,766 5,875 5,852 6,001 6,168 TWNW West and North West Tasmania 5,012 5,055 5,053 5,111 5,200 5,289 5,494 5,582 5,575 5,639 5,857 6,000 VBEN Bendigo 5,644 5,560 5,495 5,541 5,694 5,821 6,143 6,207 6,526 6,571 6,719 6,578 VEGI East Gippsland 3,318 3,264 3,203 3,237 3,269 3,307 3,471 3,600 3,582 3,342 3,370 3,352 VEST East Melbourne 11,541 11,323 10,951 11,019 11,260 11,520 12,671 13,632 14,266 14,626 14,822 14,667 VEUR Eureka 5,515 5,566 5,449 5,584 5,666 5,745 6,125 6,210 6,304 6,352 6,383 6,387 VGEE Geelong 8,731 8,770 8,645 8,612 8,876 8,983 9,543 9,786 9,819 9,894 10,139 10,311 VGOU Goulburn Valley 5,110 5,055 5,009 5,091 5,392 5,415 5,908 5,775 5,735 5,437 5,411 5,509 VGRA Grampians 1,797 1,821 1,749 1,760 1,790 1,837 1,909 1,916 1,968 2,014 2,025 2,045 VHAM Hampden 2,539 2,513 2,485 2,511 2,501 2,574 2,657 2,717 2,726 2,760 2,796 2,816 VIEA Inner East Melbourne 10,431 10,514 10,489 10,689 11,147 11,423 12,449 13,289 13,379 13,578 13,897 13,838 VKIE Kiewa 1,553 1,543 1,520 1,508 1,590 1,641 1,730 1,788 1,821 1,776 1,811 1,816 VMMU Mid Murray 1,642 1,685 1,616 1,626 1,662 1,639 1,714 1,788 1,737 1,723 1,758 1,792 VNOR North Melbourne 14,235 13,978 13,740 13,805 13,959 14,180 15,178 15,898 16,250 16,486 16,858 16,711 VNWE North West Melbourne 14,421 14,061 13,848 14,242 14,602 14,859 15,954 16,701 16,873 17,113 17,418 17,239 VOVE Ovens 3,913 3,850 3,843 3,894 3,921 3,895 4,116 4,266 4,241 4,258 4,266 4,242 VPEN Peninsula Melbourne 7,755 7,712 7,575 7,640 7,651 7,798 8,408 8,949 9,285 9,588 9,769 9,815 VSEA South East Melbourne 12,946 12,778 12,570 12,777 12,851 12,996 14,130 14,909 15,275 15,702 16,085 15,996 VSOU South Melbourne 9,907 9,748 9,470 9,599 9,853 10,041 11,031 11,791 12,239 12,430 12,635 12,662 VSUN Sunraysia 3,262 3,288 3,207 3,231 3,284 3,192 3,419 3,394 3,325 3,258 3,274 3,288 VSWE South West Melbourne 10,055 10,042 9,857 10,076 10,354 10,396 11,091 11,642 11,985 12,152 12,359 12,389 VWDI Western District Victoria 1,683 1,610 1,564 1,547 1,579 1,610 1,674 1,740 1,721 1,698 1,745 1,749 VWSG West and South Gippsland 5,863 5,868 5,867 5,872 5,939 6,041 6,284 6,451 6,635 6,643 6,761 6,600 VWST West Melbourne 12,554 12,446 12,175 12,403 12,757 12,712 13,587 14,060 14,420 14,592 14,821 14,987 WCEN Central Perth 4,123 4,040 3,988 4,036 4,194 4,323 4,816 5,137 5,468 5,669 5,974 5,935 WEAS East Metro Perth 4,635 4,654 4,545 4,663 4,904 4,936 5,549 6,011 6,334 6,594 6,919 7,048 WEKI East Kimberley 1,726 1,698 1,644 1,605 1,647 1,588 1,597 1,655 1,772 1,755 1,784 1,747 WEPI East Pilbara 1,228 1,232 1,216 1,243 1,270 1,225 1,260 1,275 1,300 1,333 1,405 1,424 WKAR Karratha 816 796 785 768 792 763 791 808 839 863 900 892 WMWG Mid West and Gascoyne 3,098 3,079 3,089 3,097 3,124 3,011 3,225 3,319 3,344 3,330 3,420 3,483 WNOR North Metro Perth 7,004 7,001 6,977 7,180 7,462 7,552 8,552 9,312 9,897 10,361 11,081 11,519 WSEA South East Metro Perth 4,969 4,861 4,841 4,941 5,181 5,329 6,113 6,734 7,258 7,572 8,106 8,485 WSWE South West WA 3,218 3,088 3,047 3,174 3,297 3,213 3,638 3,727 3,952 4,180 4,484 4,701 WSWM South West Metro Perth 3,119 3,094 3,062 3,153 3,391 3,504 3,879 4,214 4,486 4,630 5,074 5,150 WWKI West Kimberley 2,616 2,645 2,631 2,673 2,712 2,652 2,770 2,819 2,880 2,903 3,006 2,998 Total Total 674,998 668,981 658,257 668,357 685,480 692,693 746,399 776,351 793,909 798,118 814,217 816,013   Active Caseload Data Matched To New ESA Structure Attachment B September 2008 Quarter December 2008 Quarter March 2009 Quarter June 2009 Quarter ESA Name Jobseeker Cnt ESA Name Jobseeker Cnt ESA Name Jobseeker Cnt ESA Name Jobseeker Cnt ACT/Queanbeyan 5,955 ACT/Queanbeyan 6,380 ACT/Queanbeyan 6,993 ACT/Queanbeyan 7,196 Adelaide Hills 1,344 Adelaide Hills 1,405 Adelaide Hills 1,609 Adelaide Hills 1,639 Alice Springs 4,936 Alice Springs 4,699 Alice Springs 4,846 Alice Springs 5,625 Bayside 20,111 Bayside 21,433 Bayside 25,699 Bayside 26,502 Bendigo 6,500 Bendigo 6,837 Bendigo 7,642 Bendigo 7,729 Bundaberg 4,933 Bundaberg 5,192 Bundaberg 5,998 Bundaberg 5,727 Cairns 9,590 Cairns 10,472 Cairns 13,356 Cairns 13,447 Calder 13,000 Calder 13,811 Calder 15,554 Calder 16,497 Canterbury/Bankstown 11,651 Canterbury/Bankstown 12,299 Canterbury/Bankstown 13,709 Canterbury/Bankstown 12,763 Capricornia 5,015 Capricornia 5,416 Capricornia 6,423 Capricornia 6,559 Central and West Metro 6,702 Central and West Metro 7,538 Central and West Metro 9,909 Central and West Metro 11,400 Central Coast 12,964 Central Coast 13,436 Central Coast 14,959 Central Coast 15,351 Central Western Sydney 12,833 Central Western Sydney 13,637 Central Western Sydney 15,936 Central Western Sydney 17,043 Chifley 1,785 Chifley 1,838 Chifley 1,902 Chifley 1,870 Clarence 3,309 Clarence 3,404 Clarence 3,494 Clarence 3,207 Coffs Harbour 6,327 Coffs Harbour 6,457 Coffs Harbour 6,829 Coffs Harbour 6,932 Dale 2,197 Dale 2,317 Dale 2,972 Dale 3,289 Darwin 3,567 Darwin 3,549 Darwin 3,987 Darwin 4,046 East Gippsland 3,368 East Gippsland 3,463 East Gippsland 3,733 East Gippsland 3,473 East Metro 6,634 East Metro 7,274 East Metro 9,742 East Metro 11,243 Eastern Adelaide 4,537 Eastern Adelaide 4,859 Eastern Adelaide 5,143 Eastern Adelaide 5,397 Eastern Suburbs 4,254 Eastern Suburbs 4,758 Eastern Suburbs 5,674 Eastern Suburbs 5,990 Eureka 4,883 Eureka 5,228 Eureka 5,732 Eureka 5,883 Eurobodalla 2,243 Eurobodalla 2,336 Eurobodalla 2,480 Eurobodalla 2,635 Fairfield 9,215 Fairfield 9,594 Fairfield 10,685 Fairfield 10,904 Far North 3,691 Far North 3,931 Far North 4,293 Far North 5,188 Far West 1,428 Far West 1,464 Far West 1,499 Far West 1,491 Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island 1,323 Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island 1,342 Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island 1,492 Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island 1,565 Fraser Coast 5,275 Fraser Coast 5,593 Fraser Coast 6,370 Fraser Coast 6,141 Gawler 1,950 Gawler 1,971 Gawler 2,235 Gawler 2,310 Geelong 8,965 Geelong 9,306 Geelong 10,201 Geelong 10,673 Gladstone 2,013 Gladstone 2,133 Gladstone 2,693 Gladstone 2,803 Gold Coast 15,424 Gold Coast 17,580 Gold Coast 22,189 Gold Coast 23,795 Goldfields/Esperance 2,143 Goldfields/Esperance 2,425 Goldfields/Esperance 2,898 Goldfields/Esperance 2,755 Goulburn Valley 5,228 Goulburn Valley 5,588 Goulburn Valley 5,910 Goulburn Valley 5,762 Grampians 1,427 Grampians 1,470 Grampians 1,564 Grampians 1,602 Gwydir Namoi 3,232 Gwydir Namoi 3,206 Gwydir Namoi 3,312 Gwydir Namoi 3,113 Gympie 3,356 Gympie 3,569 Gympie 4,084 Gympie 4,446 Hampden 2,537 Hampden 2,625 Hampden 2,761 Hampden 2,833 Hastings 3,317 Hastings 3,440 Hastings 3,699 Hastings 3,631 Hobart 9,562 Hobart 10,038 Hobart 10,306 Hobart 10,450 Hunter 5,431 Hunter 5,601 Hunter 6,128 Hunter 6,536 Inner Sydney 8,229 Inner Sydney 9,045 Inner Sydney 10,360 Inner Sydney 10,241 Inner Western Sydney 3,347 Inner Western Sydney 3,511 Inner Western Sydney 4,264 Inner Western Sydney 4,385 Ipswich 6,423 Ipswich 7,101 Ipswich 8,519 Ipswich 9,131 Kadina/Clare 1,725 Kadina/Clare 1,700 Kadina/Clare 1,839 Kadina/Clare 1,920 Katherine 2,748 Katherine 2,667 Katherine 2,477 Katherine 2,556 Keepit 4,232 Keepit 4,261 Keepit 4,486 Keepit 4,351 Kiewa 3,529 Kiewa 3,742 Kiewa 4,168 Kiewa 4,305 Kimberley 4,221 Kimberley 4,200 Kimberley 4,610 Kimberley 4,716 Lachlan 1,853 Lachlan 1,817 Lachlan 1,938 Lachlan 1,906 Latrobe Valley 6,546 Latrobe Valley 6,668 Latrobe Valley 7,363 Latrobe Valley 7,527 Launceston 5,548 Launceston 5,547 Launceston 5,812 Launceston 6,206 Liverpool 6,082 Liverpool 6,541 Liverpool 7,404 Liverpool 8,248 Logan 11,208 Logan 11,893 Logan 15,280 Logan 16,295 Lower Hunter 15,593 Lower Hunter 16,239 Lower Hunter 17,423 Lower Hunter 17,234 Lower South Coast 2,378 Lower South Coast 2,505 Lower South Coast 2,569 Lower South Coast 2,412 Macarthur 7,327 Macarthur 7,539 Macarthur 8,589 Macarthur 9,058 Mackay 4,172 Mackay 4,652 Mackay 6,180 Mackay 5,821 Macleay 2,052 Macleay 2,046 Macleay 2,078 Macleay 1,980 Manning 5,204 Manning 5,352 Manning 5,617 Manning 5,229 Maroondah 8,473 Maroondah 8,911 Maroondah 11,154 Maroondah 11,514 Mid Murray 1,564 Mid Murray 1,600 Mid Murray 1,684 Mid Murray 1,758 Mid West and Gascoyne 3,078 Mid West and Gascoyne 3,006 Mid West and Gascoyne 3,354 Mid West and Gascoyne 3,482 Midlands/Wheatbelt 1,513 Midlands/Wheatbelt 1,604 Midlands/Wheatbelt 1,843 Midlands/Wheatbelt 1,945 Monash 8,314 Monash 8,651 Monash 10,370 Monash 11,052 Mt Isa 2,596 Mt Isa 2,730 Mt Isa 3,157 Mt Isa 2,953 Murray Darling 549 Murray Darling 545 Murray Darling 546 Murray Darling 553 Murraylands 1,377 Murraylands 1,381 Murraylands 1,524 Murraylands 1,467 Nepean 9,928 Nepean 10,435 Nepean 12,185 Nepean 12,977 New England 3,398 New England 3,480 New England 3,629 New England 3,528 North Brisbane 9,374 North Brisbane 10,630 North Brisbane 13,366 North Brisbane 13,986 North Coast 4,254 North Coast 4,493 North Coast 4,942 North Coast 3,187 North Country 3,571 North Country 3,476 North Country 3,639 North Country 4,898 North Metro 12,233 North Metro 13,284 North Metro 17,168 North Metro 19,506 Northern Adelaide 15,339 Northern Adelaide 15,762 Northern Adelaide 17,022 Northern Adelaide 17,387 Northern Sydney 5,750 Northern Sydney 6,522 Northern Sydney 8,412 Northern Sydney 9,049 Orana 4,054 Orana 4,090 Orana 4,198 Orana 4,079 Outer North Brisbane 9,127 Outer North Brisbane 10,156 Outer North Brisbane 12,731 Outer North Brisbane 12,624 Outer Western Sydney 10,531 Outer Western Sydney 11,059 Outer Western Sydney 12,881 Outer Western Sydney 13,043 Ovens 4,013 Ovens 4,083 Ovens 4,530 Ovens 4,433 Oxley 870 Oxley 870 Oxley 909 Oxley 851 Patterson 4,092 Patterson 4,004 Patterson 4,091 Patterson 4,111 Peninsula 7,799 Peninsula 8,071 Peninsula 9,561 Peninsula 9,911 Pilbara 2,012 Pilbara 1,997 Pilbara 2,134 Pilbara 2,267 Plenty 12,726 Plenty 13,313 Plenty 15,340 Plenty 16,015 Port Lincoln/Ceduna 1,816 Port Lincoln/Ceduna 1,851 Port Lincoln/Ceduna 1,915 Port Lincoln/Ceduna 1,939 Port Pirie 1,442 Port Pirie 1,455 Port Pirie 1,563 Port Pirie 1,594 Richmond 4,422 Richmond 4,506 Richmond 4,896 Richmond 5,063 Riverland 1,951 Riverland 1,998 Riverland 1,996 Riverland 2,062 Shoalhaven 5,594 Shoalhaven 5,704 Shoalhaven 6,120 Shoalhaven 5,805 South Brisbane 15,566 South Brisbane 16,912 South Brisbane 21,056 South Brisbane 21,572 South East 2,475 South East 2,487 South East 2,568 South East 2,741 South Eastern 5,125 South Eastern 5,090 South Eastern 5,179 South Eastern 4,950 Southern 5,293 Southern 5,418 Southern 6,385 Southern 7,467 Southern Adelaide 9,760 Southern Adelaide 10,127 Southern Adelaide 10,927 Southern Adelaide 10,824 Southern Ranges 3,737 Southern Ranges 3,736 Southern Ranges 4,150 Southern Ranges 3,878 St George-Sutherland 8,240 St George-Sutherland 8,829 St George-Sutherland 10,397 St George-Sutherland 10,895 Sturt 2,966 Sturt 2,934 Sturt 3,103 Sturt 3,014 Sunraysia 3,064 Sunraysia 3,059 Sunraysia 3,198 Sunraysia 3,156 Sunshine Coast 9,621 Sunshine Coast 10,646 Sunshine Coast 13,624 Sunshine Coast 14,299 Tennant Creek 873 Tennant Creek 844 Tennant Creek 926 Tennant Creek 852 Toowoomba 4,866 Toowoomba 4,985 Toowoomba 5,782 Toowoomba 5,717 Top End 5,802 Top End 5,728 Top End 6,012 Top End 5,996 Townsville 7,908 Townsville 8,558 Townsville 10,846 Townsville 10,105 Tweed 4,071 Tweed 4,346 Tweed 5,005 Tweed 5,085 Upper Hunter 1,687 Upper Hunter 1,786 Upper Hunter 1,937 Upper Hunter 1,849 Warwick 2,089 Warwick 2,147 Warwick 2,348 Warwick 2,267 West and North West 5,042 West and North West 5,272 West and North West 5,580 West and North West 5,999 Western Adelaide 8,037 Western Adelaide 8,233 Western Adelaide 8,760 Western Adelaide 9,318 Western District 1,519 Western District 1,577 Western District 1,694 Western District 1,730 Western Downs 1,751 Western Downs 1,845 Western Downs 1,974 Western Downs 1,900 Westgate 22,162 Westgate 23,252 Westgate 26,725 Westgate 27,231 Windamere 2,249 Windamere 2,226 Windamere 2,399 Windamere 2,324 Wollongong 9,691 Wollongong 10,275 Wollongong 11,211 Wollongong 11,353 Yarra 6,321 Yarra 6,778 Yarra 7,633 Yarra 7,484 8864 8864 822 8864 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr Pyne asked the Minister for Education, in writing, on 25 June 2009: Has she read an article titled ‘Education Revolution complaints roll in: Rigid rules rile schools’, by Matthew Franklin (the Australian, 19 June 2009, page 2); if not, why not. Can the Minister confirm the claim in the article where, in respect of the Building the Education Revolution (BER), Senator Carr acknowledged “twenty-four letters or emails of complaint from 22 schools have been received in relation to the implementation of the program since 5 April when round 1 of the program was announced.” What are the (a) names, and (b) locations, of the 22 schools in part (2), and what is the nature of each complaint. How many complaints on this topic were received prior to 5 April 2009, and what are the (a) names, and (b) locations of the schools, and (c) details about the nature of each complaint. Will she undertake a review into the performance of BER; if so, can she indicate the terms of reference and the commencement date; if so, what are they. 8864 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes Of the 9,540 schools announced as being eligible to apply for BER funding in February 2009, 24 schools lodged complaints with the BER National Coordinator between 5 April 2009 and 19 June 2009. At the time, Senator Carr was not aware of two complaints that were submitted on 18 and 19 June 2009. Amphitheatre Primary School Beaconsfield Upper Primary School Berwick Fields Primary School Berwick Lodge Primary School Charleville Distance Education School Cootamundra High School Courtenay Gardens Primary School Cronulla South Public School Dandenong Valley School Faulconbridge Public School Glendal Primary School Hay Public School Hughes Primary School Inverloch Primary School Lynbrook Primary School Oak Park Primary School Oatlands Primary School Osborne Primary School River Gum Primary School Sacre Coeur St. Laurence’s College Southern Cross Primary School Thomas Mitchell Primary School Tullamarine Primary School Four Atwell Primary School Australian Christian College - Moreton Basket Range Primary School Waggrakine Primary School The complaints come from Western Australia, South Australia and Queensland. All complaints have been followed up. They range from requests to understand how the national funding allocations are calculated; the inclusion of distance education students; timeframes associated with the program; and the options available to schools to construct facilities of their own choosing. The BER National Co-ordinator is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the BER in accordance with the Guidelines. 8865 8865 838 8865 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 25 June 2009: In respect of his attendance at the International Whaling Commission (IWC), Portugal, in June 2009: What are the names, titles and offices of every member of his delegation to the IWC meeting. What are the details concerning the dates and itinerary of this trip, including countries visited on the way there or back. What was the total cost of this journey. Which hotel did he and his staff stay at in Portugal and what was the nightly cost in Australian dollars. Did he and his staff fly first class or business class. With whom did he hold personal meetings during this trip. Did Mr Sandy Hollway, the Government’s whaling envoy, attend the IWC meetings; if not, why not. 8865 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian delegation to the June 2009 IWC annual meeting (IWC61) consisted of the following officers: Mr Peter Garrett Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Ms Donna Petrachenko Australian Commissioner First Assistant Secretary Marine Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Andrew McNee Alternate Commissioner Assistant Secretary Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Dr Nick Gales Alternate Commissioner Leader Australian Marine Mammal Centre Australian Antarctic Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Ms Lesley Gidding Alternate Commissioner Assistant Director Cetacean Policy and Management Section Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Ms Donna Petrachenko Australian Commissioner First Assistant Secretary Marine Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Andrew McNee Alternate Commissioner Assistant Secretary Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Dr Nick Gales Alternate Commissioner Leader Australian Marine Mammal Centre Australian Antarctic Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Ms Lesley Gidding Alternate Commissioner Assistant Director Cetacean Policy and Management Section Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Mr Andrew McNee Alternate Commissioner Assistant Secretary Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Dr Nick Gales Alternate Commissioner Leader Australian Marine Mammal Centre Australian Antarctic Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Ms Lesley Gidding Alternate Commissioner Assistant Director Cetacean Policy and Management Section Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Dr Nick Gales Alternate Commissioner Leader Australian Marine Mammal Centre Australian Antarctic Division Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Ms Lesley Gidding Alternate Commissioner Assistant Director Cetacean Policy and Management Section Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Ms Lesley Gidding Alternate Commissioner Assistant Director Cetacean Policy and Management Section Marine Initiatives Branch Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Mr Matt Levey Support Staff Adviser Office of the Minister of the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Mr Ben Pratt Support Staff Media Adviser Office of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts   DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS & TRADE Mr Luke Williams Adviser Ambassador to Portugal Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Mr David Dutton Alternate Commissioner Director Marine Environment Section Environment Branch Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade   NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. NGOs (note – NGO costs are not covered by the Commonwealth) Ms Pam Eiser Adviser President Project Jonah   Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Ms Nicola Beynon Adviser Senior Program Manager Humane Society International. Travel details for the Minister’s attendance at IWC61 are as follows: Sunday 21 June 2009 Depart Sydney, Australia Monday 22 June 2009 Arrive Funchal, Portugal Thursday 25 June 2009 Depart Funchal, Portugal Arrive Paris, France Saturday 27 June 2009 Depart Paris, France Sunday 28 June 2009 Arrive Sydney, Australia. The Department of Finance and Deregulation is responsible for the payment of overseas travel costs of Ministers, an accompanying spouse and other employees in accordance with the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. Dates, destinations, the purpose and costs of all official overseas travel are tabled in the Parliament every six months in a report titled ‘Parliamentarians’ Travel Paid by the Department of Finance and Deregulation’.  The Minister and two advisers, Ben Pratt and Matt Levey, stayed at the location of the IWC meeting. Pestana Casino Park Hotel, Madeira. Staying at the location of the meeting was useful in enabling the Minister at attend the IWC meeting, and also to meet with many other attendees of the meeting who were staying at the meeting venue. In regard to the cost of accommodation please refer to answer 3 above. The Minister and all staff travelled within entitlement. The Minister held personal meetings with representatives from the following countries at the IWC meeting: Argentina Brazil Chile France Germany Mexico Portugal United Kingdom United States In his role as envoy, Mr Hollway undertakes strategic and ongoing diplomatic engagements on the Government’s behalf, including travel as required, to an extent that Cabinet Ministers with broad portfolio responsibilities sometimes cannot. As Mr Garrett was able to attend the IWC meeting, it was not necessary for Mr Hollway to also attend, and therefore he did not. It is notable that the precedent of Ministers leading Australia’s IWC delegation existed under the previous Government, however the previous Government did not appoint an envoy to engage in additional, strategic diplomacy outside of IWC annual meetings. It is also notable that Cabinet Ministers are the highest level of representation that has led Australia’s IWC delegation to date. 8868 8868 844 8868 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 25 June 2009: In respect of Solar Schools: What issues remain outstanding in negotiations with the States and Territories in the delivery of solar panels in schools. Is there any impediment now to the roll-out of solar panels in schools in any State or Territory; if so, what are they. How many schools have now received solar panels. What are the (a) names, (b) locations, (c) State and Territories, (d) electorates, (e) project cost, (f) date of installation, of the schools. 8868 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Department has had a positive response from state and territory government authorities in relation to the National Solar Schools Program. The Department has recently entered into arrangements with education departments in five states (Victoria, New South Wales, Queensland, South Australia and Western Australia) to cooperatively deliver the program over 2008-09 and 2009-10. These cooperative delivery arrangements will provide $40 million to more than 1,100 government schools. The arrangements will obtain the best value for money for schools, maximise education outcomes and simplify and streamline participation by individual schools. The Department will work towards developing similar funding arrangements with the remaining jurisdictions in 2009-10. These cooperative delivery arrangements will provide $40 million to more than 1,100 government schools. The arrangements will obtain the best value for money for schools, maximise education outcomes and simplify and streamline participation by individual schools. The Department will work towards developing similar funding arrangements with the remaining jurisdictions in 2009-10. The only impediment we are aware of is the availability of installers given the extensive remaining installation demand created by the Solar Homes and Communities Plan. One hundred and six schools whose National Solar Schools funded projects include solar power systems have confirmed their solar panels have been installed at 23 July 2009. Many more schools are still awaiting installation or are in the process of having their solar power system installed. 4      (a) to (e). Details are included in attachment A. Details are included in attachment A. Information on the dates of installation is not available at this time. This information is provided by each school as part of the detail of its final project report. Schools have six months from the date of approval to complete their project and submit their final report. Attachment A Electorate State School Total PV System Cost (GST Excl) Canberra ACT St Francis of Assisi Primary School $50,000 Fraser ACT Radford College $72,896 Barton NSW St Dominic Savio School $39,646 Berowra NSW Mount St Benedict College $25,000 Blaxland NSW Malek Fahd Islamic School $100,000 Charlton NSW St Paul’s High School $43,994 Chifley NSW Clare Catholic High School - Hassal Grove $20,900 Chifley NSW Holy Family Primary $27,273 Cowper NSW Coffs Harbour Christian Community School $50,000 Cowper NSW St Mary’s Primary School $35,643 Cunningham NSW Illawarra Christian School $22,920 Gilmore NSW Carroll College Broulee $47,366 Gilmore NSW Nowra Christian School $50,000 Gilmore NSW St John the Evangelist Catholic High School $50,000 Gilmore NSW St Michael’s Primary $50,000 Greenway NSW Mary Immaculate Primary $49,091 Greenway NSW St Mark’s Catholic College - Stanhope $22,818 Greenway NSW Terra Sancta College $98,182 Hume NSW St Joseph’s School $34,786 Lindsay NSW Our Lady of the Way - Emu Plains $49,791 Lindsay NSW St Paul’s Grammar School Penrith $100,000 Macarthur NSW St Peter’s Anglican School $50,000 Mackellar NSW Sydney Japanese School $47,707 Mitchell NSW St Bernadette’s Primary - Castle Hill $36,191 Mitchell NSW The Hills Grammar School $100,000 New England NSW St Mary of the Angels School Guyra $49,668 Newcastle NSW Hunter Christian College $50,000 North Sydney NSW Wenona School Limited $50,000 Parramatta NSW St Bernadette’s Primary - Lalor Park $31,000 Reid NSW St Patrick’s Primary - Guildford $33,100 Riverina NSW Mater Dei Catholic Primary $45,441 Wentworth NSW Montessori East - Bondi $42,941 Lingiari NT Belyuen School $46,302 Solomon NT Palmerston High School $31,350 Blair QLD St Joseph’s School $50,000 Bonner QLD Gumdale State School $20,000 Capricornia QLD Frenchville State School (Rockhampton) $20,000 Dawson QLD Eimeo Road State School $20,000 Fadden QLD Coombabah State High School (Gold Coast) $20,000 Fadden QLD Silkwood Steiner School $50,000 Griffith QLD Dutton Park State School $20,000 Groom QLD Christian Outreach College $49,964 Groom QLD Toowoomba Christian College $41,783 Herbert QLD Annandale State School (Townsville) $20,000 Hinkler QLD Pialba State School $20,000 Kennedy QLD Mount Isa Central State School $20,000 Leichhardt QLD Edge Hill State School (Cairns) $20,000 Longman QLD Bribie Island State High School $20,000 Maranoa QLD Charleville State School $20,000 Mcpherson QLD Mudgeeraba Special State School $20,000 Petrie QLD St. Joseph’s Catholic Primary School $49,964 Rankin QLD Kimberley Park State School (Logan) $20,000 Wide Bay QLD St Joseph’s School, Murgon $46,044 Adelaide SA St Peter’s College $49,570 Barker SA Angaston Primary School $44,730 Barker SA Good Shepherd Lutheran School $50,000 Barker SA Waikerie High School $33,494 Boothby SA Blackwood High School $31,930 Kingston SA Australian Technical College Adelaide South $50,000 Port Adelaide SA Endeavour College $50,000 Sturt SA St Peter’s Collegiate Girls’ School Inc $50,000 Bass TAS Australian Technical College, Northern Tasmania $31,356 Denison TAS Brent Street Primary School $33,194 Denison TAS Cosgrove High School $43,885 Franklin TAS St. James College $45,268 Aston VIC Lysterfield Primary School $48,599 Batman VIC St Gabriel’s Parish Primary School $50,000 Batman VIC Westgarth Primary School $49,747 Bendigo VIC Maiden Gully Primary School $50,000 Bendigo VIC Specimen Hill Primary $49,150 Calwell VIC Good Samaritan Catholic Primary $49,994 Chisholm VIC Ashwood Secondary Colleage $49,999 Chisholm VIC Kerrimuir Primary School $50,000 Dunkley VIC Frankston East Primary $22,791 Dunkley VIC St Jude’s Primary School $34,110 Dunkley VIC St Macartan’s Primary Schools $50,000 Flinders VIC Red Hill Consolidated School $33,155 Fremantle VIC Christ the King School - Beaconsfield $50,000 Gippsland VIC Guthridge Primary School $49,288 Gippsland VIC Tyers Primary School $50,000 Goldstein VIC Beaumaris North Primary School $50,000 Gorton VIC Sunshine Heights Primary School $50,000 Higgins VIC Armadale Primary School $43,045 Higgins VIC De La Salle College $100,000 Indi VIC Harrietville Primary School $49,259 Indi VIC Mansfield Primary School $50,000 Jagajaga VIC Bundoora Secondary College $49,767 Jagajaga VIC Greenhills Primary School $49,767 Kingston VIC Ilim College $50,000 Kooyong VIC Strathcona Baptist Girls Grammar School $24,784 La Trobe VIC Ferny Creek Primary School $49,767 La Trobe VIC Mater Christi College $50,000 Mallee VIC Mildura Senior College $50,000 Maribyrnong VIC Moonee Ponds West Primary School $50,000 Maribyrnong VIC St Therese’s School $41,525 McMillan VIC Bunyip Primary School $44,568 McMillan VIC Drouin Secondary College $50,000 McMillian VIC Pakenham Springs Primary $50,000 Melbourne Ports VIC Shelford Grammar School $50,000 Murray VIC Numurkah Secondary College $50,000 Murray VIC St Mary’s Echuca $47,304 Brand WA Mandurah Catholic College $87,209 O’Connor WA Albany Primary School $49,929 O’Connor WA Golden Hill Steiner $39,818 Perth WA St Michael’s School - Bassendean $50,000 Tangney WA Castlereagh School $18,500   8871 8871 845 8871 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt asked the Minister representing the Minister for Climate Change and Water, in writing, on 25 June 2009: What is the complete listing of staff located in the Minister’s offices in (a) Canberra, (b) Adelaide, and (c) and any other locations. What are the details of their (a) classification, (b) salary, and (c) when they commenced working with the Minister. What are the details concerning staff who have left the Minister’s employment, including when. 8871 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr Combet —The Minister for Climate Change and Water has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Classifications are provided so as not to identify personal information of individual employees. Excludes Electorate employees. As at 25 June 2009: Staff located in Minister’s office in Canberra: 4 x Adviser 2 x Assistant Adviser 1 x Executive Assistant / Office Manager 1 x Secretary / Administrative Assistant Staff located in Minister’s office in Adelaide: 1 x Senior Adviser (Chief of Staff – Cabinet) 1 x Senior Media Adviser Staff located in any other locations: Nil. Current Classification Current Salary range Date commenced working as personal staff of the Minister Senior Adviser (Chief of Staff – Cabinet) $105,441 to $142,225 17 November 2008 Senior Media Adviser $89,348 to $121,638 17 December 2007 Adviser $77,869 to $114,916 14 January 2008 Adviser $77,869 to $114,916 7 January 2008 Adviser $77,869 to $114,916 4 February 2008 Adviser $77,869 to $114,916 17 March 2008 Assistant Adviser $64,920 to $77,869 3 March 2008 Assistant Adviser $64,920 to $77,869 30 March 2009 Executive Assistant / Office Manager $52,580 to $64,920 7 February 2008 Secretary / Administrative Assistant $41,419 to $54,253 22 December 2008   Staff who have left the Minister’s employment in the period 3 December 2007 to 25 June 2009 inclusive. Classifications only are provided so as not to identify personal information of individual employees. Classification Date ceased working for the Minister Senior Adviser (Chief of Staff – Cabinet) 14 November 2008 Secretary / Administrative Assistant 21 November 2008 Note: Includes staff who left the Minister’s office to work in another office. 8872 8872 858 8872 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 11 August 2009: In respect of the United States Government’s proposal to the Australian Government to resettle former Guantanamo Bay detainees in Australia Does this proposal concern detainees that have been deemed by the United States as (a) suitable, or (b) not suitable, for custodial release. What principles will guide the Australian Government’s case by case assessment for allowing the former detainees to resettle in Australia. What is the current status of requests from the United States to resettle the former detainees in Australia. Under which category of migration are such detainees being assessed. 8873 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The US assessment of the detainees is a matter for the United States Government. The Australian Government is considering the request on a case-by-case basis and against strict immigration and national security requirements. Immigration and national security requirements. The request is being considered by the Australian Government. Unable to provide details as the matter is currently under consideration. 8873 8873 880 8873 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 Mr Lindsay asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 11 August 2009: Is he aware that on all flights in Western Queensland, cabin crew are required to demonstrate the use of life jackets during a pre take-off safety procedures demonstration, despite the fact that not all flights travel over water, for example, the seven flight segments between Mount Isa and Toowoomba. Is he aware that some cabin crew staff feel embarrassed by having to conduct life jacket demonstrations under those circumstances and that their perceived jocular attitude may in turn cause passengers to devalue the entire safety procedures demonstration. Why does the Civil Aviation Safety Authority insist on life jacket briefs for flight paths that do not cross water. Could life jacket demonstrations be made exempt from flights that do not travel over water; if not, why not. 8873 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: to (4) Air safety regulations allow airline operators to adjust the safety briefing on life jackets as required. Civil Aviation Order 20.11 (Emergency and life saving equipment and passenger control in emergencies) paragraph 14.1.1 (e) states the requirement for passengers to be briefed before each take-off.  Paragraph (e) specifies that the briefing must include the use of flotation devices where applicable. 8873 8873 895 8873 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 12 August 2009: As at 11 August 2009, how many staff were employed in the (a) Arts, Heritage and Antarctic Group, (b) Arts Branch, and (c) Culture Branch, of his department, and (d) the National Portrait Gallery. In respect of the (a) Arts, and (b) Culture branches of his department, and the (c) National Portrait Gallery, (i) what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages for the 2009-10 financial year, and (ii) what are the titles and roles of each staff member. 8873 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As at 5 August 2009 average staffing levels are (a) the Arts, Culture, Heritage and Antarctic Group 686.0 staff including (b) 125.3 in Arts Division, (c) 70.4 in Culture Division and (d) 54.1 in the National Portrait Gallery. The total 2009-10 employee expense budget allocation for (a) Arts Division is $12.255m, (b) $7.363m for Culture Division and (c) $5.960m for the National Portrait Gallery. The preparation of a response to your question regarding the titles and roles of each staff member within Arts Division, Culture Division and the National Portrait Gallery would involve a significant diversion of resources which I am not willing to authorise. 8874 8874 932 8874 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 12 August 2009: Is she aware that 80 Australians die each week from bowel cancer. Is she aware that the Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot which ran from November 2002 to June 2004 detected 176 advanced adenomas and 67 suspected cancers, which led to the implementation of the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program in January 2008. Why will the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program be phased out by December 2010. Will the Government fully implement the Program and extend funding for it to 2012 to give the five million Australians that have not been screened an opportunity to do so. 8874 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. There is no intention, at this point in time, to phase out the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program by December 2010. People turning 50, 55 or 65 years of age between 1 January 2008 and 30 December 2010 will continue to be invited and followed-up under the second phase of the Program until the end of June 2011. The structure and shape of a future National Bowel Cancer Screening Program will be considered in the context of the 2011-12 Federal Budget.