2009-09-14 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-09-14 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12.00 pm and read prayers. 9361 Miscellaneous 9361 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 9 September 2009, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has be given by the members for Shortland, Murray and Wakefield. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 9361 Bills R4085 9361 Bills R4141 9361 Bills R4186 9361 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 9361 Bills R4178 9361 Message received from the Senate returning the bill without amendment or request. 9361 Bills R4174 9361 9361 12:02:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I inform all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to. 9361 Miscellaneous 9361 Debate resumed from 10 September, on motion by Mr Albanese: That this bill be now read a second time. upon which Mr Billson moved by way of amendment: That all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: ‘while not declining to give the bill a second reading, the House is of the opinion that: (1)      given the lack of certainty about whether Labor’s debt-laden NBN proposal will even proceed, the Government should amend the legislation to limit the application of this bill to the implementation study only; and (2)      the Government should be condemned for its irresponsibility in refusing to conduct any cost benefit analysis for its NBN proposal and as such risking billions of dollars of taxpayer funds on a project that may not even be commercially viable.’ 9361 12:03:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —It is a pleasure to continue from where I left off on this very important bill about the National Broadband Network, theTelecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. It is one of those nation-building infrastructure bills and it is incumbent on all of us in this place to not only pass it but to go out and promote it and to assist government in whatever way we can to make sure that this historic National Broadband Network can be implemented. On 7 April the government made a historic announcement by establishing a company that would invest over $43 billion to roll out a superfast fibre-optic based national broadband network, something which I know all Australians are very excited about and something that I know my community is very excited about; my constituents, people who live and work in my area, people who commute in and out of my area and all the businesses in my region as well. The National Broadband Network will fundamentally change forever Australia’s communications landscape. It will create a new environment. It will create the capacity for Australians to communicate not only domestically but internationally at a level we have not seen before. In comparison to the rest of the world when we talk about competition, it will bring Australia to the competitive front. It will mean that we can compete in the Asia-Pacific region and with the rest of the globe, including the United States. We will be able to communicate, to transact and take part in commerce. New areas that we have not even yet thought of will be created through providing this opportunity, providing this vehicle that this government is moving forward to do. I mentioned when I started speaking on this bill last week that we hear a lot from the other side but we do not hear the right sounds. We hear a lot of complaint, that it is too much, too little, too late, too soon—there is always some problem. We do not hear anything about the positives, that in the end it takes a government with courage to finally step up to the mark and get on with the job and make this happen. Once it begins, as it is now beginning, the whole of Australia can come along with the development that is taking place. I would be more interested to hear from the other side what they have to say in terms of their own communities and the new opportunities that will be created in their own electorates, particularly country members who sit in this place who can see the vast opportunities that will be provided to farming communities, to agriculture, to commerce, to people that trade via the web and via the internet, when a government finally stumps up some real cash—$43 billion, in partnership with the private sector—to make these things happen. It may be more important to me than some; I am not sure about that. But I know this particular legislation is very important, why we are doing it and the powers that will be created in the formation of this new company. The western corridor that I represent, particularly that part of the western corridor between Brisbane and Ipswich, for many years has had a substandard service provision of internet and broadband facilities. That in itself is pretty commonplace right across Australia, particularly in new areas, where there has been a lack of investment by telecommunications companies—Telstra to name one, but others as well—where they just have not invested either in fibre optics or other cables that are needed to actually provide the sorts of networks that are required by people today, whether it is for provision of health services, whether it is for education or whatever it might be. What is pretty exciting about Queensland and the western corridor is that there are some real opportunities, and there are some real opportunities that exist in my electorate. The Springfield Land Corporation has been noted for many years as being the leader on a whole range of fronts, with some very innovative development through Education City and now Health City, with the education it has provided in the region, with some of the very innovative ways it has developed a community, and now also in telecommunications with the completion of the Polaris Data Centre. This is a world-standard, top-level, top-security building which provides data storage. It is capable of housing data from anywhere in the world, for organisations ranging from technology companies through to banks and governments. It is quite an important piece of infrastructure in my electorate. Not only is it a job creator, providing new jobs, jobs of the future, but it really does create a whole new economy. I think that is the key to this debate. It is about the creation of new jobs in a new economy, an economy that will not start, that will not have the parts in place, until we have a national broadband network in this country. That is why this bill is so important, not just to me and my local region in the western corridor of Queensland but right across Australia—because of the new economy that it will create. I want to put on record my support for the opportunity that is taking place in Queensland. I want to encourage the Queensland state government. I want to ask people to take the opportunity to work together in partnership. We are providing the tools, the vehicles and the investment here federally to make that all happen. For Queensland there is an opportunity to find a place to centralise a network operations centre, a NOC, to be able to house these operations, the back office operations, to be able to have a place with the facility, the infrastructure and the security, with the pipeline and the cables already in the ground for that to happen. There is nowhere in Queensland better suited or more ready to go than the western corridor. It is an opportunity I know Queensland is currently investigating. I believe the Queensland government is in the process of looking at also investing in a fibre spur that would link the Gold Coast of Queensland to the Pipe Networks PPC-1 international submarine cable network that links Sydney to Guam. This is a fantastic opportunity. This is an opportunity that should not be wasted. I believe the Queensland government is committing to offering a connectivity solution to the National Broadband Network Co. that we have created. The Queensland government will provide the National Broadband Network Co. with single-hop connectivity to the United States of America, Japan, Singapore and India, a direct five-gigabyte link to these key markets, for a period of at least 10 years. While in Canberra we are putting together the vehicles, the investment and the structures that we need and the legislation to make all this happen, the Queensland state government also has a role—as I know other state governments will have also—in making sure that we can have the network in place and can use it to its full capacity. I can think of no better way than by connecting what we are doing with what the Queensland government is proposing to do with the submarine cable network linking Sydney to Guam—linking it directly to Queensland through the Gold Coast. This will have a whole range of benefits—as you can imagine, Mr Speaker—in a whole variety of areas, including commerce, trade and connectivity between countries for sharing of information on health, education and a whole range of other areas. There are some wonderful opportunities that exist. There are other opportunities that exist out of this vehicle that we have created, and Queensland can play its role. There are a number of companies globally and a number of companies nationally here in Australia that are already working in partnership and have the capacity to deliver the sort of technical expertise that we need to make the National Broadband Network happen. The reality is that we are only going to get one shot at getting this right. We are only going to get one opportunity, and that opportunity needs to be taken in the best possible manner. I want to encourage both the National Broadband Network Co. and the Queensland state government to look at a trial of 5,000 homes or thereabouts in the western corridor and look at how you actually roll this out—basically use it as a test bed as you are rolling it out to make sure that the National Broadband Network works as efficiently as possible and is as best placed as possible. You can do that in conjunction with the rollout. You can actually have it working at the same time. This is quite important when you look at centralising a networks operations centre. You need a back office operation. You need somewhere where that infrastructure exists, somewhere where you can deliver all the key parts—the management, the technical expertise, the connectivity, the billing arrangements and the connection with what the National Broadband Network Co. does with its customers, with the carriers and service providers. I think that link is going to be critical. We will certainly provide the legislative framework to ensure that we have the information and that we have access to the hard infrastructure—the poles, the cables and whatever other parts of infrastructure we need. Critically important in this will be to bring together all of those partners. That is contained in our legislation. We talk about the partnerships with the business sector, with commerce, to make sure that we can deliver in all of these areas. Pipe Networks, which I spoke about just a moment ago, would operate a network across the fibre spur which would provide carriage directly to Guam. In Guam, the network would then link into the global reach of the Tata Communications network via the United States of America through to Tokyo, Singapore and India. This is an incredible opportunity for Australia, one that would not exist or could not be fulfilled if it were not for the National Broadband Network. As I said earlier, it is particularly exciting for me because of the opportunity I can see arising for the western corridor. We have the infrastructure in place today. We talk about shovel-ready projects and infrastructure that is ready to be delivered. Well, in the western corridor, we are prepared and we are ready to deliver now. I will be doing everything I can as the representative of that area—and it will benefit not just my electorate but also the broader western corridor and all of Queensland—to make sure we can get that partnership happening at a high level to ensure that the Queensland government, through its commercial partners and the National Broadband Network Co., can provide a network operations centre. For us here in the parliament, trying to put together something of this size is obviously a massive undertaking. It is an undertaking that will span over the next eight years—well beyond this parliament and possibly even the one after that. It is the sort of long-range, long-term critical infrastructure decision making that governments ought to be about. We have heard for many years the complaints from the community that governments only ever focus on the short term—what gets them through the next election cycle. Well, this is not one of those areas. This is an area of significant investment, significant partnership and significant longevity that will deliver for Australia long into the future—beyond this generation and well into the next. It will provide a platform for Australia to compete in a whole range of areas where we have not been able to compete up until today. So I am very proud of being able to support this legislation. I want to make particular reference to setting up Australia as a financial services hub. I am currently having a bit of work and research done in that area, as I am particularly interested in it. It is particularly linked to the National Broadband Network. There are a whole range of barriers to Australia being a financial services hub in the Asia-Pacific region, including the lack of decent connectivity and our lack of punch—and we need a broadband network in Australia to deliver that. All members of the parliament, including those on the other side, ought to consider this for a moment. A National Broadband Network is a really key factor in being able to use Australia, with its proximity to the Asia-Pacific region, as a stepping stone, a springboard, to link the world. We can achieve that because of our good governance practices, our high-end expertise in terms of financial services and products and our managerial expertise. We can break down one of the barriers to achieving that by having a National Broadband Network. It requires a massive investment over a very long time, and I know that it will be a complete success. It will be a success because of the way we have approached this. I want to again encourage the National Broadband Network Co. to look very closely at some of the significant partnerships that currently exist in the western corridor. The reasons the National Broadband Network should be based in the western corridor are not necessarily based on profit. The western corridor would provide a scalable option in terms of delivering upfront a place to start the National Broadband Network on the Australian mainland. It would also bring together existing significant partners, including NEC, which can carry out the deployment in parts of Queensland; the Queensland government itself, which can provide the data centre space for a network operations centre; the Ipswich City Council, in my area; the Brisbane City Council, which can assist in the fast-tracking of approvals and working in partnership with both the federal government and the Queensland government; the University of Queensland, which is currently based in the western corridor, which can provide research and development activities; the University of Southern Queensland, also located on site, which can also provide some expertise and development activities; and the local developer, the Springfield Land Corporation, which can provide the backhaul and perhaps even temporary office accommodation—right there in the western corridor and ready to go. This truly is an opportunity which needs to be looked at seriously. If there is any better place in Queensland, I would like to hear about it. But I certainly believe very strongly that the National Broadband Network headquarters for Queensland should be in the western corridor. It would provide the best opportunity in terms of economies of scale, locality and the most efficient way to use the existing infrastructure. The western corridor provides not only that infrastructure opportunity but also a range of other opportunities. It has a workforce that is ready to deliver a range of people working in broadband and internet provision. They are already working in the area through NEC. The people with the right skills—designers, engineers, project managers and a whole range of other people—are already located throughout the western corridor. There is an opportunity for both the Brisbane CBD and areas outside the Brisbane CBD to play their part. The best place for the networks operation centre is definitely in the western corridor, because of all the things I have mentioned, and perhaps the legal and management services and associated administrative services could be provided in the Brisbane CBD. This is a one-off opportunity. It cannot be replicated; it has to be done right the first time. I am going to speak to the ministers responsible and to the governments, including the state government, to ensure that we get this right. I have spoken to the individual partners. They have been meeting over a period of time, because they have seen a great opportunity to be partners in this. If we all work together we can not only deliver a National Broadband Network, but do so in the most efficient, cost-effective and timely manner possible, which would benefit all Queenslanders and all Australians. It will set Australia on a future path to be a global competitor—which has not been seen in the past—and create jobs in the future. That is something we all know we want to do. 9366 12:21:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I rise today to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This government’s policy on the provision of new broadband network would be laughable if it were not such a serious, knee-jerk policy made up as we go along, with empty election commitments and no practical idea on how to deliver them. It was almost like a cartoon strip unfolding as we saw the Prime Minister come up with a thought bubble, making an announcement telling us how lucky we all are to have a man of such vision leading the nation and then starting to wonder whether the idea was feasible or not and to try and work out how to back away from that commitment when it proves not to be. Then we suffered the empty spin on how this defeat and miscalculation was in fact a great victory. Let us have a look at the recent history on this subject, and when it comes to broadband all we have is recent history because on any timescale it is a new and evolving technology. The robotic lines delivered by the government on this subject imply that the coalition government did nothing for 12 years. This is a total misrepresentation of the facts. The concept of a broadband super highway 14 years ago was as fanciful as robotic nurses and doctors. The technology then was incapable of delivering what we are discussing today, but as the technology evolved the government then acted to roll out the next wave as it came on stream. In fact, at the time of the last election we had in Australia a telco—that is, Telstra—which was ready to roll out a new high-speed service to urban Australia at the company’s own cost. The government—that is, the coalition government at that time—had committed to a wireless network which was to service regional Australia. It was to deliver speeds of 12 megabits and it was going to cost the taxpayer just $958 million. The contract was signed with OPEL, who was proposing to put in $1 billion dollars and, if the government—that is, the incoming government—had not cancelled the arrangement, more than half of this network would be operating by now. At the time of the last election the coalition government had invested $2 billion in a trust fund, the telecommunications fund, which was to provide a permanent income stream to enable regional Australia to be provided for as new technologies were inevitably developed. The cost of providing these services to rural and regional Australia is inevitably higher than in urban Australia. Then in the same period Kevin Rudd, in one of his ‘good idea at the time’ statements, said none of this would be good enough. A private company providing high-speed broadband to urban Australia at its own expense, a $1 billion investment on behalf of the taxpayer matched by $1 billion from a private consortium to provide for rural and regional Australia and $2 billion in the bank to provide for future services to rural Australia were not good enough. We should have a new super network. The now Prime Minister proposed at that time that the government would build a 12-megabit, fibre-to-the-node network for 98 per cent of Australians, operating by the end of 2008. I thought at the time this seemed like little more than an uneducated guess, that its proponents had no understanding of the difficulties and challenges in rural Australia. I am not a telecommunications expert but I would have thought this outcome was extremely unlikely. I remember the great Telecom copper rollout to rural Australia in the seventies and eighties—the years and years of watching large caterpillar tractors drag cable into the ground. Coming from rural Australia, I could not believe we had any chance of delivering the fibre-to-the-node network to 98 per cent of Australians for the $10 billion the government suggested this network could be built for. The government seemed, to me at least, not to have any understanding of how big Australia is, how many small communities there are and how many people live on rural properties. The plan was to steal the $2 billion telecommunications fund and add another $2.7 billion of taxpayers’ money and private enterprise would fall over itself to find another $5 billion to build this new fibre-to-the-node network. This was when it became obvious we had policy on the run. They had not planned, they had not consulted with industry and they had not commissioned a business case, because after 18 torturous months the process collapsed. Despite interest from six parties, no-one could deliver the goods for the money; no-one could find a business case that would work—surprise, surprise. So it went from a situation where the wireless network proposed by the previous government, which would be over half-built by now, which had the contracts let and which would have given 12 megabits to all of regional Australia had been scrapped. A network which would have provided 15,000 kilometres of new, open-access, fibre-optic backhaul into rural and regional areas at an extremely low cost to the taxpayer has been completely abandoned. Instead we have had 18 months with no action. So does the government have the intestinal fortitude to come out and admit their complete failure, to admit they got a bit over enthusiastic and overstepped the mark? Do they even try and conceal their mismanagement and lack of knowledge? No, they proudly proclaim their failure as an outstanding success and commit the government not to a $10 billion network but to a $43 billion fibre to the house and business network for 90 percent of Australians. Had they learned anything? Had they consulted with industry? Had they commissioned a business case? Is anyone going to be interested in building and operating this new network? Will private enterprise come up with the $20 billion the government seems to think they will and be falling over themselves to invest? We should also remember at this point there are fewer potential customers in this new $43 billion project to 90 per cent of Australia than the last—the $10 billion model to 98 per cent of Australia—and that industry could not make the sums stack up on that program. So why does the minister think he can get private enterprise to part with four times as much money for a smaller customer base? There are no more customers and it is at four times the price, and it seems almost inevitable that this bid will collapse as well. ‘No problem,’ says the Prime Minister, ‘We’—that is the taxpayer—‘will fund the entire network’. There is still no business case, just the realisation that this pig is not going to fly, so the taxpayer will have to fund it because no-one else is likely to—the taxpayer will fund the full $43 billion. If within five years we as taxpayers sell off the network as the government has suggested, then the price will be governed by the revenue stream. The value will not be decided by what the government has spent on it but by how many consumers will subscribe and what they are prepared to pay for the service. There are some lessons here for us to learn from overseas. In Finland, for instance, a nation which has been quite aggressive in its broadband rollout, government was planning to guarantee delivery of 100 megabits of capability with fibre optic to every house and business. In reality this has meant the supplying telco has planned to deliver fibre to within two kilometres of the home. This is proving to be enormously expensive because, the further you move away from population density, the process becomes exponentially dearer. If Finland is being challenged by its vast remote areas—and I have my tongue firmly planted in my cheek—you can only start to imagine what this will mean for Australia. What is happening in Finland is that the telco is now revising the target to deliver fibre to within 20 kilometres of the home—effectively, a fibre-to-the-node or a wireless based technology. That is interesting, isn’t it? Having said that, 100-megabit broadband is currently available to 40 per cent of homes and businesses in Finland. One hundred megabits costs about 2½ times as much per month as what is generally available, which is 10 megabits. So how many Finns are signing up for this service? The take up rate is 1½ per cent, just 1½ per cent! How can anyone make a business case if your total market is just 1½ per cent, surely something has to give. Even in Helsinki, the place with the highest population density, it is proving difficult to sell the service. In Singapore, surely one of the most technologically advanced nations in the region at least, where 100 megabits is available to all by cable, take-up rates of the 100-megabit service are as low as one per cent. It must be pondered what take-up rates like this would mean for the government’s planned network. If there were 10 million potential users in Australia, and we were to achieve a 1½ per cent uptake, that would be 150,000 customers. A network costing the $43 billion the minister proposes would equate to a debt of $286,000 for each connection. That is clearly an absurd amount. It just goes to show how important a business plan is. How could any government make such a monumental decision as this, not knowing what its customer base is likely to be, not knowing whether it will be possible for the network to break even, let alone make a return on capital. If the government builds its super network, it is highly likely it will have to fund the whole thing itself and in the end, far from being saleable, it could well be stuck with an enormous white elephant. The government appears also not to have considered what the effect of building a new network will have on the marketplace. Firstly, at a time when the challenge I have just detailed will be to get enough customers to subscribe, we can be sure that the price of internet access on current networks will fall significantly. The owners of those networks will not give up customers willingly. It is certain the price will fall; speeds will increase and this will bring the viability of any new network even further into doubt. For all those Australians who have invested in Telstra—and remember most superannuation funds have serious investments in the telco—a government owned and subsidised competitor will erode their investment. Even more fundamentally we will be returning to an era where the government is the major competitor, the owner and the regulator of our telecommunications industry. In the past this has been a handbrake on innovation and private investment. Telecommunications will always need innovation and here we are running the fundamental risk of turning back the regulatory tide and stifling that innovation and investment. And what of rural and regional Australia, the constituency that I represent in this place? What is the government proposing? Well, even if Senator Conroy manages to roll out this network, regardless of what it costs and then what it might be worth, even if he manages to establish this network, what will my constituents receive? The member for Oxley was on his feet a few minutes ago in this place and he told me that I should welcome the move to a government network because my farmers will be able to participate in the new broadband technology. If the member for Oxley had checked the government’s own plan, his own plan, he would know that most farmers live on farms, they are currently on satellite technology and their access will not change at all. The government has said that any community under 1,000 will not receive the fibre-to-the-house network; 10 per cent of Australia will operate on a lesser service. In towns in my electorate such as Booleroo Centre, Cleve, Yorketown, Wudinna, Gladstone, Kimba, Minlaton, Cummins and Stansbury, to name but a few, more than 18,000 people will miss out on fast broadband. And that does not include the farmers, that is only the people who live in the towns of less than a thousand. But they will not be entirely forgotten, they will certainly qualify for their full share of the $43 billion debt, of that they can be absolutely certain. Along with the more than $200 billion-plus debt that this government is committing all of Australia to, there will be the $43 billion for their broadband adventure—and every Australian will get their full share, including those who get the B-grade service. This side of the House has constantly criticised the government for its financial management of the economy and its overspending of borrowed funds. This project slips in on top of the $200 billion already proposed. Now we have this legislation aimed at trying to belatedly collect some of the information to try and work out how the government can make some kind of a fist of delivering on its extravagant promises to supply the super network to the marketplace. The legislation will compel industry over an extended period to deliver confidential market information to someone building a competitor. It is true the government needs the information—indeed, they should have had it and commissioned a business case before their grand announcements—but what if, as I suspect, the bid falls over? Why will the government then retain the right to harvest future information? That is why I support the amendment that has been put forward. We need a business case before taking the economy into the unknown and those in industry need protection from future governments which may be sourcing information from them for no good reason. We have come to this because of the ‘thought bubble’ process the now Prime Minister constantly indulges in. During the last election campaign, responding to the previous government’s broadband projects, Mr Rudd was compelled to say, ‘We will build a bigger, better one than yours.’ Certainly not much different to a number of other thought bubbles such as GroceryWatch, Fuelwatch, and the Pacific economic community—whatever happened to that one? They are projects mining The Hollowmen ‘wow’ factor. It does not matter what the plan is, just make sure we have a big enough announcement. We certainly got a big commitment on broadband, robbing regional Australia to fund it, but it was undeliverable, so now we get the bigger wow factor—the $43 billion model. No consultation with industry, no idea on how to deliver, certainly no understanding of Australia outside the city. Now the chickens are coming home to roost and it seems this may be no more deliverable than the other thought bubbles, but I am not sure whether the government knows that yet. 9370 12:36:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 and listened with great interest to my two colleagues who spoke before me. I come from a regional area where one would think we would have fairly good access to broadband. But I am consistently dealing with people in suburbs in my area who, because of the geography of the area, are not able to access existing cable broadband and, because of the escarpment issues, find wireless a particularly unsatisfactory solution to that. As our economies develop and the world develops its business models based much more on online presences, it is critically important to Australian industry, business and communities that we have the broadband infrastructure that enables us to expand into and be part of that future. As a very small example of why this is so significant, some of the tourism operators in my area tell me that, when overseas travellers look to book travel accommodation and events that they might want to participate in whilst they are in Australia, they have an increasingly high level of expectation about what information they can access online before they travel. Having travelled to a small extent myself I know I actually do the same thing, so it was interesting to hear this from the tourism operators’ perspective. For example, if people are booking accommodation, they now expect to be able to go to a website to download video footage of the area and the room and to interact with the sorts of services and sites that are around the accommodation. The level of infrastructure that is needed to support the type of information people seek from the internet, even at the simplest level of travelling and booking accommodation, is increasing year on year. When we build a national broadband network we should be looking towards the growth in that demand, not simply at the current demand. The level of expectation of the performance of broadband in all sorts of industry sectors is going to exponentially increase over time. For the success of our businesses and our industry sectors, we need to ensure that we have a modern, efficient broadband network that can provide that service. Clearly before the last election we were not well on the track to having achieved that. I am conscious of the wireless proposal of the previous government which the former speaker mentioned, but while wireless fills a gap in some areas it is far from sufficient and appropriate for the vast majority of needs that will be developing into the future. The bill that is before us is part of the requirements that need to be put in place for the broadband network to roll out. It basically seeks to amend part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997. For the record, it seeks to do that in three ways to impose a requirement to provide information, if requested, on utilities as well as telecommunications carriers. It sets out the purposes for which information is permitted to be disclosed and used so that two specific achievements can be met. Information may be disclosed to and used by Commonwealth officials and advisers for the purposes of the implementation study for the National Broadband Network or for a purpose specified in the regulations that is related to a broadband telecommunications network. Secondly, if appropriate, information can be disclosed to and used by the NBN Co. and any other company that is designated by the minister for a purpose related to a broadband telecommunications network. Thirdly, the amendments impose sunset periods on certain provisions in part 27A, as amended, so that information can only be obtained, disclosed and used during the period of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. The bill before us sits within the context of the announcement the Rudd government made on 7 April, which was a historic announcement. I appreciate the cynicism and concern of the previous member speaking, but if we all took such a narrow outlook on any sort of significant infrastructure then many of the great achievements of transport, water and electricity infrastructure that we all take for granted today would never have got off the ground. Sometimes you just have to take the leap into the future and make sure that the country is well established and able to take part in the global economy. The National Broadband Network is most definitely that sort of initiative. The National Broadband Network will fundamentally change Australia’s communications landscape and vastly improve access to broadband services. In my own area, the Illawarra, I have had a lot of conversations and I know the region is extremely excited by the potential of the National Broadband Network. The city of Wollongong is called the city of innovation, and local people take that very seriously. There is an organisation known as ICT Illawarra, which is an information and communication technology industry cluster made up mainly of small businesses. It comes together as an industry cluster to collaborate and share experience. Its purpose is to support the Illawarra information and communication technology industry by building on local strengths. An important part of that is encouraging the economic growth of the region and the continued development of ICT, which it does through a number of initiatives. Firstly, ICT Illawarra promotes the success stories of the local ICT industry, and I want to touch on a few of those. It also wants to nurture new entrants into the industry. For a region like ours, based on the old industries of coal and steel, we look forward not only to the ongoing future of those old industries but to the development of these new industries. ICT Illawarra is working on identifying emerging trends in the industry and providing resources to support those new entrants and emerging companies. It fosters social capital and joint ventures, which are very important drivers of much of this sector. The sector is so new and innovative that it often needs capital and joint ventures to be fostered for it to get off the ground. ICT Illawarra also provides a forum to engage with other stakeholders in education, government and other industry organisations and is administered by a management committee. The sector is particularly keen to engage with our government on the rollout of the National Broadband Network. Indeed, quite a number of its members attended a very exciting sphere—and I will not go into the technical explanations—organised by Senator Kate Lundy at the University of Wollongong. The information and communication technology cluster of the Illawarra hosted, with the University of Wollongong, this particular public sphere camp at the iC Central campus. It was the first such camp outside Canberra and it was designed to give interested parties the chance to discuss topical issues relating to ICT and creative industries with an idea to producing a document to provide to the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to inform public policy. Senator Kate Lundy in particular should be commended for this tremendous initiative and her capacity to use these new platforms to engage with broader community and public policy. The sphere was particularly important for our region in that it enabled a showcasing of some of the amazing expertise, dedication and enthusiasm of a range of ICT operators in our area and in particular the industry cluster. It was designed to use social media technologies to engage people across the country, essentially picking their brains and having a dialogue and a conversation in order to produce some policy suggestions for the government. We were networked with simultaneous virtual events in Melbourne and Brisbane. There was twittering and live blogging going on during the presentations and it was a really exciting example of how important new technologies will be, not only for the public sphere—for the discussion of public policy, the strength of democracy and the participation of people in public policy—but also for the education sector, and there was quite a lot of interest from the university students. This particular sphere highlighted a local company which is doing very well, a company called Internetrix. It was established by a young man, Geoff McQueen. I think he is still not even 30, and he quite puts me to shame with his life achievements! His company is, I believe, one of only two in Australia that is a Google Analytics authorised consultant. He also managed win the Integral Energy Illawarra Business of the Year Award in 2007-08 and has an extremely successful online company that provides management, consulting and online website advice and products to business. It is doing extraordinarily well. Geoff also sits on Regional Development Australia – Illawarra, a newly formed board, and will advise and assist the board to put together a proposal to come to myself and Jennie George and, through us, to the government about the rollout of the National Broadband Network in the Illawarra. This is significant for us as a regional economic driver, and the company are absolutely excited about that. They have a lot of telecommunications expertise from the university working with them on it. I would say to the member who was speaking formerly that I would suggest that if people in research at universities and businesses on the ground in regions are excited by this proposal, it is because there is a reason for that—they recognise its potential to drive new opportunities, new jobs growth, new economic growth in regions and foster the development of these new businesses. Another example in our area is a company called Tibra Capital, which operates from a small office in Austinmer. To establish that office, the company had to negotiate a special high-speed broadband access agreement. It is not normally available at the level that they needed in that region but they were able to do that. If companies like this one are to spring up in regions and to do so successfully, we have to provide that infrastructure and not leave them in a situation where they have to try to negotiate a specific agreement. Otherwise they end up relocating. Tibra Capital is a global securities firm specialising in high-frequency equities trading, arbitrage, market making and algorithmic, or automated, trading. It has 120 staff in Hong Kong, Sydney, London and Amsterdam and includes 45 professional traders and in excess of 40 in-house software specialists. It trades more than a billion dollars worth of equity volume each month, with up to 20,000 transactions a day. It is one of several specialised finance companies choosing to locate in Wollongong. Why? It is because the university is amongst the highest producers of IT graduates. I understand about 25 per cent of all the graduates in New South Wales come from the University of Wollongong. Tibra Capital is another company that is now a real driving force in our region but that requires high-speed broadband to operate the type of business it wants to. Finally, at the other end, I want to highlight another organisation run by Andrew Connery. He is the managing director of Your Online Community Pty Ltd and in 2004 was the winner of the Prime Minister’s Community Business Partnership Award for his development of community portals in New South Wales. At that point in time he had a local amateur sports website sponsored by the University of Wollongong that was very well regarded and contributed to his winning of that award. Andrew is an absolutely passionate advocate for online community portals and enabling the internet to provide much better information and engagement of communities of common interest not only in sport but also in business and broader conversations. He runs a great online newsletter as well. Andrew is also constantly knocking on my door, saying: ‘I want to be part of the rollout of the National Broadband Network. It is critically important to regions like ours.’ Those are examples of local companies who are so keen to be part of the National Broadband Network—companies who have the experience and the capacity to identify where the future is going, who are innovative, who are enthusiastic and who are part of the new breed that will drive a lot of growth in regions like mine. They are really keen to be part of this and they see great potential in the National Broadband Network that we intend to roll out. The bill before us today is an important part of that, but the overall agenda of rolling out this fast-speed National Broadband Network is critically important to the economic growth of regions. I put on the record the evidence of those participants in my own local region as to why it is so important that we commit to this and why the bill before us today should be supported. 9373 12:52:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I rise to speak on Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This bill is not individually influential but does form part of the legislation that is necessary for the government to come good with its promise to deliver a national broadband network, so it is part of that process. It is because I recognise the importance of the universal access to fast, affordable and reliable broadband that I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak. It is certainly an issue that is enormously important in an electorate like Pearce which, although it has a number of urban cells, has a large rural and regional component. At the moment, it is people in those outer areas who are having difficulty in accessing broadband services. It is unfortunate that, despite the announcement of a $43 billion spend on broadband services, constituents in those outer areas—like Pearce—are not likely to benefit. It is interesting to have a look at a breakdown of some ABS figures in relation to that. For example, over 1,000 towns would miss out under the government’s broadband plan as it has been announced. Towns with 1,000 people or less will not receive high-speed fibre-to-the-premises broadband services, as has been outlined by the government as part of its $43 billion program. ABS lists over 1,000 locations—1,033—with a population of less than 1,000 people. These are the people who will miss out on some of these services that will cost the Australian taxpayer dearly. That represents about half a million Australian people living in those towns, Australia wide. If you looks at Western Australia, 113 towns—or 53,697 people—are likely to miss out on broadband services under the government’s proposal and, in the electorate of Pearce, 21 communities—or 12,142 people—have been dumped in the too-hard basket by the government and will wait years for improved services. It is certainly a major issue when I am travelling around those country and regional areas. They are not so far out of the city—some of them are maybe an hour and a half’s drive—and yet they do not have access to a reasonable service. In this day and age, when a lot of people run their businesses from home using broadband services, it is a great detriment not to be able to decentralise from the cities and live in rural areas and run businesses from those locations. It is a great detriment to many people who live in the electorate of Pearce. This bill amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997, which enables the minister to require telecommunications carriers to give information to the Commonwealth about their telecommunication networks. That is not just carriers, I note. In 2008, when part 27A was enacted, the Commonwealth required this information so that it could provide it to those firms that intended to submit a proposal for the government’s first—now terminated—fibre-to-the-node national broadband network, or what is known as NBN mark 1. This bill removes a sunset clause which made most of part 27A inoperative after 26 May 2009 and expands the class of firms from which information can be compulsorily obtained to include utilities. As I said, it goes beyond just telecommunication carriers. There are other companies that will be subjected to this. It also changes the purpose for which the information can now be used. Information is to be received for the purpose of the implementation study that the Commonwealth is to conduct and by the company NBN Co. that the Commonwealth has established to own and operate a new fibre-to-the-home national broadband network, NBN mark 2. In this day and age, high-speed fibre-to-the-node is one of the most important services a government can provide to its people, so I do not have any argument with the government’s stated objective of providing it. Where the coalition differs is in the method of delivery and in that group of people who will miss out because of the methodology and the policy and the way in which it is applied. At the last election, Labor gave a firm commitment to start the rollout of a fibre-to-the-node broadband network to 98 per cent of the population by the end of 2008 and, clearly, this is another promise that has not been fulfilled by the government. We now find ourselves with an implementation study that may report—it is not guaranteed—in 2010 and a build that is likely to take more than eight years. That means the network will not be completed until 2018 or possibly later. This bill and the National Broadband Network itself have major implications for both the general electorate and the companies expected to comply with the government’s requirement, and both points of view are important and need to be given consideration. This bill was introduced, I believe, and I think our report in the Senate has indicated, without adequate opportunity for consultation with key stakeholders. These stakeholders have indicated they will cooperate—well, really, they do not have any choice, because there are penalties for noncooperation—with the government on the provision of necessary information. But they have indicated that they have a number of concerns about the potentially broad and burdensome requirement that could be imposed on them by the minister. And they were only consulted as a result of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee—that is when the consultations began. There are quite serious issues for companies which must comply with this piece of legislation, and they involve cost, practicalities and, of course, security. Indeed, I think the evidence of Mr Hughes from the Australasian Railway Association to the committee is evidence of the kinds of burdens that will be placed on many companies, not just telecommunications companies. He said: According to the legislation, railways will be required to provide information on land infrastructure and other facilities under their control. I am sure that you will appreciate that there are millions of pieces of information which may be requested varying from digital location information to the size of ducts. There are over 44,000 kilometres of rail track in Australia and countless stations, terminals, offices, yards, sidings, depots and other facilities. A simple question such as the boundaries of land under railway control represents an enormous amount of work to answer with any degree of accuracy. Yet this is exactly what the rail industry fears could be required under the legislation. If such information is required without due regard to reasonableness or compensation, it will impose an unacceptable burden on the industry. Again, I find it extraordinary that there was no plan to have adequate consultation with these companies before this legislation was to be debated and passed in this place. Again, it shows a failing, perhaps, of a government that lacks experience. The inquiry raised a number of concerns, including the tight time lines proposed for consultation, when they were agreed upon. Also, as to the provision of information sought under the legislation, civil penalties do apply for carriers and utilities that do not provide accurate information. Stakeholders believe they should be immune from such penalties if they act in good faith, and I think that is a reasonable proposition. I think it is evident that there are great complexities in what many telecommunications and other utility companies are being asked to do. Utilities also raised concerns about the bill’s failure to clarify arrangements for cost recovery associated with the provision of information, and there is currently no mechanism for consideration of compensation under this mandatory requirement. Of particular concern to the coalition is the scope within this bill for information to be sought and then used by the government not only for the purpose of the implementation study but also by the NBN Co. and its suppliers for a period of 10 years to assist any network rollout. It would be entirely fair if these provisions were to only apply for the implementation study period and cease in June 2010. In the event that information is required after that period by an NBN company, the government should seek a fresh authority through this parliament. This is highly sensitive information and I think it is reasonable that there be some restriction on it. The government itself has expressed a preference for an approach that allows carriers and utilities to provide requested information on a cooperative and commercial basis. Regardless of the passage of this bill, that avenue does apparently already exist. There is also a Senate order in place requiring the communications minister to table the reports of both the NBN expert panel and the ACCC which relate to his first, failed, NBN tender process before any NBN related bills are debated in the Senate. Of great concern is the fact that the government has proven that it is incapable of meeting its self-imposed time lines on the delivery of the National Broadband Network, of which this legislation is a perfect example. The government is treating taxpayers, I think, with contempt in its dereliction of duty by neglecting to prepare a cost-benefit analysis of a $43 billion project. That is a very large commitment of taxpayers’ funds, and the bill to taxpayers is growing already, with the NBN CEO earning $2 million a year. Public confidence in the government’s capacity to deliver this project is at an all-time low. I thought it was interesting to hear the comments of the member for Grey who spoke, I thought, very well on this bill earlier today, when he said that no business case has been made and the cost is likely to be much higher than the returns. One has to query, also—and I think the member for Grey touched on this—the number of users who will be able to actually access the service. It is all very well to make a commitment to provide a service to 98 per cent of people who mostly live in city areas, but we have seen nothing about what the cost to the consumer will be, and it is another matter entirely whether people will be able to afford the cost of connecting to the service. Because there is no cost-benefit analysis, we have no idea who is likely to be able to take up this service when it has actually been built and developed. It is fundamental, with any business proposition, that the first thing you do is a cost-benefit analysis, and I think that not doing so is a great dereliction of duty. In my electorate, many people are concerned that they will not gain any benefit from this large expenditure of taxpayer money. For example, it is very unlikely that a place called Gidgegannup in the Pearce electorate, a community that is less than 50 kilometres from the CBD of Perth, will benefit from this measure. At present the people in that locality are unable to access ADSL broadband even though fibre optic cable runs metres from their home. They are forced to make use of whatever internet connection they can get on phone lines that would be every bit of 40 years old. What hope for some people living hundreds of kilometres further from Perth? A constituent highlights the inadequacy and lack of fairness of the current proposals. The lack of a business case has been severely criticised, and the Productivity Commission submission to the Senate Select Committee on the National Broadband Network made this comment: The proposed implementation study provides an ideal opportunity to undertake a thorough cost-benefit analysis, gathering the appropriate evidence to ensure the project best meets the nation’s interest. In this context, evidence needs to be gathered from the perspective of the welfare of the wider community, and not just the interests of particular sectors.             …         …         … Similarly, cost-benefit analysis can assist in contrasting ‘gold plated’ service provision and investment options motivated by short-tern cost savings. Whereas the former can have high up-front costs, the latter may incur significant future expenditures, including those required to meet demand growth.             …         …         … … the application of a thorough cost-benefit analysis would aid the implementation study during its detailed work, including its application to a pilot project in Tasmania. There were a couple of comments from the media that I thought were relevant. One is by Michael Stutchbury, economics editor of the Australian in June 2009, when he said: But what does Rudd then do with what is touted to be Australia’s single biggest infrastructure project, the $43 billion broadband plan? He and Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy brazenly flout the rigorous cost-benefit analysis that is supposed to be applied to all big infrastructure projects. They announce the plan to directly connect just about all Australian homes to an optic fibre network, whatever the technology risks, along with a price tag plucked out of nowhere. The technocrats and merchant bankers are supposed to reverse engineer the cost-benefit numbers to make them add up. This puts Eddington and his Infrastructure Australia in an impossible position in demanding that the states lift their game. I think that is a very good summary of the concerns that we in the coalition have for this proposal. Further, Paul Kerin in the Australian on 15 April 2009 said: If election promises are sacred, what happened to Rudd’s far more important ones such as evidence-based policy, not grand rhetorical flourish? I quoted the concerns that people have in an area like Gidgegannup, 50 kilometres from the city, but whether you go north, south, east or west of my electorate the same problems are emerging. I have got the third largest electorate in Western Australia. It covers 26,000 square kilometres. I have many of these areas that will miss out. As I said earlier, over 12,000 constituents will not benefit from this $43 billion taxpayer spend on communications. But those who live further north in spots such as Nilgen do not even have a postal service. They do not have newspapers delivered. If you do not drive a car, you are in big trouble. Some of these people need to know what is going on with the weather and other important information. It is almost impossible for them to have any kind of communication except perhaps the telephone. It is hard to imagine what it would be like to live in those areas. I am not talking about a place that is 200 or 300 kilometres from the city of Perth. I am talking about a place that can be accessed in about a 1½- or two-hour drive at most. I think it is unreasonable that the people living in these areas should be expected to contribute to a system that they will personally get no benefit from. The electorate will be made to suffer in waiting for the drawn-out introduction of a broadband network, while industry will have little option but to grin and bear the government accessing their information. On top of all of that there is no cost-benefit analysis that informs us as to whether this is a good or a bad plan. (Time expired) 9377 13:12:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I rise to support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. In beginning my speech to that support, I want once again to put on the public record the great pride that I feel in being part of a government that has made such a significant commitment to establishing a nationalbroadband network throughout this country of Australia. It has been said many times, but it is true, that this infrastructure investment could well be the most significant infrastructure investment that we have ever seen in this country. We hear tell of the significance of the Snowy Mountains scheme. We hear tell of many significant decisions that have been made around our road networks. We know that, as a result of governments of all persuasions over the life of this Federation putting dollars and capital investment into infrastructure, we have seen prosperity in our business community and, indeed, the progression of social benefits within this country. But I believe that this investment in broadband will probably be one of the biggest transformations that we will see. I am particularly proud that the government has said clearly that it will be putting $43 billion into ensuring the rollout of this network and that it will be done over eight years. I am proud that we have not just honoured our election promises but indeed exceeded one of our election promises by committing to fibre to the premises, not just fibre to the node. Not just will this network be rolled out with significant government investment but it is yet another sign that we can do business in this country to deliver vital services by forming partnerships with the private sector; that it is not just the taxpayer who always foots the bill for these particular investments; that we can be mature about the way we deliver services and about the governance and provision of infrastructure; and that we can involve the private sector in a significant and meaningful way. This bill is a fundamental part of delivering that very important infrastructure. It amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act 1997 and will provide access to very vital network information. That information will feed into the development of the National Broadband Network and make sure that when it is delivered to 98 per cent of this country it will be delivered in a way that is of most benefit to both the providers and the consumers. It will ensure that the implementation study that is being conducted around the NBN will be better informed in determining such vital matters as operating arrangements and network design. I want to reinforce just how important it is that we get this right. It is right that in an investment of this scale the government are mindful of how we spend taxpayers’ dollars. More importantly, though, an investment of this scale will have far-reaching ramifications for the way in which we conduct our private and public business in this country, and it must be done properly. It is therefore essential that we gather as much information as we can from the telecommunications providers and other utilities about the infrastructure that is out there. Doing so will enable us to deliver this network in a timely and cost-effective fashion. Having been in local government—I was a member of the Brisbane City Council for 13 out of the last 17 years—I am well aware of how important the provision of basic infrastructure is to any community that wishes to thrive and prosper. I am also well aware that local government is always seen as the doer of the community—that it provides roads, rates and rubbish. Indeed, over the last 10 to 20 years it has provided a lot more than that. Once the internet had been developed and it was clear that its usage was much broader than simply downloading a document or the kids being able to play games online, I very strongly argued, in my time in local government, that it had become a fundamental part of everything we did. It is fundamental to the governance of air traffic control, the banking system, small business, and the reforms that are possible to our health system. It is essential to the gathering and passing on of information. Everything we do is intimately connected to a functioning internet network and it is essential that people have access to that network in a way that delivers them information in a timely manner. I argued long and hard within the Brisbane City Council that whilst local government believes its fundamental role is to provide roads, footpaths and such basic and essential infrastructure as water, sewerage and all of those things that we take for granted, the provision of broadband infrastructure had become the new essential and basic service of our communities. In order for people to get to work it is just as important for them to have high-speed online access as it is for them to have a road to get them to their workplace. Indeed, more and more people are now staying at home and conducting very successful and profitable businesses via the internet. It has become the new highway, and it is therefore fundamental that government gets into the game to provide the necessary infrastructure to facilitate people’s use of those services. So it has always been a passion of mine that we should see broadband as the next step in the provision of infrastructure for our community. That is why I am so pleased that this Commonwealth government has taken the initiative to roll out a national broadband network. Having been involved in local government for that many years, I am also well aware of how much infrastructure there is already out there that can assist in facilitating the proper rollout of this particular network. Underneath the ground in every city and community across the country there is an enormous amount of infrastructure that can assist this rollout, whether it is water pipes, cables or all sorts of ducts in which cable can be laid to facilitate fibre-optic rollout. It is important that we do not just walk into this blindly, saying simply that it is something new and we are going to come in and do it. It is fundamental that we get proper information as to what networks already exist below and above the ground, which will ensure that this is rolled out successfully. That is why I am very pleased to support this bill. I wish to emphasise to the House just how important it is that this particular piece of legislation is passed, because it is this information and data that will facilitate the rollout of the National Broadband Network. We have to be very mindful of collecting this data and information and of making sure that this rollout is done properly, because it is such a significant investment within our country. I must also say that it is also a shame that communities like mine in the electorate of Bonner have already missed out on the benefits provided to those households and businesses that have access to high-speed broadband. I have said before in this House and I have said at many meetings in my local community that I find it almost unfathomable that an electorate like Bonner—which is contained wholly within the third largest capital city in this country and which is part of the fastest-growing region in the country, being South-East Queensland—has suburbs that are less than a 20-minute drive from the CBD that do not have access to broadband, let alone high-speed broadband. There are people who are still using dial-up, and that is just not acceptable in this day and age. It means that students in the electorate of Bonner do not have the same advantages as other students who do have access to this facility. I speak to a vast number of small business people who say that their single biggest frustration not just in improving their businesses but indeed in staying up there with their competitors is that they are not able to access high-speed broadband. I talk to university people. I talk to people who have developed very successful, majorly profitable companies from their homes who have moved into the area but now cannot conduct business in the way that they did in the past because they are unable to access high-speed broadband. This network, as I have already said, is one of the most significant and important pieces of infrastructure that we can provide to the Australian community. It is such a shame that it has taken us this long to get here, but I applaud the Prime Minister, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy and others in the executive for demonstrating their leadership in understanding the needs of the Australian people, both the business community and private residents, in conducting their daily affairs now but also in anticipating how significantly the growth of the economy will depend on broadband services in the future. I commend this legislation. We need this information. We need this data. We need the cooperation and information of both the telecommunication carriers and the utilities to enable this major development for our country to be rolled out in the most effective manner, and I certainly commend the bill to the House. 9379 13:24:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —I rise to talk on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 as somebody from regional Australia. A large part of my electorate is not just outback New South Wales and western New South Wales but small towns that are right up against the foothills of the Blue Mountains, and those areas are all in various ways affected by the lack of readily available fast broadband. I will talk a little later about what might have been and the fact that we could have been standing here as we are, in September 2009, very close to the completion of a broadband network which would have looked after all regional Australians. But I have to say it is outrageous that this government is overseeing such a monumental—not to put too fine a point on it—stuff-up with broadband. The Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 is a case in point, because it highlights that they are still working out the details for NBN mark 2 more than six months after the promised time line for their full-blown broadband services expired. Since the Rudd government took office, and it is almost two years now, not one home, not one business and not one farm has received a new service under Labor’s national broadband network proposal—nothing. Under the coalition policy, 99 per cent of us would have had high-speed, affordable broadband just about by now. The cost to taxpayers would have been less than a billion dollars—$958 million, to be exact. For a total expense of about $2 billion, including private money, we would have had a high-speed broadband service now for 90 per cent of the country. Everyone in my regional electorate would have been better off by now. Instead, there is a great deal of uncertainty about telecommunications because, as we all know, the minister cancelled a signed contract and nothing has proceeded. When Labor wanted votes during the election campaign, they promised fibre to the node to 98 per cent of Australia for less than $5 billion. Admittedly, a lot of that was going to be pinched from the $2 billion that was until recently held in reserve to help service regional infrastructure, but that has gone. That was plan 1, which was replaced after 18 months, and $20 million was wasted in coming to that decision. We now have the headline-grabbing $43 billion plan, which is apparently going to be a Rolls-Royce service but which is only going to get to 90 per cent of Australia. So we will be getting less. I can assure you that the electorate of Calare, west of the Blue Mountains, will be getting less, but we are going to have to share in billions of dollars of debt, whereas at one stage for a cost to the whole nation of less than a billion dollars we were going to get a high-speed service to 98 per cent of the population. Which 10 per cent of us will miss out on the topnotch broadband speed? I do not think it is a coincidence that 16 per cent of the country’s population live outside capital cities and major urban centres. It is pretty obvious regional people are going to miss out on the fastest speeds in this grand scheme but still be lumped with paying for the $43 billion plan. Let us remember that there was no cost-benefit analysis involved in the $43 billion. Most of the money is obviously going to be borrowed, but what the heck? Australia is certainly into borrowing money at the moment. Labor says, ‘Full steam ahead.’ It has not worked out how to pay it back, but I dare say we will at some stage in the future. The broadband plan of Labor would see taxpayers carry the bulk of the risk, with the government becoming a 51 per cent majority stakeholder in a new public-private company. This is all well and good, but Labor has made it clear that towns of under 1,000 are going to be left with slower speeds. I happen to be the very proud representative of a lot of towns, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott, as you would be yourself without a shadow of a doubt—towns of well under 1,000, and some over. Darwin might not have towns of fewer than 1,000, but there are quite a few not far from it. On that basis, in my electorate of Calare 21 communities, representing 8½ thousand people, have been dumped in the too-hard basket in one hit and will have to wait years for services. It does not matter whether it is Carcoar, Millthorpe, Peak Hill, Spring Hill, Tottenham, Trangie, Trundle, Tullamore or Yeoval. There are heaps of them under 1,000, and they will miss out not just on a Rolls-Royce service but on any service in the near future. Let us remember that about now the coalition deal with Optus and Elders would have had all of us—98 per cent of Australia—covered. But, instead of that, not one house is covered. In fact, the bigger regional towns, such as Parkes, Peak Hill, Forbes, Blayney, Molong, Cobar, Bourke, Nyngan, Narromine and Trangie, could miss out on fibre to the premises, because only 90 per cent of the population will get connections of 100 megabits per second, with the remaining 10 percent, or about two million people, to get speeds of 12 megabits delivered through wireless and satellite services. I ask this question: when will this happen? As I said, they would have had it by now under our scheme, under the contract that was cancelled by the minister—a signed contract with government. We need to clarify this, because until we know what the government is planning our regions have every right to be worried about what sort of service they will end up with, if they ever do end up with one. I think the government has to release its broadband coverage map so that we know where the two million or so people are who will be dudded on speed, with broadband connections almost 10 times slower than everybody in the major cities. It is a disgrace, especially when you consider that, as Optus itself said this year in its submission to the Senate inquiry on Labor’s NBN: The cancellation of OPEL was a lost opportunity for Australian business and consumers, particularly in the bush. Almost 900,000 premises across rural and remote Australia were to have been delivered metro-equivalent services at metro-comparable prices. Many of those— or most of those— premises would have been receiving services now. I guess it is something we have come to expect. It is Labor in the never-never—in this case Labor broadband under Rudd with a nine-month implementation study, planned at a cost of over $50 million and with a rollout period of eight years. But do we have the faintest idea when that is? No. I think you have seen as much detail in that last sentence as you are likely ever to see in the near future. We also set aside $2 billion in the Communications Fund to ensure that earnings from the fund—around $100 million a year, depending on investment opportunities—would be available so that our telecommunications in regional Australia could be updated to be modern and, where possible, to have the latest technology. Our national broadband scheme would have benefited our country and would actually have been established by now. So much for that, because Labor cancelled that; they actually cancelled a signed contract with Optus and Elders. As it is at the moment, with $43 billion set to be blown, our country businesses and students are looking at not only being disadvantaged but having to pay, or at least share equally in paying, the billions involved, as well as having the uncertainty about when they will get some sort of service—if ever, because it is pretty obvious that Labor have taken a look at this and said, ‘We’ll cancel this contract because it’s for regional Australia.’ I think everyone forgets that it was only inner metropolitan areas that would not have shared in that OPEL contract. Even outer metropolitan areas would have done well out of it. But Labor did not really see regional Australia as their hardcore constituency. They looked at the 10 per cent they were leaving out of their potential scheme and they said, ‘How often do we get a seat here?’ The member for Solomon is fine—he is in a city—but his colleague in the Northern Territory may not be so happy about the fact that OPEL was knocked over. I cannot leave without making this point once again: when the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy cancelled the signed contract held by OPEL to deliver broadband to regional Australia, which would have been finalised between now and next month and would have been delivered, he did a severe disservice to regional Australia—not just the big towns but all the towns, and not just the towns but all people bar the two or so per cent who would have had to make use of our subsidy to go onto satellite. That was to be continued. They would all, at the very least, have had wireless. Let me tell you: as much as people like to put wireless down, something like 100 million Americans use it. The figures of usage in Australia have gone up exponentially in recent times. When all is said and done, if Labor ever get around under their own program to looking after the 10 per cent they are wiping like a dirty rag at the moment, wireless is what they are going to give them as well. Regional Australia not only has missed out on having a service this year, which it would have had, but has had a good $4 billion stolen from it: the $2 billion of the Communications Fund set up to keep telephonic services up to date in the bush, the best part of $1 billion that OPEL was putting into that scheme and the matching amount of money that our government committed to it—$4 billion in total. Instead of getting that $4 billion to provide a service for it by the end of 2009, regional Australia is going to share in a debt and not get a service at all. It is going to share in a $43 billion debt and have no service. 9382 13:37:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I rise today in support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I note the comments of the previous speaker in regard to broadband and how it was going to be done in the coalition’s 13th year of government—like a lot of other things that were going to be done in their 13th year of government, such as real action on climate change, a fairer industrial relations system and all of the other things that they said. So it is great to see that, just like all the other things that they were going to do in their 13th year of government, broadband has been put on that list as well! I rise today in strong support of the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I support the comments from the member for Bonner where she said that it gives her a great deal of pride—as it does me also—to be part of a government that will, over time, deliver a high-speed broadband system to Australia. The purpose of this bill is to establish a regime to provide access to network information held by telecommunications carriers and other utilities where it is important to the planning and the rollout of the new National Broadband Network, or NBN, initiative. It is important to the planning of the NBN and its rollout that information about existing infrastructure that might be utilised in the rollout of the network is accessible. For example, information on the location and availability of facilities such as poles, ducts and pipes can be assessed to ensure the network can be rolled out as cost-effectively as possible. Of course, the preference is to acquire this information on a cooperative or commercial basis from telecommunications carriers and other utilities such as suppliers of electricity, water and transport services. This legislation will provide a safety net to allow the Commonwealth to seek the necessary information where cooperative or commercial approaches may not be successful. This may be necessary to ensure the project is not delayed or otherwise frustrated by firms that have important information but have strategic or other reasons to withhold this information. Earlier this year the Prime Minister announced the establishment of a new company to build and operate a new superfast national broadband network. The Prime Minister described the initiative as a historic nation-building investment focused on Australia’s long-term national interest. The NBN will fundamentally transform the competitive dynamics of the telecommunications sector and underpin future productivity growth and our international competitiveness. The reason we need to act is the appalling legacy the previous government left the nation regarding broadband and critical economic infrastructure. That neglect is the basis of our nation’s current broadband situation when compared to other developed nations. The latest OECD figures show that Australia is ranked 16th out of 30 OECD countries in terms of broadband take-up. The figures also tell us that we pay more for broadband than do people in most other OECD countries—in fact we are ranked 20th out of 29 countries. And, in terms of average monthly subscription costs, Australia is the fourth most expensive for low-speed connections and the fifth most expensive for medium-speed connections. When it comes to something as necessary in day-to-day life as the internet, these are less than impressive figures. The National Broadband Network is to be built in partnership with the private sector and will be the single-largest nation-building infrastructure project in Australia’s history. The new National Broadband Network will connect 90 per cent of all Australian homes, schools and workplaces with broadband services with speeds of up to 100 megabits per second—100 times faster than those currently used by many households and businesses. The NBN will see remaining premises connected with next-generation wireless and satellite technologies that will deliver broadband speeds of 12 megabits per second. The proposed eight-year project will directly support tens of thousands of local jobs. In Solomon we often suffer from the tyranny of distance. Just like other communities in regional and remote parts of Australia, we have become ever-increasingly dependent on reliable internet access. Whether you are a small business operator, a student, a teacher, a medical professional or a tourist, or if you are a mum or dad who works from home, you need the internet to go about your day-to-day business. I know there would not be too many Territorians who would forget what happened in April this year when the Territory was cut off from the rest of the world because our major internet and phone services collapsed for more than 10 hours. I raise this point not to have a go at the telecommunications sector—I know that they do their best and that these sorts of accidents and interruptions do happen. But anyone who has experienced an entire network collapse will understand just how reliant on the internet we are. That is why I was extremely happy when the very committed Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy announced earlier this year that Darwin will be one of six priority black spot locations under the Regional Backbone Blackspots Program. A new optical fibre broadband link to Darwin will increase access to broadband services, which we in Solomon need more than other capital cities because of our distance from other commercial centres. It will put downward pressure on prices by increasing competition. I am advised that we experience broadband backbone prices that are three to five times higher than the costs of similar routes elsewhere. And of course a new link will increase the reliability of services, as we are the only capital city with no competitive broadband backbone link. The minister and I understand that new competitive broadband backbone infrastructure is critical to the rollout of high-speed broadband services in rural and regional Australia. Access to competitive broadband backbone infrastructure on an open access, equivalent basis will stimulate competition and allow retail broadband providers to offer better services. The government has received positive responses to the $250 million Regional Backbone Blackspots request for tender, which closed recently. The level of interest in the request for tender provides further endorsement of the government’s decision to invest in competitive broadband backbone infrastructure in regional Australia. This program is just one part of the government’s National Broadband Network, which will deliver superfast broadband to all Australian homes and workplaces. The government and I look forward to delivering this vital piece of infrastructure for Territorians and the nation as a whole. The NBN will add new potential to the lives of so many Territorians in so many areas. I have heard many speakers talk about the benefits that a new superfast national broadband network will bring to their electorates. I know the member for Kingston spoke about the significant impact the NBN will have in the health sector. Recently, the Minister for Health and Ageing and I had the pleasure of witnessing the signing of a memorandum of intent between Charles Darwin University and Flinders University, which is in the Kingston electorate. This collaboration came about because our government committed over $32 million dollars to establishing a medical school in the NT. That is a significant commitment. One of the problems we have had in the Northern Territory is getting doctors. A lot of our young people who go away to study medicine do not come back but go interstate, so having that commitment in the health sector to train doctors locally by 2011 and to have 40 doctors coming out to do their final year’s on-the-job training by 2015-16 is certainly a benefit to the Northern Territory. No longer will our local students be required to travel and live interstate, as much of their training will be done at home. No doubt the NBN will significantly improve the capacity of the new medical school as well as provide great potential for all our medical professionals. But it is not only in the health sector that we will see the benefits of a new superfast national broadband network. This government wholeheartedly understands that Australians need improved broadband services no matter where they live, study or work. An improved broadband network will improve the productivity of small business. It will improve how schools, universities and TAFEs deliver education and change how we communicate with each other in the future. A superfast national broadband network will enable us all to do things in the future that nobody could even anticipate today. The NBN strikes the right balance between supporting growth and jobs now and delivering the investments needed to strengthen the economy for the long term. As the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy said in his address to the Australian Telecommunications Users Group conference earlier this year: For these reasons, the Rudd Government is driving forward with its investment with the private sector in the National Broadband Network. The project will exceed our election commitment and deliver high-speed broadband to every home and every business across Australia. It will ensure our nation is at the forefront of the global digital economy. Importantly, it will revitalise our regional economies, provide new job opportunities, drive efficiency, enable new trade links and improve the delivery of social services. The National Broadband Network is a bold nation-building project. In fact it is the largest infrastructure project undertaken in Australia’s history. It will ensure that all Australians, no matter where they choose to live or work, will have the best opportunity to participate in the digital economy. I would like to speak on another matter just briefly, if I could. During the adjournment debate on Monday last, the member for Ballarat informed the House of White Ribbon Day activities in her community. White Ribbon Day is dedicated to raising awareness of domestic violence against women in our community. I put on the public record my support for the member’s contribution as I fully support all programs that address the disturbing levels of violence in the Australian community. As a member of the Australian parliament, I condemn violence in any form—be it physical, emotional or psychological—against any member of our community. Thank you for that indulgence. In regard to this bill, I fully support the bill and I commend the bill to the House 9385 13:48:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009 in terms of the government’s broader proposal to introduce a national broadband network. In particular, I rise to speak in the context of the delays in delivery of this program against a government promise. This is a promise that the government made much about in the lead-up to the last election, and ever since that last election we have just heard excuse after excuse for why this is not happening. You could say that the Prime Minister, then Leader of the Opposition, made what you might call a ‘comfort promise’. I note that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation recently said the promise made by the government, when in opposition, that in relation to industrial relations no-one would be worse off was a promise to provide comfort, not an actual promise. In this place at the moment and particularly in the other place we are voting on and have voted on bills in relation to the government’s broken promises on things like private health insurance. So when it comes to the government fulfilling promises on broadband, what we have seen even from the speaker just before me are a government that are still talking about their promise, their vision and the things that may happen. What we are not seeing is something actually happen. It was said before this bill was introduced that one thing that was supposed to be in the legislation introduced in this session was a requirement for greenfield developments to use FTTP technology from 1 July 2010 and for the government to acquire network information needed to assist in the design of the national FTTP rollout. That is what Senator Conroy said, but we do not see these provisions in the legislation. These are concerning provisions that have been the subject of much discussion with the housing industry. It is particularly from that context that I wish to address the House today. The housing industry is tremendously concerned that this amounts to a requirement for the developer—which will ultimately mean the person who purchased the house—to pay for this fibre to be connected to every single house in every single new development. The estimate from industry is that this will cost $2,500 per lot. One of the challenges we have in this country is housing affordability. It may come as a surprise to those on the other side of this chamber that 95 per cent of people live in the private housing industry. Ninety-five per cent of people are renting, buying or seeking to purchase homes in the private housing industry. One of the reasons we have had rents rising—in fact, the key reason we have had rents rising—in this country, and the key reason we have seen housing prices moving forward and forward and beyond the reach of many Australians, is the excessive level of taxation, delay and charging that is shored up in the cost of developing a block of land. Then there is the failure by state governments to release land, the absolutely merciless taxation by state governments of that land and the failure of state governments to provide the infrastructure that services that land to make it a viable investment. Instead of addressing these challenges in housing affordability, this government has sought to confine its activity only to things that it wants to spend money on. So we have the government’s program on public housing, but we do not have a program to address what is in fact the other 97 per cent of the residential construction market. Now that the first home owners grant boost is winding back—and that is something we supported both in its introduction and now in its winding back—and as that stimulus is being withdrawn from the housing market, which is the right thing to do, what we are going to be faced with in the residential construction sector is: where to from here? Probably the most important thing we can do in ‘Where to from here?’ for the residential construction sector is make sure that we do not tax them more—and that is what this proposal from the government will do. It will apply further taxation in the form of the requirement to pay for this fibre regardless of whether whoever buys the house wants it. They might want wireless. They might want some other form of technology. But Kevin knows best, and he is going to say, ‘You will pay $2½ thousand per lot to have this connected’—a further tax. Here is another idea that the government might think of. How about saying to state governments, on whom they are spending absolute billions of dollars of borrowed money on behalf of taxpayers, ‘In return for spending billions of dollars to mop up your failure to undertake any repairs and maintenance work on your own housing stocks in the last 10 years, in return for us providing billions of dollars, particularly hundreds of millions of dollars to local governments to support local infrastructure’—many of which are very worthy projects—‘in return for all of this considerable expenditure, how about we insist on some reform from state and local governments when it comes to making sure that in north-western Sydney, for example, it does not cost $200,000 before you even put a brick on the block?’ It is $200,000 before you put a brick on the block in the electorate of the member for Mitchell. That is what it costs. In the electorate of the member for Greenway, that is what it costs: $200,000 before you even lay a brick. The answer from the government is this: ‘Let’s add another $2½ thousand to every single one and let’s think that’s going to do something about housing affordability in this context.’ The government have recklessly, once again, forged ahead with a proposal which they have failed to consider. When I have the opportunity later on today to resume my remarks after question time, Mr Deputy Speaker, I am looking forward to taking you through the comments from the housing industry that set out how much damage this could do to an industry which is so important in times like this. The other challenge to that industry from this government is what it is going to do to interest rates over the next 12 to 18 months, because as the first home owners boost comes off—as it should—the government has decided, by continuing to spend borrowed money, to put pressure on interest rates. We have a residential construction industry who will be looking for opportunities. They will be looking for people who want to come and buy and build new homes. I think this government has totally misunderstood the positive impact that lower interest rates have had over the last six to nine months in ensuring that there was a buoyancy in consumer spending and, in particular, that there was a confidence amongst new home buyers to go out there and build a new house. Once the first home owners grant has been rightfully withdrawn, what is the answer going to be from this government? The answer is going to be to keep recklessly spending money, which is going to drive up interest rates. That will mean that people will not be able to take that commitment. There are 200,000 young people, as reported today, who have gone and bought their first home. The only interest rates they have ever known are the ones they have just bought their house on. The interest rates they are about to know are the interest rates that the government is going to give them by refusing to rein in reckless spending—refusing even to stop and consider. This is a government that can only see its own efforts. It cannot see the efforts of others out there, small business people working in the economy to create jobs and keep people in work—no, it was all created by the government. So the government is going to ensure higher interest rates for people who want to build houses, higher interest rates for people who want to buy houses and higher interest rates for people who want to pay off a house. It is going to do this by not withdrawing its reckless spending, because the government is of the view that there is only one way to support this economy, and that is with its spending. But there is a contrast to that. The government can choose to rein in their reckless spending and keep interest rates low. Keeping interest rates low will support jobs, it will support the economy and, in particular, it will support the residential construction industry, who, as a result of bills such as this and the government’s refusal to withdraw their reckless spending, will see interest rates go up and will suffer from that. What we want to see from the government is the opportunity for the government to stop, to look and to listen about what the impact of their reckless spending is going to be on interest rates. They may well want to argue for stimulus, but they need to acknowledge that stimulus can be delivered by keeping interest rates low. Australia has some of the highest rates of interest in the world, so I do not accept the argument that they simply have to rise, as the government would suggest. They do not have to rise. They do not have to rise if the government will stop their reckless spending and not put this pressure on those interest rates. The government can choose between less spending and higher interest rates. The government have chosen to go for higher interest rates because they would prefer to deliver a stimulus through spending rather than give small business the opportunity and people who want to buy a home and people who want to pay off a home the opportunity to do that with lower interest rates. We have a very real risk that we will see the residential construction industry come under pressure. They will come under pressure from higher interest rates. They will come under pressure from the proposals by the government to put more taxes on the development of land, more taxes that are preventing people from having the opportunity to buy a house and to buy it affordably. People do not want go into public housing; they want to go into a private house, like 95 per cent of Australians do every single day. If this government continues to spend recklessly, it will drive up interest rates and it will drive away the opportunity for homebuyers to buy a home and, more importantly, pay that home off. So I call on the government to rein in this spending, to choose to provide support to our economy through lower interest rates, not through more government spending. That is the stimulus the government has chosen: higher interest rates and more government spending. Those on this side of the House want to see lower interest rates. We want to see people being able to pay off their home, not just today. Those 200,000 people who have bought a home just recently want to see lower interest rates, Treasurer. They want to see lower interest rates, and they will not get them from you. Debate interrupted. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Cook will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 9388 Ministerial Arrangements 9388 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism will be absent from question time today as he is representing the government at the Gorgon final project approval proceedings in Perth. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. 9388 14:00:00 Questions Without Notice 9388 14:00:00 9388 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —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 dismissal of concerns expressed by parents, teachers, the media and the opposition about wasteful expenditure in her school assembly hall program as, in her words, ‘nitpicking’. Does the minister also regard the Auditor-General’s inquiry into the program as a further example of nitpicking? 9388 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 Leader of the Opposition for his question. Obviously I welcome the Auditor-General’s report, and a performance audit is underway. All things to be done to cooperate with the Auditor-General are being done, and we should have his report, hopefully, I believe, by the end of the year—though, of course, ultimately, the time frames are a matter for the Auditor-General. On the question of what the opposition say about the Building the Education Revolution, I still await the list I asked for from the opposition of which schools they believe should not get funded. They voted against funding in every school—all 9,500—and they voted against funding for 24,000 projects. They come into this parliament and they talk about waste. Well, just table the list that shows— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Deputy Prime Minister was not asked about untargeted spending; she was asked about nitpicking by the Auditor-General. If she has finished the answer, she can sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Every day we have an opposition spokesperson say a different thing about funding for Building the Education Revolution. On some days, the shadow Treasurer makes it clear that they would not fund it at all. On other days, the Leader of the Opposition says they would fund a program a quarter of the size. And the shadow minister for education tries to get caught saying nothing about funding. But at some point the opposition have to come clean and say to the Australian people, ‘Here’s a list of 9,500 schools and here are the ones that the Liberal Party believe should not be funded.’ 9389 9389 14:03:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 Mr RIPOLL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister explain the significance of the collapse of the Lehman Brothers investment bank on this day last year and update the House on the global response to the financial crisis which ensued? 9389 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Oxley for his question. One year ago today the bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers triggered the gravest financial and economic crisis the world had seen since the great crash of 1929. Within days, Merrill Lynch was absorbed by the Bank of America in a deal brokered by and financed by the US government. The world’s largest insurance company, AIG, was then nationalised by the US government under a public administration. Thirdly, the mortgage lender Washington Mutual was shut down. And in time we saw some 50 of the world’s major banks either declared bankrupt or bailed out by their respective government or by other mechanisms. The total losses and write-downs across the global financial system and the private institutions within it should provide us all with pause for reflection—a staggering $1.9 trillion plus, and the bill is rising. The head of the IMF said at the time—and it is worth while that honourable members reflect on this because we did stand at the abyss of the implosion of the world’s financial system—‘The global financial system is on the brink of systemic meltdown.’ No other statement has been made by the head of the IMF to that effect. That is where we stood in the critical week following the Lehman Brothers collapse last year. The fact that we all stood at the abyss was underlined by the fact that global financial markets then subsequently froze. Global private credit flows to Australian banks collapsed to zero in the months of October and November last year. For the information of honourable members, normal capital inflows into private financial institutions in this economy would run at about $10 billion a month—up or down depending on the month in question. They collapsed to zero. Furthermore, domestic raisings by Australian banks also froze. As a further indication of that, the interbank spreads, which normally run at around 10 basis points, elevated to 350 basis points—itself a market indication that the financial flows across the private financial system of the global economy had frozen. And in the absence of capital flows, the real economy in turn then freezes. In short, global financial markets had panicked—and panicked comprehensively—and credit was denied to institutions even with the most impeccable of balance sheets. Again to quote the IMF at the time—to place the events of the last 12 months into context—they said: ‘This is the most dangerous shock in mature financial markets since the 1930s.’ As financial markets teetered at the abyss, equity markets for a time went over the abyss. Some US$30 trillion was wiped off the value of global stock markets. That is an amount equal almost to half of the total value of global GDP—to place it into its context. The US stock market fell from peak to trough by 55 per cent. Compare that with the stock market crash of 1987, where the stock market collapsed by 33 per cent. In Australia we had a 55 per cent collapse in the stock market from peak to trough. That contrasted with a 50 per cent collapse back in 1987. The implications for Australian households, through the superannuation earnings of Australian families, have been huge. Last November, Alan Greenspan described the crisis as a ‘once-in-a-century event’. The freezing of financial markets and the collapse of stock markets, of course, in turn impacted on the real economy. These are the challenges we have been wrestling with here as well. Twenty-nine out of the 33 advanced economies fell into recession. Thirty-two of the 33 advanced economies over the last 12 months have contracted. All of the major advanced economies have gone into recession. This has been the worst global economic collapse in three-quarters of a century. The IMF began collecting data back in 1950. Again, if you go back to the data, you can see that at no time since 1950 has the global economy actually shrunk—until the IMF’s projection for 2009, when it projected it shrinking by 1.3 per cent. Again, it is worth putting this into context: in the recession of the early 1980s the global economy was still growing, albeit marginally, at 0.9 per cent; in the recession of the early nineties the global economy was still growing, at 1.5 per cent; in the Asian financial crisis the global economy was still growing at plus 3.2 per cent; and even with the tech wreck of the early 2000s the global economy was still growing at 2.1 per cent. Of course, all this flows from financial markets through equity markets through the real economies on to employment. What we have seen, of course, is the real impact for working people across the world. The G7 average unemployment rate has gone up to 8.2 per cent—across the OECD, to 8.3 per cent. The US unemployment level is, as we know, 9.7 per cent. In Europe, I notice in particular Spain, with 15-plus per cent, it seems, on some of the most recent reporting that I have seen. Some 12 billion jobs have been lost across the advanced economies alone. When we say the global economy has faced its worst crisis in 75 years, this is the data that underpins that proposition, and the data is unassailable. This has been a crisis of extraordinary dimensions by any measure; therefore, the response to it by governments both globally and nationally has had to be equally extraordinary to avoid a repeat of the Great Depression. Thanks to the leadership demonstrated by the United States under President Bush and continued under President Obama, through the agency of the G20, the global economy so far has avoided that outcome. The Washington summit, convened by President Bush, set an unprecedented agenda for global cooperation. The London summit which followed took four or five specific decisions which have turned back so much of the global economic tide: firstly, some $5 trillion worth of stimulus agreed across the 20 largest economies in the world, including our own; secondly, an international framework for managing toxic assets within impaired bank balance sheets, caused by the problems I referred to before; thirdly, a resourcing by $1 trillion of the IMF to deal with further emergencies arising with private banks in many of the distressed regions of the world, most particularly Central and Eastern Europe; fourthly, a comprehensive reform agenda going to the heart of the financial regulations which so demonstrably failed in the time leading up to the crisis in the first place; and fifthly, most critically, a resolve across governments not to indulge, as they did in the 1930s, in a breakout of protectionist measures one against the other. This was the resolve of those governments, a resolve which has been in the main adhered to. This points ahead to the third G20 summit, which will occur in Pittsburgh next week. The agenda for the G20 summit at Pittsburgh goes to a range of specific policy measures again aimed at bringing back the global economy from the brink through recovery and on to long-term reconstruction. The IMF has pointed to the impact of the London summit, in a study it has done, as having ‘broken the fall’ in the global economic collapse which occurred after the implosion of Lehman Brothers one year ago. That summit in London, chaired by Prime Minister Brown, convened by the United States through the overall agency of the G20, brought about a series of outcomes which effectively broke the fall. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I simply point you to the submissions that both the Treasurer and the Deputy Prime Minister have made about the need for answers to questions to be four minutes or less. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Because of the significance of this day 12 months ago, I thought it was important to inform the House what has been done in response to a virtually unprecedented economic crisis. I have outlined two meetings of the G20; I will now come to the third. That is the Pittsburgh agenda, which looms next month. Whatever national actions have been undertaken by the parliament and by the government of Australia in our national stimulus strategy, they pale into insignificance against global actions which have been taken through the agency of the G20. Firstly, the stimulus measures that I referred to before need to continue to be implemented, as affirmed recently by the G20 finance ministers. Secondly, there is the question—as proposed by a number of governments—of how to coordinate effective medium-term exit strategies from the extraordinary interventions which all governments have had to engage in, in fiscal policy but also in the monetary policy actions undertaken by our respective central banks. Thirdly, there is the issue of the development of a long-term new sustainable growth model for the future of the global economy which does not simply rest on a return to business as usual—in terms of high levels of North-East Asian and Middle Eastern credit exports, as surplus economies, to high levels of debt driven consumption in economies such as the United States—as that is unlikely to occur. This poses the core question for anyone seriously engaged in this debate around the world, which is: where will the next increment of global economic growth come from? That should seize the attention of all honourable members, because, unless that question is answered globally, actions taken nationally will again pale into insignificance. Finally, we need to implement the agenda of financial market regulation reform which was initiated both in Washington and in London in terms of three specific areas where work is being concentrated: (1) the capital requirements of financial institutions, in particular the largest ones with systemic significance for the global economy; (2) executive remuneration in financial institutions around the world; and (3) how to deal with what is described by the Financial Stability Board and others as financial institutions too big to fail. These are important areas of reform. Pittsburgh, it is hoped, will achieve progress in each of these categories, and it is important that this reform agenda be continued into the future. For the benefit of the House’s attention, I have spoken on these matters at length today for this reason: 12 months ago, with the implosion of Lehman’s, we all teetered at the abyss. In the 12 months since then—in substantial measure because of the leadership shown by the United States of America, through the convening of the G20, and the coordinated global actions undertaken through that agency—this global economy has come back from the abyss. As a result of those actions coordinated by the United States, Australia’s interests have been well served by American leadership through the G20, and I would have thought that all members of this House would have been united in a positive response to this strong exercise of US global leadership. 9392 Distinguished Visitors 9392 14:16:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Republic of Mozambique, His Excellency Mr Oldemiro Baloi. On behalf of the House I extend to him a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 9392 14:17:00 Questions Without Notice 9392 14:17:00 9392 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is again 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 wasteful plan for Abbotsford Public School to use $2½ million of taxpayers’ money to tear down four existing classrooms in perfectly good working order and replace them with four new classrooms. Will the minister confirm that parents and teachers at the school were told by officials last week that they cannot have the project they want and need because it would create a precedent for other schools to make similar demands for building the buildings their schools actually need? 9392 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I would say, particularly following the Prime Minister’s answer, that in the middle of a global recession the Leader of the Opposition may like to note that the importance of the Building the Education Revolution Program and consequently delivering it quickly is about supporting jobs today—the jobs of tradespeople, of carpenters, plumbers and electricians—whilst building the biggest school modernisation in the nation’s history. Of course, he refers to one project out of more than 24,000 projects in 9,500 schools around the country. Given the inability of the opposition to answer my last question to it, a question I have asked before, in detail, we can only assume that this is a project that the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to—just like he is opposed to each of the more than 24,000 others. The Leader of the Opposition may choose to go to Abbotsford Public School and explain that he is opposed to this project, he is opposed to every dollar of expenditure and he is opposed to every job that this project will support. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order on relevance. The Deputy Prime Minister was asked a specific question about the dangerous precedent of schools asking for what they want, and I would ask you to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —If I could conclude that point, obviously the Leader of the Opposition is opposed to the project at Abbotsford Public School. He voted against it. Every member of the opposition voted against it. The Abbotsford Public School has decided that it would like to access the Building the Education Revolution Program and the resources in money that that program brings. The Leader of the Opposition is opposed to every dollar of expenditure on the Abbotsford Public School. Discussions are in train with the Abbotsford Public School about their program, and I would make the point to the Leader of the Opposition that if he chose to go to schools around the country, if he chose to walk into them and if he chose to be honest that he is opposed to the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history and the jobs that it supports, he would actually find principals, parents and teachers who disagree with him—who believe that this is important to their school, that this is important to their local community and that it is are delivering programs that they want and projects that their school very much wants. 9393 9393 14:21:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent public statements about workplace relations policy? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mass distraction! 9393 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much to the member for Braddon for his question, thank you very much to the Speaker for the call and thank you to the shadow minister for education for interjecting ‘mass distraction’. That is obviously what he thinks the Leader of the Opposition is, because this question refers to recent statements by the Leader of the Opposition. As members of this House would recall, the heart of Work Choices was Australian workplace agreements that stripped away pay and conditions, and information from May 2006 gave us great evidence of just how bad those rip-offs that the Liberal Party endorsed were, with 63 per cent of AWAs ripping off penalty rates, endorsed by the Liberal Party; 51 per cent ripping off overtime loadings, endorsed by the Liberal Party; and 46 per cent ripping off public holiday pay, endorsed by the Liberal Party. AWAs are the rip-off at the heart of Work Choices. The Leader of the Opposition from time to time has tried to say to the Australian people that he understands their concerns about these Liberal endorsed rip-offs. For example, the Leader of the Opposition on 25 May 2008 said, ‘Work Choices is dead. The people have spoken.’ Of course, on 26 November— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I warn the member for Warringah. If he is going to wander around like that, he will take— Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If you wish, Member for North Sydney, I will warn the Manager of Opposition Business and the Leader of the House together. But I will not have people deciding that they can just wander around the House as a gesture. I have warned the member for Warringah. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I understand that whenever the member for Warringah is near a microphone people become concerned about a word being used that is not suitable for daytime TV. Of course, in my answer I am referring to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I name the member for Warringah. Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 14:24:00 —I move: That the member for Warringah be suspended from the service of the House. Question put. 14:29:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 80 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 62 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 1 Ellis, A.L. Hawker, D.P.M. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Warringah is suspended under standing order 94 for 24 hours. The member for Warringah then left the chamber. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I do understand the embarrassment and sensitivity of those opposite about this issue. What I was verifying was that in November last year the Leader of the Opposition frequently said that Work Choices was dead. On 26 November he went so far as to say: The Coalition has been advised by industry that the Government’s changes in the Fair Work Bill to provide individual flexibility in Awards and Agreements are sufficient. There was no question then about the reintroduction of individual statutory employment agreements. No, he was trying to convince people that Work Choices was dead. He went on to say this on a number of occasions—on 22 May, and on 19 May, a few days earlier, he had a debate with Alan Jones about whether it was him or the former Leader of the Opposition, Brendan Nelson, who first said that Work Choices was dead. But he verified that Work Choices was dead according to the Liberal Party. But then something very important happened on the weekend. Despite all of the attempts by the Leader of the Opposition to pull the wool over people’s eyes, on Saturday he verified what we had always really known: Work Choices remains the position of the Liberal Party and they want to reintroduce individual statutory employment agreements, AWAs, with all of the rip-offs that they imply. The Leader of the Opposition was out on Saturday verifying that that was the position of the Liberal Party. He may have had to do this because others positioning for the leadership had got there first. I refer in this regard to the member for Warringah, who has just been excluded from the House, who said on the 7.30 Report on 27 July that statutory individual employment agreements were an important reform. He went on to say, ‘We are never going to bring down the curtain on workplace reform.’ The Leader of the Opposition may have been dragged there by others in the Liberal Party, but he has verified that Liberal Party policy is Work Choices, AWAs and all of the rip-offs that that means. If there was any doubt at all, it was verified today by Senator Minchin, who said on News Radio, ‘We are obviously in the business of formulating a new policy,’ and he referred to the 2007 election campaign as just a scare campaign—as if the Australian people are stupid and that, in repudiating Work Choices, they did the wrong thing. If there was any doubt, we could go to that bellwether, that very honest and frank man in the Liberal Party, the member for O’Connor, who dispensed with all the subterfuge of the Leader of the Opposition and said very, very frankly today: I am totally supportive of that proposal. The proposal being individual contracts. I was never comfortable with people coming out without partyroom endorsement at the time and saying WorkChoices was dead … The only problem with Work Choices was its name. That is not all that has been revealed about Work Choices today. It is not just the member for O’Connor from the back bench but also the shadow minister for workplace relations from the front bench. He was on Sky News today, and he was being asked about individual statutory employment agreements and what the policy of the Liberal Party is. In the middle of a global recession, when Australian working families are worried about jobs, he was asked about redundancy pay. He was asked by Kieran Gilbert, ‘Do you say you can’t say whether you would give a guarantee for something like redundancy pay?’ The shadow minister, on behalf of the Liberal Party, was asked for a guarantee about redundancy pay in the middle of a global recession. The shadow minister answered in these terms: Well, we are saying we are not ruling things in and ruling things out at this stage. I mean, I cannot give a guarantee on any of these matters. That was the shadow minister today, spelling out the position of the Liberal party. What this clearly means is Work Choices is back as Liberal Party policy. The rip-offs are back as part of Liberal Party policy. The rip-off that really matters to workers in the middle of a global recession is that they cannot rely on getting their redundancy pay. According to the shadow minister, there are no guarantees of that. The rip-off of their redundancy pay is back. Those rip-offs happened each and every day under the Liberal Party when it was in government, and now they have been endorsed by the Leader of the Opposition. The Leader of the Opposition is so out of touch with the needs of Australian families that he thinks the right policy in the middle of a global recession is to have laws where people’s basic pay and conditions, like redundancy, can be ripped-off. He is so out-of-touch with the needs of working Australians that he has endorsed the rip-offs. He has endorsed Work Choices. He has endorsed the rip-offs of redundancy pay. He told us the truth on the weekend, and that has been added to by his shadow minister today. 9396 9396 14:38:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 Mr HAWKE —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 Baulkham Hills North Public School, in my electorate, which was awarded $2.45 million— Government members interjecting— HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr HAWKE —You can explain it to me later, Albo. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will come to order! HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr HAWKE —for a new hall under the government’s Building the Education Revolution program. Minister, why is it, after months of discussions to extend the existing hall, this school is being forced to accept a new hall, which only provides an extra 30 square metres of floor space? This would seat, at most, an extra 50 students. Does the minister accept that spending an extra $2.45 million—or about $81,500 per square metre, to seat 200 out of 650 students—is value for money? 9396 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Deputy Prime Minister 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Mitchell for his question. I thank him for so clearly going through my portfolio titles. If he wants a summary, we of course stand for fairness and decency in education and at work. You stand for neither—neither fairness nor decency. That was made very clear by the Leader of the Opposition on the weekend, and it is made clear every day by your shadow minister through his absence of policies. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was asked a very clear question about value for money and I would ask you to draw her to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. Perhaps a little less debate would be helpful. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The member for Mitchell raises with me a Building the Education Revolution project in his electorate. There are 41 schools in his electorate. They have been awarded 93 projects at a cost of just over $81 million. I think it is to be regretted that he opposes each and every one of those projects in each and every one of his 41 schools. He has raised with me the details of an individual project. Obviously I would need to check the assertions in his question—I have found out, by dint of long experience, that most of the questions raised by the opposition do not stand up to any scrutiny when the claims are held up to the light. But I will look at the assertion that the member for Mitchell has made and will come back to him about the matter. I trust that, in the same spirit, he will go back to each of his 41 schools and explain to them that he is opposed to expenditure in those schools, he is opposed to the new projects, he is opposed to assistance to schools in 9,500 schools around the nation and he is opposed to the local jobs that it will support. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —On a number of occasions, the Deputy Prime Minister has promised to come back to the House. I would ask that she come back before the end of question time, for once. 9396 9396 14:42:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 Mr GEORGANAS —Will the Treasurer outline for the House why jobs and employment conditions will continue to be front and centre in the government’s economic strategy? 9396 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Hindmarsh for his question, because it has been a difficult year in the global economy. Australia, through a combination of circumstances—including economic stimulus and fantastic community effort—has come through this global recession in far better shape than the rest of the world. But, as the IMF recently warned, it would be dangerous to assume that the crisis is now over—around the world but also locally we are still facing big challenges. One of those challenges is rising unemployment. Last week’s unemployment figures showed that employment fell by 27,100 people last month. The number of unemployed Australians has risen by something like 200,000 people over the past year. Regrettably, I think unemployment will continue to rise as the effects of the global recession do continue to wash through our economy. That is why jobs are so central—front and centre—to this government’s economic strategy. We do understand the damaging impact of unemployment on an economy, on families, on business and on the wider community. We, in particular, understand the damage that unemployment does to those families that are caught in the cycle of unemployment. That is why the statements by the shadow Treasurer last Thursday were so damaging and why they really demonstrate the lack of understanding of the shadow Treasurer and those opposite. He said that jobs were not the No. 1 economic priority of the Liberal and National parties in this parliament. This is quite a change of heart from the shadow Treasurer because on 23 April he said this: Every single sinew of the Government’s body must be focused on creating jobs, building jobs. It must be focused on how to preserve jobs. What a change of heart we have had from the shadow Treasurer in recent times. And in the space of one week the shadow Treasurer has had a shocker. In the space of one week jobs have gone from being the top priority to a second order priority. On Thursday he announced a $50 billion a year savings target for those opposite. Truly spectacular! Then we had his leftist conspiracy in the G20. And then we had a rebuke from the World Bank—all in the space of a couple of days. What this demonstrates is how those opposite have misjudged the global recession. They have misjudged its causes and they have misjudged the response. And so important to the response here has been that Australians have pulled together. They have come together working with the government to support employment. What is the new idea that those opposite have got this week? It is to bring back Work Choices. What a combination—to oppose stimulus and bring back Work Choices. It shows how those opposite have no grasp of the challenges facing this country. What they will do is push people down. What we on this side of the House will do is build them up. Those on that side of the House have no conception of what is required to support employment and the Australian people in a global recession. 9397 9397 14:47:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Minister for Employment, Minister for Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to a document entitled Questions and answers for MPs and senators—talking points distributed by the minister’s office in August. The document advises government backbenchers that if they are asked about problems with Building the Education Revolution they should respond that ‘state and territory education authorities and block grant authorities are responsible’. If that is the case, Deputy Prime Minister, why is the Australian government, and not any state, territory or block grant authority, acknowledged on the taxpayer funded electoral advertisements that every school must display? 9398 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. Unfortunately, in response I feel like I should be giving a grade 5 or 6 social studies or civics course. Yes, there is a national government in this country; that is true. There are state and territory governments in this country; that is true as well. There are actually local governments, but I do not want to confuse the member—I seriously do not—so let us just stick to the first two. And then there are schools in this country that are not operated by either level of government but are operated either independently or by the Catholic Church through Catholic education authorities. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —It may, the Prime Minister is reminding me, possibly be in the member’s mind that this is all located in some G20 leftist conspiracy. The interconnections are not clear to me but maybe to Fox Mulder of The X Files over there they are. Maybe the truth is out there. The way that Building the Education Revolution works, of course, is that the federal government, to support jobs during a global recession—and I know the shadow minister has not heard of that—determined it was appropriate to provide economic stimulus to the economy. We determined it was appropriate to do that in part through the biggest school modernisation program the nation has ever seen. Seventy per cent of our economic stimulus was delivered by way of productive infrastructure for the future, including modernising schools. Having made that determination, we entered into agreements with state and territory governments, independent schools authorities and the Catholic schools authorities. We have worked with them on the delivery of this program. It is as simple as that. Whether or not the shadow minister is capable of understanding it is quite another question. 9398 9398 14:50:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women. Can the minister please tell the House why a fair workplace relations system is important for women? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for O’Connor was not asked the question. 9398 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms PLIBERSEK —I am actually happy to give the call to the member for O’Connor, because it is a terrific insight into the opposition’s industrial relations policy, and I guess their women’s policy as well. Home in the kitchen, eh! All right, good! I want to thank the member for Page for her question. It was a very good question. It certainly did not deserve that interjection. Of course, both men and women need a fair industrial relations system, but we know that— Honourable members interjecting— 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —I hear the blokes up the back. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will ignore. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —We know that women in Australia have been more dependent on awards to underpin basic pay and conditions than men. About one in five working women is reliant on an award, compared with about 13 per cent of working men. So the safety net that is provided by the award system has always been more important for vulnerable workers and for many women workers. We had so many examples during Work Choices of pay and conditions being stripped away from working women. The system was undermined by having the rug pulled out from under it. There were the Spotlight workers asked to give up their leave and loading for an extra 2c an hour. There was the vegetable packer who saw her hourly rate fall from $16 an hour to $11 an hour after Work Choices. There was Janis, a cleaner, who had to apply for her own job after more than 30 years with her firm. There was Marianne, sacked without notice by her employer by email—example after example. We also know that women who were on AWAs earnt significantly less than women who are on award pay or collective agreements. In fact, women on AWAs actually earnt about $90 a week less than women on collective agreements did. We know also that the gender pay gap—the difference between women’s earnings and men’s earnings—was much greater for women on AWAs compared with women on collective agreements. We know that the Work Choices system and AWAs in particular made balancing work and family much more difficult. Only about a quarter of AWAs had family-friendly provisions. That is not good for men or women, but we know that working women in particular are often the ones who have to make the arrangements to pick the kids up from child care. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Point of order, Mr Speaker. I draw your attention to standing order 62(c) and the behaviour of the Leader of the House. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the Manager of Opposition Business wish me to apply 62(c) when he is wandering around the chamber doing his job as Manager of Opposition Business? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, with the greatest of respect to you and your position, the opposition is still trying to work out on what basis the member for Warringah was named for simply sitting and talking to the Leader of the Opposition. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —First of all, given the difficulties of discussing a decision of the House, he might like to read, perhaps, standing order 91 and other standing orders in that chapter. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —I was just making the point about AWAs making it very difficult— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will resume her seat. The Minister for Trade and the member for Sturt, for differing reasons, are not assisting the House by thinking that they can just talk across the chair when the minister has the call. 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms PLIBERSEK —I was just making the point about the difficulty of balancing work and family for many people who were on AWAs—the difficulty of knowing when you could pick your kids up, knowing what sorts of after-school things you could commit yourself to when you did not know when you would be working from day to day or week to week. The Fair Work Act restores the balance that the opposition wants to take away, by extending equal remuneration provisions to include the right to equal pay for work of equal or comparable value, by allowing variation of modern awards for work value reasons, by strengthening the safety net and measures relating to women’s workforce participation, by providing access to multi-employer bargaining for the low paid and by enhancing protections from workplace discrimination. Work Choices and AWAs were killed stone dead by the Australian people at the time of the last election. There were many Australian women who voted against Work Choices partly because they were concerned about their own pay and conditions but partly because of the work environment that they wanted their kids and grandkids to have as they grew up. They voted against it and, if the Leader of the Opposition resurrects Work Choices and resurrects AWAs, they will vote against it again. 9400 9400 14:57:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —My question is to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Education. I refer the minister to reports that $85,000 has already been expended on consultants fees at Abbotsford Primary School, where the government plans to knock down four classrooms in order to build four classrooms, against the wishes of the school community. Minister, if the project is not changed to reflect the wishes of the school community and the project is therefore rejected outright by the school, who will pick up the tab for the $85,000 in consultants fees for a nonproject? Will it be the school, the state government or the Australian taxpayer? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order. There are quite clearly about five hypotheticals in that question from the member for Mackellar, and as an expert on the standing orders she knows it is out of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —From time to time there are questions that, based on a premise earlier in the question, do use the word ‘if’, and I think that there are many examples of such questions. I will allow the question. 9400 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —Can I say to the member for Mackellar there is something about Building the Education Revolution that she has not quite realised, and that is that Building the Education Revolution is all about getting money to schools, money that she and the Liberal Party are opposed to delivering to schools. So let’s just get it clear in her mind: this side of the House supports giving resources to schools and her side of the House does not. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is asking a point of order— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —on relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —although when he is mangling his abuse of 65(b) it gets a bit unclear what is actually happening. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on relevance: the Deputy Prime Minister was asked about waste and mismanagement in Building the Education Revolution. I would ask her to answer that question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt cannot rephrase and paraphrase questions as a point of order. He might be able to do that when he is making his interjections, against the standing orders, but he cannot do that, and he should be very careful. If we want to have ‘Battle of the Standing Orders’, 65(b) says: When a Member is speaking, no Member may converse aloud or make any noise or disturbance to interrupt the Member. That applies to the member for Sturt as well. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. She is responding to the question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —She is not. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Can I say— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —She’s not answering the question. She never answers the question, ever. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt is warned. 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Fowler is not assisting. In fact, one of the things that members on my right will have to learn is that they do not necessarily assist by their cries of all sorts of standing order misdemeanours. The Deputy Prime Minister has the call. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Can I answer the member for Mackellar’s question by saying to her: Building the Education Revolution is about getting resources to schools. Any suggestion that the school at Abbotsford is somehow paying these consultancy costs out of its own resources is— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I want to know who’s paying them. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Prime Minister will resume her seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —absolutely absurd. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister! I am not quite sure what the Manager of Opposition Business is considering, but I simply offer him this: if he thinks that his defiance of the chair is worthy of the three days that he will get, then let it be on his head. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Of course, the question of administrative costs is dealt with in the Building the Education Revolution guidelines: administrative costs at 1.5 per cent of the program. The question of project costs has been dealt with between the federal government and the state and territory governments and block grant authorities who are delivering this program, and that deals with the industry standard of four per cent. I understand from the member for Mackellar’s question that she is quite interested in hypotheticals. Well, if she is quite interested in hypotheticals, here is a hypothetical for her: just imagine if the Liberal Party had won the 2007 election. If that had happened then today there would not be economic stimulus, there would not be support for jobs, unemployment would be higher, there would not be the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is on relevance, Mr Speaker. It was a very straightforward question. We simply want to know who is going to pay the— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —And if the Liberal Party had been elected then the 49 schools in her electorate would not be benefiting from 104 projects at more than $90 million. And if the Liberal Party were ever re-elected then presumably they would do everything they could to rip this money back out of schools, because they have opposed it every step of the way. 9401 9401 15:03:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline the impact of Work Choices on working men and women? 9401 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 she cares about fairness and decency at work, and I know that, like Australians around the country, she was appalled at the Liberal Party’s Work Choices rip-offs. She was appalled that working people had penalty rates ripped off them. She was appalled that working people had redundancy pay ripped off them without a cent of compensation. She was appalled that good workers were dismissed for no reason at all, with no remedy. And she campaigned for the return of fairness and decency at work and the end of Work Choices. The member for Kingston, like other Australians, may have been entitled to think, when the Leader of the Opposition went out to the Australian people and said, ‘Work Choices is dead,’ that he meant it. But, of course, from the weekend, we know that the Leader of the Opposition is so out of touch that he believes the solution, in the middle of a global recession, is to have laws that enable working Australians to lose basic pay and conditions including penalty rates. People might be wondering to themselves, ‘How on earth did the Leader of the Opposition come to this conclusion—apart from personally being so out of touch?’ Well, he does not have very good advisers amongst his political party and his backbench. Starting with his advisers from the backbench, we have the member for O’Connor, who, clearly, in interjections when the Minister for Housing— 83M Plibersek, Tanya, MP Ms Plibersek —He wants the marriage vow back! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —That’s right! When the Minister for Housing was dealing with the question of pay and conditions— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr Stone —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is about relevance. This is just vindictive nonsense. We need to go back to the substantive question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I will listen carefully to the way in which the Deputy Prime Minister is relating her material to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I thank the shadow minister for her turn of phrase, because she is right: Work Choices is vindictive nonsense, and it is just a pity that that is what the Liberal Party stands for. But in coming to this position in support of Work Choices and all of its rip-offs, we have got the advice from the member for O’Connor. He was clearly interjecting, when the Minister for Housing was on her feet, suggesting that it is fine for women workers to be required to work on weekends, and they ought to be grateful for the job, and questions of minimum wages really should not come into it. And he is on the public record as verifying this position, not only in the parliament in interjections but in the media today. I quote from a very illuminating statement from the member for O’Connor as he was walking into Parliament House today. He said: I made my maiden speech in 1981— That is quite a long time ago— on industrial relations and questioned the stupidity in our modern society of penalty rates within the 38-hour parameters, I think it was 40 then, for weekends and evenings— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Absolutely. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —‘Absolutely’—thank you, Member for O’Connor. He has been opposed to penalty rates since 1981 and the Liberal Party are basically opposed to penalty rates today because they have embraced Work Choices rip-offs. I thank the member for O’Connor for that verification that, should the Liberal Party ever form government again in this country, penalty rates for workers around the country would be gone. The member for O’Connor has been campaigning for it since 1981, and obviously the Leader of the Opposition has endorsed his position. When it comes to the question of who advises the Leader of the Opposition on these questions, we have the member for O’Connor. The one thing you would say about the member for O’Connor—there would be quite a few things you could say, but the one thing you would be able to say during the daytime and in a public place—is that at least he is consistent and clear in what he stands for. I will give him that: at least he is consistent and clear. I would say that that approach stands in stark contrast to the very sloppy approach of the shadow Treasurer. Of course, the shadow Treasurer was the salesperson for Work Choices for the Howard government. He was there, day after day, justifying the rip-offs as they came to light. The shadow Treasurer was the salesperson for Work Choices. But, in what is a really a curiously sloppy performance by the shadow Treasurer, he had a bad week last week. He was away, X-Files style, talking about the G20 leftist conspiracy and that Angela Merkel—he had always had his doubts about her. It led him to muse on the nature of left-wing leadership around the world. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The standing orders are clear about personal reflections—and the minister has made personal reflections on three people now—under standing order 90. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order, the Deputy Prime Minister has the call. She will relate her material to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —On the question of workplace relations policy and what has caused the Leader of the Opposition to embrace Work Choices, of course, he may well have got some very sloppy advice from the shadow Treasurer. Because as today’s Sydney Morning Herald records, and I quote: Just days after announcing a vast, left wing conspiracy at the G20 treasurers’ summit, Joe Hockey has himself unwittingly joined an illegal left-wing conspiracy … He was at a CFMEU press conference talking about industrial action in support of green bans. The article says: Rubbing shoulders with the assembled trade unionists and environmentalists, Hockey brought conversation to a stop when he asked the union president, Peter McClelland, if the green ban was legal. After a short pause, McClelland reminded the former workplace relations minister some of the finer points of his Work Choices legislation. “No it’s not, and it’s because of your government,” he said. Apparently the onlookers went all quiet and then began to laugh at Mr Hockey. The quote continues: “The impression you got is that he was completely unaware that it was illegal,” … It was another sloppy piece of work by the shadow Treasurer. The shadow Treasurer may not have understood that about Work Choices but what he ought to have known about Work Choices is that it ripped working people off. He endorsed it every step of the way, and the Liberal Party still does. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order, has the Deputy Prime Minister concluded? The member for North Sydney does not have the call. 9403 9403 15:12:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to recent comments by the respected economist and Reserve Bank board member Warwick McKibbin. Professor McKibbin said that he stands by his testimony to the Senate earlier in the year that the government’s stimulus package was, and I quote, ‘too big and wrongly focused’ and he says that now is the time to step back and reassess the situation. Will the Prime Minister explain to the House why he will not heed these warnings, reduce his reckless spending and ease the upward pressure on interest rates? 9403 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question and note in passing that Professor McKibbin has not been a consistent fan of government policy for some time—either on the question of the economy, climate change or a range of other matters. That is simply a matter of public record. The Leader of the Opposition asked me about the government’s stimulus strategy. In my response to an earlier question today I referred to it being 12 months since the Lehman Brothers crisis and to what the global economy has done through the G20—and what we are still seeking to do through the G20—because the global economy was at the abyss. One of the things that the global economy resolved to do through the G20 was coordinate global economic stimulus through fiscal measures. That is what was agreed upon at the London summit in March-April this year. Furthermore, the representatives of those G20 economies, meeting most recently in London last weekend—and I seem to recall the Treasurer informing the House about this last week—including all those socialists from France, Germany, Italy and from Saudi Arabia, all said that in fact they were committed and must remain committed to the full implementation of the stimulus measures that they had agreed upon in London. And the reason for that was that the global economic recovery was far from certain and far from concluded. Therefore Australia, together with the other 19 significant economies at that gathering, as they were in London in April, has embarked upon this collective course of action. Also, within Australia we have acted on the basis of advice from the Treasury. We have acted on the basis also of the concerted— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I see the shadow Treasurer is again attacking Mr Henry; is that right? Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I notice that those opposite often have a go at the Secretary to the Treasury. I seem to recall that those opposite have done so from time to time in the past. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It goes to what the Prime Minister just said. I ask him to tell the truth. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for North Sydney will resume his seat and he is warned. He was offered the call on a point of order. He cannot approach the dispatch box and just willy-nilly start debating. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning is warned. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —If the shadow Treasurer was not having a go at the Secretary to the Treasury, as the opposition has done on many occasions in the past, then of course I stand corrected. The government in our response to the global economic crisis, the global economic recession and the financial crisis in embarking upon our three-stage stimulus strategy have done so consistent with the advice provided to us by our economic advisers in the Treasury. Furthermore, our strategy has been complementary to the expansionary policy adopted by the central bank, the Reserve Bank of Australia, and the 425 basis point changes that it has made to official interest rates. The reason we have done that is that we have been acting in concert with other global economies, seeking to respond to the worst global economic crisis in three-quarters of a century. The Leader of the Opposition asks also about where this fiscal stimulus strategy will go in the future. I would draw his attention to the fact that the stimulus strategy is structured in a number of stages—three, in particular—and furthermore that the way in which the strategy has been conceived, developed and implemented is such that it will peak as the private economy is at its weakest and then contract as the private economy responds. That is what you should do with a stimulus strategy to make sure it is targeted, that it is temporary and that it therefore has an effect. It is entirely consistent with conservative economic management. When the public economy expands to occupy the space left by a private sector in retreat and when the private sector expands itself then the public economy through public investment should contract at that point. That is the way in which the stimulus strategy is constructed. In fact, I seem to recall that in 2008-09 we have had about 2.1 per cent of GDP which has gone out. In 2009-10 it will be something like 2.2 per cent or 2.3 per cent of GDP. Then it will fall to 1.4 per cent of GDP and then down to less than 0.4 per cent of GDP. In other words, it is constructed in a manner such that it was at its maximum intensity when the global economy was at its weakest and therefore is contracting, as it has been designed to, as the global economy slowly recovers. The other point that has been made by the Leader of the Opposition today concerns interest rates. I find it passing strange that anyone from the opposition could stand here credibly and ask a question about interest rates. They went to the election before last saying they would keep interest rates at record lows and then proceeded to bring about how many interest rate rises in a row? Ten. But they stand at the dispatch box and ask us questions about interest rates. Furthermore, apart from having zero credibility on interest rates, I would also say to those opposite the following: when you look at the impact of global public borrowings on interest rates, as has been said repeatedly by many public economists, the impact of Australia’s total borrowing on total global public debt is something in the order of 0.003— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The shadow Treasurer interjects again. I would draw his attention to commentaries such as those by Ross Gittins in the financial pages of the paper where he was described roundly as an economic illiterate for assuming that the impact of Australia’s public borrowing would in turn have a direct effect on interest rates. That is simply illogical because of the fundamental underpinning fact that our overall borrowings represent such a small slice of total global public debt. Therefore, the proposition being advanced by the opposition is one of absolute fiction and fear which has no underpinnings in fact. Those opposite would understand that if they were being honest about their reflections on this. I welcome the question from the Leader of the Opposition. It goes to why we have embarked upon this economic stimulus strategy and how we have structured it in three stages and over time in order for it to have its maximum effect when the economy is at its weakest and then to contract as the global economy recovers. The stimulus strategy is consistent with both the global advice of the IMF and the World Bank and advice nationally within Australia from the Treasury of the Commonwealth of Australia. It is a stimulus strategy which I would suggest that those opposite, if they were honest about it, would agree is having a positive effect. Firstly, at this stage of September 2009, across the 33 members of the OECD Australia uniquely over the last 12 months is the economy which has grown. Secondly, we are the only major economy not to have gone into recession. Thirdly, we have the second lowest unemployment, the lowest debt and the lowest deficit of the major advanced economies. And, on top of that, we are the only economy not to have gone into recession. Those opposite regard that as a scorecard of economic failure. 9405 9405 15:21:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Trade, representing the Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism. What does the final investment decision taken by the Gorgon joint partners mean for Australia? 9405 Crean, Simon, MP DT4 Hotham ALP Minister for Trade 1 Mr CREAN —I thank the member for her question because not only is this decision important for her state; it is important for the nation. Today the Minister for Resources and Energy is in Perth witnessing the final development approval by the Premier of Western Australia, essentially giving the go-ahead to the Gorgon LNG development. This go-ahead locks in the largest resource project in Australia’s history. This House has heard over the last few weeks about important long-term gas contracts that have been secured, importantly, with China, with India, with Japan and with Korea, but today’s announcement equals the sum of those parts plus, because it is projected that the Gorgon LNG development will involve $300 billion in export earnings over its life. Not only is this great news for the Australian economy as a whole; it is great news for job opportunities going forward. If one thinks of the development, it is a $43 billion development project. ACIL Economics has estimated that, over the life of this project, it will boost Australia’s GDP by some $65 billion and it will generate government revenues of $40 billion—and just think of how important that is going to be in terms of continuing this government’s investment in the nation’s future, in its schools, in its skills, in its innovation, in its research and development and in its infrastructure. The project will also return more than $33 billion to the economy through the use of Australian goods and services throughout the nation. So far as jobs are concerned, it is estimated that it will create at the peak of its construction 10,000 jobs and, over the life of the project, 3½ thousand direct and indirect jobs. The Prime Minister announced last week the National Resource Sector Employment Taskforce. This is important to ensure that, as this and other resource developments go ahead, we have not only the job opportunities but the skills to undertake them. Finally, I would just observe the point that, whilst this is a hugely important announcement, this will not be just an example of Australia exporting the resource. It is also the expertise and the carbon capture storage technology that is involved in this—it is the much greater comparative advantage that Australia holds not just as a supplier of a resource but as the supplier of clean resource energies, which themselves will command a premium going forward as the globe grapples with the challenge of climate change. This is Australia’s comparative advantage. It is only one dimension of it but a huge impetus, a huge fillip, to it. This demonstrates Australia’s contribution and its ability to play as a global and clean energy superpower—quality, cleaner: this is a brand Australia should be proud of and it is something that we as a government are very happy to be supportive of. 9406 9406 15:25:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 Mr HOCKEY —My question is to the Treasurer. I refer the Treasurer to media comments today by David Koch and Libby Koch. I quote an article titled ‘Wind back stimulus or we’ll cop higher interest rates’. They say: IT IS pretty laughable that Prime Minister Kevin Rudd is using the recommendations of the International Monetary Fund to not start winding back the stimulus package now to prevent our economy overheating and forcing up interest rates. Sure the IMF sounds flash and is meant to be an international economic think tank but it is hopeless when it comes to making forecasts … The Rudd government was commendably quick with its stimulus package to fight the downturn but now it has to be quick to wind it back or face the prospect of an economy which overheats and forces the Reserve Bank to come to the rescue and raise interest rates. I say to the Treasurer: when will the reckless spending stop? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I was just wondering when the question was going to come, but it came at the end. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The question has been asked. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer has the call. 9406 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I do really welcome this question from the shadow Treasurer. The proposition that the economic stimulus in this country is somehow going to lead to a rise in global interest rates is simply bizarre, because the truth is this: interest rates in Australia are partially a function of global factors— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. The member for North Sydney— 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Mr Speaker— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, the question— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Treasurer will resume his seat. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. It goes to relevance. It was not global interest rates; it was Australian interest rates. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney will resume his seat. The Treasurer is 20 seconds into the answer. The Treasurer is responding to the question. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Borrowing rates are governed by market rates, which are influenced by a range of factors, most particularly global factors and global forces, and of course they are also influenced by short-term domestic rates. This is just a fact. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —What about the Reserve Bank? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for North Sydney gives me no option now. He will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94(a). The member for North Sydney then left the chamber. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —So the interest rates in this country are influenced by global factors. They are also influenced by decisions on the short-term rate taken by the Reserve Bank of Australia. But the suggestion, as the Prime Minster was saying before, that somehow borrowing by the Australian government is going to push up rates here and globally is bizarre. Of course, this point has been made, I think very plainly, by one commentator, Mr Gittins. The shadow Treasurer wanted to quote others, but we should quote Mr Gittins. He had this to say: ‘Hockey’s argument about the effect of government borrowing on interest rates is simply wrong.’ He continued: In that vast, global market, our Government’s borrowings are a flea bite, quite unable to influence the level of global interest rates. Mr Gittins went on in that article to out the strategy of the Liberal and National parties, which is to run another John Howard scare campaign on interest rates. That is what is going on here—it does not matter what the facts are; do not let any of the facts get in the way. They are so embarrassed by their opposition to economic stimulus that they have to run a scare campaign on interest rates which is factually incorrect and which will be seen through by the Australian people. The Australian people understand what the Liberal Party are up to at the moment. They absolutely understand that the Liberal Party will put the jobs of Australians last, behind their political manoeuvring in this parliament. They will never support jobs. They will come into this House and play politics. HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, my point of order is relevance. This is not relevant to the question that was asked. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will respond to the question. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —The shadow Treasurer used to be the minister for pay cuts in his former life, and he now comes in here as the shadow Treasurer—the shadow Treasurer for job cuts. That explains the very clear difference between both sides of the House. At the height of a global recession, jobs are the No. 1 priority of the government and the Australian community. We have put in place an economic stimulus which is supported by all sides of Australian politics, by the business community and by most of the major economists in the community. It is supported by just about everyone except the Liberal and National parties in this House. Economic stimulus is supported globally by those on the left and the right of politics. All are saying that economic stimulus is the right course of action in these circumstances to protect our community. We put that in place. We put it in place to the point where the economy did not go backwards over the past year. Economic stimulus in this country meant that we grew by 0.6 per cent in the last year. If it had not have been for that economic stimulus, we would have gone backwards by 1.3 per cent. If those opposite had their way, there would be tens of thousands of Australians unemployed and there would be businesses closing their doors. The economic stimulus has meant that customers have been going through the doors of business, that the construction sector and the retail sector have been cushioned from the impact of this global recession and that confidence has become much stronger here than anywhere else in the world. It is true: the stimulus is greater than the sum of its parts. What the stimulus has added up to is confidence in this country—unlike confidence elsewhere in the advanced world. That is one of the reasons that we have produced one of the best results in the advanced world. Those on the other side of the House have been preoccupied with playing politics. They sat in this House at 4 am and 5 am back in February and voted against every element of the Nation Building and Jobs Plan. And, in so doing, they demonstrated that they put their jobs before the jobs of Australian families—before the breadwinners in Australian families—and before the national interest of the Australian economy. What we have seen in the question today from the shadow Treasurer is yet another example of the brutal politics being played by those opposite. They want to resurrect another John Howard scare campaign on interest rates and they want to make false connections between the pressures on rates. They know very well that interest rates in this community are at emergency levels. They are at emergency levels because we have had a big problem in the national economy, and they will be adjusted independently by the Reserve Bank as the stimulus unwinds and as they move forward when global growth returns. Those opposite want to somehow say that that will be a product of our stimulus. Well, it is not. This is just another Liberal Party scare campaign—like the scare campaign we had from them many years ago. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will commence the finalisation of his answer. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —We recognise their behaviour. We on this side of the House will not tell lies to the Australian people, like the Liberal and National parties did with the lies that they told about keeping interest rates at record lows. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, the Treasurer is not entitled to use that kind of language to describe the opposition, and I ask that he withdraw it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Treasurer will withdraw, and he will bring his answer to a conclusion. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Mr Speaker, those opposite— Opposition members—Withdraw! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —I withdraw. Those opposite made a solemn promise to the Australian people. They put it in a television ad. They said that they would keep interest rates at record lows—and interest rates went up 10 times in a row! 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Member for Dickson! 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —So we recognise a John Howard scare campaign when we see one—and it is coming because they are so embarrassed about their failure to support in this House the economic stimulus which has supported the employment of tens of thousands of Australians and supported tens of thousands of small businesses. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson is not helping matters. 2V5 Swan, Wayne, MP Mr SWAN —Those opposite should be condemned for their political behaviour and their negative approach. We on this side of the House will always stand up for the national interest. 9409 9409 15:36:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Will the minister update the House on the latest developments regarding the reforms to private health insurance rebates? 9409 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Wills for his question. I know that in his electorate there are many taxi drivers, secretaries and office workers who do not believe in having to pay for the private health insurance— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson is warned! 83K Roxon, Nicola, MP Ms ROXON —of the most wealthy in the community, including members of parliament. We are determined to pursue the changes announced in the May budget. We believe that they are central to protecting the long-term sustainability of the budget. They will help reduce debt and deficit and, importantly, they will free up funding for us to be able to invest in other important health initiatives. We know that, if we do nothing, the current rebate will double as a proportion of health expenditure by 2046. We know that the opposition’s blocking of our reform plans will blow not just a $1.9 billion hole in this budget but a $9 billion hole over the next decade. The Leader of the Opposition might be happy to jeopardise our nation’s finances in the middle of the global financial crisis, but the government are not prepared to. I thought the House might be interested in a view that was put forward about private health insurance not by the Leader of the Opposition but by another leader in this parliament—that is, the Leader of the National Party in the Senate. The Leader of the National Party in the Senate said today, ‘Now, with private health insurance we want to make sure we get as many people basically covering their own costs.’ What a good idea. That is exactly what this bill is doing. So I would suggest to Mr Joyce, the Leader of the National Party in the Senate, that, if he thinks this is such a good idea, perhaps he needs to tell his brothers and sisters in the Liberal Party that they should vote for it; or, better yet, perhaps the National Party should vote for it in the Senate even if the Liberal Party is not prepared to have the guts to pursue this matter. These changes to private health insurance are some of the most structural saves in this year’s budget. We believe that it is vital for these changes to be implemented and we are not going to stand by idly and allow the opposition to wipe out those savings. The opportunity lost for us to invest in other important health reforms is just too high. Of course, if it takes a special sitting of the Senate to get the opposition to pass this legislation, the government is prepared to consider that. As I have said, we have taken advice on what steps could be necessary to recall the parliament in December and we are currently considering that advice. But I make quite clear, as I have before, that the government is not looking for a double dissolution trigger; what we are looking for is for this measure to be passed—full stop. The Liberal Party have that in their hands; the National Party have that in their hands; and it is about time they started supporting this measure. 9410 9410 15:39:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Prime Minister, what is the federal government’s policy response to the growing community concerns in locations such as Old Bar, Lake Cathie, Byron Bay, the Central Coast of New South Wales and many other locations around coastal Australia who are increasingly confronted by the issue of loss of public and private property due to coastal erosion? When will the federal government engage on this issue and in what form can we expect that engagement? 9410 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Lyne for his question, as it goes to the direct impact of climate change on local communities—in particular, coastal communities in Australia. I welcome the question, because it is about the reality of climate change, the reality of its impact and what we do about it, and because it is coming from someone who is not a climate change denier, which is what we normally encounter when we receive questions from the opposition. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —‘Climate change denier’ is writ large across the ranks of those opposite, and the Leader of the National Party knows that full well, not least within his own party and the leader of his party in the Senate. But let us not dwell on that. The honourable member asked a question about what government programs are being deployed to assist coastal communities to engage with the reality of the impact of climate change and coastal inundation—and what can be done about it. Through the Caring for our Country program we have at present a range of initiatives aimed at assisting local communities with dune erosion projects that focus on managing and improving habitats and biodiversity of coastal ecosystems. That is one thing that is embraced by the government. Another—for the benefit of the honourable member—is an initiative which we as a government initiated, called Caring for our Coasts, some $25 million. An opposition member—Is that all? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The honourable member interjects: ‘Is that all?’ That is $25 million more, as I am advised, than existed previously. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I look forward to the Leader of the National Party standing at the dispatch box today and telling us all that the National Party has done on climate change. I am sure it will be a short presentation indeed on the part of the Leader of the National Party, given that his party in the Senate routinely seeks to torpedo any initiative of the parliament that deals with the reality of the impact of climate change. An opposition member—What about reality? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —‘Reality?’ That is a challenge from over there as to whether climate change is real as well. I said before that they are full of climate change deniers; they continue to rise to the occasion and to rise to the challenge. Under this $25 million Caring for our Coast initiative, the Department of Climate Change is leading a national assessment of Australia’s coastal zone vulnerability to climate change impacts, to be completed late in 2009. DYN Jensen, Dennis, MP Dr Jensen interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Member for Tangney! The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, was that the member for Tangney who was interjecting? Government members—Yes! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —He of the shadecloths in space? When we look for concrete and positive contributions to the climate change debate, we have one of the more progressive forces of the coalition out there advocating that the way for Australia to deal with climate change is to erect a shadecloth in space. That is matched only by the member for McEwen’s recommendation that we put one across the Great Barrier Reef. In fact it is a shadecloth ribbon— HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker— GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Menzies will wait until the Leader of the National Party lets him have his go. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, the honourable member for Lyne asked the Prime Minister what his government’s policies were; why doesn’t he answer the question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The point of order goes to relevance. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. He would be responding more directly to the question if there were fewer interjections and if he ignored the interjections. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you, Mr Speaker. As the member for Menzies would know, I have been responding to the climate change scepticism within interjections from members of his party and from members of the National Party during my answer. If he is interested in climate change, perhaps he could contribute to bringing about a unified position on climate change within the Liberal Party and between the Liberal Party and the National Party. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. Not only is this irrelevant; it is now juvenile. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Menzies will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —There is nothing like climate change to get the coalition going. The member for Lyne, led by the most progressive forces embodied in the member for Menzies, whom I have always seen as being strong on this issue as well as so many other reforms before the parliament, asks in particular about other programs which are available for deployment by local communities. Out of the Caring for our Coasts initiative of some $25 million, national assessments of the vulnerability of Australia’s coastal zone to climate change impacts is to be completed by late 2009. As part of this assessment the government in August launched a National Coastal Landform and Stability Mapping Tool. The purpose of that is to benefit local planners and decision makers as they make coastal planning decisions into the future. That is to deal with prospective challenges. A legitimate question being put by local governments across the country is what information base they are to depend on in the future in making local planning decisions. This would represent one such possible tool, and that is what is available. Furthermore, I draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact—and I am sure that he is aware of this already but other members of the House may not be—that the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, the Environment and the Arts, chaired I believe by the member for Throsby, is currently engaged in an inquiry into climate change related environmental impacts on coastal communities. Submissions were received up until 30 May and the last of public hearings was held on 27 August. It will be important to see what conclusions that committee reaches in its deliberations on this important question as well. I am also advised that one of the honourable member’s constituents, Mr Keys, made a presentation to that inquiry in March. He is a resident of one of the communities that he referred to at Old Bar. This is a very practical and personal concern. My understanding is that Mr Keys has already lost residences to coastal inundation on that part of the New South Wales coast. 83O Hull, Kay, MP Mrs Hull interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I am not quite certain what the member for Riverina was saying about the impact of coastal erosion forces in her own electorate. I understand she would like people to move to her electorate from where they have gone. Therefore, in summary, in answer to the honourable member’s question, there are two specific programs that the government has embraced on this. I suggest that the honourable member, in close consultation with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and other relevant government ministers, seeks to cooperate with those programs in terms of a proper analysis of the impacts in his area. We look forward, as I said before, to the findings of the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, which is specifically dealing with an inquiry into the impact of climate change on coastal communities. 9412 9412 15:47:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 Ms REA —My question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. What are the obstacles to returning the budget to surplus? 9412 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Bonner for her question. The government is committed to returning the budget to surplus as quickly as possible in the wake of the damage done by the global financial crisis. As part of that strategy, the government has put in place $22 billion worth of savings in this year’s budget. A number of these savings are substantial structural savings that are designed to increase the returns to the budget over time. Unfortunately, last week one of the key structural savings in this year’s budget was defeated in the Senate. I refer, of course, to the reforms to the private health insurance rebate, which would have delivered a reduction of $1.9 billion in government spending over the course of the next four years. We may well ask who it was that defeated this initiative in the Senate and what their position is on the state of the nation’s budget. It was, of course, the opposition—the Liberal and National parties—that defeated the initiative in the Senate, the same opposition that say that the projected deficits are too high and that, were they in government, they would be cutting back dramatically on government spending. At no point over the past couple of years have we heard a single substantial spending cut proposed by the opposition—the same opposition that says it stands for lower tax and lower spending. The opposition’s one significant intervention in the debate about the structure of the budget has been to knock off this very substantial reduction in government spending and, in order to cover the loss of money involved, it proposes a tax increase. That was the proposition put forward by the Leader of the Opposition. The party that accuses the government of being the tax-and-spend party is in fact the only party that has put forward a proposal to both increase the total spending in the budget and increase taxation. I notice that another minor obstacle to the budget returning to surplus emerged last week. According to the ASIC website, Henry Ergas’s Concept Economics, which is the preferred economic adviser of the opposition and designer of its secret tax plan, has gone into administration. The opposition’s brains trust has gone broke. Maybe Malcolm has not paid the bill or something. I am not quite sure what the opposition are now going to do given that their only source of serious analysis of economic and fiscal and taxation issues is no longer in the field. They may have to do some thinking for themselves. Perish the thought! There is a crunch coming for the opposition here, because the moment arrives in this game when you are in opposition when you have to set down in detail precisely what changes you would make to the budget settings, what promises you would make to increase spending and for which programs, what spending cuts you would make and what tax changes you would make. And guess what: they all get aggregated, they get added up, and people are able to see whether or not you live up to your commitments to drastically slash government spending, to drastically reduce the deficit and to drastically reduce government debt. I will wait with great interest for that moment, because I suspect that what we will find out then is that all of this carry-on about debt and deficit is just empty rhetoric. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. I would also like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister for kindly lending me a Western Bulldogs tie for the purposes of question time today. 9413 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:51:00 —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: Aboriginal Land Commissioner—Report and recommendations to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and to the Administrator of the Northern Territory. No. 71—Simpson Desert land claim stage IV comprising Simpson Desert land claim (Claim No. 41) and Central Simpson Desert (repeat) land claim (Claim No. 144). Explanatory statement by the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 9413 Ministerial Statements 9413 9413 15:52:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—I wish to update the House on the situation in Sri Lanka, in particular the situation confronting internally displaced people, the need for their resettlement, and the need for political reconciliation. Australia recognises and acknowledges the profound sufferings of the past in Sri Lanka, including the very many civilian casualties caused by decades of war. In the face of the longstanding, terrible costs of war, it is often hard to look to the future. While acknowledging past suffering, today I outline how Australia will continue to assist the Sri Lankan people in the rebuilding of their country. As members might recall, I presented an earlier ministerial statement to the House on Sri Lanka on 12 May. At that time, I said that a military victory by the Sri Lankan government was imminent, irrevocably changing the situation on the ground after decades of conflict. That military victory came to pass on 18 May, some four months ago. Australia welcomed the end of this decades-long conflict. It cost tens of thousands lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans, and left an economic divide between north and south, east and west. No Sri Lankan has been untouched by the conflict. Australia has consistently stated that the solution to the conflict was never going to be by military means alone. The time is here for the Sri Lankan government to win the peace and to forge an enduring political settlement for all Sri Lankans. This will require political reform and rapprochement between all parties and communities. Sri Lanka faces the tremendous task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens. This process has started, but since the fighting stopped four months ago at least 250,000 people remain in camps for internally displaced people. Civilians in northern Sri Lanka have lived under difficult conditions for many years and suffered greatly, especially in the last months of the conflict. It is now vital to move quickly, more quickly than has been the case to this point, to create the conditions for them to rebuild their lives. Australia and the international community continue to watch closely to see how the Sri Lankan authorities treat people in camps for internally displaced people; how they manage their resettlement; and how they institute political reform and reconciliation. Success in these areas is vital to the Sri Lankan government creating a peaceful, stable and prosperous future for Sri Lanka and all of its people. I have spoken directly to Sri Lanka’s president and, on a number of occasions, to Foreign Minister Rohitha Bogollagama, about these matters. Australian officials at the Australian High Commission in Colombo will also continue to make the same points. I have also outlined Australia’s views on Sri Lanka in discussions with the United Nations and with my foreign ministerial counterparts, including those representing the Tokyo Co-Chairs, the United States, the European Union, Norway and Japan. Australia has consistently stated both during the conflict and since that the welfare and protection of civilians must be the absolute priority. Australia will continue to respond to the humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka through our aid program, especially the needs of internally displaced people and their resettlement. Last financial year, 2008-09, Australia devoted $24.5 million to meet humanitarian needs in Sri Lanka. Australian aid was delivered through international humanitarian organisations, such as the World Food Program, UNICEF, the International Committee of the Red Cross, as well as Australian NGOs working on the ground in Sri Lanka. Through this assistance Australia has provided: shelter, water, sanitation, health and nutrition for internally displaced people security and coordination for relief efforts social and educational services for children adversely affected by conflict, and trauma support, particularly for mothers and children. This financial year, 2009-10, Australia will provide more than $35 million in development assistance to Sri Lanka. Supporting resettlement is a major focus for the coming months. Yesterday I said publicly that recently I had approved $2 million to support the resettlement of displaced people in Sri Lanka. Today I announce a further $3 million for this vital work. This assistance will be delivered through international organisations such as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the International Organization for Migration. This funding will include assistance for continuing the process of documenting internally displaced people to facilitate their return, their assistance with essential items, including food and water for travel and reintegration, and assistance to families hosting displaced people. Australia welcomes the Sri Lankan government’s commitment to resettling over 80 per cent of civilians from camps for internally displaced people by the end of 2009, and looks forward to the resettlement of all civilians as soon as possible. Freedom of movement for the civilians in the north is essential. The start of the monsoon season this month has increased the urgency for voluntary resettlement and other solutions that provide freedom of movement. Australia’s call applies especially to children, the sick and the elderly, but it extends to all those citizens of Sri Lanka currently in the camps for internally displaced people. Australian officials visited the camps in Sri Lanka late last month with the aim of identifying priority needs for Australian aid. Our next steps will focus on support for release and resettlement of internally displaced people. As well, a prerequisite for the revival of northern Sri Lanka is the de-mining of former conflict areas. It is the case that the de-mining challenge will affect the resettlement of displaced people from the camps. That is why in June, Australia provided over $1 million to non-government organisations for de-mining and why we responded in August to a further request by the government of Sri Lanka by providing a further $1 million through the International Organisation for Migration for de-mining efforts. The voluntary resettlement process requires full access by international humanitarian agencies to areas of return and to information to ensure effective coordination. Australia has consistently called upon the Sri Lankan government to ensure that such access is afforded and information provided. It is important that the Sri Lankan government, United Nations agencies and other NGOs work together in a constructive partnership to address these challenges. Members will have seen reports about an Australian UNICEF official, Mr James Elder. I have looked at Mr Elder’s reported remarks and they do not cause me any difficulty. Indeed, he has been making the point, as has the Australian government, that we need to see unimpeded access by international agencies to the camps for internally displaced people. I take this opportunity to commend the work of UNICEF, with which Australia works closely and which does vitally important work in Sri Lanka and around the world. Australian resettlement assistance is focused not only in north-east Sri Lanka. In north-west Sri Lanka, where the conflict ended in 2008, Australia has helped to resettle internally displaced people by funding the construction of housing and providing support for basic services and the revival of income generating activities. Our aid in the coming year to Sri Lanka will also support development across the country. We will deliver aid to help communities to recover from the adverse effects of conflict and to lead safe and productive lives, including peace-building, basic education and natural resource management. Earlier today in the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, I met about 20 representatives of the Australian Tamil community from across the country. I hope this process of dialogue will continue between members of the Sri Lankan diaspora and Australian officials. I outlined to them the steps that the Australian government is taking—both in terms of advocacy and of practical assistance—to help Sri Lanka and its citizens. I recognised the suffering that many among that group have experienced and the depth of concern they feel for members of their community in Sri Lanka, particularly those still in camps for internally displaced people. Some community members advised of their view of the need to address war crimes that were allegedly conducted by both sides during the conflict. I responded that, in the interests of reconciliation, it was important that allegations of human rights abuses be dealt with through a credible and independent process. It was clear to me, from our positive and productive discussion, the important role that diaspora groups will play in Sri Lanka’s future. I encourage all members of the diaspora to look for ways to engage constructively to promote the well-being and future prosperity of all Sri Lankans. Reconciliation will take time and will require sustained effort by Sri Lanka, its diaspora and the international community to overcome the grief, resentment and anger, and the lack of confidence and trust that is the inevitable consequence of decades of armed conflict. Australia’s belief is that Sri Lankan democracy, rule of law and security would be enhanced by a stronger civil society and an independent and free media. The Sri Lankan government must seize the opportunity to promote the political freedoms that enable all citizens to have a stake in Sri Lanka’s success. Australia’s historic links to Sri Lanka provide the potential for greater bilateral engagement, including through increased trade and investment. Australia values its longstanding relationship with Sri Lanka, reinforced by strong people-to-people links. Sri Lanka has an historic opportunity to forge a new beginning for all its citizens. As a friend of Sri Lanka, Australia is committed to helping Sri Lanka to address these challenges after years of conflict—to help Sri Lanka win the peace. I thank the House. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak for 11 minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the Deputy Leader of the Opposition speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 11 minutes. Question agreed to. 9416 16:04:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —The coalition supports the announcement today of additional funding for humanitarian aid to Sri Lanka. We also join with the government in raising concerns about the conditions facing civilians currently held in relief camps in northern Sri Lanka as a result of the violent confrontation earlier this year between the Sri Lankan military and the separatist Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam, or Tamil Tigers. The coalition supports the ceasefire between the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers, the laying down of arms and the renunciation of violence by all sides in the conflict. The coalition deplores terrorist attacks on civilians, wherever they may occur, and hopes that a political solution can be found that provides a lasting peace in Sri Lanka. The coalition recently had an opportunity to discuss these issues directly with the Sri Lankan opposition leader and former Prime Minister, Mr Ranil Wickremesinghe. I appreciated his willingness to talk openly about past and present circumstances in Sri Lanka. The people of Sri Lanka, like people all around the world, want to live in peace and aspire to create better lives for their families. Sadly for Sri Lanka, the nation has experienced bitter internal conflict since the 1970s when rebels started fighting for a separate state for Tamils in Sri Lanka’s north and east. Armed conflict between the Tamil Tigers and the government has resulted in more than 70,000 deaths, hundreds of thousands displaced and severe restraints on economic development in many parts of the nation. There was hope, about seven years ago, that a ceasefire would result in an end to the conflict, but violence returned and continued until the military defeat of the LTTE in May this year. Since that time it has been estimated that more than 250,000 people have been held in refugee camps. While the number of people held in these camps is a matter of dispute, the United Nations and international aid agencies have expressed concerns about the conditions under which the many thousands of people are being held. The coalition respects the right of the government of Sri Lanka to bring justice to those suspected of being involved in terrorist activities. It is a fact that the LTTE are a proscribed terrorist group in a number of countries. While the Sri Lankan government has declared victory over the LTTE, a recent report that police had foiled an alleged plot to conduct a suicide bomb attack in Colombo shows that the security situation remains uncertain. While the government must act to secure the nation against terrorism, the way in which the Sri Lankan government responds to the peace process will be important. Restraint should ensure that the conflict does not reignite and steps must be taken to minimise the risk that a new generation of Tamil Tigers could be radicalised. It is also vital that the government of Sri Lanka ensures it meets international standards for human rights in its treatment of the displaced people. This is important because it is vital that the seeds for long lasting peace are sown from the current situation and that it does not sow the seeds for a return to violence. There can only be a political solution to the tensions in Sri Lanka, with a negotiated solution that accommodates the reasonable concerns of all parties. Sri Lankan expert DBS Jeyaraj has been reported on BBC World News as saying that any long delay in resettling the displaced Tamil people has the potential to further alienate them. The Norwegian Minister of International Development, Erik Solheim, who has worked with both the Sri Lankan government and the Tamil Tigers for over a decade—and who helped broker the 2002 ceasefire—has said that if the Sri Lankan government shows generosity in victory, allows for greater Tamil autonomy and works hard to build an inclusive state for all citizens, there may be a long-term solution to tensions. In response, the Sri Lankan government has assured the international community that it is working on a political solution and that time is needed to obtain a consensus. The president, in his speech declaring victory over the LTTE, spoke of the need to end ethnic and religious conflict and promised a ‘home-grown solution to this conflict’. It is concerning that the government of Sri Lanka has taken steps to expel Australian aid worker and UNICEF spokesman, James Elder. I urge the Sri Lankan government to review this decision and to work closely with international aid agencies to facilitate the free and open flow of aid and support to the people held in camps. The United Nations has said in a statement that Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon intends to raise with the President of Sri Lanka the issue of Mr Elder’s expulsion and the detention of two other United Nations workers. The coalition welcomes recent reports that 2,000 people have just been released from the camps and have been allowed to return to their homes, as part of 10,000 people the government has said will be released over the next few days. While this is a positive development, it is vital that the process of release and resettlement takes place as quickly as possible. Again, the United Nations—while noting that the Sri Lankan authorities are stating that people are being screened for possible connections to the Tamil Tigers—has indicated, through its representative Neil Buhne, ‘The best solution is obviously that as many people leave as soon as possible’. The sooner that people are able to return to their homes and start to rebuild their lives, the sooner that steps can be taken to rebuild trust and respect between all communities in Sri Lanka. Once described as the jewel of the Indian Ocean, Sri Lanka is one of the most beautiful countries on earth. Australia has long enjoyed a warm relationship with Sri Lanka, with two-way trade in 2007 valued at more than $230 million. Australia is also a generous provider of aid, having provided more than $35 million to them this financial year. We responded generously as a nation to the devastating tsunami on 26 December 2004, which killed more than 35,000 people and destroyed the bulk of Sri Lanka’s fishing fleet. Like many countries in our region, Australia is a leading provider of educational services, with more than 8,000 Sri Lankan students currently studying at our tertiary institutions. According to the most recent census, there are more than 80,000 Sri Lankan people living in Australia and they have made a significant contribution to our economic and cultural development. Many Australians have developed close personal friendships with the people of Sri Lanka—particularly through educational exchange and business dealings—and many of our parliamentary members have taken part in political exchange visits. I particularly note the efforts of the member for Canning who, as chair for a number of years, and now as deputy chair of the Australia-Sri Lanka Parliamentary Friendship Group, has hosted many Sri Lankan parliamentarians as a way of promoting a stronger relationship between our parliaments. It is these personal relationships that build greater trust and understanding that will underpin stronger diplomatic, cultural and economic relations into the future. The coalition believes that Sri Lanka now has the opportunity to build the structures for enduring peace that will lead to greater economic development throughout their nation and which have the potential to bring great benefits to the Sri Lankan people. Australia, as a friend of Sri Lanka, will continue to support efforts at building peace and greater prosperity. 9418 Personal Explanations 9418 16:12:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. I am rising because I have been grievously misrepresented— 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? B36 Neal, Belinda, MP Ms NEAL —Yes. 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please proceed. B36 Neal, Belinda, MP Ms NEAL —In an article dated 13 September, Glenn Milne, of the Sunday Telegraph, wrote and printed an article about me. The contents of that article are entirely untrue and false. 9418 Bills R4192 9418 Debate resumed. 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. 9419 16:13:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —In resuming my comments on this bill I want to return to the issue of what is driving up housing affordability in this country. We face a severe supply shortage within our housing markets across Australia and that is estimated by the ANZ to be now in excess of 200,000 homes, which is more than we would build in any given year—and some—in a good year of economic activity, which would be around 140,000 homes. Contrary to some media claims, rising Australian house prices are the product of a supply bottleneck rather than a speculative bubble—in other words, due to policy failure rather than Mr Rudd’s rampant forces of capitalism. There was much discussion recently about some statements made by the Reserve Bank governor when he was being verballed, I would say, into suggesting that there was some sort of housing bubble going on in the Australian markets. Recently, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I had the opportunity to ask the Reserve Bank governor about his views on this topic. I put to him that it was the case, in fact, that we were facing a supply bottleneck rather than a housing bubble. He responded by saying this: I think what you have put your finger on here is really the point … we need more dwellings … the price of a marginal block of land is quite high. He also said: … we ought to be prepared to examine the question of whether we have managed to make the supply price of the marginal dwelling higher than it really needs to be. This is the issue that we have, and I am concerned because of the application of what is in effect a $2½ thousand tax—and this bill is silent on this but we understand from the government that a future bill might not be silent on it—on every single new dwelling that is developed in this country in order to lay the fibre through those dwellings as a mandatory government requirement. That cost would have to be borne by the developer, who would obviously pass it on to the person seeking to buy a house. In addition to rising interest rates, as a result of the government’s spending, they would also be faced, literally, with higher taxes as a result of this proposal by the government. We need to remove the supply bottlenecks. That is what the Reserve Bank governor was saying. He was saying that if you want to do something about housing affordability in this country, the most important thing you need to do is address the issue of supply bottlenecks. Land supply restrictions, high taxes, development approval delays, poor infrastructure planning—all of these are the issues that I refer to. And it is worth noting that this government has still not ruled out the idea of a tax on the family home in terms of capital gains tax. The evidence of a risk of more taxes flagged in these measures is something of great concern for all those who are interested in being able to buy, rent or pay off a home in Australia. While the rollout of the National Broadband Network is expected to take some time, and far more time than it was ever promised to take by the government when they were in opposition, the government have announced that the fibre-to-the-premises infrastructure will be required in new greenfield housing estates that receive planning approval after 1 July 2010. The department released a discussion paper on this issue in May 2009, and through the discussion paper the government sought the input of some key stakeholders. The main theme of the responses to that discussion paper was that there was a lack of detail and a lack of equity in terms of the cost to the development sector. Comments from the Master Builders Association included that, while they supported the policy of improving access to high-speed broadband for businesses and the community and for Australia’s future economic prosperity, they believed it should be achieved in an equitable and cost-effective way without causing unjustifiable hardship to industry, business or the individual household. Urban Taskforce Australia, which represents Australia’s most prominent property developers and equity financiers, said in its response that: The government should be mindful of the impact that increases in developer costs— such as those incurred as a consequence of the NBN rollout— will have on land and housing affordability. The home buyer cannot always afford an increase in price due to a new development cost— and, I would suggest, a new development tax. The Australian Local Government Association, with whom I have a great deal of contact in one of my other portfolio responsibilities, represent more than 560 local government authorities. In their submission they said that, while long supporting the need for reasonably priced access for all Australians to these types of services, they had tempered their support. They said: … the complexity of the issues raised in the consultation paper will present a major challenge in implementing the Greenfield development initiative by the nominated date of 1 July 2010. Specifically, they warn, ‘The approach to greenfield developments needs to be given careful consideration and the policy implications need to be properly assessed and evaluated upfront.’ They say that the failure to deal with the complex issues that have been canvassed in the consultation paper ‘will result in inefficiencies and unintended consequences for numerous parties, including local governments’ and local communities. We see in this place day by day, in the failure of the government to think through and plan their own stimulus spending in relation to the Building the Education Revolution schools program, what those consequences are: waste, mismanagement, cost blow-outs and those sorts of issues. So these are the concerns that people are raising in relation to this program from the government. The Urban Development Institute of Australia is a peak industry body representing more than 4,000 companies involved in the development industry. They include designers, builders and planners. It too has said it is supportive of improved telecommunications capabilities but it has indicated that there are a number of issues that will need to be addressed. The UDIA’s major issue is equity. It believes that there should be no difference in the treatment of new estates and retrofitting and that there should be an upfront capital charge for greenfield estates but a cost recovery approach elsewhere. It suggests that the developer should only be responsible for providing the trench for the pits and pipe. The NBN companies should then be responsible for the installation of the pits and the pipes, the backhaul, the head end and all of the cabling into the homes. This is, it says, the current practice for existing telecommunications infrastructure delivered into new estates. They are basically saying that the development industry should not have to underwrite the government’s prospectus for their NBN—that they should not have to be shelling out in terms of reducing cost so that the Prime Minister can take what is already a fairly reckless proposal to the market, asking mums and dads to invest in this thing without one skerrick of detail. They are now saying that they want the development industry to somehow underwrite this proposal by putting in the cash upfront to pay for this scheme for them. Both the Urban Taskforce and the UDIA have raised concerns about the lack of detail in the consultation paper as to how the fibre to the premises will be implemented on the ground. This is something the government will need to address with industry bodies in the coming months as the plan is further developed. The Housing Industry Association makes the same point I have been making throughout my remarks on this bill, which is the impact on housing affordability. It makes the observation that the consultation paper assumes a ‘business as usual’ approach where costs involved are comparable to the existing charges for the provision of other essential services such as water and sewerage. The HIA warns that this ignores the compounding effect of yet another cost that the new home purchaser will need to borrow against. It refutes the government’s proposition that adding another cost layer to housing construction is somehow justifiable. Quite simply, it makes the point that housing is heavily taxed by all three levels of government and the policy direction proposed in the discussion paper can only be viewed as yet another tax on home purchases. Investigations by the HIA have revealed that there are up to 20 indirect taxes that constitute up to 30 per cent of the final purchase price of a house and land package, a situation that serves to undermine housing affordability. The HIA submission notes that there has been a 300 per cent increase in taxation on housing in the past decade, compared to the increase in the consumer price index of only 25 per cent in the same period. The point here is this: if the government were interested in housing affordability then the last thing it would do is put more taxes on housing. If the government were interested in housing affordability, it would be looking at ways to rein in the states in terms of how they tax land, treat land and provide infrastructure and would be seeking to ensure that, in return for the billions that we spend through state governments, they have a reform program. It has chosen not to do this. Instead, it has come before this place and put forward a proposal which would see even more taxes, not just at the state level but now at the federal level. If the government is serious about housing affordability, it should think again. (Time expired) 9421 16:23:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —It is a great pleasure to follow the member for Cook speaking about some important infrastructure related matters. Indeed, in relation to the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009, infrastructure is certainly one of the key issues in my electorate, which is in the outer north-western suburbs of Sydney. My electorate being on the fringes of one of our major cities, infrastructure is perhaps the single most important issue. Certainly there are large parts of my electorate that will benefit from an improvement in the national broadband network. However, I have to record that I share many of the concerns of members in this place about the government’s approach to the proposed national broadband network. While of course I support improved broadband services, I remain unconvinced that the proposal on the table from the government can or will deliver what they claim it will deliver in relation to broadband, especially at a reasonable price. I have extensive dealings with Telstra and other suppliers in my job as a member of parliament, in attempting to get better outcomes for my constituents, and I see at the moment that the marketplace in my electorate tends to meet the demand that exists there at the current time in a pretty reasonable way. Most households within my electorate find that they can access broadband and can access improved levels of broadband when they push or when we are able to raise specific matters of concern with telecommunications carriers. This is the first piece of legislation since the government’s NBN mark 2 announcement in April. I get confused about which proposal we are up to, because we had NBN 1, NBN 2 and NBN 3. I am sure there is going to be an NBN 4, an NBN 5 and an NBN 6, because what this legislation shows us is that the government really does not have a clear idea of how it is going to fund a national broadband network. The fact that the relatively minor cost in the original proposal is now up to something like $43 billion and the government has no clear idea about how it will raise most of it leads many members in this place to be extremely sceptical about whether the government can, in this time, raise the capital required from anywhere to fund such a massive expansion to a service. I think it ought not to be the government’s role, necessarily, to seek to improve everybody’s broadband. The marketplace does work; it is working in my electorate. There is a role for government to expand services into areas where they may not be profitable, areas that a telecommunications company may not be able to reach. Certainly that was the original intention of getting the government involved in something like a national broadband network—that is, to extend the network out to those communities which could not be sustainably covered by the market or by a private telecommunications carrier. However, in this legislation we see that the government is seeking to massively fund a network where market forces already exist and in our cities, where a reasonable level of service—in fact, in some places a very good level of service—can be expected and sustained in a cost-effective way. Therefore, I have great concern about why the government is proposing an unprecedented amount of money—$43 billion—be spent on this kind of project. There is literally no detail on where it is going to find this money. In 2008 a similar bill was considered and passed that required telecommunications carriers to provide specified infrastructure information to the Commonwealth. That was NBN mark 1. That requirement is another component of this bill. On 7 April this year the government announced that it had abandoned its election commitment for fibre-to-the node broadband and would establish a company to own and operate a fibre-to-the-premises broadband network with a potential price tag of $43 billion. This is perhaps what particularly mystifies many members of this place—why the government abandoned its election commitment for fibre-to-the-node broadband and came up with this very theoretical fibre-to-the-premises broadband network with an explosive price tag, with no clear idea of how it is to be funded. In light of these changed goalposts, there are provisions in this bill relating to the provision of information by utilities as well as telco carriers for the purposes of NBN mark 2. It is interesting to note at this juncture that, prior to the last election, in announcing their fibre-to-the-node promise the government signalled very clearly to the Australian electorate that they would within the first six months of government have a tender up and running for a national broadband network. Of course, before the election we knew that that was a laughable proposition—absolutely laughable—and that was from long experience in government and knowing all of the practical elements of how you could possibly fund, propose and tender for a national broadband network. Then it went out to 12 months, so they initially broke their promise and their commitment to the Australian people that they would have a tender up and running within six months. Then it went to 12 months, and from there we saw the Prime Minister step in to cover the ineptitude of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy in this regard and propose a national broadband network mark 2 or 3—whichever one we are up to now. That comes with a $43 billion price tag in a situation where we do not really have a clear idea of how we are going to fund it. This bill proposes particularly that information about carriers and utilities be provided not just to government for an implementation study but also to the National Broadband Network Co. or its potential subsidiaries or partners for any rollout of the network over the next 10 years. I have some concerns in relation to that, particularly in relation to what rollout will actually occur in the next 10 years. This bill was initially introduced into the Senate without consultation with key stakeholders. It is quite apparent that that did not occur, because this is quite an unrealistic model for how to provide a national broadband network. Of course, the reason you consult and seek the information, the experience and the know-how of those companies in the market that provide these valuable services is that you avoid the problems that we see in this legislation. If you do not consult with those who know how to do it, I do not accept the proposition that the government knows better simply because it is the government. I know that members opposite often say that the government has a superior way of doing things, but what we see in relation to this legislation is another sloppy and poor set of consultative approaches, which means that we have an unrealistic scheme in front of us and we all have grave concerns about how it will roll out. The government certainly has proved incapable, in the 18 months since its election, of meeting any of its time lines in relation to the National Broadband Network mark 1or mark 2, and we know that mark 3 is on the way. The development of this legislation is yet another example of the government’s absolute inability to manage such a massive project. Thinking about some of the problems in this legislation, in particular there are some concerns that the NBN mark 2 is going to go the same way as the first NBN proposal. The bill for taxpayers is already growing. There is an almost $2 million annual salary for the CEO of the NBN Co., who currently does not do anything. My advice is that an office exists, with all kinds of staff who are producing nothing at the moment. If this were the marketplace or a company that had to provide a service or a good it would be completely unsustainable. But, because the government and, let us be honest, the taxpayers are footing the bill, this tragedy can continue to unfold while the government dithers in relation to providing something practical to people out there. If you look at the stakeholders who submitted to the inquiry of the Senate Environment, Communications and the Arts Legislation Committee into the bill during the public hearing that was in Canberra, you will see some of that on the record in submissions from Telstra, Optus, the Energy Networks Association, the Business Council of Australia, the Australasian Railway Association, the Water Services Association of Australia, Integral Energy, the Privacy Commissioner and Unwired. The evidence to the committee highlighted a number of concerns about the proposed measures in the bill. There were serious concerns about protection of information and ensuring that nobody had a competitive advantage as a result of this legislation being passed and companies being required to provide their information to the National Broadband Network Co. That is a valid concern, which I certainly share with many of those companies. We ought to note in this place that it is a bad precedent for government to require all of the current providers in the marketplace to provide their information to a government owned entity which then, in effect, can go out into that marketplace and compete with financial backing that is completely and utterly out of their league. If there were to be a $43 billion injection into broadband in this country, it would be such a massive market distortion that you would have to consider very carefully the viability of many of these other operations. The only saving grace in relation to this legislation is that everyone here knows that there is not going to be a $43 billion network put into the marketplace, so we can all rest easier. The concerns of the stakeholders, in particular, in relation to this legislation focused around the consultation, as I have spoken about, and immunities. I accept that that is another important issue. Under this bill, civil penalties apply for carriers and utilities that do not provide accurate information. Taking this up for one moment, given that many utilities are required to provide information on old assets or assets that they express concern about, their potential exposure is an issue that I accept. They have exposure to penalty under this bill for inaccuracy in information that they are required to provide, when the information that we are talking about could perhaps be used in a way that would be unacceptable to many people in this place. If there are errors in the information or if there is a problem with the quality of the information then that entity ought not necessarily be subject to civil penalties. I think that is a very valid point. It will create a lot of uncertainty out in the marketplace and could potentially put a very onerous burden upon many of those companies. In addition to those concerns, utilities raised with the Senate committee the issues of the ongoing costs associated with the provision of the information that they are compelled under this legislation to provide the government. Many industry sectors are compelled to comply with various government regulations—I had a series of people in my office today in relation to education—and I think this is another valid concern. There will be costs associated with the provision of this information. If we pass this legislation in this place and in the other place then potentially the cost of the service provision of broadband in Australia will be passed on to consumers, who will end up paying more because of this regulation. That is very important. Not only will the government not have their broadband network up and running—while they have a CEO being paid a big salary in an office and a pie in the sky scheme to raise $43 billion of capital—they will also be increasing the costs of the providers of the existing services to consumers. So I find it very difficult to see how that is a better situation, and certainly those concerns appear to be valid. In relation to this bill there are also many concerns from industry, and I think they have raised some valid points. Of course, we are all in a heightened state of awareness about the importance of broadband to a modern economy. Certainly there have been many bold claims made in this place, in question time and other times, about how far behind the rest of the world we are. I do not accept that we are as far behind the rest of the world as some people claim. Indeed, there has been a fairly decent provision of telecommunications infrastructure, especially during the lifetime of the last government. I think that is something that has not been well understood and that has been exploited by the government, particularly in relation to the last election and the wild, unrealistic and unsustainable promises made to the electorate about what they could deliver. Of course, once they were elected all of those wild and unsustainable promises fell by the wayside. It is quite clear that they are treating taxpayers with contempt and putting at risk millions of dollars in relation to this legislation. In its submission to the Senate committee inquiry on this bill, the Business Council joined many commentators and organisations, including the Productivity Commission, who believe that the National Broadband Network does need a thorough cost-benefit analysis. The Business Council of Australia said: Without a proper consideration and estimation of costs and benefits, it is difficult to see that the government has provided sufficient justification for the proposed legislation. I think that is another very important point: there is no cost-benefit analysis in relation to the National Broadband Network mark 1 or mark 2. It appears a complete and utter anachronism to say that we are going to spend that much money on establishing a new broadband network without having done an analysis of whether that is going to provide the kind of benefit that we are seeking. Certainly I accept that there may be a benefit for those regional and rural communities who struggle to get access to many of these services, and that is something that I think is a proper function for the government to consider. The fact that this has not been done clearly and demonstrably exposes the government’s lack of accountability in relation to the National Broadband Network. Having this financial commitment without any cost-benefit analysis ought to alarm everybody in Australia, especially at a time when we are in such grave financial crisis and when the government is already borrowing heavily in order to fund so many of its other promises and its ongoing stimulus measures. It is also important to note that all except $2 billion of the budget of the National Broadband Network will be funded by debt—and the government still does not have a clear idea where it is going to raise that debt from. I think that ought to concern taxpayers in particular. Speaking on behalf of my constituents today, I feel like anything that would deliver a better outcome for the outer suburbs of our major cities and regional and rural areas would produce support from the opposition. However, when a model for such a major and important piece of national infrastructure is put forward by the government with no clear plan as to how they will fund it and no clear idea about how they will deliver it, and when the government have an ongoing record of failure and mismanagement in meeting their own deadlines then I think it is quite proper for the opposition in this place to retain grave concerns about the operation of this proposed National Broadband Network. 9425 16:41:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I will speak briefly to this legislation, so if there is a following speaker then I note that I will not be here in 20 minutes time. I notice that the previous speaker left it right until the end to arrive in this place. I support the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. But I do believe that this is a test for the government, partly for some of the reasons that have been enunciated by the opposition. It is a test of its commitment to a piece of infrastructure for the future. There has been a lot of money spent on, and promised to, roads, rail and other pieces of important infrastructure, but there is no more important infrastructure for this nation, either globally, domestically, regionally or in any context that people want to put it in, than equitable access to broadband services. This legislation allows for information to be gathered and shared between various companies so that a proposal can be built up, with some existing infrastructure and other pieces of information from the various technological players, to allow a national broadband network to become a reality. This piece of infrastructure—broadband infrastructure—in my view is the most important piece of infrastructure that we can talk about. The government will be judged on the delivery of the services that it says it intends to deliver. Broadband services delivered in an equitable fashion with equitable access negate distance being a disadvantage for people who live in the country. That will mean an incredible boost for regional development. Some of those people have equity of access at the moment, and we have to ensure that, where possible, that equity of access and equity of price is made available into the future. So I am very supportive of what the government is trying to do because I think that, for the first time, it actually looks at getting a service that will benefit not only individuals but also businesses. This is important because then, in a sense, you can run a business from anywhere in Australia. It will remove the need for the city concentration of businesses that we currently have. There are many other benefits of doing this. I am sure all country members have examples of international businesses being run from farm homesteads. Those businesses are using this global technology to access the world. Location becomes less and less relevant if in fact you can gain access to high-speed broadband at equitable prices. So it negates distance being a disadvantage of living in the country. It is also absolutely critical, in my view, given some of the medical costs out there that government is dealing with—the numbers of doctors, dentists, specialists et cetera and the educationalists that are required in this modern global economy—that we are able to access high-speed broadband to deliver some of those educational and health facilities. It is not impossible. In fact, it is happening in parts of the world now where specialists are actually attending operations via the internet while they are thousands of kilometres away. Their expertise can be utilised at these critical times. That can apply to the education area as well. It can also apply to the climate change debate. There is a mass movement of people flying to see each other to do business. The higher the internet speeds, the more in-time access will be available. A lot of that travel will become history and a lot of the work will be done via the broadband network. So for country Australians this particular proposal from the government is very important. As I said at the start, I think this is a test for the government. There have been a lot of distractions. I congratulate the government on the way it has addressed the economic crisis. But, in terms of substantive legacies, there will be no greater one than a national broadband service that actually works and provides some of the services that I talked about a moment ago. In that sense, the jury is very much out. Some of the issues that have been raised by the opposition are legitimate, but some of them are political issues as well. I think the government really has to stick to its knitting on this. If it has just pulled a number out of the sky and thinks that it can impose that number and not deliver on those service announcements, the nation will judge it accordingly. In my view, this sort of infrastructure is more important than any road or rail that we can talk about. I am not demeaning those pieces of infrastructure but I think that, in the development of a nation of this size, if we can get this right we will go a long way towards getting our place in global communications right. We have seen examples before in this parliament of where grand ideas have fallen foul. We saw with the previous government, for instance, the inland rail concept that was promoted for many years—and which still is promoted by Everald Compton, who is a great Australian in my view. The previous government led that concept along, saying it was one of those nation-building concepts that had great potential for the future. Various studies were done. Some of the studies indicated that maybe the freight that was available to go on that particular route was not what some people had expected. That debate is still open. The point I am making is that governments who continually make suggestions, particularly about nation building, will be judged if they do not eventually deliver on some of those things. I think that the National Broadband Network is one of those things on which this current government will be judged. Parallel to this piece of legislation, the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy, will be in my electorate next Monday. We are having a forum. I have invited a range of political players of various political persuasions from the north-west in New England—mayors, general managers and others—interested in the national broadband rollout to come to a forum. I thank the minister for accepting the invitation. That forum is not going to be a political forum. It is going to be a forum where information is garnered from the minister. It will give the minister a good opportunity to outline the program in a regional context with, I hope, some specifics for the New England and north-west area and on the timetable that the minister sees for the National Broadband Network rollout. The issue of equity and commercial viability has been raised by the opposition. The previous speaker made note of it. I note that in the second reading amendment the opposition have moved—which really does not mean much because they are not declining to support the bill—one of the phrases concerns me. They talk about a cost-benefit analysis of the National Broadband Network. The point they make is that the project—presumably the $43 billion National Broadband Network that the government is proposing—may not be commercially viable. This concept of commercial viability in the nation-building context interests me. I spend a bit of time in the west of New South Wales, and I guess a lot of people spend a bit of time in some of the more remote parts of Australia. The little town of Lowther, for instance, which is not in my electorate but which is a town that I have some personal contact with, would never have received electricity if a commercial viability criterion had been imposed upon it. I urge the coalition to revisit some of the wording of this amendment, because it smells of a context from a few years ago where if something was not commercially viable then it did not happen. What is viable for commerce, what is viable for government, what the public sector should provide to the people and what the role of government is in the provision of those services starts to be questioned. We have been down the road where the provision of services to the greatest number of people was done most efficiently and at the lowest unit cost. If you could put them in a feedlot, that is how you would deliver services most effectively. The former government tended down that pathway. I remember at one time suggesting that, if you put them in a high-rise feedlot—which in fact was done in some of our cities—and used gravity to some advantage, you were being even more cost effective in the feedlot mechanism that those people were being pressured into. I think there have been aspects of competition policy that have actually driven that context. I think some of the speakers coming up might be able to explain to me what the coalition actually mean by criticising the government over the commercial viability issue. Does it mean that we provide services to people only where a commercial business would garner a commercial return or does it mean some sort of commercial viability involving government policy, which is something different? If we still have remnants of this feedlot mentality as being the only way to deliver services in an economic fashion to the greatest number of people, that tends to rule out country people. They live in distant areas. In a lot of cases they are in remote locations, in some cases they are small and in most cases they tend to be weak in their political numbers. It is something that government really has to address if they are serious about creating an environment where more people go to the country rather than fewer. The policy mix we have had in the past—and still have to a certain extent—articulates that we want people to go to the country, but the economic pressures are that the country goes to the city. This particular piece of infrastructure gives the government an opportunity to reverse the old paradigm on which it is more cost effective to operate a business in the city compared with the country because of the factor of distance. If we can get this right—and right, in my view, is to get the cost right so that it is equity of access to similar technologies—so that the country location will have a comparative advantage over the city location, the consequences not only may be in the performance of business but may alleviate some of the pressures on cities. You can see the debacle in New South Wales at the moment where you have got all these urban transport pressures and greater demand for more highways and motorways to get people in and out of a congested city. Here is an opportunity to break that nexus of the concentration of people in a limited number of centres and this dependence on so-called commercial viability. Another instance which occurred in telecommunications was the sale of Telstra—this thread of commercial viability and the business sector always running more effectively without government involvement. That might be right to a certain extent, but there are people on the margin—and they happen to be in the country—who will miss out under that regime. We saw it in the privatisation of Telstra. The previous government, in conjunction with the National Farmers Federation whose president at the time was Peter Corish, said that equity of access to telephone and broadband services for country people would be delivered by the legislation and that a letter existed that would support equity of access for those services. Senator Barnaby Joyce fell for the three-card trick. I remember the day because I was at the Senate doors as I had heard that the National Farmers Federation president at the time was going to make an announcement. I was certain that it was going to be a positive one. I was absolutely shocked when he fell for the three-card trick and announced that he had been given a guarantee that these particular commitments would be enshrined in legislation. Those things did not happen. Senator Joyce voted for it. Nothing was in the bill and no letter was ever sighted. People in country areas are still suffering from that decision. I supported Senator Conroy and Lindsay Tanner at that time because of their opposition to the sale. I am supportive of what they are attempting to do, particularly Senator Conroy’s attempts, with the National Broadband Network, but the eyes of all Australians—and very much country Australians—are firmly fixed on the language of these arrangements. People want delivery. In conclusion, I highlight the point that this is the most important piece of infrastructure that this parliament will talk about during this term, and probably through many terms. It is the infrastructure that equalises all Australians in a sense because the costs of living in the city actually give the country locations a real advantage. All the other factors—distance, remoteness et cetera—augur that country locations will not be advantaged. So I encourage the government to get it right because its implications for other policy areas could be as significant as the delivery of this invaluable service to all Australians. 9429 17:00:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This bill amends part 27A of the Telecommunications Act. Part 27A enables the Minister for Broadband, Communication and the Digital Economy to require telecommunications carriers to give information to the Commonwealth about their telecommunications networks. This bill before the House removes the sunset clause which made most of part 27A inoperative after 26 May 2009, expands the class of firms that have to provide information to include utilities and changes the purpose to which the information can be put. So we are, if you like, reheating the old part 27A because time has lapsed. And, really, that is the story of the National Broadband Network—time has lapsed. I would like to go back over a bit of history now. The National Broadband Network fibre-to-the-node was an ALP election promise. It would have involved significant modification of Telstra’s network rather than a whole new network. The main changes were the linking of residential and business premises with the local exchange. The proposal would have seen the bundled copper wire that runs from the exchange to the node, which is the access point near the premises, replaced with optic fibre—thus enabling much faster access speeds. In order for proponents to submit costed proposals, they needed information about existing telecommunications infrastructure. They were asked to provide this voluntarily, which of course they were reluctant to do. The original Telecommunications Legislation Amendment Bill was the mechanism by which they were forced to do this. Six proposals were received by the government’s extended deadline of 26 November 2008. In December, Telstra announced that it had been excluded from the process, because its proposal did not explain how it would involve small and medium enterprises in building the NBN. In January 2009, the minister announced he had received the report from his expert panel. He declined to publish the full report, but the extract that he did publish said the proposals were underdeveloped and did not provide value for money. On 7 April this year the government terminated the request for proposal process and announced that it would establish a company that would build, own and operate a wholesale fibre-to-the-home network. Ninety per cent of homes, schools and workplaces would be connected with either land based or satellite wireless services. The story loses coherence at this point, courtesy of the bumbling minister, who is now, I feel, caught in a trap entirely of his own making. The minister is not sure of the legal arrangements through which the company that he has announced will either acquire assets or operate the business. We know that the Commonwealth will make the initial investment in the company and might issue retail bonds, but the extent of public and private equity is not known. The Commonwealth will be a majority shareholder but only for five years after the network is built and fully operational. A plan of action was set out by the minister in April when the company, NBN Co Ltd, was established—though it may of course change its name. Three months later the executive chairman was announced and a few weeks later the board was announced. In April 2009, the minister released a discussion paper on proposals for regulatory reform, including the separation of Telstra’s retail and network arms. In July the minister sought more views on a number of matters, including how the new network should be regulated. An implementation study is needed but a lead adviser is required to provide the government with information around network design and operating arrangements. A five-month tender process to appoint the lead adviser resulted in McKinseys and KPMG being appointed in August. The tender process was secret. In this timeline we have a long and tedious history. It is now 12 months since the network was supposed to be built and well and truly on its way to being up and running in the interests particularly of rural and regional constituents. With every step that the minister takes, he seems to have to ask and pay for advice from consultants. He needs to ask what regulatory environment his company should be operating in. He needs to ask about the terms, about the equity and about what the arrangements that should surround the new network would look like. And every step of the way is resulting in more and more delays. Meanwhile, the issue of regional black spots has meant that the government has issued a consultation paper and another request for tender. Responses to this have just closed. The minister has found a friend, though, in the Tasmanian government, whose proposal to the 2008 request for proposal process the expert panel apparently approved of—even though we cannot see the advice from that expert panel. Tasmanian NBN, a subsidiary of NBN Co, has been established and will manage the rollout of the network in Tasmania, using Aurora Energy—a company wholly owned by the Tasmanian government. The legislative environment in which NBN Co will operate has not been set. The issues of how fibre networks should be set out to greenfields developments has not been resolved, though the minister has established yet another stakeholder group to advise on policy development on this issue. I have seen estimates, probably some 12 months ago, that the tab for the minister’s professional advice alone has hit $10 million. Questions remain. Who will actually own the NBN? Will it be the government or third parties? If we want those third parties to invest, they need information, They need to know how long the government will stay on board as an investor. Five years after the completed rollout? But how is that defined? Can the government confiscate Telstra’s network without compensation? How much might such compensation cost? Investors need certainty, reliability and information—and they do not have any of those things from this government. The disappointing thing to me is that the appalling way in which the government has handled the NBN has detracted from the genuinely good news story about what it actually promises and how it could change lives, improve the way we work and live and, importantly for my constituents, bring opportunities to regional Australia that did not previously exist—for example, high-definition teleconferencing. Telepresence systems mean state-of-the-art teleconference from home, without sacrificing the productivity or personal interaction. Satellite communities built far away from city centres have been talked about for a long time but there has never really been the technology to truly support them. This could now become a reality. There are far-reaching implications for rural and regional Australia, struggling as we are with the drought. Our farming systems are changing and we need diversification of our economic base. For example, we have agricultural experts who have hands-on experience and an observatory, if you like, built all around them. With the interactive technology and tools that new technology such as internet protocol TV would bring, we could overcome the disadvantages of distance and bring the jobs we need to a very smart rural sector. Elderly people in their own homes would benefit from a health-monitoring system that would spare precious resources for local hospitals—and God knows we need that in the state of New South Wales. I know the minister is an ardent fan of e-health, but we have to get the system built and we have to get it built all over Australia and not leave out vital towns just because they have a population of 1,000 or less according to the arbitrary criteria that this government has set. The announcement sounded great in April earlier this year, until you looked at the fine print. In my electorate alone, there are 17 towns that would miss out entirely and, really, they figured nowhere in the government’s announcement. They just did not count. The other factor, of course, is cost. The Rudd government treats this exercise like it does all others—a huge price tag, poorly calculated. It is carried away with its own sense of self-importance, so an extra few million dollars is just a bump in the road. After the grand announcement that the NBN was costed at $43 billion, we saw in slightly smaller print that the government contribution was just $4.7 billion, about 11 per cent. The government should know that, while it willingly writes out cheques for multimillion dollar sums, the private sector follows the normal rules of probity, value for money and return on investment. Without those things, it is reluctant to invest. Hence the problem the minister now faces, which is the unenthusiastic response to his announcement. So, at the moment, we are in a state of limbo where, unfortunately, we are set to remain. According to the government, it will take eight years to build the network to 90 per cent of homes at speeds up to 100 megabytes per second. But this is not an ironclad guarantee or even a rock-solid commitment; it is little more than an ambitious goal, something we are just aiming for. Contrast this with a recent report, Navigating the path to Australia’s NBN, by telecommunications analyst Christian Guerra, which predicted that the rollout would not begin until 2011 and would cover just 50 per cent of homes by 2017—it might get to 90 per cent by 2025. There is little hope for regional Australia in that sad time line. I want to mention cybersecurity risks associated with the NBN, because awareness of cybercrime is severely lacking around the country. The government, as I have said, plans to start the NBN in Tasmania; however, there has been little talk about security risks that might be associated with the network. The National Manager, Australian Federal Police High Tech Crime Centre, Neil Gaughan, spoke to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications last week in a public hearing on cybercrime. Mr Gaughan pointed out that we need to ensure that the security and the resilience of the NBN is quite strong. He warned that there have been ‘incidents in the recent past’ when it comes to large Australian companies being targeted for cyberespionage. ASIO, in their submission to the inquiry into cybercrime, also noted: Terrorists use the Internet for a variety of purposes —including communications, propaganda, recruitment and reconnaissance of targets. (t is also feasible that terrorists or extremists may engage in malicious cyber activity that would exploit Australia’s reliance on Information Communications Technology to significantly disrupt services, cause casualties and/or inflict economic harm. This is a concerning feature of the interconnected cyberenvironment that we live and work in today. The Australian Institute of Criminology noted in their submission to the committee: The next wave of technology-enabled security threats will be targeted attacks aimed at specific organisations or individuals within enterprises. Organisations in the financial services industries and their top executives will be targeted more heavily than others … with financial gain being the ultimate goal. The percentage of Australians targeted by cybercrime is quite large and is on the increase. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, over 5.8 million Australians were exposed to cyberscams in the 12 months prior to the Personal fraud 2007 survey. That information is slightly dated but it is the most up-to-date that we have. Personal fraud as measured by the ABS involved people receiving and viewing or reading an unsolicited invitation, request, notification or offer designed to obtain their personal information or money or otherwise obtain a financial benefit by deceptive means. Of those who received a fraudulent request, 5.7 per cent—329,000 people—became victims by responding to the scam, by supplying personal information, money or both or by seeking more information. This equates to a victimisation rate of two per cent, which has been rising rapidly since that study was conducted. The coalition strongly supports the AFP’s concern that security must be at the centre of the NBN initiative as cybercrime rises. That involves two aspects: the location of the assets, the physical infrastructure under this network, where they will be located, who will know where they are located and who should know; and the obvious interruption to traffic on the network were such cybercrime to take place and the security of the use of that network for government agencies, individuals, industry and business. Back to the specifics of this bill: the main changes are, as I said earlier, to expand the class of firms that can be required to give information to include utilities and to change the purpose for which they are used. The changes sought by this bill were originally introduced into the Senate on 25 June 2009 and were referred to a Senate committee. The coalition has a problem with the government’s approach, in that it was done without consultation with stakeholders. I am told that some had no idea of its content when they were contacted by the media for comment. Thankfully, the Senate inquiry gave stakeholders the opportunity to comment, and they declared concerns about consultation time lines in the bill. The information utilities were obliged to supply, even if they do not hold records, the costs these utilities would incur. Further concerns were expressed about provisions permitting disclosure of information to the NBN for 10 years, unlike provisions relating to the implementation study which sunset in June 2010. There are, therefore, serious questions about why the minister has been given such broad long-term powers in this bill and whether they are really needed, given that we are only at the implementation study stage and beyond that there may be no need for commercially sensitive information relating to the operation of the final NBN to be disclosed. I therefore support the amendments moved in this place by the member for Dunkley in connection with this bill and I commend the comments that he has made regarding those amendments. I also express my grave reservations about the way this government is managing the National Broadband Network. It will cost $43 billion to build the network, but the network has not been costed. The expert panel apparently was never asked to make a return-on-investment calculation. It reported in secret. The government will not release the panel’s deliberations. The government itself is putting in just $4.7 billion, but the option of putting in more is hinted at. After all, we are in tough times. We have to spend our way out. It is just money. Everything will work out down the track. Do not bother justifying expenditure other than relying on the feel-good factor. The NBN is good, the Liberals are bad, faster internet delivered to more people is the right thing to do and anyone who stands in the way are a bunch of spoilsports! That is the impression I have from this government about the National Broadband Network, underlined by their appalling disregard for the effect that that network will not be able to take in rural and regional Australia—because the 10 per cent of constituents who I represent would all be in that excluded 10 per cent. There have been some vague promises of wireless satellite but nothing definite has been said—no costings, no allocation, no commitment in terms of time line. The point will come where this government’s approach and rationale will be proved incompetent. Every Australian who waits and hopes for a better broadband network to service their needs deserves so much better. 9433 17:16:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —In rising to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009, I back up my colleague the member for New England. I was reading my original speech on this bill, and I quoted with very great regret the senator from Queensland Barnaby Joyce, who said that he would oppose the bill. I deeply regret that my National colleagues seem to now represent the city interests. If Barnaby Joyce sells us out and votes against this, it will probably be the last gasp for the National Party, one that was set on 16 August 2005. There are only three members now who represent the National Party in this House. The LNP is a formal affiliate of the Liberal Party of Australia, so it is actually the Liberal Party now. I deeply regret it—I do not criticise the honourable senator from Queensland for voting for it but in a sense I also very much criticise him for voting for it! But when you live in a party you have got to toe the party line and not do simply what it pleases you to do. At some stage you have to eventually make a decision as to whether you sell your soul or whether you sell your party. It is very regrettable that one has to say that in this place, but that is the situation as far as any member representing rural Australia goes. The proposal to roll out broadband, giving access to virtually all Australians, is a wonderful proposal. It is like the bitumen roads which took people from the outback. It used to take us three days to go on our annual holidays to Brisbane from Cloncurry, a journey that can be done in a single day now because of the building of bitumen roads. We did not think it was possible that bitumen roads could be built out to our areas. When that very great man John McEwan instituted his beef roads scheme, as it was originally called, and later on the developmental roads scheme, one did not think it was possible to create this great network infrastructure of communication for Australia called sealed roads. But that is exactly what he did. I did not think that in my lifetime I would ever see the road sealed from Cloncurry to Brisbane—that seemed inconceivable. I thought that if we fought really hard we could get it sealed from Cloncurry to Townsville but we would never get it sealed the back way straight to Brisbane. But we did thanks to that very great man. The people of Australia have been the beneficiaries of that. Great minds have opened up in the Mount Isa-Cloncurry area. The cattle industry has increased its numbers dramatically throughout those areas as a result. We took a survey when I was a minister in the Queensland government—and I think this is very relevant to the bill before the House—on what was the most important thing that had happened or that could happen for people in rural Australia. We were hoping that the survey would say the most important thing was water development and irrigation, but that was not what came back. What came back was bitumen roads that enabled our cattle to move from an area that was dry, because people have a concept of drought that all of New South Wales would be in drought or all of Queensland would be in drought. That rarely happens. There are areas where we have had excessive rainfall and there will be areas where we have drought. That is a condition that we have to live with. But we were not able to move our cattle previously, except at very great expense, on the dirt roads, until the coming of the beef road scheme, which put some 2,000 kilometres of sealed road into North Queensland. I remember the most famous man in American political history and the most popular man in American political history, Huey Long. When there were just 11 bridges in Louisiana, he built 300 bridges. When there were 300 kilometres of sealed road, he built 2,500 kilometres of sealed road. The people loved Huey. It was in the time of the Great Depression, when people loved having a job. They greatly revered a man who had given them a job and an opportunity to buy a decent feed while most of the rest of the country was on the ropes. Broadband is a very similar concept. There are problems that we can address, and I thank a member of my staff, Anthony Lagana, publicly in this place. One: the main problem is distance from exchange. Two: if no exchange exists, then we have to use wireless mobile coverage, and the cost is almost triple, with a reduction in speed and download volumes. Three: where there is no exchange and no wireless we have to use satellite. Again, the price is triple, with very low speeds and very low download volumes. Four: people who cannot use landline broadband are disadvantaged by the cost of using wireless and satellite. Five: wireless is only as good as the reception from the phone towers, and that can be very iffy in areas that I represent, where we have the great mountain ranges of North Queensland—Mount Bartle Frere towers 5½ thousand feet above sea level and, unlike the Snowy Mountains, where you have high country, this is not high country; these are just spectacular mountains that rise off a coastal plain and go straight up into the clouds. In that situation we have enormous difficulties getting reception. Six: satellite is good until there is cloud cover. Those of us who live in country areas know that problem only too well. Speeds of downloads are limited. Seven: when there is a problem with satellite it can take one or two months to get a repair person out, because of the remoteness. Dennis Faye is a grazier from Torrens Creek with a gifted intellect who has been without coverage for over two months. I think it is now into its third month. When Telstra’s sale was discussed in this place, we were told in our party room again and again that there would be a universal service obligation. Two or three of us—that was all—had the temerity to speak up. We said: ‘What ridiculous rubbish. Do you really think that a government is going to enforce a universal service obligation on some poor person working and living in Julia Creek or, even worse, living outside Julia Creek? That is not going to happen.’ And here is the proof positive. They are not going to pay for a repairman to go out to a single consumer who lives 70 or 80 kilometres south of Prairie or Torrens Creek. That is not the real world. That is not going to happen. Here is a specific example that it is not happening and is not going to happen. We have had something like seven centres that have been out for two and three days since Telstra was sold off. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —They’re not commercially viable. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —That is correct: because they are not commercially viable. When you move into a free-market regime, say your prayers if you are in the outskirts of cities. Do not think this is confined to country areas. We are talking about semisuburban areas. They are suffering greatly. One community in my area which is most certainly a stone’s throw from Cairns—it is about 20 minutes in a car—was without telephones for two weeks. In my nearly 35 years in parliament, until Telstra was sold I could only think of one example where the telephones were out for more than seven hours. It was because there were Telstra workers at every community point throughout North Queensland. They could get there quickly, assess the problem quickly and fix it up quickly. Since then we have had seven centres that have been out for two weeks—including half of Innisfail, a town of 20-odd thousand people. I go back to this paper we have prepared. We thank Anthony for his preparation. Eight: cheap deals end up costing consumers a lot more because of the download limits. Customers should be made more aware and more informed by the provider. BigPond is probably one of the providers that creates the most problems with extra costs. When customers reach their download limit on a cheap plan of, say, $29.95 a month, the extra cost to them is very great. No matter who the provider delivering the broadband is, the exchange and lines are maintained by Telstra. Most internet problems are Telstra issues. Telstra is a privatised concern and, as I said before, they simply do not get the repairs done. So whilst these things are marvellous and, I am sure, will have great benefits for the cities, I view with extreme scepticism how valuable these services will be to us. I am country born, from the little town of Cloncurry, which has a very limited local library. We did not have many outlets, particularly intellectual outlets. I was a prolific reader, as are many people who come from little towns such as the one I come from. The first purchase in my life when I got a little bit of money together was my rifle. My second purchase was Encyclopaedia Britannica, for which I shopped around because I could not afford to buy it new. I got it second-hand. They were very well worn copies because they were the internet of the period. It gives you some idea of the very great value. I remember from my own home area a gentleman named Mr Dave Christerson. He started with absolutely nothing. They used to say he sold the cattle down at Cloncurry before he bought them up at Kajabbi. He did not even have a horse; he had a saddle. He would climb on the mail and go up to Kajabbi and then buy the cattle that he had already sold. I think a lot of the hedge fund managers in Sydney would understand his operations well! He became a very successful cattleman, but the first thing he bought when he had a quid—I remember it very well; he had some very pretty daughters!—was a set of Encyclopaedia Britannica. That opened the doors for us bush kids to see and to access a wider world, and broadband can provide exactly the same advantages for us if we are given it and if we are given it in such a way that it becomes a genuine service that we can afford and that we will get repaired when breakdowns occur. In my previous speech, which emphasised the sale of Telstra more than broadband but took in broadband, I made reference to what would happen if Telstra were privatised and we then had a change of technology. I remember raising this with great aggression in our party room. Looking back on the years, I can only remember twice in my seven years in the party room where anyone who said anything in the party room was ever taken any notice of—only two issues in seven years with 20 or 30 meetings a year—so I did not lose anything by not being admitted to the party room. Looking back on it, it was an utter waste of time. I think it is an important point to make to the House. I also said on the issue of Telstra that we have changes of technology. I owned a cattle station for a couple of decades up in the never-never land. We were about 230 kilometres from the nearest town; and, much as I love Croydon, it is a pretty rough definition of ‘town’, with 100 people. We lived right out in the middle of nowhere. But I saw four changes of technology there. The copper wire did not originally reach us, but it reached some of our neighbouring neighbours—neighbours to our neighbours—so we saw copper wire transmission of information, a telephone if you like. The copper wire was replaced by DRCS technology, and that was replaced in our case by satellite. We did not have access to DRCS but some of our neighbours did. Satellite was the third technology, and the fourth technology that came in was HCRC. There were four entirely separate changes of technology in the space of about 15 or 16 years. Then, the government simply told Telstra—which was an instrumentality that they owned—that they would provide this service to all Australians, including those Australians who lived 200 kilometres from a town. That is what the government said. The government did not cost Treasury anything, so all we had to do was to wedge the minister or wedge the leader and put a lot of pressure on him, and then he would simply tell Telstra to do it and it would happen. But if Telstra is privatised, you cannot do that. You cannot tell Telstra to do it if they are an independent body. They would tell you to go jump. The implications of this are that you would have to ask Treasury for a handout; whereas before we could say, ‘It’s our right’ and the government could direct their instrumentality to provide the service. These wonderful people who come into this place—in one speech they will tell us about justice and in the next speech they will tell us about markets. You know, they will tell us about how our free markets are going to save and rescue us all. Have a look at Woolworths and Coles and then tell me about free markets. Have a look at the transport industry in Australia and then tell me about free markets. Have a look at the mass media in Australia and its ownership and then tell me about free markets. As I have said on many occasions in this place, their problem is: their mummies and daddies did not get them to play Monopoly when they were young. If their mummies and daddies had got them to play Monopoly, they would know that when you own all of the utilities you have got six times the income! 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —They were playing Snakes and Ladders! HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —I think there were other things that were played, but I will not go into that. We are in an invidious situation in non-big-city Australia. I am not saying rural Australia, because I represent the environs of Cairns, which is a big city of 250,000 people. I represent the environs, and they are going to be treated very, very shabbily, I can tell you. Because of their problem—with high mountains that just rise off the coastal plains straight into the clouds—we cannot get the sort of service delivery that can be easy in certain other situations. And we are not Robinson Crusoe in this. There are areas outside of Melbourne that are exactly the same, and there are most certainly areas surrounding Sydney that are in exactly the same situation as we are. When we get breakdowns in broadband, they will not be fixed. When there is a change in technology, Treasury will not give us the money to upgrade our technology. Whilst we applaud the government, as with many socialist endeavours in this place they are very long on aspiration and very low on delivery and on turning those aspirations into reality. We hope that we are proved wrong in this case. I started this speech by making reference to the senator from Queensland who took a very courageous stand in opposing the sale of Telstra. I said to him, ‘If you continue with your opposition then we will applaud you, and you will be a great hero throughout Queensland.’ That would have been something he could have used in his speeches forever—that I said he would be a great hero if he opposed this legislation. I said, ‘If you don’t, you have raised our expectations and you will break our hearts.’ He broke our hearts. I do not give this speech to condemn him; at least he put up some sort of a fight, which is more than I can say for the other representatives of rural Australia in this place. In endorsing the legislation, all we can say is: we applaud you for your aspirations but the reality for us is that those sorts of aspirations have never been realised for us. We would plead with the government to, just for once, deliver upon their promises. 9437 17:35:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I rise to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. The members opposite will be all too aware of the preposterous pledge made by their former leader, Bob Hawke, that under his colourful maladministration ‘No Australian child will be living in poverty’. Of course, this laughable commitment was never fulfilled and there was never any intention for it to be fulfilled, given that Hawke’s words were aimed at winning votes, not at winning the fight against poverty. How little things change with the ALP. Two decades on and his evolutionary spawn, the Prime Minister, heads a government which is promising no Australian child will be living without a high-speed broadband connection. Let us set aside the way in which this reflects the much higher expectations of the Australian public in all aspects of life because of the 11 years of sustained economic growth and widespread prosperity under the competent and enlightened coalition management. What we are seeing in the National Broadband Network proposal is Labor again making grand promises which it has absolutely no idea about fulfilling. Like Bob Hawke, the Prime Minister appears set to be forever remembered and derided for delivering a sweeping but hollow commitment which is entirely based on spin and is totally devoid of substance. This is nothing but a fancy promise which the government has no hope of delivering and which is a desperately cynical attempt to cover up its failure to make any real progress on a key election promise two years after coming to office. Of course, the government wasted 18 months and $20 million on its first bungled National Broadband Network plan and is again haemorrhaging cash under this latest farcical attempt to win votes through spin rather than action. Millions of dollars are already being poured into salaries and operating expenses for those appointed to manage the network, even though there is no network to manage. Where is the demand or the evidence of the demand for this proposed service? Most Australians already have access to relatively high-speed internet services, whether it be ADSL or ADSL2 or via the dramatically growing wireless internet services. Do the Australian people really want $43 billion of their money spent on a system which will be of marginal benefit to few and of significant benefit to even fewer? Where is the evidence of the effectiveness of the proposed network? The systems in place work. How will the one proposed be better and to what degree? Will the improvement justify the massive expense and for how long? There have been suggestions of a 10-year roll-out for the proposed network. It has taken nearly six months from the government announcing the plan to bring this bill before us, so the project is already mired in delays. Ten years is an extremely long time in politics but it is several generations in technology. Indeed, we heard the member for Kennedy talking about how in a period of 15 years there have been four different generations of technology, and the government is betting on a technology here. Ten years ago, most of the high bandwidth services which we are seeing as driving the push for high-speed broadband services today simply did not exist. YouTube, Facebook and, of course, Twitter were not here; yet the government is presuming to plan a network today which will meet today’s demands but not for another 10 years. Will we then have to start over yet again because of an ill-thought-out policy implemented by the members opposite? Why is a long-term strategic telecommunications strategy setting its aim at only the second-rate technology of today when other countries already enjoy far superior network service and are planning to improve these further? Will we be happy with the service when it is complete, whenever that might be? Will we be happy with it after six months, after 12 months or after two years, as we watch communications services in neighbouring countries leapfrog Australia? A $43 billion investment should be delivering more than short-term gratification. These are just some of many very pertinent questions which remain unanswered on this issue. The Australian public deserve to know these answers before we get the bill passed onto us. It is our duty as members of parliament when considering such massive commitments to ensure that they are the best choices for our country. The government has in this instance failed to demonstrate that this is the case. The members opposite would have us believe that this legislation is essential if Australia’s broadband infrastructure is to be improved and that critics are holding back development of better systems, yet the same members opposite are themselves bent on slowing Australian network speeds through their insidious internet censorship scheme. Of course, the same minister is responsible for both of these farces. Internet service providers have won the backing of colleagues around the world in their loathing for a man apparently set on hindering the infrastructure he is supposed to enhance. The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy recently won formal recognition for his unpopularity in the industry as Internet Villain of the Year. Some individuals felt strongly enough about the issue that last week they attacked the websites of both the minister and the Prime Minister. Computer users, particularly the more tech-savvy—and a special mention must go to the Whirlpool website forums for fostering real debate of the issue—hold the minister as an object of contempt and ridicule, particularly for his bumbling attempt to impose controls over the medium which is ultimately setting the world free. The internet delivers power to the world’s people. It is an ally of all who cherish freedom, individual liberty and true democracy. That is why it is the enemy of authoritarian rulers in countries such as China, Burma and Iran—and, it seems, of the Australian Labor Party. Members should recall that under the last coalition government we had a very simple, very cost-effective and very popular program under which families could get free copies of an internet filter program for their homes to protect their children from unsavoury internet content. The Rudd government scrapped that, and two years after taking office the minister is still unable to offer an alternative. Delay after delay has very fortunately put this censorship plan on hold, and for this some thanks must go to internet service providers who refused to take part in sham trials. By now, the members opposite must also have realised how deeply flawed is the internet filter pursued by the minister, and we can only hope that they will quietly abandon it at some stage. What grew from the idea of protecting children using the internet rapidly became billed as a weapon against child pornography, and these are surely two very different issues. From there, the minister has broadened it to propose blocking Australians from viewing any material which a select group of faceless bureaucrats deem inappropriate. And to top it off, the list of banned material would itself be banned from public scrutiny, effectively making the censors unaccountable. IT experts say such a system will slow the network and that it will not work, regardless. This is particularly the case in combating traffic in child pornography, which reportedly is usually distributed through peer-to-peer networks rather than via websites, and so could continue unhindered by the filter. And so we have a government pledging to spend tens of billions of dollars on a national broadband network of dubious worth which will supposedly offer higher speed data links to all. At the same time, the government is planning a censorship scheme which will have the opposite effect, reducing data speeds and hindering access. And, most crucially, it would stop the free flow of information which we have come to expect from the internet, a strategy more akin to foreign dictatorships, for which Labor feigns distaste, a strategy wholly not in keeping with our country’s proud history of free speech and open debate. The internet promised to take us all into the future, but this government appears intent on applying the policies of the past in its selfish pursuit of power and control, not only in this building but over the lives of all Australians. 9439 17:46:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. This is not the bill that tells us about the detail of the National Broadband Network; it is simply a bill that allows the government to collect the information in order to design it. This is information that it will need from telecommunications providers, not just Telstra but all the others, and from railways and roads authorities to know where easements are and infrastructure is and so forth. That is why the opposition have recommended a sunset clause. This is a perfectly sensible approach. If this national broadband $43 billion super network ever gets up, and I endorse the member for Tangney’s sentiments in that regard, it would not make any sense at all, nor would it be fair for the government to be the depository of information that its competitors would have. The way this has been undertaken is another perfect example of lack of consultation. There is absolutely nothing but confusion out there. The member for Tangney says it is two years—to give them the benefit, it is 22 months—since the government were beating their chests at the last election about providing a broadband network that they alleged would be superior to what the then coalition government were delivering. Sadly, all that time has been wasted. The proposal that was put by the previous government, whilst nowhere near the mega-speeds proposed in the dream that the Rudd government is proposing here of 100 megabytes a second, was affordable to a nation of 20-odd million people spread across the same area as Europe. This is a country that is not like South Korea and Japan, with their concentrated populations. This is the land of the great open plains. So the coalition in government proposed a scheme which was ultimately tendered and awarded to OPEL, a consortium of Optus and other regional players across Australia. It was something that was affordable. The fallacy of the government’s approach with regard to its proposal is that nobody has sat down and done the commercial analysis nor is able to advise the ultimate consumers what this super Rolls Royce mega-scheme is going to cost them to use on a monthly basis. Costs per month of $200-$300 have been mentioned. For heaven’s sake, I get letters from people across my constituency complaining about paying $30-$50 a month. It raises questions in my mind as to the affordability of this dream that is being proposed by the Rudd government. It sounds wonderful as a prophetic dream and has electoral appeal, but I have considerable doubts about whether it is ever going to be delivered. On top of that, as I speak in my position as the member for Mallee on behalf of the people I represent, the electorate of Mallee is a good example of the lucky and unlucky in broadband in terms of the way this proposal has been put to them. The unlucky are all those people living in small towns of less than a thousand people, of which there are nearly a hundred spread across north-west Victoria, who have much slower but acceptable access to broadband by the use of the copper service. Some of them dial up but most of them have access to broadband. They will be amongst the two million people spread across this vast geographic region who have been advised that even in 10 years they will not be part of this National Broadband Network. The lucky ones in my electorate are apparently those that live in the provincial centres such as Mildura, Horsham and Swan Hill, but the stupidity is that they would already have had access to much higher speed broadband than they currently have, through the previous government’s rollout. The greatest tragedy, they advise me, is that the contract with OPEL was suspended when the new government came into power. During the election the Labor Party told my constituents that for something like $4½ million they could do better than what the coalition government were delivering. The government wasted nine months or so, could not figure out how to deliver even that and then dreamt up this multibillion dollar dream that is just a dream and will not be fulfilled. Then there is the question about the huge level of borrowings that will have to be engaged in to provide the $43 billion. The government assure us that they are currently investigating capital participation partners for that, but no businessmen that I know will want to put up billions of dollars knowing that they are investing in a product that gives rise to serious questions about ultimate commercial viability because of the capacity of people ultimately to be willing to pay for it. That is the information we do not have. That causes me to have substantial reservations. Even at $200 a month, the cost is prohibitive and beyond the capacity of Australians to pay. How many Australians actually need a supercharged speed of 100 megabytes per second and how many regional Australians will be able to access this high-speed broadband ultimately anyway? My guess is that a lot of the people in my Mallee electorate, ranging from the Murray River in the north way down past Horsham in the western districts of Victoria, will miss out. Of course we want to see faster broadband, but at a cost which is affordable and without plunging our grandchildren into a commitment to fund the massive debt that is going to be needed to achieve this dream. Broadband speeds in our major cities are already comparatively good. Of course people want more—they want to exchange more information, they want to watch movies and they want it to be coming faster—but broadband is already at a speed at which we can conduct our business activities. Even in those provincial locations around my electorate—whilst they could do with another 20 or 30 per cent of pipeline capacity, especially the backhaul—what they are currently getting is something that they deem affordable. Government bureaucracies will never be able to perform with the pace that this technology requires. Ten years ago who would have thought we would be able to sit in this chamber with a small PDA in our hands and address all the information that bombards us every day as members of parliament, with the database that is in there so we remember the names of our constituents? Who would have thought, a decade ago, that that technology would be available in real time, with the member on the road in his car being able to communicate instantly with his constituents? That is the speed at which this technology is going to roll out, and governments just do not have the capacity to do that. We saw the problems that Telstra had as a government owned entity. The limitation of having to go and ask the government owner for permission to borrow $2 billion or $3 billion to achieve its ambitions just did not allow for the pace at which telecommunications companies have to operate to be competitive, to be at the leading edge and to be in front of their competitors. A government structured bureaucracy is just not able to respond at the speed that is necessary. So I believe that the whole thing is a formula for failure. I think it is a giant con that has been perpetrated on the Australian community. It is not going to happen. Whilst I am prepared to support this bill, provided there is a grandfather clause in it to allow the government the capacity to collect the information it needs, my professional technical background convinces me that the result is not going to be anywhere close to commercial viability. The tragedy of all this is that the potential to participate in a partnership plan has caused the telecommunications providers across the country to pause in the rollout of their own broadband infrastructure. They are waiting and wondering where this proposal of a national broadband network sponsored by the federal government might take them. The rollout of new technology, particularly infrastructure, is now stymied and has been halted. Then there is the question of how this money ultimately is going to be paid back. I can advise you, Mr Deputy Speaker, that the constituents across my electorate are extremely worried about the size of the nation’s debt and the way it is heading under the Labor government, which does not seem to be all that conscious about debt. It cannot wait to get its hand in the lolly jar. It does not understand that this money has to be paid back. I am constantly challenged in this chamber about the government’s stimulus package and chastised because I did not support the way it was implemented. What I am going to say to the schoolchildren at primary schools and secondary schools in my electorate is: ‘Money does not grow on trees.’ Yes, it is good that they are getting an investment in their school, a new library or classroom or whatever it is they are allowed to do—and I am reminded by many of the school council parents in my electorate that they are being told what they have to invest in and are even being bullied by the agencies that implement state government education policy. In fact, quite a few of the schools in my electorate have been told that they must merge primary and secondary education into what some states call a central school—in Victoria they are called P-12s—or they will not get any money. It is absolute bullying. But what I will say to the students is: ‘Money does not grow on trees. You need to understand that all this capital that is being invested has been borrowed and you, as young Australians, will have to pay it back and probably spend your entire working lives doing so.’ The same applies to the $43 billion that is associated with this bill we are talking about here. It has to be paid back. There will not be enough revenue in any income generated on a commercial basis, if the National Broadband Network is ever implemented. People will not pay more than $200 a month, even for 100 megabytes a second. I think the National Broadband Network, as a result, will be seen as a great furphy and will not actually happen. But I will be urging the government to support the coalition’s suggestion to insert a grandfather clause in this piece of legislation just in case, by some sheer miracle, it does come off. 9442 18:00:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I will be brief in offering my support for the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009. I represent a region that is excited about the government’s announcement on improving access and the speed of access and the time frame of eight years that the government has set itself to deliver that access and speed of access. I represent a region that is excited about the government’s announcement on delivering equity of information flows throughout regional Australia so that they match those of metropolitan areas and places such as Parliament House. I have previously mentioned in this place that, during the by-election campaign for the seat of Lyne more than 12 months ago, I visited a year 10 student from Camden Haven High School who was on dial-up internet not for technological reasons but for financial reasons. How on earth would that student be able to compete with students in and around this building, where the internet speed is significantly quicker and significantly more reliable? The issues in regional areas include not only speed but also dropouts, and that is incredibly frustrating for everyone involved. Unlike the previous speaker, the member for Forrest, several members have mentioned that this is probably the most important piece of legislation to go through this place in this session and potentially in the lifetimes of all of us in this place. I say that with the rider that I hope the government are sincere in their actions and, in particular, on the time frame they have mentioned for delivering the NBN rollout. There is, without doubt, a need in regional areas. So I certainly support the government’s decision of 27 April this year to deliver a National Broadband Network through public funding, and I urge them to stick to their commitment and stick to the time frame they have suggested. It will be life changing in regional areas such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales if this is delivered. In my view, it is long overdue infrastructure for the ex-urban generation. Right around the world we have seen the dilemma faced in public policy on the urbanisation of communities. I would hope that this will see de-urbanisation happen in Australia in a significant way, which is sensible policy for the landmass and for the lifestyles in regional areas, which are so attractive. In many areas, the missing link in regional areas for many people is infrastructure being provided by government. This National Broadband rollout will make a huge difference to life generally in regional areas, and in urban areas as well, as it will relieve the pressures faced by so many in those areas. So I urge the government to stick to their proposal in this legislation and also, importantly, to do so within the time frames mentioned. One concern I share with the previous speaker is the question of which 10 per cent of the population will miss out on the rollout and will be covered by satellite and wireless. I represent an area on the North Coast which contains many upper valleys and quite hilly country. Delivering information technology—or any infrastructure—into these areas is problematic. I worry that these areas will miss out on being part of the 90 per cent coverage of the NBN rollout. I would therefore take this opportunity to encourage government to drill down on the details of who, where and how, in terms of the 10 per cent who are going to be served by wireless and satellite internet. I think that will cover some of the areas on the North Coast and it should be front and centre of any considerations from government in the broader rollout. If that 10 per cent are left behind and not treated as seriously as the rest of the population then I think the policy will be the poorer because of it and the community of Australia will be the poorer because of it. So I certainly urge government to be active in engaging with the communities that are not going to be in the 90 per cent and will be picked up through wireless and satellite. They are an important part of this package and they deserve to be front and centre in any proposals moving forward. My understanding is that this legislation does not change too much—except that it gives the minister some extra powers to gather some extra information. It is hard to judge the merits or otherwise of this legislation until we see what the minister does with these new powers that he can expect to have. I hope he uses them wisely. In expanding the power to seek information, I hope the government is aware of concerns about the competition principles, which are potentially being challenged through these changes. My understanding is that if NBN Co. does not release the information that they are seeking from a whole range of new utilities then it will not be a problem. However, I certainly hope government keeps an eye on those competition principles, issues of freedom of information and other clashes that might come in accessing information from this public company, and the competitive neutrality issues that might arise from that in Australia today. I am also concerned about what the government might find out in the information search from the various traditionally state based companies and state based utilities. I would hope we are not seeing the start of a ‘blame the states’ exercise in any delays to this proposal. If the federal government finds that the state government or their semistatutories have not been lifting their weight in the last 10 or 20 years in keeping infrastructure up to speed with what we would all like in a modern Australia, I would hope there is some intent by this government to address those issues either through the states or through the semistatutories. I would hope this is not the start of any delays on the eight-year commitment in what I have already mentioned is the very important and life-changing rollout of the National Broadband Network. I was not here but I gather that when this government came to power it was an exercise of dropping the blame game of the states. I certainly hope that commitment sticks in this issue of finding out the utilities and the various states that are going to be part of this network rollout. I hope that we see this government address those issues, if they are missing, through the states or through the semistatutories. I hope the government addresses the issues and does not use them as an opportunity to drop the ball in any way in this rollout. I support the legislation. This is important in an area such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. It is not, I think, because of technological reasons. I think you can buy pretty well anything you want as far as information technology today. It is for economic reasons that regional areas in particular, such as the mid-North Coast, are left behind in an information technology sense. That is not right. Any policy in this place that brings the information-poor closer to the financial-poor is bad policy; they are bad principles. We should be trying to break any nexus between the two and either use knowledge to lift people financially or use money to lift people’s knowledge. But if we can break that nexus, we are doing good work. The NBN rollout is an opportunity to do that. I certainly support this change, with the considerations I have raised, and look forward to seeing some very active work from government over the next eight years to make sure this commitment is delivered in full to regions such as mine. 9444 18:10:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I want to thank all members who have contributed to the debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures—Network Information) Bill 2009. The information that can be collected under this bill will be critical for the timely and cost-effective rollout of the National Broadband Network. The government has made it clear that its preference is for relevant network information to be accessed on a cooperative and commercial basis in the first instance. The bill provides a safety net should information not be made available. The bill creates a head of power to seek information should it need to be used. The government notes the general support for the intent of this bill from participants in the Senate committee hearings, including from carriers such as Telstra and Optus and representative bodies such as the Energy Networks Association and the Water Services Association. The government is pleased that the second reading amendment moved by the member for Dunkley does not decline to give the bill a second reading. The government does not, however, support the qualifications that it has proposed, namely: … the House is of the opinion that: (1) … the Government should … limit the application of this Bill to the implementation study only; and (2) … the Government should be condemned for … refusing to conduct any cost benefit analysis of its NBN proposal … Requiring the government to come back to parliament before information can be provided to NBN Co. Ltd is unnecessary and could delay the rollout of the network should access to that information be required. We know that those opposite delayed action on broadband for the 12 long years that they were in government. That is one thing. It is another thing for them to seek to delay the government’s decisive action when it comes to the National Broadband Network. Importantly, the bill does not empower the NBN Co. to directly compel the provision of information. The NBN Co. must work through the Commonwealth if it needs to seek information under part 27A. The government does not accept the member for Dunkley’s claim that the government should be condemned for refusing to conduct a cost-benefit analysis. The government recognises that we need to invest in high-speed broadband infrastructure now for the benefit of the Australian economy in the short and long term. That is why it was recognised by Infrastructure Australia. It was also a key election commitment. We believe that all Australians no matter where they live or work deserve to have access to high-speed broadband. We believe this will only become more critical over time for businesses, consumers, hospitals and schools across Australia. The Liberals and Nationals had 12 years to implement a broadband policy. Instead, they delivered 18 failed plans, setting the country back a decade. Today the best they can come up with is another study to determine the benefit of the NBN. It is time that the opposition let us get on with the job of rolling out broadband services rather than try to further delay the development of necessary infrastructure. The government has been considering carefully the concerns raised by the opposition. At this stage the government considers the bill has the necessary elements and protections and works well in its current form. The bill already expands the existing time frame for consultation on a draft instrument from three to five business days. On the subject of an immunity provision, the government recognises information may have limitations; however, an immunity may remove an incentive for parties to provide high-quality information, Moreover, information providers will be able to note any limitations or qualifications of the information that they provide. In response to suggestions by the member for Dunkley that the bill fails to include a cost-recovery mechanism, the government reiterates that its preference is for information to be sought on a cooperative or commercial basis and that payment could be discussed with carriers and utilities during that phase. These are some of the reasons that the government considers the bill works well in its current form. However, the government is open to finetuning this bill where it can be demonstrated that it would genuinely improve the bill. Amendments that add value could be considered when the bill is debated in the Senate. The National Broadband Network represents 21st century nation building. It will transform the Australian economy as the rail and electricity networks transformed Australia in past centuries. This bill is a critical step in the implementation of the National Broadband Network. I call on all members to support the building of the National Broadband Network and to support this important legislation. 10000 Andrews, Kevin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. KJ Andrews)—The original question was that this bill be now read a second time. To this the honourable member for Dunkley has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The immediate question is that the words proposed to be omitted stand part of the question. Question put. 18:20:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. KJ Andrews) 79 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 55 Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Costello, P.H. Coulton, M. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Nelson, B.J. Pearce, C.J. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 3 Ellis, A.L. Hawker, D.P.M. Ferguson, M.J. Bailey, F.E. Griffin, A.P. Pyne, C. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Original question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 9446 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 18:24:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 9446 Business 9446 Mr SHORTEN (Maribyrnong —Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction) 18:25:00 —I move: That orders of the day Nos 2 and 3, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 9446 Bills S727 Consideration resumed from 10 September. 9446 9446 18:25:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 (the bill) is to reinstate the military justice machinery which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court. The bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 to reinstate the provisions in each act which existed prior to the introduction of the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which established the Australian Military Court. The military justice scheme which existed prior to 1 October 2007 is being reinstated as an interim measure following the High Court decision in Lane v Morrison, which held the Australian Military Court to be invalid. The case involved a challenge to the constitutional validity of the Australian Military Court and the Director of Military Prosecutions. On 26 August 2009, the High Court unanimously found that the provisions of the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 establishing the Australian Military Court were invalid because the Australian Military Court was purporting to exercise the judicial power of the Commonwealth but did not meet the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. The Australian Military Court was established in October 2007 by the former government, following a series of Senate committee reports recommending extensive changes to the system of military justice. Under the Australian Military Court, military judges presided over cases and operated outside the chain of command. However, the Australian Military Court stopped short of meeting chapter III requirements such as those governing the appointment and tenure of judges. The Senate committee recommended a chapter III court with oversight by the Attorney-General and greater independence from the military. The legislation establishing the Australian Military Court fell short of these recommendations. As an interim measure, defence is intending to broadly re-establish the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court by reinstating the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 prior to the amendments in 2006. This will re-establish trials by courts martial and Defence Force magistrates; reinstate the statutory position of Chief Judge Advocate, the judge advocates’ panel and the Registrar of Military Justice; reinstate the system of reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates; and reinstate the powers of reviewing authorities. The consequential amendments made in 2006 to the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 which make reference to the Australian Military Court will also be reversed. Furthermore, the bill will provide transitional provisions for all matters that have been referred on appeal to the Australian Military Court but were not concluded prior to 26 August 2009. The provisions will also address the Australian Military Court office holders, including, among other things, provisions for their automatic transition to the relevant positions of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the judge advocates’ panel and Registrar of Military Justice. The government maintains its strong commitment to a military justice system that is impartial, a system that meets community expectations for transparency and independence, and one that at all times treats Australian Defence Force members fairly. In the interim, it is critical and urgent that the Australian Defence Force has a functioning military discipline system, particularly when it is engaged in operations overseas. After consideration of options, the government will move to establish a chapter III court as soon as possible. The temporary reinstatement of the military justice system which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court will not only address the hiatus in the disposition of higher level military discipline; it will also allow time for the establishment of a military court which meets the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution including the introduction of appropriate legislation for this purpose. I commend the bill and the explanatory memorandum to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Baldwin) adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. 9448 Bills S728 Consideration resumed from 10 September. 9448 9448 18:31:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. On 26 August 2009, the High Court declared that the Australian Military Court, which had been established under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, was invalid. This decision had significant consequences for the administration of discipline in the Australian Defence Force. The main object of this bill is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force in light of the High Court’s decision. The principal mechanism by which the bill seeks to maintain the continuity of discipline within the ADF is by imposing disciplinary sanctions on persons corresponding to punishments imposed by the Australian Military Court and, to the extent necessary, summary authorities in the period between the AMC’s establishment and the declaration of invalidity by the High Court. The bill does not purport to validate any convictions or punishments imposed by the Australian Military Court. Nor does the bill purport to convict any person of any offence. Rather, the bill, by its own force, purports to impose disciplinary sanctions. The bill does not purport to impose any liability in relation to imprisonment. Further, consistently with the exclusively disciplinary purpose of its provisions, the bill is expressed to have effect for service purposes only. The bill recognises that there may be circumstances in which a person affected by a disciplinary liability imposed by the bill wishes to contest whether that liability should remain imposed. The bill gives affected persons a right to seek review of whether they should remain liable under the act, and the reviewing authority is given power to discharge persons from such liability. In cases where the disciplinary liability imposed by the bill relates to detention—a serious disciplinary measure peculiar to the ADF—the bill requires automatic review by the reviewing authority to determine whether that disciplinary liability should be discharged. I commend the bill and the explanatory memorandum to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Baldwin) adjourned. Leave granted for second reading debate to resume at a later hour this day. 9449 Bills S727 Cognate bill: 9449 Bills S728 9449 Debate resumed. 9449 18:34:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise today to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. By way of introduction, I would like to echo the words of my Senate colleagues and say that the situation that the ADF now finds itself in was inevitable, and it is regrettable that we must hastily employ bandaid type legislation to overcome the immediate requirement for an interim military justice system. The reason for this situation is that the provisions of one of the acts which established the Australian Military Court, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, were recently found by the High Court to be invalid. As I previously said, this decision was inevitable, and that is because the Australian Military Court was claiming to exercise a judicial power of the Commonwealth that did not meet the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. For example, under chapter III, judges are required to be given tenure until retirement and, additionally, are required to be appointed by the Governor-General in Council. Neither of these conditions were met by the Australian Military Court. There is now some debate about why the decision was made to ignore the advice of the parliament and proceed with the establishment of the Australian Military Court without regard to chapter III considerations. For the record, Defence was advised that the hybrid form of court they sought to establish would be problematic, as you cannot have or exercise judicial power other than pursuant to chapter III of the Australian Constitution. However, while I agree that the circumstances under which the Australian Military Court was founded are less than ideal, I will not enter into a debate on those circumstances. I believe it is suffice to say that there is little value in concentrating on the past policy formation deficiencies in this instance. Instead, what is needed now is the concerted effort of the Minister for Defence in resolving this crisis of military justice reform. The issues confronting the defence minister are daunting and the complexities of this constitutional legal matter should not be understated. In this circumstance, expediency is not the key priority. The priority must be to ensure that the Australian Defence Force has a military justice system that is constitutional. What is more, the coalition believes firmly in the development of a military justice system that is impartial, independent and transparent and meets community expectations regarding the application of legal principles. Importantly, the new military justice architecture must also ensure that Australian Defence Force members are treated fairly and equitably. I am sure that all would agree that we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 is to reinstate the military justice system that existed prior to the establishment of the Australian Military Court. This bill will amend the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges’ Pensions Act 1968 to reinstate the provisions in each act which existed prior to the introduction of the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which established the Australian Military Court. Furthermore, the bill will include transitional arrangements that will, for example, provide provisions for all matters that have been referred on appeal to the Australian Military Court but were not concluded prior to 26 August 2009. This bill will also address the status of the Australian Military Court office holders and will, for example, include provisions for their automatic transition to the relevant positions of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the judge advocates panel and Registrar of Military Justice. Broadly speaking, this bill will, by temporarily reinstating the old military justice system, provide time for the establishment of a military court that meets the requirements of chapter III of the Australian Constitution. On the matter of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, I would now like to make some brief comments. Firstly, the intended purpose of this bill is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. Furthermore, it will validate all previous decisions that were made by the Australian Military Court prior to the recent High Court decision. I note, however, that there may be certain issues arising from this interim legislation, and that is to be expected. As my colleagues in the Senate have previously pointed out, this legislation is an interim measure that was developed in a relatively short period of time in order to ensure the continuity of ADF legal and discipline processes. It is accepted that this legislation is not perfect. It is, however, the best that can be done to ensure a workable transitional arrangement. However, this bill does contain certain safeguards. For example, the bill gives affected persons the right to have their cases reviewed in the instances where they were found to be liable under the Australian Military Court. Furthermore, all cases whereby the individual was deemed liable and was disciplined by an act of detention will be automatically reviewed. Lastly, if a person was found not to be liable under the subsequent review, this bill provides the reviewing authority with the powers to discharge that liability. The coalition will urge the government to move expeditiously in bringing forward legislation that will establish a chapter III court. Needless to say, the coalition is also committed to supporting the government in resolving the current impasse in an expedient manner while ensuring that the new system adheres to chapter III requirements. I would like to take this opportunity to recognise the work undertaken by Senators Johnston and Brandis on behalf of the coalition regarding this issue. This is an inherently complex legal issue and has presented the defence minister with an unenviable task. Yet it is an important task that will benefit from considered thought. I would therefore like to say that the support offered to the Minister for Defence by Senators Johnston and Brandis is exceedingly generous and that their combined legal intellect will naturally help in the construction of legislation that will rebuild the shattered military justice system. The situation the ADF now finds itself in is regrettable. However, I believe that an opportunity now exists to develop an appropriate and constitutionally endorsed military legal system. That is why the coalition will work with the government in ensuring that the men and women of our Australian defence forces will have an impartial, transparent and independent military legal system. We commend the amendments to the House. 9450 18:42:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise in support of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which, as the House has heard from the second reading speech, are a response to the decision of the High Court in Lane v Morrison, handed down on 26 August 2009. In that decision the High Court declared the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court in the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to be invalid. As we have heard from previous speakers, those provisions, which established the Australian Military Court, came into existence through legislation passed by the former government in 2006—namely, the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006. It was legislation which was criticised by Labor in opposition. Labor, indeed, drew attention to the very problem which has been identified by the High Court in Lane v Morrison and which has led to this legislation being struck down. As the House has heard, this is legislation to, as a stopgap, reintroduce the former system of trials by court-martial and Defence Force magistrates. It is a system which, I think it is fair to say—because it was in existence for many years before the amendments to the scheme came in in 2006—is well understood, but it does not, of course, represent reform in any sense because it is a return to the system which applied prior to October 2007. As a consequence, it is a system of which we can say that it has known historical support, that it has known constitutional support and that it is familiar to very many—perhaps I should not say all—ADF personnel. Certainly those who were members of the ADF before October 2007 would be familiar with this system. It is necessary to legislate in this way because it is critical that the ADF have a functioning military discipline system, particularly when the forces are engaged, as currently, in operations overseas. The government has acted with extraordinary promptness, as was called for in the decision made by the High Court and handed down on 26 August 2009. But it is a system, as I have indicated, that does not amount to reform; it amounts to a return to the system that was in place. The trials by court martial and the Defence Force Magistrate were guided and reviewed by senior counsel under the former system, and under the system as will exist, it is hoped, on a temporary basis were guided to ensure that they were conducted in accordance with law and that any convictions and punishments were appropriate in the circumstances. Under the former system, the one that is to be reinstated, if ADF members remained dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of their trial, they had additional rights to petition their service chief and to appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and the Federal Court on questions of law. The regret is that a great deal of work that occurred in 2005 and in earlier years directed at reform of the military justice system and at the often cogent criticisms that had been expressed about the military justice system will now have to commence again. And the regret is that the period of nearly three years since the amendments were brought in 2006 is a period that has effectively gone to waste. It is also a regret that the problems that have led to the legislation being struck down by the High Court are problems that were directly identified both in a Senate committee report in 2005 and by opposition members in this parliament at the time that the legislation was presented. The House should not be in any doubt about the clarity of the High Court’s reasons for striking down the legislative scheme. One need go no further than the joint judgment of Chief Justice French, writing with Justice Gummow, in the decision handed down on 26 August, Lane v Morrison, where Their Honours outlined reasons for their conclusion that the legislation was invalid in these terms: … The judicial power identified in Ch III is that of a body politic, namely the Commonwealth, which is distinct from that of the States and, given the presence of s 74, that of the United Kingdom. The powers of the Parliament to create courts are found only in ss 71, 72 and 122 of the Constitution. The creation of the AMC is not supported by s 122 as a law with respect to the government of any territory. Nor is the AMC comprised of Justices who are appointed by the Governor-General in Council and with the tenure provided by s 72 of the Constitution. Further, however, the jurisdiction conferred upon the AMC by s 115 of the Act, to try charges of service offences, involves the exercise of the judicial power of the Commonwealth otherwise than in accordance with Ch III of the Constitution. Legislation conferring that jurisdiction is consistent with the Constitution only if the changes introduced by the 2006 Act, including the establishment of the AMC, are supported by s 51(vi) of the Constitution. Their Honours go on to explain at length, as does the other joint judgment in the decision, why that was not the case. As I have said, this outcome, with the uncertainty that it has created for the Australian military justice system, is an outcome which could have been avoided had the words of caution expressed by opposition Labor members in this place at the time been heeded. It is worth noting, for example, what was said on this subject—which has now been raised to such devastating effect in the High Court’s decision—by the member for Barton in his then capacity as shadow Attorney-General during debate on the legislation that has now been declared invalid, the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill 2006. The member for Barton said: In legal terms there has long been a debate about the authority of military tribunals. They have been challenged in the High Court for their lack of jurisdictional independence and impartiality. The view expressed by the Judge Advocate General is that the closer such a tribunal can be aligned to the arrangements for a court established under chapter III of the Constitution the less likely that a court or tribunal will be subject to challenge. The statement is significant, as we know that there are currently new applications challenging the authority of the current system in the High Court. The pity is that, if the government had accepted the committee’s recommendations— and the member for Barton was there referring to the 2005 Senate committee report— for a military court akin to those established under chapter III of the Constitution, this doubt would have been avoided. The member for Barton went on to explain how other warnings that had been given both by the Judge Advocate General and by the Law Council of Australia in this regard had been dismissed by the government. That is why it is a matter of some curiosity to see the present shadow Attorney-General, Senator Brandis, seeking to avoid the conclusion which everyone should draw, which is that the then government was in error in pushing through the legislation which it did, against the recommendations of very many commentators—against the recommendations of the Law Council, against the recommendations of the Senate committee—and why it is right for members of this House to perhaps look with curiosity at the comments that were reported to have been made by Senator Brandis to the effect that the opposition now ‘backs any plan’, as he put it, to make any new military disciplinary body part of the Federal Court system. While he reportedly says that a 2005 report by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee had ‘proposed such a course and had warned of the issues of not setting up the Australian Military Court as a chapter III court’, Senator Brandis is now reported to have said: But the views of Defence that there wasn’t a problem prevailed and we can now see that the Senate was right and the Defence Department was wrong. Those comments are something of a curiosity, because what is left out of that account of the legislative process, which seems to have included only the defence department and a Senate committee, is the role of something called the government. The former government made a decision to legislate in this way, ignoring advice from very many respected sources, ignoring the conclusions that had been reached about the need for close attention to the provisions of chapter III of the Australian Constitution, and it has resulted in the uncertainty which now has to be attended to by this remedial legislation. It is something which could have been avoided and should have been avoided, but it is now left to this government to step in, as we are doing, to introduce what is anticipated to be temporary legislation designed to ensure continuity of a system of military justice, which is of course very important. I commend the legislation to the House. 10000 Adams, Dick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DGH Adams)—I call the honourable member for Herbert. 9453 18:54:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —Thanks, Mr Deputy Speaker. You forgot to add ‘honorary Tasmanian’. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly interjecting— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —At least I am not a Victorian, Parliamentary Secretary! Tonight, in discussing the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the related bill, it is fitting that we have Wing Commander Tracey Timms and Squadron Leader Murray Johnson with us in the parliament. They are both taking part in the ADF attachment to parliament, overseen by the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support, who is at the table. It is a very good process and long may it continue. We all enjoy and learn a lot from it. It was particularly interesting for Squadron Leader Johnson, who is attached to my office, to see how the parliament reacts to this kind of issue, to see what we are doing to make sure that the interests of the Australian Defence Force and the men and women of the ADF are protected, and it is good to see that this process is happening. When the High Court struck down the Australian Military Court, it presented a very significant problem for military justice, for this parliament, for the ADF and for the wider community. But knowing the importance of making sure that this issue is addressed, the opposition is committed to working with the government to ensure that a permanent solution is found—for now and the future—and quickly. The first solution was to provide what is really a temporary answer to the problem, and that is what these bills are about. These bills rectify the problem that Defence has, that the government has and that the ADF has in the short term. I want to sincerely thank the Minister for Defence for his prompt response in getting this legislation to the parliament, first to the Senate and then the House of Representatives, and in reacting to what was not an entirely unexpected decision of the High Court. I would like to discuss for a minute some of the history of the Australian Military Court. It was judged that military justice in Australia was certainly in need of reform after a long period, and over the last decade there have been a number of inquiries and committees investigating the serious issues in military justice. I particularly refer to the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee, which embarked on an inquiry into wide reform, culminating in a number of recommendations published in their 2005 report. One of these recommendations called for the court to be established in accordance with chapter III of the Commonwealth Constitution to ensure its independence and impartiality. As part of this, the report proposed judges be appointed by the Governor-General in Council and be appointed with tenure until reaching retirement age. As the previous speaker indicated, there were certainly some concerns about the form of that court, and it is now history that the form adopted by the former government did not in fact withstand the scrutiny of the law. Part of the problem was that the former government took the advice of Defence. I am not being critical of Defence—I am just stating the facts. Defence wanted this particular arrangement and Defence got this particular arrangement, but it was not an appropriate arrangement at law. Perhaps in hindsight the former government should have accepted wider advice, but that was not to be the case and now we have a situation where we have to address this problem, and address this problem the parliament will. The court was then created under the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, and the legislation was supported—this is interesting—by both the coalition government and the then Labor opposition. On 29 August 2009, the High Court found that the provisions of this act which established the Australian Military Court were invalid. In a unanimous judgment in Lane v Morrison it was held that the Australian Military Court had been attempting to exercise a judicial power of the Commonwealth but it did not meet the criteria under chapter III. Of course, the significance of that statement is that Morrison is a Defence Force member—from which city, Parliamentary Secretary Kelly? It would have to be Townsville, wouldn’t it? All of the senior leadership of the ADF, particularly in Army, have been through Townsville, and that is why Townsville will be the premier garrison city of this nation. I hope that the Commander of 1st Brigade is listening to this debate. The legislation before the House today will reinstate the previous system of military justice used in Australia as a temporary measure. It reflects the Defence Force discipline legislation prior to the creation of the AMC. It will re-establish trials by court martial and Defence Force magistrates and reinstate the powers of reviewing authorities. The purpose of the second bill is to maintain the stability of discipline and its implementation in the Defence Force. The current members of the Australian Military Court will be transferred to the positions reinstated by this bill, including the Chief Judge Advocate, the Judge Advocate’s Panel and the Registrar of Military Justice. The bill also includes provisions to deal with matters which had been referred to, but not finalised, by the Australian Military Court as of 29 August 2009. It is something of a housekeeping bill but it certainly clarifies what the position will be when these bills pass the parliament. While offering the government the full support of the opposition in passing these measures, I note that there are some concerns, particularly with regard to resolution. I have congratulated the Minister for Defence on the prompt presentation of the interim measures legislation to parliament, but the decision in Lane v Morrison was not unexpected. Perhaps it might have been prudent for those who advise the government to have worked out what the long-term solution would be rather than just the interim solution, and it would have been better to have been debating tonight a permanent solution in the best interests of the Australian Defence Force and the wider community rather than a temporary solution. However, we have the temporary solution before the parliament and, hopefully, we will get it through this evening and that will clarify the issue. It is imperative for the commanders in the ADF that the discipline system of the ADF not be disrupted. The interim measures bills revert to the old tribunal system. It is important that consistency in military justice be maintained; however, it is equally vital that a permanent solution be found, and I call on the government to again act promptly in presenting legislation which will establish a permanent chapter III court. The government and the opposition will work together to pass the interim measures before the parliament, and the next question becomes what long-term solution can be found when these measures expire. My colleague in the Senate Senator George Brandis SC has highlighted the folly of the government’s decision in May this year to abolish the Federal Magistrates Court. This was opposed by the opposition. The Federal Magistrates Court has summary jurisdiction which includes dealing with military justice. Senator Brandis has called on the government to create a military division within the Federal Court and of the Federal Magistrates Court. This would seem to be an entirely and eminently sensible way forward. Those of us who deal with the Federal Magistrates Court, with its principal role often in Family Court matters, will know what a success the court has been; that is why we oppose the abolition of the FMC. But it has wider powers. There is the opportunity to establish a military division within the FMC, and it is a pity that this option may in fact now not be possible. It is contrary to common sense to abolish a Federal Court with the summary jurisdiction to deal with matters such as military justice. The government have yet to formally act on their announcement to abolish the FMC, and, in light of recent developments, I strongly urge the government to reconsider their plans as a solution to this particular problem. All of us want the neatest and simplest solution, and this is a way that, together, we could work urgently towards a permanent military justice system in Australia. The coalition is committed to an impartial, fair and strong military justice system for the Australian Defence Force and the wider community. It is important this system meets appropriate standards of fairness, transparency and independence. I finish my contribution by again committing that the opposition will work with the government and the ADF together in partnership to get the best result for the problem which faces the ADF at this time. 9455 19:05:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I speak in support of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. Bill No. 1 reinstates the military justice machinery and it does so by amending a number of acts. As we know, this has been necessitated by the High Court’s decision on 26 August this year in Lane v Morrison, where it declared invalid the provisions that established the Australian Military Court. I commend the Minister for Defence in acting so swiftly to bring this legislation before the parliament. My colleague the honourable member for Isaacs has covered the constitutional reasons. Everybody keeps referring to them as complex constitutional reasons—maybe, but chapter III is pretty straightforward as are certain provisions, and there has been a long lead time with this legislation during which legal advice has been given in many areas, including with my parliamentary colleague the honourable member for Barton, now the Attorney-General. So what the outcome of some of that might be was clear. However, I will leave that, recognising there are always some complexities around High Court decisions and constitutionality. The AMC did have a long period of operation and did commence under the previous government. Yes, there can be a debate about who said what and who gave advice—it is now a matter of public record—but the issue itself has bipartisan support of all members. We do need a modern and coherent military justice system. That was the basis of the Australian Military Court. I will make a brief comment on bill No. 2 and then a few remarks that cover both. The Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 is necessitated by the invalidity, but the objective of bill No. 2 is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. The way in which this will be done is by instituting disciplinary sanctions on the persons who had punishments imposed by the AMC. It will also cover, where necessary, summary authorities in the period between when the AMC was established and the High Court’s declaration of invalidity. This is absolutely essential. In the Senate the Minister for Defence in his closing remarks in the second reading debate said: This bill does not purport to validate any convictions or punishments imposed by the AMC, nor does the bill purport to convict any person of any offence. The Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support said the same thing just a little while ago in this House. It is an important distinction that needs to be made and understood when we are introducing these bills. The other important provision with this is that if an ADF member remained dissatisfied with the conduct and outcome of their trial then they had the additional right to petition their service chief, to appeal to the Defence Force Discipline Appeal Tribunal and other rights. I understand that what flows from this legislation is the ability to have those appeal rights in place but with the punishment still standing. There is another issue that the Minister for Defence has addressed. The minister made it clear that the current action of the government is working to establish a military justice system, a military court, that will be in conformity with chapter III of the Constitution. I understand that that work is in place now. Hopefully there will not be a big time lag, but it is absolutely necessary to do what is being done by the government decisively so as to cover that period and so that there will be a system set up. It is important to have a system that we know and understand, and one that all the ADF members understand. So it is important that we are instituting something that is known to all parties. But it is critical to move forward and to have a system that will sit at the pinnacle of the military justice system, if you like. Even though it will deal only with a small number of cases, as the Australian Military Court did, it will be informing and benchmarking the entire system. That is where its primary role will be: in changing the nature of military justice. I have a few concluding remarks. To re-establish an effective military justice system, the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 will be reinstated. This covers courts martial and Defence Force magistrates; the position of Chief Judge Advocate, the judge advocate’s panel and the Registrar of Military Justice; reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials held by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates; and reviewing authorities. The previous amendments to the said act, directed to improve the summary authority system, will be retained. My advice is that the class of offence system, which determined how an offence would be dealt with by the AMC, was not specifically struck down by the High Court. But this system will be replaced by the bill. So there will be that continuity and a coherent approach to it. With those remarks, I commend the bills to the House. 9456 19:12:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —As a former Army officer I am pleased to be able to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009. These bills came about as a result of a decision by the High Court of Australia on 26 August 2009 whereby the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court were ruled invalid. The court found that the Australian Military Court was exercising the judicial powers of the Commonwealth without meeting the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. These bills will re-establish the pre-2007 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 arrangements, until such time as legislation for the court can be reintroduced and passed. Specifically, the purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 is to reinstate the military justice machinery which was in existence prior to the establishment of the Australian Military Court. The bill amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges Pensions Act 1968 to restore the provisions in each act which existed prior to the introduction of the Defence Legislation Amendment Act 2006, which established the Australian Military Court. Under the Australian Military Court, military judges had presided over cases and operated outside the chain of command. The legislation which established the Australian Military Court has fallen short of these recommendations. As an interim measure, Defence is planning to reintroduce the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court by reinstating the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as it was prior to the amendments in 2006. This will re-establish trials by courts martial and Defence Force magistrates; reinstate the statutory position of Chief Judge Advocate, the judge advocate’s panel and the Registrar of Military Justice; reinstate the system of reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates; and reinstate the powers of reviewing authorities. The consequential amendments made in 2006 to the Defence Force Discipline Appeals Act 1955, the Defence Act 1903, the Migration Act 1958 and the Judges Pensions Act 1968 which make reference to the Australian Military Court will also be reversed. The purpose of the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. It also states that the provisions of the schedule that declare people to have particular rights or liabilities have effect for Defence Force service purposes only. The bill also provides that if a provision has an invalid application because it exceeds the Commonwealth’s power, but it has at least one valid application, the provision will not have an invalid application; rather, it will reflect the parliament’s intention that the provisions in this schedule are to have every valid application. The bill also ensures that third parties that have acted on the basis of a punishment intended to have been imposed or an order intended to have been made by the AMC are entitled, and always were entitled, to act on that basis and declares the rights and liabilities of a person to be, and always to have been, as if certain specified matters had been the case. Over my 15 years in the Army I had some contact with the system of military justice. It was all professional; I was not on the receiving end of any of that justice, apart from my training at Duntroon! I always had a sense of confidence in the system, but only if it was applied as it should have been. I would certainly agree that the system held out the opportunity too often for matters to be dealt with internally. As a member of the Army’s Special Investigation Branch for two years I felt that, where serious and important matters could have been investigated by the SIB, the option of dealing with matters internally was too often taken up by unit commanders. The SIB had to be called by unit commanders and could not initiate investigations themselves. I believe that for matters such as assaults that were ‘dealt with’ internally justice could not have been either served or seen to be served. When we look back on that period in the early 1990s, it is not surprising that those sorts of arrangements created an environment where justice failed the soldiers. Justice, of course, is important for morale. Within months of graduating from RMC Duntroon, I saw a commissioned officer assault a steward in the officers’ mess. I gave evidence at a commanding officer’s hearing that I had seen the common assault take place. Yes, the officer was found guilty of a basic common assault but with no punishment and no conviction recorded. This is not the way to strengthen morale, when commissioned officers are not subject to the same standards and sanctions as apply to the enlisted personnel. I have no doubt that there has been the need for a number of inquiries into the way military justice has been handled, and I have more examples from the time of my direct involvement in military investigations and justice between 1989 and 1994. I think that much of the problem was related to unit commanders of units and independent subunits, as they were very keen to demonstrate that everything was good in their unit, even when it was not. I reiterate that my perspective in these matters was that if unit commanders and their formation commanders used the system and the DFDA as they should have the system could have worked and justice could have been dispensed. The reality, as shown by many inquiries, is that the DFDA was applied as an option by some and, when it was used, sometimes the options for sanctions were inappropriately used. That was my experience. I would also say that the responsibility for these breakdowns and these decisions often rested with commissioned officers. In reading into the detail of these bills and the matters surrounding the requirement for these bills, it would seem that in 2007 the problems I have outlined remained. I believe that the defence department strongly advocated for the flawed structure that the High Court struck down in the case of Lane v Morrison. It is my understanding that, acting on the advice of the defence department, the 2007 legislation was agreed to by the minister. It seems that the trouble with defence is that the chain of command has been used to provide protection for some at the cost of providing justice and protection for the weak. Clearly the administration of justice must be outside the chain of command and demonstrate visibility and accountability. That has not always been achieved and it is now up to this parliament to get the military justice system back to where it can operate and then as soon as possible establish an independent military court. There are those who think that there should be no military court and that the police should investigate all incidents. I would tell them that it cannot be like that. The operational and security aspects of the three services necessitate the need for an investigative capacity with independence from local formations and a court system beyond the influence of commanders so that on operations and other military-specific circumstances justice can be carried out. I look forward to supporting these bills in their passage through the House and I look forward to the introduction of fresh legislation that will support the establishment and operation of the Australian Military Court. I look forward to the establishment of a military court which stands effectively outside the chain of command. I would conclude by saying that it is not and never has been in the best interests of the Defence Force and its personnel to have senior officers deciding when, how and to what extent the military justice system is to be applied. This is particularly true when the extent of that application has been motivated by an intention to protect personal or unit reputations. I would state that, while I make those comments, the majority of commissioned officers are dedicated and honourable men and women, who always do what they think is the right thing. I look forward to the passing of these bills and a future with a better military justice system. 9459 19:20:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 0 Mr BEVIS —These bills—the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009—are important. We are all aware of the circumstances of the court case that led to the requirement for these matters to be dealt with by this parliament, but it does also provide an opportunity for this parliament to look more broadly at some of the issues of military justice that have been drawn to the attention of the parliament over many years. I do not wish to go over the recent court case or, indeed, the detail of the provisions of the bills per se. I would rather deal with the issue of military justice more generally. I do that as a member of this parliament who has spent most of the last 20 years as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade and in various roles, both in government and in opposition, in executive positions and as a shadow minister in the defence portfolio. We are fortunate in this country to have the calibre of people in the Defence Force that we do. Whatever else is said in this debate, I think the first thing that needs to be acknowledged is that the men and women of the Australian Defence Force, those in uniform and those not in uniform—but, in respect of this matter, particularly those in uniform—undertake their very difficult tasks with a sense of duty and commitment that does this nation proud. On every occasion in which they have been required to undertake their difficult job, we have always been able to be confident that they would do it well. Indeed, this House has on many occasions proudly expressed its appreciation for what they do. I say that not as a jingoistic, patriotic thing to say; I say it as someone who has spent most of the last two decades closely engaged from a policy and parliamentary oversight perspective in the affairs of national defence. But it would be wrong of us as members of this parliament, particularly those of us who feel a special affinity and affection for the defence forces, not to recognise also that when it comes to military justice the performance has been less than acceptable on too many occasions. This parliament has itself established inquiries not once, not twice but a number of times. I actually have not been able to count them all up prior to coming into this chamber, but there have been many inquiries conducted by different committees of this parliament, and indeed inquiries initiated by the government conducted at arm’s length from both the department and the Defence Force, into some of the problems of military justice. I think the most recent and comprehensive of those parliamentary inquiries was conducted by the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee in 2005. In many respects it was that committee’s report that led to the changes in the military justice system that were the subject of an appeal and have been found wanting by the court. That does not mean that the problems identified by that Senate inquiry do not exist. I refer to a couple of paragraphs from that Senate report: Despite several attempts to reform the military justice system, Australian defence personnel continue to operate under a system that, for too many, is seemingly incapable of effectively addressing its own weaknesses. This inquiry has received evidence detailing flawed investigations, prosecutions, tribunal structures and administrative procedures. A decade of rolling inquiries has not met with the broad-based change required to protect the rights of service personnel. The committee considers that major change is required to ensure independence and impartiality in the military justice system and believes that it is time to consider another approach to military justice. In fact, the committee recommended quite a radical departure. The committee recommended that all criminal activity should be referred to civilian authorities. In the end, the government of the day did not accept that recommendation. An alternative course was followed and the courts have now decided that parts of that alternative course fail the constitutional requirements. Nonetheless, the problems that this committee referred to should not be assumed to have been dealt with in the brief couple of years since this report was presented. The committee referred to 10 different reports into these matters and elsewhere they identified some of them. I want to refer to some of them here: the 2002-03 Western Australian coroner’s investigation of the HMAS Westralia fire; the 2001 Burchett QC inquiry into military justice in the ADF; and the 2001 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry called Rough Justice—and, if my memory serves me correctly, the current Chief Government Whip, the member for Chifley, Roger Price, was a major participant in that investigation into allegations of brutality in the Army’s Parachute Battalion; I can remember some of those details because I was the shadow minister at the time and the events do not make for happy reading; the 1999 Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into military justice procedures; the 1998 Commonwealth Ombudsman’s own motion investigation into how the ADF responds to allegations of serious incidents and offences; and the 1997 Adderby study into the judicial system under the Defence Force Disciplinary Act. They are only some of the inquiries, and in addition to the matters that were looked at in those inquiries and the events that led to them being established I am aware of a number of other serious cases in which my view is that proper justice was not made available to aggrieved members of the ADF. Some of them would have been cited in some of these reports; others were not. What has concerned me so often over the years is the number of cases there have been on board ships. Going back to the late 1980s, I can remember just before I came in here there were concerns about the way women were being treated on some of the Navy vessels. It is not that long ago that there was a major concern in this building and in the Australian public about the treatment of submariners crossing the equator. There were concerns about the way in which students at ADFA were being treated and, indeed, there have been a number of cases over a period of years where that has been so. Over these years, in government and in opposition, I have had the opportunity to talk with the appropriate senior officers in the ADF, all of whom are totally committed to ensuring proper practice and, where proper practice is not adopted, to ensuring that justice is done. Yet, in spite of what I believe to be their firm and clear commitment to that, you can see here a repeat of problems on a regular basis. I have to say that leads me to think that it is not just the odd commander or the odd individual in the system. When you have these sorts of events occurring across services, over time, in different locations and in different units, you have to conclude that there is a systemic problem here. In spite of all the best efforts of those involved in dealing with this matter, it is hard for me to escape the conclusion that there is not a systemic problem. When this Senate committee delivered its report in 2005 I actually thought that was, in many ways, a breath of fresh air—difficult but necessary. In any large organisation, but particularly one that functions as the ADF does where there is of necessity a strong espirit de corps, a belief in one another and a willingness to work with others and, indeed, die with others who are beside you, it is not surprising that often when events that are difficult arise—embarrassing, hard to confront—there is a tendency perhaps to sweep them under the carpet. That is not through any sense of evil but, in many cases, through a desire to protect the good name of the organisation because, let us be frank, these people are willing to lay down their lives for it. I can understand that, but I do not think in the long run it does any of them any good. In that Senate report, the committee refer to some of the evidence they took. Again, I just want to refer briefly to part of what they said. The committee noted: What is striking about the submissions to this inquiry is the variety of background and experience in their demographic. The complainants range from a 15 year old female cadet to a 50 year old male two-star general equivalent and include every single rank level in between those two extremes. That is pretty comprehensive—from a 15-year-old female cadet to a two-star general and every rank in between. The report went on: They include serving and ex-serving personnel, general service and specialist officers and other ranks, legal officers and health professionals, police and convicted persons, civilian Defence employees and Equity officers, mental health and social workers, community and returned service groups and, most poignant of all, the next of kin of deceased members. Elsewhere the committee commented: Complaints were made to this inquiry about recent events including suicides, deaths through accident, major illicit drug use, serious abuses of power in training schools and cadet units, flawed prosecutions and failed, poor investigations. That was 2005. For the good of the men and women of the defence forces, we have to ensure not only that there is in place the will amongst command levels to address these problems—because I firmly believe that has always been the case—but also that the structures we legislate produce the outcomes that everybody would aspire to. Try as this parliament has, irrespective of who may have been on the government benches, over the course of the last 15 to 20 years—and no doubt longer but, in my experience in this place, 20 years—we have not been able to produce that outcome. In response to this issue, the previous parliament adopted reforms which I think fell a long way short of what the Senate committee thought should happen—but, nonetheless, the reforms enjoyed the support of both sides of the chamber, as this legislation does. If we are going to be candid today, we need to comprehend that we have not fixed those problems. One thing that I hope transpires from this debate and the consideration of this legislation is that we regard this not as the end of the matter but as a necessary next step in the process. Clearly, the legislation is required, given the determinations that have been made in other places. But there needs to be a concerted, concentrated effort on the part of all concerned—in uniform, in the department and in the government—to address the sorts of problems that the committee report partly chronicled. The report is scary enough, but people who have been engaged in this area over the last two decades are aware that this report is itself not complete in respect of chronicling all of the problems. So, yes, I am very pleased to support the legislation and I commend the government and the ministers in the defence portfolio for the actions they have taken swiftly to deal with the problem that was presented to them, but I would say to all of us that there is much more work that needs to be done. We owe it to the men and women in uniform, particularly, to ensure not only that they can work—and carry out what is a very difficult job—in an environment where they will be free from persecution and improper actions but also that, in the event that their rights may be infringed, they have proper recourse, like any other workplace or any other part of society. There are always going to be the unique chain of command issues associated with ADF life—and everybody understands that—but the sorts of issues that are mentioned in this report and the sorts of issues that many of us are aware of go well beyond any reasonable interpretation of those things. I hope we will use this debate to renew our efforts to find a better justice system. We did not have one prior to 2005. We thought as a parliament that we had made improvements with the amendments. We now know that they are unconstitutional. The matter does not rest here today. It does not rest with the passage of this legislation. More work needs to be done to deal with the problems that the Senate committee report identified. With all due respect to the bills before the House, all the problems are probably not going to be solved by this legislation. I wish I were wrong about that, but I suspect there are still going to be problems. My one plea to those involved in the day-to-day carriage of these matters is to keep working. This is a good step forward but there is still a long way to go. 9462 19:35:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —I rise tonight to speak on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which seek to reinstate the military justice mechanism which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court. The coalition maintains its strong commitment to a military justice system that is impartial, that meets community expectations for transparency and independence, and that at all times treats Australian Defence Force members fairly. There has been a lot of history and we have observed substantial changes in the administration of the Australian military justice system over the last decade. In 2007, the ADF dismissed the advice of the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade References Committee when establishing the Australian Military Court. The ADF were informed at the time that they could not have judicial power other than pursuant to chapter III of the Australian Constitution. Subsequently, the ADF were informed that the ‘hybrid’ form of court they sought to establish was problematic. The parliament charted a course so that Australia could have a standalone, independent military judicial arm comparable to those of the United States, Britain and Canada. Unfortunately, this was ignored by the ADF. The notice applied to the ADF regarding the court came to a head on 26 August, with the High Court invalidating the newly created court, with consequent cost and uncertainty. The High Court declared that the provisions that established the Australian Military Court were invalid because the court was found to be exercising the judicial power of the Commonwealth without meeting the requirements of chapter III of the Constitution. As an interim measure, the ADF are intending to broadly re-establish the service tribunal system by reinstating the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as it was prior to the amendments in 2006. What is needed now is rigorous effort by the Minister for Defence to resolve this crisis of military justice reform. In the interim, it is critical and urgent that the Australian Defence Force has a functioning military discipline system, particularly when it is engaged in active service operations overseas, such as our standing Naval presence in the Persian Gulf, engagement in counterpiracy activities and the considerable presence of service men and women on the ground in Afghanistan. The temporary reinstatement of the military justice system which pre-existed the establishment of the Australian Military Court will not only address the gap in the disposition of higher level military discipline; it will also allow time for the establishment of a military court which meets the requirements of chapter 3 of the Constitution, including the introduction of appropriate legislation for this purpose. I would like to make particular reference to the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, which is aimed to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. As the Senate has previously pointed out, this legislation is an interim measure that was developed in a relatively short period of time in order to ensure the continuity of ADF legal and discipline processes. It is accepted that this legislation is not perfect; however, it is a beginning and it is the best that could be done to ensure workable transitional arrangements. Considering the short period of time over which members of the ADF have been subjected to the now defunct Australian Military Court, the impact of re-introducing the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 as an interim measure will be negligible, if indeed it is felt at all. The coalition maintains a strong commitment to a military justice system that is impartial and that at all times treats Australian Defence Force members fairly. The object of these bills is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force. As the member for Paterson highlighted earlier, we cannot afford to repeat the mistakes of the past. The coalition will urge the government to move expeditiously in bringing forward legislation that will establish a chapter 3 court. We will work with the government to ensure that the men and women of the ADF will have an impartial, transparent, independent and constitutional military legal system. 9463 19:39:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I would just like to take a few minutes of the parliament’s time to talk about the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009 and to acknowledge the need for responsive action, which the government has taken with the opposition’s support, to deal with the High Court decision concerning the Australian Military Court. Those with short memories might not be aware of my intimate involvement in the previous government, as the Minister Assisting the Minister for Defence, in seeking to implement in good faith the resolutions of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry into military justice and the decisions and responses that were extensively articulated by Senator Hill, as the then defence minister, and by subsequent ministers. An extraordinary amount of work was undertaken to try to achieve faithful implementation of those recommendations. I want to acknowledge the diligence of the members of the Australian Defence Force and the Department of Defence in seeking to find a pathway forward that would respond to the legitimate concerns that arose through the Senate inquiry. They showed the ambition to have a robust system that would not only deal with what in the civilian world some might view as fairly routine disciplinary issues but also deal with more complicated, more sophisticated, crimes. I must say, I was shaking my head with disbelief at the simplicity with which some people sought to articulate the meaning of the High Court decision—I would characterise it as interpretive overreach. There was a lot of attribution of apparent motive to the High Court decision—and characterisation of the kinds of matters that the Australian Military Court had to deal with. If you actually read through the High Court’s decision—and for those who have trouble sleeping at night, may I recommend that as a low-interventionist way of gaining your sleep—you will find that it does point to the reasons behind the decision. It highlights particularly the parliament’s decision not to stand up the Australian Military Court under chapter 3 of the Constitution. It highlights the particular emphasis that was given to the manner of appointment and to the tenure of the members of the court. It then talks about the extent to which the defence power in the Constitution represents a special position and about the special provisions that take account of the special needs of the military. It then in effect points out some of the stronger characteristics of the Australian Military Court—its efforts to carry forward, wherever appropriate, civilian experience in discipline and justice administration and the familiarity that many in the public have with that. It then basically makes the argument that, if it looks like, walks like, squawks like a court, it should be a court. I would hate to think that in our haste to deal with the concerns that arose from the High Court decision, we would throw the baby out with the bathwater. In fact, I would hate to think we would throw the bath out. The Australian Military Court was created with particular objectives in mind, which came from a very rigorous analysis of a lot of data through the inquiry into military justice and then through a very genuine, heartfelt and sincere effort by serving men and women in the Australian Defence Force, the Department of Defence and the government of the day to deal faithfully with those concerns. I am troubled by some people saying this High Court decision was an affront to the uniformed men and women of Australia, that somehow the military was found out and that the court was going to let the military know what it should do. This sort of nonsensical populist baloney has no place in this discussion. This Australian Military Court was designed to deal with the day-to-day discipline issues that are far removed from any of the concerns that regular civilians would deal with. The fact is that we ask a great deal of our serving men and women, and in return they ask a lot of us. That is because they are asked to do things most of us would never wish to contemplate and do not present ourselves to carry out. To make sure we get the best out of our military, we need the best of all people, and some of the disciplinary requirements of that may appear extremely onerous in the eyes of some. Even the case that brought forward the High Court appeal—I never knew what ‘teabagging’ was and I am not going to describe it here—was an example of where the offence was not terribly contested; the tactic was to address the court itself. That is fine; that is an option that is available. But for some commentators to be critical of a system that is designed to provide review opportunities and to give meaning and purpose to a disciplinary administrative framework that, in some cases, needs to act very closely—like a court—and to then carry forward all the best of jurisprudence and civilian court knowledge into the military framework to give confidence, certainty and security to a system that deals with anything ranging from basic disciplinary matters to very serious crimes and for them to deduce that this was a shirt front to the serving men and women and the uniform areas of our defence enterprise is just offensive. Let us deal with the High Court’s decision. Let us recognise that it is saying that, in the court’s eyes, the special powers of defence in the Constitution do not extend to the creation of the Australian Military Court. That is all it says. It does not say the basic architecture is wrong; it points to a deficiency in the power under which it was created. I invite those people who wish to offer commentary on the Australian Military Court to have a look at how it is operating, what it is seeking to achieve and not to get carried away. I heard some commentators say that this is a great opportunity to wind back reform, that there is no need for reform and the Australian Military Court. Well, all those people who provided contributions to the military justice inquiry and who are looking for a better system, one of greater certainty and consistency, share my view that there was a need for reform, and I am extremely positive about the contribution that Defence made to enacting that reform. We have a decision here today, but let us not throw out the bath and the baby with the bathwater with the decision. Let us make sure that these reforms and effort bring about the certainty and the security that our serving men and women deserve, machinery that provides for appropriate review opportunities, and a chance to carry the best practices in the history of the civilian court into the Australian military system where it is appropriate and where it is justified. Let us recognise that the Australian Military Court needs to function not only in the comfortable air-conditioned offices around our capital cities but also in deployable situations to deal with real-life conditions, circumstances and offences and, in some cases, criminality, with all the safeguards that were intended to be put in the legislation. I lend my support to this stopgap measure, but I ask that it not be a gymnastic effort to throw out all that we have learnt and not be an affront to all those people who have contributed to standing up the Australian Military Court. I think Senator Brandis’s idea of a division of the Federal Court has considerable merit and deserves to be recognised. Let us not be too critical of a system that aimed to bring the best of the civilian jurisprudence and court system into the military framework, recognising a vast spread of demands on this machinery. I can honestly attest to this parliament that the Australian Defence Force was nothing but fully open, fully engaged and fully willing to embrace the insights, learnings and submissions to the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade inquiry. It came forward with a hybrid model that recognised that discipline is crucial but, where it is bordering on criminality and offences, we should bring the best that we know about the administration of law into the military as one way of respecting and treating our most valuable asset in the Australian Defence Force—that is, the men and women of the ADF—even if a few may lose their way, whether it be by teabagging or something more serious. Let us not throw the bath and the baby out with the bathwater. 9465 19:48:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —in reply—Before I commence summing up the debate, might I also echo the comments of the member for Herbert in welcoming representatives of the Australian Defence Force Parliamentary Exchange Program into the chamber. It is a privilege and a delight to have you in the building and it gives us focus to this debate. In summing up the debate on the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2009 and the Military Justice (Interim Measures) Bill (No. 2) 2009, I want to begin by thanking the House for supporting this very important and urgent piece of legislation. On 26 August 2009, the High Court declared that the provisions establishing the Australian Military Court were invalid. The purpose of bill No. 1 is to return to the service tribunal system that existed before the creation of the Australian Military Court. This is, as has been said, an interim measure until the government can legislate for a chapter III court, which it will do as a matter of priority. To re-establish an effective military justice system, the pre-2007 Defence Force Discipline Act 1982, the DFDA, will be reinstated. These measures will include courts martial and Defence Force magistrates, the positions of Chief Judge Advocate, judge advocates and the Registrar of Military Justice, and reviews and petitions in respect of both summary trials and trials held by courts martial or Defence Force magistrates and reviewing authorities.  Transitional provisions will be inserted into the DFDA to cover all matters that have been referred to the AMC but were not concluded prior to 26 August 2009. The provisions will also address the AMC office holders including, among other things, provisions for their automatic transmission to the relevant positions of Chief Judge Advocate, members of the judge advocates panel and Registrar of Military Justice. The main object of bill No. 2, as has been discussed, is to maintain the continuity of discipline in the Defence Force in the light of the High Court’s decision. The principal mechanism by which this bill seeks to maintain the continuity of discipline within the ADF is by imposing disciplinary sanctions on persons corresponding to punishments imposed by the AMC and, to the extent necessary, summary authorities in the period between the AMC’s establishment and the declaration of invalidity by the High Court. This bill does not purport to validate any convictions or punishments imposed by the AMC, nor does the bill purport to convict any person of any offence. Rather, the bill, by its own force, purports to impose disciplinary sanctions. The bill does not purport to impose any liability in relation to imprisonment. Further, consistent with the exclusively disciplinary purpose of its provisions, the bill is expressed to have effect for service purposes only. In other words, the bill will not affect an individual ADF member’s civilian rights and entitlements. The bill recognises that there may be circumstances in which a person affected by a disciplinary liability imposed by the bill wishes to contest whether that liability should remain imposed. The bill gives all affected persons a right to seek review of their case and whether they should remain liable under the act, and the reviewing authority is given power to discharge persons from such liability. In cases where the disciplinary liability imposed by the bill relates to detention, a serious disciplinary measure peculiar to the ADF, the bill requires automatic review by the reviewing authority to determine whether that disciplinary liability should be discharged. As I have mentioned, the government is in the process of developing, with the intention of introducing the legislation as a matter of priority, options for the establishment of a military justice court that complies with chapter III of the Constitution. I note the comments by the member for Paterson in relation to the difficult constitutional issues that will be posed by this and those that have existed previously; his points about this system needing to be impartial, to be independent and transparent and to render equity and fairness to the members of the ADF were well made. Certainly the government share those sentiments, and we look forward to working with the opposition in crafting an adequate response to deliver an effective disciplinary system to the ADF. I welcome that cooperation. I note the comments of the member for Herbert about the FMC. I cannot pre-empt what solution we will come to for this matter, but we look forward to working through the options. At the end of the day I recall the comments of the member for Cowan, when he highlighted that whatever justice system is consequent upon our deliberations must be able to operate in a field environment. It must be able to deal with the particular needs of the Australian Defence Force in its unique circumstances and its unique operating environments. I am sure the opposition shares that sentiment. I conclude by thanking the Defence legal officers, who have responded magnificently in producing these interim measures. No doubt there are also many hard hours of work ahead of them in working with us to provide a solution to this difficult situation. I thank them for their support and commend this package of bills to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 9467 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water) 19:54:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 9467 Bills S728 9467 Debate resumed. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 9467 Dr KELLY (Eden-Monaro —Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water) 19:55:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 9467 Bills R4012 Consideration resumed from 17 August. 9467 9467 19:56:00 Byrne, Anthony, MP 008K0 Holt ALP Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and Parliamentary Secretary for Trade 1 0 Mr BYRNE —I present the explanatory memorandum to this bill and move: That this bill be now read a second time. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—Would the parliamentary secretary like to continue? 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —It is not often that I get asked to speak, as my good friend the member for La Trobe would know! Before I start—and with your indulgence, Mr Deputy Speaker, and very briefly—I want to speak about a very good friend of mine who is on my right-hand side: the honourable member for Denison, Duncan Kerr. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Indulgence is granted. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr BYRNE —I learnt with a great degree of sorrow last week that the member for Denison was leaving this place as of the next election. I say from a personal perspective that I think the parliament is losing one of its great characters and one of its great consciences. I had the honour and the privilege of serving with Duncan on the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, formerly known as the Parliamentary Joint Committee on ASIO, ASIS and DSD. I came to know Duncan predominantly through that exercise. I respected his opinions. I respected the thought that he gave to the issues at hand. I say, Duncan, that I really do think your departure is a great loss. As your friend and as someone who has served with you, I say it has been a great honour serving with you, and I wish you all the best in the future. Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for granting me your indulgence; it was the first opportunity I have had since the announcement. And thank you to the other side for their indulgence. Addressing the issue at hand, which is the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008: the purpose of the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 is to amend the Freedom of Information Act 1982 (FOI Act) and the Archives Act 1983 to remove the power to issue conclusive certificates. The bill implements an election commitment to abolish conclusive certificates and marks the first step in the government’s plan to undertake the most significant overhaul of the FOI Act since its inception in 1982. The government released draft bills for public comment in March 2009 addressing its remaining FOI election commitments, as outlined in the policy statement Government information: Restoring trust and integrity. Proposals in those bills are in part drawn from key recommendations of the joint Australian Law Reform Commission and Administrative Review Council 1996 Open government report. While more than a decade has been lost on FOI reform under the Howard government, the Rudd government is moving ahead on these issues to ensure that we have a more open, more transparent and more accountable government. The broader package of reform measures focuses on fostering a pro-disclosure culture across government and includes the establishment of an information commissioner and an FOI commissioner who will be independent statutory officers and champions for FOI. With respect to conclusive certificates, the repeal of the power to issue conclusive certificates is an important step in achieving greater accountability in government decision making on access requests under the Freedom of Information Act and Archives Act. Conclusive certificates act as a bar to someone seeking access to a document under FOI. The effect of a minister placing a conclusive certificate on a document is to limit the capacity for the Administrative Appeals Tribunal—otherwise known as the AAT—to review the exemption claim underlying the certificate. Under the current act, where a conclusive certificate applies, the AAT’s jurisdiction is limited to determining if reasonable grounds exist for the exemption claim. But even if the AAT were to find that no reasonable grounds exist for the exemption claim, a minister may continue to refuse to allow access to the document. Those limitations on external review should not be preserved. The external administrative review system was still relatively young at the time of the commencement of the FOI Act. Now, after more than a quarter of a century, the proven strength of that system greatly diminishes the need for executive control over an independent review process for document access. More importantly, I passionately believe that public confidence is increased in government decisions if they are open to being fully tested by an independent review process. For this reason, the government believes that all exemption decisions under the FOI Act and the Archives Act should be subject to full external merits review. Abolishing the power to issue conclusive certificates does not mean information that should be protected against disclosure will be released. Where an exemption claim properly applies to a document, that exemption will continue to provide protection against its disclosure. Should an exemption claim be the subject of a review application to the AAT, parties will still be able to appeal from an AAT decision to the Federal Court on a question of law. That is the position that applies now for exemption claims that are not supported by a conclusive certificate. The bill provides for existing conclusive certificates to be revoked if and when a new request for access to documents covered by a certificate is received. In effect, revocation will be deemed to have taken effect at the time any new request is received. A decision will then be made under the established processes on whether or not an exemption should be claimed for any document formerly covered by a certificate. The bill also contains some consequential amendments to the FOI Act and the Archives Act that arise as a result of the repeal of conclusive certificates. It also introduces some measures that affect procedures in the AAT. Some of these measures are directed to ensuring that particularly sensitive information is not unnecessarily disclosed and apply to documents whose release could damage national security, defence or international relations, or would disclose confidential foreign government information or cabinet information. To assist the AAT in reviewing an exemption claim to protect from disclosure national security documents and other sensitive information, the AAT will be required to call the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security to provide expert evidence if it is not satisfied as to the merit of an exemption claim of this type. I believe that the measures in the bill provide a fair balance between not unduly affecting procedural rights of applicants and ensuring appropriate safeguards for sensitive information. The bill also addresses an anomaly affecting rights of access to documents relating to intelligence matters where they are held by a minister rather than an agency. Under the current act, a document held by an agency is excluded from the FOI Act if it has originated with, or has been received from, an intelligence agency or the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, but the same document would not be excluded if it happens to be held instead by a minister. The bill remedies this anomaly. The measures in this bill deliver on the government’s election commitment to abolish conclusive certificates. They also establish a fair balance between ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place in the review process with respect to sensitive information while at the same time ensuring full independent merits review of agencies’ decisions on FOI. In conclusion, this bill is a first step in FOI reform, but it is an important step in the government’s broader commitment to making government open, accountable and transparent. 9469 20:05:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009]. The coalition believes that freedom of information, or the statutory right of access to government documents, is justified on the grounds that it encourages transparency and political accountability and discourages corruption and other forms of wrongdoing. At the federal level, the Freedom of Information Act 1982, introduced by the Fraser government, formed part of a broader package of administrative law reforms in the 1970s and early 1980s and was the first national legislation of its kind to be introduced in a country with a Westminster-style system of government. Moving on to the specifics of the bill, part VII of the FOI Act provides for categories of exempt documents. In respect of some of these categories, for example documents affecting national security, defence or international relations and certain internal working documents, the current provisions of the act enable ministers to certify that disclosure of the document would be contrary to the public interest. An application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, the AAT, only as to whether reasonable grounds exist for the exemption claim. If the AAT finds that reasonable grounds do not exist, the minister may then decide whether or not to revoke the certificate. If the minister decides not to revoke the certificate, he or she must table a notice in both houses of parliament stating the findings of the minister on any material question of fact, the material on which those findings were made and the reasons for the decision. Subject to this, however, the issue of a certificate is a bar to access to the document and to any further external review. The proposed amendments contained in this bill will remove the power to issue conclusive certificates and will provide for full external merits review of a decision to exempt a document. Appeal to the Federal Court will be available from the decision of the AAT on a question of law. In addition, existing conclusive certificates will be revoked in the event that a new request for access is made in respect of documents subject to a certificate. However, the existing heads of exemption will continue to apply and the decision will need to be made as to whether exemption will be claimed. Amendments are also proposed in relation to documents the disclosure of which might damage national security, defence or international relations or which would disclose confidential foreign government information or cabinet information. In respect of that material, if the AAT intends to adjudicate on the merits of an exemption claim it will be required to obtain expert evidence from the Inspector General of Intelligence and Security. There is also a proposed amendment to provide for exemption for material received by a minister from an intelligence agency. Currently, the exemption refers only to material held by an intelligence agency and not to such material when it has been transmitted to a minister, although other heads of exemption could be claimed. The coalition is committed to open, responsible government. The Freedom of Information Act, which was introduced by the Fraser government, is a vital measure to ensure the government remains open, responsible and accountable for its decisions. Although conclusive certificates were seen as a necessary control on the flow of information at the time the FOI Act was introduced, the coalition agrees that certificates have the potential to act as a brake on the process and that sufficient measures exist elsewhere in the act to ensure that genuinely sensitive information receives the appropriate treatment. We cannot agree with any suggestion that previous coalition governments have used the conclusive certificate regime to resile from their commitment to open, accountable government. An examination of the records will confirm that conclusive certificates were used very sparingly under the Howard government. On the information available, we can find evidence of only 12 conclusive certificates issued in the 11½ years of the Howard government. Records for the previous Labor government are extremely difficult to locate. However, it would seem that 55 were issued for the period between 1982 and 1986 alone, during most of which time the Hawke government was in power. The coalition, therefore, cannot be characterised as one that shied away from openness in government or as one that hid behind the conclusive certificate regime. The coalition will support this bill. However, in closing, I would like to remind the House of the additional comments of the Liberal senators on the Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration, which examined this bill. Those senators noted that the number of FOI applications received in 2007-08 declined by almost 30 per cent from 2005-06. Even so, the response time has lengthened: the number of requests responded to within 30 days has declined by 12 per cent while the number awaiting response after 90 days has more than doubled. Further, while the number of requests refused has remained constant, the number granted in full has declined by 12 per cent since 2006-07 and the number granted in part has increased correspondingly. Finally, despite the decrease in applications, the overall costs of providing FOI have increased by some 18 per cent. When the decline is taken into account, the average cost per application has risen by over 28 per cent. Accordingly, the Rudd government’s performance on FOI has demonstrably not matched its rhetoric. The true measure of the openness and transparency of a government is found in its attitude and actions when it comes to freedom of information. Legislative amendments, where there is need for them, are fine but governments with their control over the information in their possession can find ways to work the legislation to slow or control disclosure, and that is what we are seeing now. I thank the House. 9471 20:11:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak in support of the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008. Here in Australia we enjoy a very healthy democracy. It has endured since Federation without any civil wars or major crises in terms of democracy. That is leaving aside Western Australia’s late entry to the Federation—I think Western Australia also considered departing in the 1930s—and every now and again we hear from North Queensland that they would like to depart or at least form a separate state. We will also forget about 11 November 1975 and that attack on democracy by Sir John Kerr. Leaving aside those things, Australia is in fact one of the five longest standing continuous democracies in the world. When citizens head to the polls, governments come and go without a shot being fired. It is not the bullet or the ballot, as Malcolm X talked about in one of his famous speeches; in Australia it is just the ballot for all. We have universal suffrage and no blood is shed when governments come and go, although there are a few tears from departing members of parliament. Basically, it is a very healthy democracy. We should be proud of it and we should strive to protect it and uphold it. The recent elections in Afghanistan give us pause when asking what democracy is about. It was a great achievement for a desperate country, but also what a tragedy it has been—people risking life and limb to vote, and I mean literally risking limb. I heard media reports that the Taliban had threatened that people who had ink on their fingers—the ink used to mark the fact that they had voted—would then lose those fingers. That is a strong contrast with Australia, where if you do not vote you receive a fine. Maybe if we severed the fingers of people who did not vote we might get even closer to 100 per cent attendance on polling day! I do not think that we will go down that road. It now seems that it will be months before the result of the election in Afghanistan is known, as accusations of fraud, vote rigging and many other shenanigans are investigated and, eventually, resolved. In contrast, I turn to Australia: obviously, we can be very proud of our very healthy democracy in Australia. It is a democracy on display in this House, where schoolchildren can visit and normally do not hear any swear words or see any untoward behaviour and where members of the public can come and watch democracy in action. It makes for a very healthy exchange of ideas. A healthy democracy also relies a lot on journalists—and I turn to an empty press gallery—as well as other individuals and community groups, who must be able to access government information. A healthy democracy relies on our government being transparent, open and accountable, always, to the people. Without this transparency even democracy can breed secrecy and corruption. Looking back to my darker days, under the Sir Joh Bjelke-Petersen government in Queensland, this was unfortunately the reality. There was no culture of transparency—or even of democracy given that we had a gerrymander in certain parts of Queensland—and this bred secrecy and, eventually, corruption. Thankfully, a few good men and women had the courage to stand up against this atmosphere—resulting in the Fitzgerald inquiry. I thank the foresight of some of the government ministers of the day for signing off on that inquiry. I am not sure they knew what they were signing off on but it was certainly a courageous decision. The Fitzgerald inquiry shone a blowtorch on the Bjelke-Petersen government and since then Queensland has thrived as a progressive, open and accountable democracy. Undoubtedly there is definitely more work to be done, but I certainly have faith in one of my local state members, a lady by the name of Anna Bligh, the Premier of Queensland, and in the steps she has taken to ensure that the Queensland government remains accountable, transparent, progressive and open. Government cover-up and secrecy also breeds cynicism in the community, and, frankly, the last thing we as politicians need is more cynicism about politics. I am not sure where our ranking currently is compared to lawyers and used car salesmen, but I know that we always hover around the bottom. 008K0 Byrne, Anthony, MP Mr Byrne —Right down at the bottom. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —Down at the bottom? I will take that interjection. Unfortunately it is always around the bottom. So we need to do what we can to restore faith in the democratic process and in politicians. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray —I’m higher than you, though! HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —As a former lawyer and union official, and I have worked in the mining industry, I am not sure where that places me. It would not be at the top, although I was a teacher for a long time. As I said, we have to work hard if we want to protect the integrity of our democracy. To paraphrase a US patriot from another century, the price of democracy is eternal vigilance. That is why the Rudd government made an election commitment to restore trust and integrity to our political system. As well as bringing greater accountability to the area of political donations and gifts, the Rudd government is also improving laws concerning freedom of information. We are doing this because we want to make it easier for all people, including the media, to access information and promote greater openness and transparency in government. The bill before the House repeals the power under the Freedom of Information Act and the Archives Act to issue conclusive certificates. These certificates are issued to support exemptions to refuse access to documents. They can be used by a minister to refuse access to documents, and it is the kind of system that promotes secrecy, which is not what good government is about. Unfortunately this was the system we inherited, but it is not the system that the Rudd government wants to keep. Instead, all decisions to claim exemptions will be subject to a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Obviously this is much fairer. We are not just relying on a whim or a capricious minister. Instead, there will have to be a defendable decision. Further, where conclusive certificates have been issued to protect documents previously, for example by former Liberal and Labor governments, these will be revoked when a request for access to those documents is received. Old applications will not automatically be revisited. However, an applicant who has had access refused can now make a new request. It does not mean access will be granted automatically as there may still be very valid reasons for refusing access in the first place. But refusal cannot just be at the whim of a minister. The reasons, obviously, have to be defendable. This bill also contains safeguards to ensure that sensitive information remains protected. For example, access may be refused where a document falls within an exemption category such as information which would affect personal privacy or damage national security, defence or international relations. I think every sane and reasonable person would understand and appreciate that there is some information which rightly remains in confidence, and certainly matters of security and personal privacy should be treated as such. In fact, this bill contains a specific measure to exempt from FOI any document that has originated with, or has been received from, an intelligence agency. This bill represents just the beginning of the Rudd government’s efforts to transform government culture from one of secrecy to pro-disclosure, to openness and to transparency—all of those good things that make democracies healthy. I look forward to debating broader reforms to FOI in the near future. What we are talking about today heralds a new era for Australian government as the bill removes one unnecessary roadblock to accessing information. I thank the Special Minister of State and his predecessor for their work on this bill and I commend it to the House. 9473 20:20:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —As a result of recent events in Perth, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009]. As we have been told, the main purpose of this bill is to take out of the FOI Act the ability to issue conclusive certificates, or in other words to take away the ability to reject FOI requests based on particular reasons as determined by the minister concerned. It is important to note that some people may think that this bill represents a change to complete visibility of government. I make the point that it does nothing of the sort and that everyone should be clear that within the FOI Act and the Archives Act exemption categories still remain. Those categories include matters to do with personal privacy in documents that have the risk of damaging national security, defence or international relations. I make my view clear on this point, which is that I remain in favour of these exemption categories, but I also make the point that if someone is hoping for an era of public accountability in this area, they are both mistaken about this bill and they are being unrealistic about how a government can operate. This bill takes away the option of a minister deciding that a document which does not meet an exemption category should nevertheless not be publicly available. Before moving on, I would just finish this point by making the observation that this government whilst in opposition cleverly coined the phrase or policy title ‘government information restoring trust and integrity’. Not only is it consistent with the fallacy that the previous government lied, but it also suggests to a lot of people that this bill will deliver far more than this current government ever intended to deliver. It is nevertheless a highly effective political trick to create a grand statement and therefore create a perception of extensive action, whereas the reality is in fact action of a very limited scope. It is pretty much the hallmark of a very successful political spin machine. While some people will embrace the elimination of conclusive certificates, it is also worth noting that this bill will introduce procedural measures that will protect what is described as ‘particularly sensitive information’ in proceedings of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. It is not that I am against this, but again it is notable that this bill actually imposes restrictions on the release of information as well. This is a bill that clearly demonstrates the difference between perception and reality. That being said, the process involves a claim for exemption by an agency, a minister or the National Archives, followed by the obtaining of evidence from the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security regarding damage that could result from disclosure of documents or records—damage to national security, defence or international relations. If that evidence suggests exemption is warranted, presidential members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal will hear an application for a review of a decision to refuse access to the document or record. It is not my intention to speak on this bill for very long, but I did want to bring to the attention of the House that FOI laws can be abused and, sadly, are being abused. I refer to the situation in Western Australia, where it is very easy to make FOI applications and waste the time and resources of ministerial offices. In this case, I refer to the state member for Girrawheen, a lady whom, although she is on the opposite side of politics, I nevertheless had some regard for, until she embarked on this current stunt of putting in FOI requests for every document I have sent to a number of state ministers’ offices on behalf of constituents. I do not know why she has done this on several occasions, but my opinion of her has been shattered. I express my disappointment in her because she should be putting her resources towards helping the people who live in her electorate, not spending her entitlements wasting the time and resources of the state government. I would have thought that, if she had money left over from her electorate allowance, she would find some organisation in Girrawheen to spend it on, rather than playing some base political game. Although she has far less territory to concentrate on than I do, perhaps I am being too harsh. Perhaps her intention is just to find out what is going on in her electorate. She could even read some of my speeches and she would see what is going on. She would see that this is the 17th speech in which I have made mention of Girrawheen. I mention Girrawheen a lot because I see the potential there and I want to encourage those who live there. Of course, the previous members for Cowan also made speeches about Girrawheen. Richard Evans, a former Liberal MP for Cowan, spoke of Girrawheen seven times in six years. Richard in fact spoke of Girrawheen the same number of times as the first member for Cowan, Labor’s Carolyn Jakobsen, who was the member for nine years. My immediate predecessor also did nine years and spoke of Girrawheen on three occasions. I go back to where I began on this point, which is that there are plenty of good things happening in Girrawheen, and when you look for the good and you look for the potential it is easy to speak of these positive factors. I continue to look for more opportunities to speak of the good work being done by the schools, churches and other organisations in Girrawheen. To conclude my contribution, I would say again that abusing FOI for base political purposes is a waste of everyone’s time and resources, which would be better directed towards the people of Girrawheen, in this case. In terms of this debate on FOI changes in the bill, I would say that there is a big difference between perception and reality. The perception created by this government is that government actions and documents will be part of a new openness. Yet, despite that being unrealistic and unworkable in any case, what is being delivered does not match the rhetoric. Once again I question the authenticity of this government, a government that is about creating a facade, a false reality, for political advantage only. 9475 20:25:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 0 Mr MELHAM —I rise to speak on the Freedom of Information (Removal of Conclusive Certificates and Other Measures) Bill 2008 [2009]. If one goes to the explanatory memorandum, one finds out what this bill is about, and I propose to quote extensively in the short time remaining before we adjourn. The explanatory memorandum states: The purpose of the Bill is to repeal the power to issue conclusive certificates in the Freedom of Information Act … and the Archives Act … for all exemption provisions where certificates may be issued. The proposal to repeal the power to issue conclusive certificates forms part of the Government’s 2007 election commitments made in its policy statement, Government information: restoring trust and integrity. The effect of the repeal of the certificate power will be that the AAT may undertake full merits review of all exemption claims. Further down, it states: Where a document or record properly falls within an exemption category in those Acts (for example, documents affecting personal privacy or documents whose release could damage national security, defence or international relations), access may be refused. One cannot underestimate how big a step that is in terms of conclusive certificates, given their history. The explanatory memorandum goes on: The AAT will be required, in the first instance, to consider evidence on affidavit or otherwise when determining whether a document is exempt under a national security, defence or international relations exemption, or a confidential foreign government communication exemption … … the AAT will be directed to give particular weight to a submission by an agency, Minister or the National Archives that it should make such orders where the proceedings relate to a document or record that is claimed to be exempt under a national security, defence or international relations exemption, or confidential foreign government communication exemption … The Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security will be asked by the AAT to give evidence as to any damage that could result from disclosure of documents or records claimed to fall within a national security, defence, or international relations exemption, or a confidential foreign government communication exemption … Presidential members of the AAT will hear applications for review of a decision to refuse access to a document or record under a national security, defence, or international relations exemption or a confidential foreign government communication exemption … Other measures in the Bill are as follows. In certain cases where notification may not be appropriate, an agency or Minister will be able to apply to the AAT for an order that it be excused from informing certain third parties of an application by an FOI applicant for AAT review … Where an appeal is instituted in the Federal Court against an AAT decision to give access to a document or record, the AAT decision will be automatically stayed until the Court decision on the appeal takes effect or such other time determined by the Court, whichever is the earlier. Access to a record, by staff of the National Archives, will be limited where those staff do not have appropriate security clearance … The exclusion that applies to publication in the Australian National Guide to Archival Material of particulars of records to which a conclusive certificate is in force will be repealed. That is, in a nutshell, what we are dealing with in relation to this bill. I propose to talk a little bit later on, when the debate resumes, about other aspects of it. What we are doing is substantial. It is taking the situation forward in relation to freedom of information, and we are talking about a large number of FOI requests since 1996-97. So for those opposite to be criticising the government is a bit rich at this stage. Debate interrupted. 9476 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 petition: 83Z Mrs Irwin 168 9476 To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of members of the Parkes electorate recognises the importance of providing affordable access to university for students from rural and regional areas. Members of the Parkes electorate and other regional communities draw the attention of the House to changes announced in the Federal Budget on May 12, 2009 which states that students will no longer be able to achieve financial independence for Youth Allowance and ABSTUDY by meeting the 2nd and 3rd elements of the workforce criterion. The petitioners believe that the Youth Allowance changes proposed in the Federal Budget place another barrier to university participation for students in regional areas; unfairly discriminates against students currently undertaking a ‘gap’ year; and contradict other efforts to increase university participation by students from rural and regional Australia. We therefore ask the House to retain the 2nd and 3rd elements of the workforce criterion so that a tertiary education is accessible to regional students. 168 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 168 citizens) Petition received. 9476 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: 9476 Dear Mrs Irwin I refer to your letter of 11 June 2009, in relation to a debt owed to the Commonwealth by an individual citizen. I can advise you that this matter has been resolved. Thank you for referring this petition to me. from the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, Mr Tanner 9476 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 June 2009 to the former Minister for Human Services, Senator the Hon Joe Ludwig regarding a petition received by the Committee requesting that a Medicare office be established in Pakenham, Victoria. As the new Minister for Human Services, I am pleased to respond to your query. I acknowledge the efforts of the community of Pakenham in lobbying for a Medicare office in the municipality. The Government receives many requests for Medicare offices. On one level, this is very positive as it indicates that Medicare offices are providing a valued and convenient range of services to the community. It is not possible, however, to meet all requests for Medicare offices and still maintain a cost effective and efficient network of services across all of Australia. 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 Pakenham at this time. The Rudd 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. 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 a BSB and account number of their chosen bank account the refund will be deposited into their bank account in around two days. Where an account is unpaid, a cheque made payable to the doctor will be forwarded to the claimant. The service officer 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. Two Medicare Australia Access Points are located in Pakenham in the following locations: Rowan Leonard Pakenham Chemmart Pharmacy, Pakenham Place, 69 Main Street Priceline Pharmacy, Shop 1, Pakenham Shopping Centre, John Street. 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. Online Services Pakenham 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. Thank you once again for writing. I trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr Bowen 9477 Dear Ms Irwin Thank you for your letter of 11 July 2009 regarding a petition recently submitted to the Committee’s consideration regarding the display of the flag and artefacts of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE). I apologise for the delay in responding. The petition states that the display of certain images and the display of the LTTE flag is not in line with promoting multicultural harmony in our society. The concerns raised in the petition highlight the balance that must he struck between the rights of one group to demonstrate publicly and express their views and the rights of others to he protected from offensive behaviour. The Australian Government believes that one of the fundamental principles of a democratic society like Australia is freedom of expression. It is enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to which Australia is a party. The ICCPR recognises that the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It acknowledges that the right may he subject to certain restrictions, but only those restrictions such as the law provides and arc necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, and for the -protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals. In Australia the rights to freedom of expression, association and assembly are fundamental human rights that are enjoyed by all Australians. However these rights are subject to limitations that are reasonable and necessary in a free and democratic society to achieve an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection of groups and individuals from offensive behaviour. For example, the Commonwealth Racial Discrimination Act 1975 makes it unlawful to discriminate against any person by reason of that person’s race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin, in a number of areas including access to places and facilities, the provision of goods and services, employment and advertisements. Section 18C of the Act also prohibits racial vilification (`offensive behaviour based on racial hatred’) on the basis of race, colour, or national or ethnic origin. Racial vilification covers acts that offend, insult, humiliate or intimidate a person or groups of people. The prohibition is subject to a number of exemptions intended to permit free debate on matters of legitimate public interest, thereby ensuring an appropriate balance between freedom of expression and the protection from racially offensive behaviour. A person belonging to a racial group that is the target of vilification may wish to complain to the Australian Human Rights Commission. The Commission has the power to inquire into and attempt to conciliate complaints of breaches of the Act. Whether the display of the LTTE flag and other images referred to in the petition amounts to vilification on one of the grounds prohibited by the Act, or whether an individual or group is being targeted because of their race, colour, national or ethnic origin, will depend upon the circumstances of the case and would ultimately be for a court to determine. I hope this information is of assistance to the Committee when considering this petition. from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland 9478 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 24 June 2009 to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, requesting a response to the recently submitted petition to reclassify the rural status of Gawler, South Australia. Your letter has been referred to me as the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery. I note that the petition refers to the Australian Government’s 2009-10 Budget package of measures designed to tackle the shortage of doctors and health workers in rural and remote communities of Australia. On 10 December 2007, Minister Roxon asked the Department of Health and Ageing to undertake an audit of the shortage of doctors, nurses, and other health professionals. On 30 April 2008, the Audit of Health Workforce in Rural and Regional Australia report was released. As a result of the Audit, Minister Roxon asked the Department to review the Commonwealth funded rural health programs and the geographic classification systems that determine the eligibility for rural health program funding. In response to the Audit and reviews, the Australian Government announced: a $134.4 million package announced in the 2009-10 Budget to improve rural and remote workforce shortages and better target existing incentives through the provision of additional financial and non-financial support for rural doctors; a new structure for rural and remote health programs, including program consolidation, to be introduced in conjunction with the Budget measures; and the progressive introduction of the new classification system, the Australian Standard Geographic Classification Remoteness Areas (ASGC-RA), to replace the outdated Rural, Remote and Metropolitan Areas (RRMA) classifications as the basis of funding rural health programs. The RRMA classification, introduced in 1994, is based on population figures and statistical local area boundaries as at the 1991 census. Under RRMA, Gawler was classified as a capital city (RRMA 1) and, therefore, ineligible for rural and remote health workforce incentives. However, on 9 October 2007, the then Minister for Health and Ageing approved the reclassification of Gawler from RRMA 1 to RRMA 4, therefore, ensuring its eligibility to a range of rural workforce programs. An arbitrary change such as this can have the effect of drawing existing doctors away from more remote areas that have higher levels of need and workforce shortage. Gawler is located just 40 km from Adelaide and as an outer metropolitan location continues to be an eligible location to attract doctors moving from an inner metropolitan area with a relocation incentive of up to $40,000. The ASGC-RA system was developed in 2001 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics as a statistical geography that allowed quantitative comparisons between ‘city’ and ‘country’ Australia. The purpose of the structure is to classify census collection districts which share common characteristics of remoteness into broad geographical regions called Remoteness Areas (RAs). The ASGC-RA is updated every census. The defining difference between ‘city’ and ‘country’ is physical remoteness from goods and services. Remoteness is calculated using the road distance to the nearest urban centre in each of five classes based on population size. The remoteness classification divides Australia into five RAs: Major Cities of Australia; Inner Regional Australia; Outer Regional Australia; Remote Australia; and Very Remote Australia. Gawler has been classified as RA 1 (Major Cities). There has been some uncertainty and confusion generated as a result of the Budget measure and the grand parenting arrangements that have been put in place to support this measure. It is important to note that Gawler will remain eligible for a number of workforce incentives. In addition, doctors who lose access to rural programs and incentives as a result of the new classification system will continue to receive an equal benefit for a period of three years, commencing 1 July 2010. Gawler GP Inc and Gawler Medical Practitioners Association submitted a Transition Plan to Minister Roxon. The Plan is currently under consideration. Further to this, I recently travelled to Gawler to discuss these concerns with a representative of Gawler GPs and I undertook to respond to the concerns they raised in that meeting. The Department of Health and Ageing has also written to Gawler GP Inc to advise that annually-negotiated grant funding is available to support the financial viability of the Gawler GP After Hours Service. Under the General Practice After Hours Program, grants of up to $100,000 (GST exclusive) over two years are available to assist with the operating costs of after-hours services, including the payment of GP incentives to encourage participation in after-hours rosters. Since meeting with a representative of the Gawler GPs, I have also written to Gawler GP Inc to confirm their eligibility for this grant and encouraging them to apply. You may be interested to know that this grant can be utilised in a variety of ways to support an after hours service, including incentives to attract and retain GPs on the after hours roster, GP on-call allowances, nurse and receptionist wages, GP training costs, as well as administrative costs associated with the after hours service. The Government is making the necessary reforms to rural health policy in order to ensure that incentives respond to current population trends and provides the most support to communities in greatest need. Any changes in doctor numbers in response to the new programs and classification system will be closely monitored. Should it be found that the policy is not achieving its objectives in some areas the Government may consider adjustments, but will only do so as part of a broad based policy supported by factual evidence. I trust that the above information is of use. from the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery, Mr Snowdon 9480 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 24 June 2009 referring to a petition from members of the McCarthy Catholic College community concerned about the proposed changes to student income support. 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.deewrgov.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 McCarthy Catholic College. from the Minister for Education, Ms Gillard 9481 Dear Ms Irwin Thank you for your letter of 8 May 2009 concerning a petition for the World Heritage listing of the Dampier Archipelago. I regret the delay in responding. As you would be aware, only the Australian Government as the State Party to the World Heritage Convention can submit nominations for World Heritage listing to the World Heritage Committee. In accordance with the Intergovernmental Agreement on the Environment (1992) nominations to the World Heritage List are developed collaboratively with the relevant state or territory government. At its meeting in June 2007, the Environment Protection and Heritage Council agreed to support the preparation of a new Australian World Heritage Tentative List for the next ten years. A World Heritage Tentative List is an inventory of those properties which a State Party considers suitable for possible inscription on the World Heritage List. State and territory governments were invited by the Australian Government to submit places for consideration for the Tentative List. On 22 May 2009 the Environment Protection and Heritage Council announced that Cape York, West McDonnell Range and extensions to Fraser Island and the Gondawana Rainforests of Australia will be added to Australia’s Tentative List. Following further community consultation, these four places will join the Australian Convict Sites and Ningaloo Reef and Cape Range which are already on Australia’s World Heritage Tentative List. The Dampier Archipelago was not submitted by the Western Australian Government for inclusion on the Tentative List. I trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Garrett 9481 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 11 June 2009 about a petition relating to the Child Support Scheme (the Scheme). The petition raises concerns that the new Child Support Scheme does not appropriately take into account the costs incurred by parents who have care of children over the school holidays and on special occasions. The petition states that it is unfair not to recognise the costs of care that parents are meeting directly during these periods. I would like to assure the petitioners that the Government does not intend the Scheme to impose an unfair or unreasonable burden on parents. The Government recognises the importance of a child having ongoing contact with both parents. It is important that the Scheme does not operate to limit or prevent contact between a parent and a child. The petitioners are correct that the current child support formula does not recognise the costs of contact for a parent where that contact is less than 14 per cent of the overall nights in a year. The reason that the formula operates in this way is to reflect the fact that the parent with the majority of care for a child incurs the majority of costs for that child. These costs include items such as infrastructure costs, including accommodation and household goods as well as costs for personal items, education and health care. These essential costs make up the majority of the costs of raising a child. Care of less than 51 nights per year is equal to less than one night of care per week. I acknowledged that a parent who is providing care at this level will need to provide accommodation, food and entertainment for their child during the period of care. However, the costs that the parent will incur as a result of care of less than 14 per cent will include fewer costs associated with infrastructure, such as the expense of maintaining larger accommodation. Care of less than 14 per cent will also incur much less cost associated with education expenses and personal items like clothes and toys. For that reason, it is regarded as appropriate that care of less than 14 per cent is not formally recognised in the child support formula. I acknowledge that it may be difficult for a non-resident parent to meet the costs of having some contact with their child as well as paying ongoing child support, but ultimately it is also important to ensure that the parent with the majority of care is receiving appropriate financial support from the non-resident parent. There are a number of options available to parents with care of less than 14 per cent to have some of the costs that they are incurring recognised in a child support assessment. Parents who feel that the child support formula does not fully reflect their circumstances may be able apply to the Child Support Agency for a change of assessment. A Senior Case Officer will consider the circumstances of both parents and make a decision. One reason to apply for a change of assessment is if costs of contact exceed 5 per cent of a parent’s child support income amount. A change of assessment for this reason may be suitable for those parents whose children live in different towns or interstate. There is also a facility within the Scheme for parents to agree that particular payments should be credited as child support. These are known as non-agency payments. A non-agency payment is a child support payment made directly to the resident parent or third party for the benefit of the child or children. Parents may seek agreement with the other parent to have such payments considered as a non-agency payment for child support purposes. A paying parent can also make certain payments that may be credited as child support payments without the agreement of the resident parent. These are called Prescribed Non-Agency Payments and may be credited at a rate of 30 per cent of the amount payable each month after the remaining 70 per cent of child support is paid in full, and can include child care costs, school fees and essential dental and medical fees. This arrangement improves the balance between resident parents having enough money available and the wishes of non-resident parents having a say about how child support payments are spent. For further information about these options, I encourage the petitioners to contact the Child Support Agency on 13 1272 for the cost of a local call. Thank you again for writing. from the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Ms Macklin 9482 Dear Ms Irwin Petition concerning internet service provider (ISP) filtering Thank you for your letter dated 9 June 2009 forwarding a copy of a petition concerning internet service provider (ISP) filtering. I appreciate the petitioners’ interest in this important issue. I am aware that the issue of ISP filtering has attracted criticism from people who are concerned that it will lead to censorship of the internet. Freedom of speech is fundamentally important in a democratic society. For many years however, most Australians have accepted that there is some material which is not acceptable, particularly for children. The Government has committed $125.8 million over four years in the 2008-09 Budget for a comprehensive range of cyber-safety measures that involve education, international co-operation, research, law enforcement and ISP filtering. A part of the Government’s plan is to examine the introduction of ISP level filtering for Refused Classification (RC) material. Content defined under the Broadcasting Services Act 1992 as RC material includes child sexual abuse imagery, bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. The Government is also considering additional ISP content filtering options for those families who wish to have such a service provided by ISPs who wish to provide this as an option for customers. The Government’s policy is being developed through an informed and considered approach, including industry consultation and close examination of overseas models to assess their suitability for Australia. A live ISP filtering pilot is being conducted to inform the Government’s ISP filtering policy. The pilot is being conducted with the co-operation of ISPs and their customers, and is assessing many of the issues raised in this petition, including potential impacts of filtering solutions on internet speeds, accuracy, the ease of circumvention and costs. The pilot is scheduled to conclude shortly and I intend to publicly release the report from the pilot. I trust this information will be of assistance. from the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, Senator Conroy 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —I look forward to further comments by my great deputy chair, and a very capable man, the member for McMillan. 9483 9483 20:32:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Members will be aware that the Standing Committee on Petitions is new to this parliament. Tonight I want to add to what the chair, the member for Fowler, has said and to her kind words. I want to talk about our position and role as a committee and about the bigger picture on petitions: why they matter and why we feel so engaged with petitions as part of the work of the House. As members will have heard from the chair in her last statement, the committee serves as the conduit between the community and parliament. Our role is not to either promote or de-emphasise individual petitions but rather to assist their smooth passage into parliament and provide authority for requests to ministers for responses to concerns raised in petitions. It might be useful for the House if I outline some practical aspects of petitioning the House and the way the Petitions Committee participates in the process. In doing so, I refer to the guidelines posted on the committee’s webpage titled ‘Petitioning the House of Representatives’. These are based on the standing orders of the House. Essentially, petitions need to be in a particular format, to be addressed to the House and to refer to a matter over which the House has power to act. Petitions should state the reasons for petitioning the House and contain a request for action by the House. Beyond that, the text of petitions should be no more than 250 words and must not be illegal or promote illegal acts. Petitions must be in English or be accompanied by a certified translation. No letters, affidavits or other documents can be attached. It is also important that every petition contain the signature and full name and address of the principal petitioner on the first page of the petition. All signatures must be original, not copied, pasted or transferred. Each signature must be made by the person signing in their own handwriting except for a person who cannot sign and has asked another person to do it on their behalf. Against these parameters, the committee makes determinations on whether the petitions it receives directly from petitioners or from members are in or out of order for the purpose of the House. In this we are governed by standing orders that I have summarised. There are also some interesting developments in petitions which have come up over the time the committee has been operating. Increasingly, petitioners contact the committee and its secretariat in order to check that the proposed petitions fall within the parameters set by the standing orders. This welcome development will lead to a greater number of petitioners being found in order and a rising confidence in the community that the concerns voiced in the petitions can indeed be heard by the House. We are also seeing an increased use of email to distribute petitions by principal petitioners under the current arrangements of the House. From this point signed, hard copy petitions are either sent back to a central point for collection or sent straight to the House of Representatives. To be considered by the committee, petitions must be signed, original hard copies. It will be interesting, however, to see how these developments are affected if the House introduces electronic petitioning. As members will be aware, the committee, as part of its role in developing policy, is currently inquiring into electronic petitions. If the introduction of electronic petitioning is recommended by the committee and adopted by the House, it will open up new possibilities for a pathway of communicating with parliament that continues and enhances the great tradition of the petition. I commend the committee to the House and congratulate the chair on the great work that she is doing communicating her role and the role of the committee with the community of Australia. 9484 Committees 9484 9484 9484 20:36:00 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 entitled Statutory Oversight of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —I am pleased to speak to the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services report on the statutory oversight of ASIC. I would like to, first of all, thank the secretariat for their assistance in preparing this report and ASIC officials for their continuing cooperation with the committee and their hard work as well. I would particularly like to thank former ASIC Deputy Chairman Jeremy Cooper for all his assistance to the committee over the years and wish him the best in his new role as head of the government’s recently announced review of Australia’s superannuation system. The report covers a number of issues, including the lift on the short-selling ban; ASIC’s efforts to improve market integrity; and recent corporate collapses, including Storm Financial, Timbercorp and Great Southern. The committee also continued to seek information about mortgage fund redemptions, credit-rating agency regulation and professional indemnity insurance arrangements for the financial services industry. Short selling The ban on covered short selling of financial stocks was lifted on 25 May, exceeding the length of similar measures in overseas jurisdictions. ASIC defended its cautious approach and suggested that a ban could be re-introduced if extreme market conditions justify it. The committee welcomes the lifting of the ban. We will monitor the effectiveness of the new reporting arrangements for covered short sales in bringing transparency to this area. Market integrity ASIC has also sought to address the market integrity issues that made short selling such a problem during the period of market volatility. Although the steps ASIC has taken to stamp out false and misleading market rumours have not generally led to successful prosecutions, they claim that their efforts had a deterrent effect. The committee expects that the resources allocated to this task through Project Mint will result in more tangible results in the near future. We also look forward to seeing more effective market surveillance now ASIC has taken responsibility for this from the ASX. Corporate collapses The collapses of Storm Financial and agribusiness MIS companies Timbercorp and Great Southern have led to the committee conducting two separate committee inquiries into the regulatory issues around these events. In terms of the collapses themselves, the committee strongly supports ASIC taking whatever steps it can to prosecute regulatory breaches, wherever they may have occurred. I understand that work is continuing, and we expect to see results from ASIC in those terms. Freeze on redemptions Freezes on redemptions from mortgage funds and cash management trusts continue. A number of hardship payments have been made so far, and ASIC has announced that it will extend the scope for hardship payments to assist those who remain affected by the freeze. But the task of unfreezing these funds is a difficult one—they need new funds to allow redemptions, yet such an inflow of funds is unlikely while they remain frozen. This is a real dilemma not only for the funds themselves but also the people who invest in them and the management of those funds in these difficult times. The committee welcomes the expansion of hardship payments and will continue to monitor this sector. Credit rating agencies The new arrangements for the regulation of credit-rating agencies have been delayed until 1 January 2010. These changes will require credit rating agencies to hold an Australian Financial Services licence and report on their ratings processes and on how they manage conflicts of interest. ASIC told the committee that the delay is due to international developments. The committee reiterates ASIC’s warning that the ratings provided by these agencies should not be blindly relied on. PI insurance Finally, the phasing-in of professional indemnity insurance requirements for financial services providers is causing concern in the industry. Cover is getting more difficult to obtain, which might cause problems for smaller operators when the implementation period for compulsory cover concludes at the end of this year. The committee will continue to seek further updates on this problem as the requirement for a higher standard of cover begins. The committee would also like to see ASIC better explain the limited capacity for PI insurance to compensate investor losses. I commend the report to the House. 9486 20:41:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —Section 243 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 sets out the role of the parliamentary committee’s duties. One of them is to inquire into and report to the House on the activities of ASIC, hence the report this evening about the hearing of 17 June 2009 in the parliamentary committee’s inquiry on the role of ASIC. The legislation also requires the committee to look at the operation of the Corporations Law, or any other law of the Commonwealth or indeed states as to how it affects the operation of the corporations legislation, to examine the annual report and to inquire into any questions that may arise. The hearing on 17 June questioned ASIC on a range of issues, including short selling, market integrity, recent corporate collapses, BrisConnections, mortgage fund and cash management trust redemptions, professional indemnity insurance, ASIC’s structure and budget, and of course investor education. I wish to make a few brief comments on some of the more salient issues that were covered. As the chair of the committee indicated, the committee welcomes the decision to lift the ban on covered short selling of financial stocks. The committee considers that covered short selling certainly contributes to market liquidity and price discovery and is certainly a valid feature of the Australian market. Likewise central to the recent short selling of course was the issue of market integrity. ASIC is responsible under the law for identifying and prosecuting any instances of a lack of market integrity. ASIC told the committee that its efforts to improve market integrity have included expanding enforcement teams, working closely with the ASX, checking market activity and a website for people to lodge complaints. There have been no prosecutions to date, though ASIC told the committee that Project Mint was a work in progress and that it had already produced and commenced a range of deterrent works. The last 12 months in particular have seen a range of market volatility, resulting in a range of corporate collapses. To date insolvencies have included ABC Learning, Allco, Babcock and Brown, Great Southern, Octaviar, Timbercorp and Storm Financial. Some $23 billion has been lost through those. Another $39 billion has been lost through 11 entities that have also seen their market capitalisation collapse. All in all, a figure of $73 billion, or 6.2 per cent of GDP in 2008, has been lost through a range of corporate collapses. Whilst perhaps the most spectacular was Storm Financial, where up to $4 billion of investors’ money has been lost, it is important to understand that $73 billion in value has been wiped out through a range of collapses. That is a significant amount considering that in the wake of the 1987 stock market crash around $20 billion, or 5.4 per cent of 1989 GDP, was wiped from balance sheets. As this House would be aware, the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services has commenced a full-blown inquiry into the collapse of Storm Financial, Opes Prime and other related entities. The committee has received more than 400 written submissions to its inquiry into financial products and services, and the majority of these relate to Storm Financial. This is an ongoing inquiry that is coming to its natural conclusion and should report, all things being equal, by the end of the year. I see the chair of the committee nodding from across the House. Likewise, the committee tabled its report on aspects of agribusiness managed investment schemes on 7 September and made two very specific recommendations with respect to ASIC—that the government amend the Corporations Act to require ASIC to appoint a temporary responsible entity in the case of collapse and, of course, a requirement for agribusiness MISs to disclose qualifications and accreditation of third parties that provide expert opinion. The committee takes its oversight role of ASIC seriously and looks forward to continuing that oversight role to ensure that the regulatory body of ASIC, which now governs all areas of financial services with the bill going through the House to deal with margin loans and the like, continues to play that fundamental role we need it to play in our society. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. 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) 20:45:00 —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. 9487 9487 Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:46:00 —I move: That this report on ASIC be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 9487 9487 9487 20:46:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —On behalf of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties, I present Report 105, treaties tabled 13 May and 25 June 2009. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. UK6 Thomson, Kelvin, MP Mr KELVIN THOMSON —Report No. 105 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties reviews two treaty actions: firstly, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel—the optional protocol; and, secondly, the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters—the Hague service convention. In each case the committee has supported the proposed treaties and recommended that binding treaty action be taken. UN personnel involved in delivering humanitarian, development or emergency assistance are often exposed to a security environment of exceptional risk. In the 2007-08 year, 25 civilian UN personnel lost their lives as a result of malicious acts while engaged in humanitarian work. The optional protocol is a supplementary treaty of the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. The convention criminalises attacks on UN personnel engaged in peacekeeping operations. States that are party to the convention are required to either prosecute or extradite persons suspected of committing such acts within the jurisdiction of that state. No such protections currently exist for United Nations and associated personnel engaged in humanitarian work. The optional protocol is intended to rectify this situation. The optional protocol expands the protection of the convention to personnel involved in additional types of UN operations, including personnel involved in delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peace building and delivering emergency humanitarian assistance. This includes, for example, personnel employed by the UN Development Program; the UN Children’s Fund; the World Food Program; and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees. There are good reasons for Australia to ratify the optional protocol. A large number of Australians are involved in working for the UN in humanitarian work, and it is in their interests for Australia to ratify the optional protocol. Ratification by Australia will bring the optional protocol closer to being in force. It will also encourage other nations to undertake the ratification process. In addition, while the optional protocol will not necessarily prevent attacks from happening, bringing it into force will strengthen the rule of law and create an additional sense of obligation for nations where humanitarian assistance is delivered. The treaties committee believes that ratification of this treaty will send a message to the international community about Australia’s commitment to the safety of United Nations and associated personnel involved in humanitarian work. If Australia’s ratification of this treaty results in another country prosecuting someone who has attacked an Australian working for the United Nations, it will have been well worth the effort. I will now turn to the Hague service convention. There are many legal professionals in the parliament who will understand the importance attached in the litigation process for the serving of documents. The service of documents performs the function of advising a person that they are considered by a court to be a defendant in a matter before the court, and enables the court to establish its jurisdiction over a defendant. Because of the importance of a person knowing that they are a defendant in a matter before a court, there are rules governing the service of documents. The rules are generally directed at ensuring that the defendant is aware that they are party to a matter before a court and have accepted the documents. There are significant barriers to the effective service of documents by Australian litigants to defendants overseas. Currently, the service of court documents abroad is administered through diplomatic channels, which regularly takes some months. This means that defendants are not given enough time to prepare a defence, and this may result in a default judgment being given against them. On the other hand, applicants can be disadvantaged if a court cannot demonstrate that documents have been successfully served. The Hague service convention streamlines and harmonises the process of serving court documents between countries that are party to it by establishing a framework for the transmission of court documents between countries. The committee supports ratification. The Hague service convention has the potential to replace a slow, complex process with a transparent and timely procedure more appropriate to the globalised world in which we live. I thank the numerous agencies, individuals and organisations who assisted in the committee’s inquiries. I commend the report to the House. 9488 20:51:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —As a former United Nations staff member and as chair of the UN parliamentary group, I am very pleased to speak to the tabling of report No.105 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties and, in particular, on the report’s recommendation that Australia ratify the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel. Australia became a signatory to the optional protocol on 19 September 2006 after strongly supporting the negotiations that gave rise to it. Ratification will require amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 (Commonwealth) so that the current provisions which criminalise attacks on UN and associated personnel, and which provide for the prosecution or extradition of those responsible for such attacks, are extended in scope to provide equivalent protection to UN personnel involved in delivering humanitarian, political or development assistance in peace-building operations or to those providing emergency humanitarian assistance. As it stands, the convention, without the optional protocol, serves only to protect peacekeeping operations or other operations that have been declared to be of ‘exceptional risk’ by the UN Security Council or the General Assembly. It is worth noting that such a declaration has never been made, notwithstanding the sharp rise in the number and seriousness of attacks over the last decade. The attack on 19 August 2003 on the UN Operational Headquarters—the Canal Hotel in Baghdad—stands as a reminder that United Nations projects and personnel are far from inviolable. On that occasion, 22 people were killed and more than 100 injured. The dead included the UN’s Special Representative in Iraq, Sergio Vieira de Mello, and my friend Jean-Selim Kanaan, about whom I have spoken in this place before. In addition to the 16 peacekeeping operations that the UN administers, there are numerous UN programs and agencies whose personnel are not covered under the convention. These include the United Nations Children’s Fund—or UNICEF—the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the World Food Program and the United Nations Development Program, which is, for example, on the ground in 166 countries working towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals. No UN personnel engaged in those critically important and often risky operations are protected by the convention. For instance, the UN safety convention applied to me while I was working for the UN peacekeeping mission in Kosovo but not when I worked subsequently in the far more dangerous ongoing conflict situation in Gaza for UNRWA—the United Nations humanitarian agency for the Palestinian refugees. I recall another terrible incident on 6 September 2000 in West Timor when a roaming militia stormed the UNHCR office in Atambua and used machetes to hack to death three staff members: Carlos Caceres, a 33-year-old American protection officer; Samson Aregahen, a 44-year-old Ethiopian supply officer; and Pero Simundza, a 29-year-old Croatian telecommunications officer. Their bodies were then dragged into the street and burned. Only moments before he was murdered, the American officer Carlos Carceres had written an email to a friend: We sit here like bait, unarmed, waiting for the wave to hit. These guys (militias) act without thinking and can kill a human as easily as I kill mosquitos in my room. His last words were: I need to go now. I hear screaming outside. Absurdly, none of those UNHCR workers were covered by the UN safety convention at the time they were killed. However, they would be covered now under this optional protocol, as would UNRWA staff. Anyone who has worked for the United Nations is likely to have known someone grievously harmed or killed in circumstances where UN operations have been targeted or at least recklessly ignored. That has certainly been my experience. No-one imagines that this optional protocol will by itself stop further injuries or deaths from occurring, but it is more than a symbolic gesture. It requires ratifying nations to explicitly acknowledge the special protection that applies to a much wider range of UN personnel, and it provides very real obligations when it comes to the prosecution or extradition of those who perpetrate attacks on unarmed humanitarian workers. It is humbling to be standing in this place taking part in a process that will make a quiet but significant contribution to the safety of an organisation that I served with all my heart for eight years and to the safety of my former colleagues. The UN is more than a building in New York. It is tens of thousands of people spread across the planet far from their own homes undertaking difficult, life-affirming, necessary work in the cause of peace. Australia’s ratification of the optional protocol will send an important message that UN staff must be valued and protected. I commend report No.105 of the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties to the House. 9490 Delegation Reports 9490 9490 20:56:00 Owens, Julie, MP E09 Parramatta ALP 1 0 Ms OWENS —I present the report of the Australian parliamentary delegation to the Philippines, Cambodia and Malaysia from 19 April to 1 May 2009. The parliamentary delegation to Malaysia, the Philippines and Cambodia in April was the first visit of its type by members of the Australian parliament. Starting this year, the Australian parliament’s outgoing delegations program includes a visit each year to three ASEAN countries that have democratically elected parliaments. It is right that we increase our focus on an extremely important region for Australia. Not only do Australia and its citizens have strong relationships with many ASEAN members but as a group ASEAN and New Zealand constitute Australia’s largest trading partner, valued at $103 billion in 2007-08, accounting for 21 per cent of Australia’s total trade. Australia’s two-way trade with ASEAN has grown by an average of 10 per cent per year. It was an opportune time to begin this program of visits, particularly given that a free trade agreement between Australia, New Zealand and ASEAN was signed in February this year. The aims of the annual parliamentary delegation visit to ASEAN countries are to gain a better understanding of developments in ASEAN countries and to examine opportunities to broaden links with those countries. The delegation in this case comprised me, Mr Rob Oakeshott MP and Senator Glenn Sterle. The full objectives of the delegation are outlined in the report but focus on economic development and opportunities to strengthen trade and investment links; environment, including policies and initiatives to meet the challenges of climate change; security, including defence cooperation and responses to the threat of terrorism; cooperation within the multilateral system; and social development, including community health and education. The report tabled tonight covers each of the three countries separately against each of these focus areas. Cambodia, Malaysia and the Philippines are three remarkably different countries with substantial differences in economic and developmental circumstances, each sharing a unique history with Australia, including the military history with Malaysia, a substantial and longstanding aid relationship with Cambodia, including the provision of safe haven to many Cambodian students who later became Australians, and the many Filipino students and workers who spent time here and the many who built their homes here. There are considerable benefits to be enjoyed by both sides from continued growth in the relationships and in developing the untapped potential in areas including education, agriculture, tourism, mining and financial services. I know I speak for the other members of the delegation when I stress the importance of delegations such as this one, of getting to know our colleagues in the parliaments of our closest neighbours, of openly sharing experiences and knowledge, of improving both parliament’s corporate memories of our relationships and the history that binds our countries and our citizens together, of comprehending the potential for greater economic and cultural ties, of exploring opportunities for growth in two-way trade and investment and understanding the barriers to that growth, of cooperating on security, and of truly comprehending Australia’s geographic, cultural and economic place in its own region and the importance of this vibrant region to Australia and the world. The program was full and varied and included meetings with aid agencies and visits to aid programs that provided water and education to some of the poorest people in the region, a meeting of Australian citizens who had returned to Cambodia to help rebuild, a meeting with education providers and the many Filipinos who remembered fondly their student days in Australia, frank discussions with members of all parliaments, discussions about multiculturalism, the sharing of concerns about maritime security and terrorism in the region, and meeting Australian businesses and hearing of their experiences. We cannot stress enough the importance of the new delegation program, which over time will help familiarise Australian parliamentarians and their ASEAN colleagues with the extraordinary opportunities encompassed in the relationships that we build at government, personal and business levels. I would like to thank the many people who helped put the program together and hosted us—and exhausted us, for that matter—for nine full days of delegation visits and travel at either end. Thanks to the Australian Embassy in the Philippines, including Ambassador Rod Smith and his staff; the Australian High Commission in Malaysia, including High Commissioner Penny Williams and her staff; the Australian Embassy in Cambodia, including Ambassador Margaret Adamson, who was brave enough when faced with flooding in Phnom Penh to take off her shoes with me and wade through thigh-high water to get back to the embassy; all of those who met with the delegation in each country, including presiding officers, members of parlament, ministers, officials and representatives of NGOs and other organisations; staff of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra and staff of the Parliamentary Relations Office, and especially Natalie Cooke, the delegation secretary, who undertook her first delegation with us. Debate adjourned. 9491 9491 21:01:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I present the report of the Australian Parliamentary Delegation to Canada and Mexico, from 18 April to 1 May 2009, and seek leave to make a statement in connection with the report. Leave granted. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr BALDWIN —I rise to speak to the report of the official parliamentary delegation visit to Canada and Mexico. I had the honour of being the deputy leader of this Australian parliamentary delegation between 18 April and 20 April 2009. The aims and objectives of the delegation visit were clearly laid out and largely achieved, despite the visit to Mexico being curtailed due to the outbreak of the H1N1 influenza virus. For the preparatory work, I thank Lyn Witheridge of the Parliamentary Relations office, DFAT and the Parliamentary Library. The strong ties between Australia and Canada have been forged over many, many decades through both trade and military campaigns. At the Anzac Day ceremony at the Canadian Forces College on 25 April, I was reminded that a Canadian soldier was killed at Gallipoli whilst serving with the Australian and New Zealand forces. Whilst I was honoured to have read the Ode, I was truly moved to witness the hundreds of Australian and New Zealand expats come together with Turks and Canadians, all paying respect to each nation’s heroes. The meetings with the National Parliament of Canada in Ottawa and the provincial parliaments of Quebec and Toronto canvassed a multitude of issues from climate change, and, of course, their modelling of an emissions trading scheme, and the need to work with the US government rather than as a stand-alone anticompetitive model, though to indigenous land rights, mining and other trade opportunities. Whilst the two-way trade merchandise alone is in excess of $3.8 billion, the Hunter Valley is a direct beneficiary as a part of the $250 million wine trade. I was honoured to meet with the Hon. Peter MacKay, Minister of National Defence, where in discussions I raised the question of why there was to be a withdrawal of their troops from Afghanistan in 2011. He detailed to the delegation, just days after the loss of 21-year-old trooper Karine Blais, the difficulties in explaining to his nation why Canadians, in particular a young Canadian woman, should be laying down their lives for a country where the government wants sharia law, which denies equal rights to women. Australia is well served by His Excellency Mr Justin Brown, High Commissioner to Canada, and his highly effective team. I thank them for their efforts, both individually and collectively. I need to make it clear that the delegation’s visit to Mexico was undertaken in full knowledge of the outbreak of the H1N1 virus and the threat assessments provided at the time. Our diplomatic relationships with Mexico started 43 years ago, and it was the view of the delegation that it was important to show by our visitation solidarity and concern for the health of the people of Mexico and support for the work that was being done to contain the spread of the disease in very difficult circumstances. Despite the difficulties, productive meetings were held in Hidalgo, discussing trade and investment opportunities, and in Mexico City with a range of government officials. The relationship and a sign of appreciation were reflected in the standing ovation to the delegation as we introduced by the President on the floor of the Senate. The energy sector in Mexico is an important element in our trade relationships, with increasing opportunities in LNG and coal. I would like to acknowledge the hard work that has been done by Her Excellency Ms Katrina Cooper, Ambassador to Mexico, and her team in providing opportunity and success for my region in continuing to provide coal to Mexico. Ambassador Cooper recently visited Australia, and it was an honour to organise, through the generous hospitality of Xtrata, a visit to both open-cut and underground mining operations, so that, when she speaks of Australian coal, she can speak from the visualisation and understanding of the industry firsthand. At dinner meetings with the Business Association of Mexico, Australia and New Zealand, I witnessed the strength of our business relationships with Mexico, adequately fostered by our ambassador. As a nation, we are indeed very fortunate to have professional and passionate officers of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in our overseas missions. Overall, I was duly impressed with the dedication, direction, accomplishments and networks of our mission staff. I thank them all for their efforts in ensuring that the visit was a success. I also thank the members of the delegation—delegation leader, the Hon. Senator John Hogg; the Hon. Dick Adams MP; Mr Barry Haase MP; Senator the Hon. Bill Heffernan; the Hon. John Murphy MP; and Ms Belinda Neal MP—and their spouses for their professional input and high-quality company. I pay special thanks to the secretary of the delegation, Mr Nick Tate, and the senior adviser to the President of the Senate, Mr Gerard Martin, for their tireless work in difficult and trying circumstances during the trip. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—Does the member for Paterson wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) 21:06:00 —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. 9493 9493 Mr BALDWIN (Paterson) 21:06:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 9493 Bills R4199 9493 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mrs Bronwyn Bishop. 9493 21:07:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —In speaking to my bill, I begin by referring to the comments of the shadow minister for climate change, environment and water, the Hon. Greg Hunt, relating to the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Amendment Bill 2009. He said that if the government was willing to consider the opposition’s amendments then the legislation would pass. The government did in fact undertake to agree to a number of those amendments but it did not agree to those dealing with food processing and preserving a portion of the renewable energy target for emerging technologies, such as geothermal, wave, tidal and biomass. The coalition supported the bill, which was passed, but feels very strongly about the need to protect farmers from adverse consequences of the renewable energy target and the need to keep access possible for newly emerging technologies—hence my private member’s bill, which I hope the government will permit a second reading and vote. The case to give food processing activities the same exemption from the RET as aluminium and other industries—that is, 90 per cent—is compelling. If the same treatment is not given to food-processing activities to the extent that they are trade exposed then the Australian dairy industry, livestock farmers and food processors in particular, and farming families in general, will unfairly suffer. If food-processing costs incurred because of the RET were passed back to farmers, this would lead to substantial farm gate income losses. All of this will impact on industry viability, such as food cannery firms, our food security and rural jobs. Senator Boswell in the Senate drew attention to the plight of the Murray Goulburn dairy cooperative, which is a trade-exposed high-energy user. The coop told the Senate Economics Legislation Committee that the RET would add $1 million in 2010 to its costs, rising to $2 million in 2020. This in turn would impact on some 2,500 farming families because the additional cost of electricity forced upon them by the RET legislation would be passed back to those families. With regard to the issues addressed in my bill relating to newly emerging technologies, there is a need for them to have guaranteed access to the RET as it has been established. This is both sensible and essential. Geothermal technology is of much importance to South Australia and must not be crowded out. As my colleague the member for Grey has told me, in Innamincka Geodynamics have succeeded in moving water 500 metres underground at an operating depth of more than 4,200 metres. Basically, the water is pushed down one well to full depth, then through the natural structure of the rock at high pressures, forcing the fissures to fracture, which allows the now superheated water to be retrieved at a paired well. Water is recovered at the surface at a temperature of around 200 degrees Celsius. This energy would then be harvested using a heat exchange system, and the water would then be pumped back down the hole. These are the sorts of technologies that are set out in the schedule for my bill, which means that in the future there would be available room for these new technologies to get access to what will become a 20 per cent guarantee of the electricity market. In not accepting the amendments at the time of the passage of the original bill, we believe, the government erred. Hence, I am presenting them in a private member’s bill, enforcing the argument, firstly, that there is a need for farmers to have the same degree of protection that other industries are going to be given by the government and, secondly, that there will be room left in the market for new and different technologies, as I have described in the bill, to have access to that guaranteed spectrum. If this is not done then Australia will be the poorer—and South Australia in particular, with geothermal. I commend the bill to the House. Bill read a first time. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—In accordance with standing order 41(d), the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 9494 Bills R4198 9494 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Tuckey. 9494 21:12:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —This bill deals with the quota of renewable certificates available to renewable resource technologies and the inclusion of energy efficient transmission systems as eligible for renewable certificates. Schedule 1 is to ensure that the more mature renewable technologies, such as wind, will not crowd out from access to renewable energy certificates emerging renewable technologies which will have the potential to provide more reliable and cheaper renewable energy but will require the financial benefits of renewable certificates to attract private investment to develop their technology. I would like to point out that just in this last week a particular company has gone into administration, having been offered $75 million of federal government moneys and $50 million of Victorian government moneys to build a solar facility near Mildura. The reason was that they were unable, at that level and without the support of renewable certificates in sufficient numbers, to attract private investment. The purpose of this bill is to limit any one renewable resource technology to 20,000 gigawatt hours in the ultimately available 45,000 gigawatt hour renewable target. Schedule 2 of this amendment also recognises that energy saved in the transmission of power, as available in new technologies such as high-voltage DC current transmission, achieves the same purpose as renewable generation inasmuch as it requires fewer emissions from the generator to supply demand. There is a very interesting comparison of the efficiency of a variety of transmission technologies in delivering energy to the point where Australians wish to consume it, be it domestically or for business, and that is the Dampier-Bunbury pipeline, where the demand has grown exponentially in recent times and, as a result, the pressure in the pipeline has been increased for the purpose of delivering sufficient energy. That energy is now the same as one of the state’s Collie powerhouses—225 megawatts. The emissions associated with pumping the gas that distance are about 700,000 tonnes. One might choose to compare that with the changeover from incandescent globes to fluorescent globes, where the national saving is estimated at 800,000 tonnes of emissions. In other words, instead of having a highly inefficient system of delivering energy to consumers in the south-west of WA via a gas pipeline, it is much more efficient to generate the electricity from that same gas in the Pilbara and deliver it to the consumer via what would be underground high-voltage DC transmission systems. The bill does not dictate that. It leaves it to the regulator to make a comparison where energy is transmitted from A to B—and, I might add, high-voltage DC power now crosses Bass Strait. The fact of life is that, if the regulator gives a rating to a particular transmission system where, as a consequence, more power gets to the other end, that would qualify, by government regulation, for the issue of certificates which are renewable energy rated. It is a very important process. As the member for Mackellar just said, I sincerely hope the government looks very positively at this idea. There are a mass of emerging technologies that the member for Mackellar has mentioned which should not be crowded out, particularly by wind generation. In South Australia, the regulator has said: ‘Don’t have any more. This technology will fail on superhot days and you could be without any energy at all.’ (Time expired) Bill read a first time. 10000 Vale, Danna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. DS Vale)—In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 9495 Bills R4179 Consideration resumed from 18 August. 9495 9495 21:18:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. I rise once again to endorse the Renewable Energy Amendment (Feed-in-Tariff for Electricity) Bill 2009 and to advocate that this legislation be introduced by the Australian government, preferably sometime soon. Since last speaking on this, I have noticed an increasing level of engagement with this issue throughout the country, not only amongst householders, business and industry but also through various representative bodies. Greenpeace today launched a report which outlines that over 30,000 jobs could be lost in Australia unless the government introduces a feed-in tariff. Likewise, the Electrical Trades Union last week put around to all members of parliament a substantial report endorsing a feed-in tariff and noting the importance of such legislation. I also note that now all the states at least have inquiries into the matter. Most states have put in place legislation of some sort. That is good in one sense, although what it does do is expose the role of the Commonwealth in producing the common wealth. We have the absurd situation now, which goes back to the old rail gauge debates of over 100 years ago, where we have a different system set up in every state and territory. We have a national electricity market—all the poles and wires are pretty well connected now—and retailers now operate in a national market selling products across state borders, yet we are locked into a system which for important legislation, such as feed-in tariff legislation, is state based. It is uncoordinated, it creates problems in border areas and in billing systems for the various utilities involved and it is a less than preferred outcome for the country. Only one location, Canberra, has looked at a gross feed-in system similar to what has been adopted in Germany. It has driven the German market hard, and now between 6 and 8 per cent of GDP comes from environmental technology. In this month’s edition of National Geographic there is a story about a fella who lives next to the Black Forest. He had to wipe snow off his photovoltaic panels on the day the journalist interviewed him. He had had returned to him from the feed-in tariff system the equivalent of A$4,000. We should build a system that encourages Australians in their homes to engage in the provision of energy and reduction of their own energy costs so that they get a return for being involved. If we want to seriously address the energy needs of the future we cannot continue to rely on a future being cheap coal and we cannot rely on targets set through legislation over the last month but we can rely on very good examples that have been used around the world and are proven successes. Once again I mention the German example. It has driven their renewable energy market significantly, it has engaged and it is delivering good outcomes with cheap electricity to the household. Not only for job reasons but also for economic reasons does the Commonwealth have an obligation under our constitution to unite and to bring together policy when the states fracture. Here is an example of that state fracturing. Let us not go back to the 20th century, where states all worked independently and separately and people were worse off because of it. I encourage government to look at this feed-in tariff legislation. I encourage government to look at the work that has been done by ETU and Greenpeace and I encourage them to adopt this legislation. (Time expired) 00APG Smith, Anthony, MP Mr Anthony Smith —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 9496 21:23:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 0 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —In an ideal world, I think we would all be self-sufficient in relation to energy and electricity matters, producing our own electricity. Particularly in this day and age, it is technologically possible to do this through the installation of things like solar photovoltaic. It does not have to be solar PV, but that is the technology which has had the most potential to take off in ordinary homes, community facilities, small businesses and the like. But the disincentive for people to actually make themselves self-sufficient is the upfront capital cost of installing solar PV. In order to deal with this, some countries around the world—and, as the member for Lyne pointed out, the ACT and other places in Australia—have been looking at providing what is known as a gross feed-in tariff. That is to say that then not only do you not have to pay for the electricity that you are generating yourself but if you feed electricity back into the grid you get paid a premium for the electricity that you have fed back in. That is what a feed-in tariff is: paying electricity consumers a premium for electricity that they are able to generate under their own steam and feed back into the grid. I have previously spoken to the parliament in support of the agreement of the Council of Australian Governments to establish a national energy market operator. I think that it is great that we are seeing a spirit of cooperation in the COAG process concerning energy markets and a move toward national energy market governance, which has included looking at trying to get a harmonised approach to feed-in tariffs. I support a feed-in tariff scheme. I have spoken about it in the parliament on a number of occasions. I draw to the attention of the House an Electrical Trade Union of Australia, Victorian branch, report produced just this month and entitled Job creation: the case for a national gross feed-in tariff. I commend it to parliamentarians and, indeed, to all Australians who are interested in this issue. It notes that Access Economics has found that Australia has the potential to double the number of people employed within the renewables sector through the introduction of a national gross feed-in tariff over the next 10 years. I note this is both economic stimulus and climate stimulus. I also note that people are, naturally enough, concerned about what the impact of this is going to be on electricity prices. In this context, the Alternative Technology Association has found that Australian electricity networks are committed to spending in the order of $24 billion on network upgrades over the next five years and that, with network charges accounting for around 45 per cent of consumers’ retail electricity bills, this represents a significant cost impost to retail customers. Not so long ago there was a very substantial hike in electricity bills in New South Wales based on the need for new infrastructure. If you could stave off this large investment in infrastructure by encouraging consumers to engage in their own rooftop infrastructure investment, both the planet and the consumers would be better off. The COAG agreed on 29 November to work towards the adoption of a set of national principles to apply to new state and territory feed-in tariff schemes and to inform reviews of the existing schemes. These principles should advance the fair and reasonable treatment of small customers, with renewable microgeneration, including solar panels, as well as consider the interests of electricity customers. Renewable energy generation will play an important role in meeting Australia’s energy needs. I note that the government has introduced a number of initiatives which will significantly increase investment in renewable energy. The House ought to be aware of these; we have had the renewable energy target legislation to ensure that 20 per cent of Australia’s electricity supply is from renewable sources by 2020. The legislation that we have now put in place will increase the current renewable energy target by more than four times, reaching 45,000 gigawatt hours in 2020. We have also introduced the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme legislation. Our expanded renewable energy target legislation includes the solar credits initiative to provide support for electricity generated by small solar PV systems. In addition to this, the government has committed well over $1 billion for a range of programs, including the National Solar Schools Program, the Renewable Remote Power Generation Program, the Solar Hot Water Rebate Program and Solar Cities, towards the uptake of solar energy in our communities. I think that the government is doing lots of good things in this area and that these programs will promote the development, commercialisation and deployment of renewable technologies. (Time expired) Debate interrupted. 9497 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being approximately 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 9497 9497 21:30:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —This is a picture of Rachel Purdy. Rachel’s mother brought it to me and asked that I show it to the parliament. Rachel was killed in a horrific traffic accident on the Bruce Highway at Kybong on 4 September 2008. Ten days ago, her family and some friends gathered at the site of the accident to remember her and to plead for a commitment to upgrade the Bruce Highway from Cooroy to Curra. The newspapers reported that her car was struck by a southbound truck and burst into flames. Two more trucks then ploughed into the vehicles at the accident scene. It took 12 hours to clear the wreckage, and the scene was described as ‘like a bomb had exploded on the Bruce Highway’. Debris was strewn over 100 metres across the road. Beautiful Rachel Purdy died along with her unborn child; her partner, Corey Whitmore; and one of the truck drivers. Rachel’s death is a tragedy that her mother and family find hard to bear; but it is also a tragedy for the community that the lives of such a young family, with potentially so much ahead of them, were cut short in a horrible moment. This is not the only fatal accident that has occurred on the Bruce Highway north and south of Gympie over recent times. Fifty-three people have been killed on the Bruce Highway between Cooroy and Curra since 2002. More Australians have been killed on this section of road than on all the battlefields of the world over this period. The RACQ and other road authorities regard this road as the worst section of the national highway in Queensland. It received this appalling title as far back as 1982, and its ‘worst in the state’ rating has not changed. It is not as though nothing has been done to improve the road. The four-laning stops at the southern end of this horror strip, but during the term of the previous government at least $200 million was spent on widening the road, intersection upgrades and overtaking lanes. The notorious Gunalda Range section was rebuilt and a four-lane upgrade through Gympie was underway. But that is not enough. The killer highway now requires major investment. Before Christmas the government reduced the speed limit to 90 kilometres per hour over a distance of some 50 kilometres, but there have been several fatal accidents since the speed limit was imposed. The road must be widened to four lanes with a bypass around Gympie. During my 15 months as federal transport minister, we began the route identification for the Gympie bypass and the four-laning from Cooroy to Curra. The $6 million route selection project included extensive community consultation over two years. The coalition committed to build the 65 kilometres of new road by 2020 and allocated $700 million to commence the construction of the Cooroy to Curra upgrade from AusLink II funding. Unfortunately, Labor promised only $200 million, moving the remaining $500 million to other projects. Eventually the government agreed to provide $488 million from its Nation Building money for one section of the road upgrade. This section includes the place where the memorial for Rachel, Corey and their child has been built. Minister Albanese turned the first sod for the project recently, and work should begin within a month or two. The minister often says that this section B is to be built because that is where most of the fatalities occur. But that is not true. Since improvements were made to this section a few years ago, there are now other places which are much more accident-prone. This section of the road was chosen for upgrade only because it is the part of the highway that will be flooded if the disastrous Traveston Crossing dam is built. The people of the region are demanding that this road be upgraded. The killing must stop. That was the clear message from those who gathered 10 days ago to remember Rachel and Corey. They spoke of the horror of the accident scene, the tragedy of the lives lost and the maimed bodies, the nervousness and even fear that people experience every time they need to drive the highway, and their desperate concerns that unless the road is fixed the fatalities will continue. Rachel’s and Corey’s lives were cut short in an instant. Rachel was a beautiful girl who was the state manager for a hair therapy company. Corey was a handsome young man, a keen musician and a boxer who had his own car care business. Rachel’s mother wanted her story told to the parliament. She does not want her death to be in vain. The upgrading of this road must be given priority, and I will keep talking about the horrors of the road until it is fixed. 9499 9499 21:34:00 Bidgood, James, MP HVM Dawson ALP 1 0 Mr BIDGOOD —The Rudd Labor government is absolutely resolute in its commitment to Building the Education Revolution. We on this side of the House believe in investing in our students. We understand that they are our future and they are worth investing in. Three programs are the key elements of our $16.2 billion investment into our schools. They are: firstly, Primary Schools for the 21st Century, $14.1 billion to build or refurbish large-scale infrastructure in primary schools, kindy to grade 12 schools and special schools, including libraries, halls and classrooms; secondly, Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools, $821.8 million to build science laboratories or language learning centres in our secondary schools; and, thirdly, the National School Pride program, $1.3 billion to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and build minor infrastructure in all schools. These are all programs that will benefit our schools and students now and in years to come, and these are all programs which were rejected by those opposite. The rejection of investment in our schools by the opposition is nothing more than rank opportunism for the sake of short-term political headlines in a newspaper, and the public know it. The Liberal-National Party have shown their true colours and they have shown how out of touch they are with parents, teachers and students at our schools—the very people who will benefit directly from our investment in the Building the Education Revolution. Every Liberal and National Party member in this place has schools in their electorate that will be funded by this program—and with no thanks at all to them. In Dawson, in total there are more than 70 schools and more than 240 projects worth over $94,884,000. Whether the schools are public or private, religious or non-religious, city or country, we are investing real dollars and real bricks-and-mortar infrastructure in our schools. We in the Labor Party have the political will and determination to deliver for our schools top-class 21st century educational facilities, and we will not allow a weak and divided opposition to detract from the fact that this is good news for our nation and good news for the students and parents in Dawson. We understand that education is key. Without government’s continued investment into our places of learning we will not be in the best possible position to train our future doctors, lawyers, mechanics, engineers, nurses and plant operators. We on this side want to grow our schools and increase facilities for learning. Those on the opposite side would rather mock and block this historic investment, rather than stand up for their local teachers, students and P&Cs. We have a political will to vote and invest over $16 billion into our schools. We voted to support construction at every one of our schools. We voted for nation-building infrastructure and local jobs for our local communities. It is the Rudd Labor government that is building the best facilities, the best halls, the best libraries, the best science labs and the best language centres in our schools. It is the Rudd Labor government that voted for refurbishments, that voted for new play areas and sporting facilities. It is the Rudd government that voted for new trade training centres, new computer labs and new technologies to make the most of the new learning opportunities that our kids are presented with. It is the Rudd government that voted for local jobs. That is right: these new halls and classrooms will employ local working people, stimulating local economies at a time when builders and labourers need the work, and I know that is so much the case in the seat of Dawson. Today I had the honour to meet with students and teachers from Mackay Christian College and Northview State School. Both schools were on excursion here—from my electorate to the nation’s capital. These bright and enthusiastic young men and women will benefit from this government’s education revolution. I always enjoy visiting schools in my electorate and know that principals, teachers and students fully support the investment in their schools. These include schools such as Eimeo Road State School, which, while I was on a visit to that beautiful school, proudly showed me the plans for their new $1.2 million multipurpose hall and their new $1.8 million library; Fitzgerald State School, where the P&C president and the principal showed me work on their new $2.6 million hall; and Mackay Central State School, where I inspected construction work on their $1.7 million hall with the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, in July 2009. The same could be said about parents and teachers I met at St Joseph’s Catholic Primary School, at Mackay West State School, at Whitsunday Anglican School and at Beaconsfield State School. (Time expired) 9500 9500 21:39:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 0 0 Mr SOMLYAY —Yesterday morning, like other people in South-East Queensland, I woke up, opened the Sunday Mail and read the most disturbing news that my electorate and South-East Queensland have heard for a long, long time. That news was that Anna Bligh had made the announcement, late on Saturday, that the Traveston Crossing dam would proceed, after having promised that it would not proceed for several years. The Traveston Crossing dam was announced by Peter Beattie three or four years ago, when that area was in my electorate. I follow on from the member for Wide Bay, who spoke about the Bruce Highway and the dangerous piece of road between Gympie and Cooroy. At that stage that part of the highway was in my electorate. It came as a shock to me, as the former Minister for Trade said, that after we had spent $6 million identifying the new route of the four-lane Bruce Highway Peter Beattie announced that 11 kilometres of that highway would disappear under a dam. The state Minister for Main Roads is the man who is responsible for planning that road. I could not understand the stupidity of the state government, where you have one minister planning a new highway and, next door, another minister planning to flood it. It just seemed ludicrous. I was very concerned because all the money that we spent, the government spent, on the Bruce Highway went to waste. The amount of money that the member for Wide Bay, as minister, made available to the dairy industry through dairy deregulation—the compensation that the Commonwealth paid to dairy farmers to establish new industries in that area, those hundreds of millions of dollars—was going under water. There was a massive protest by the people of Mary Valley, by the people of Noosa and by the people of the Sunshine Coast against the Traveston Crossing dam. I attended a meeting with the member for Wide Bay—we sat next to each other—which Peter Beattie addressed for a solid six hours listening to complaints, but he would not listen. He went right ahead with that dam, with his proposal. There was no listening. The people of Wide Bay include the people of Mary Valley. I have never seen such trauma, such disappointment and such heartache as I did with the people who had their properties resumed for the Traveston dam. Both the member for Wide Bay and I made it very clear that our hands were tied, that state governments are responsible for land use—not the Commonwealth government—but that under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act the Commonwealth is empowered to prevent the dam going ahead on environmental grounds, if they are sustainable grounds. Senator Ian Campbell, at the time the Minister for the Environment and Heritage, required the state government to go through a process, as required under the EPBC Act, before approval would be given for that dam. Anna Bligh, the Queensland Premier, said on 28 November last year that the start of the construction of the Traveston dam would be postponed for several years. That was the promise. Anna Bligh also told parliament that the Coordinator-General had been assessing the impact of the Traveston Crossing dam and it would take several years. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —That was before the election. ZT4 Somlyay, Alex, MP Mr SOMLYAY —That was before the election. Today I had question No. 10 to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. The question I intended asking the minister, about the backflip by the Premier, was: ‘Would you give us an ironclad guarantee that your environmental assessment of the project would not simply be a political rubber stamp for Anna Bligh for this disastrous dam?’ I hope that the minister responds to my comments tonight in a favourable way. (Time expired) 9501 9501 21:44:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Tonight I wish to inform the House that I will not be seeking the endorsement of the Labor Party to contest the next federal election. This is not intended to be a valedictory speech. I hope that, given the time and the indulgence of my whip, I will get the opportunity to say some nice things about the people I have shared my parliamentary experiences with over the past 11 years. But tonight I would like to reflect on the path that brought me to this place and, for my successor, suggest where that path should lead into the future. Having joined the ALP 43 years ago, I find it hard to describe the great differences between the Labor Party today and the one of 1966. For the growing number of women representing Labor in this and other parliaments, much of the change has been for the good. But, despite the broader representation of women and a more outward-looking party agenda, Labor, at least in the parts of Western Sydney that I am familiar with, can no longer claim to be a party with a strong grassroots organisation. For the whole of my four terms in this place, the Fowler electorate has been a factional battleground. Branch stacking in the late 1990s saw membership surge to over 3,500 members—more than the total membership of the Western Australian branch. But at each of my four elections half of the Fowler branches provided little or no support in the campaign. The Unsworth inquiry documented the extent of ethnic branch stacking in Fowler and led to measures that have limited the benefit of the practice, but the real impact of ethnic branch stacking has been the decline of dedicated branch members and the destruction of effective local branches. In this climate, the new Labor candidate in Fowler will face many challenges. While the seat itself is likely to be one of the safest Labor seats in the country if the proposed redistribution is accepted, it is crucial for the future of the ALP in Fowler that its next ALP member has the support of all Labor Party members in the area. While some retiring members have hoped to anoint a successor, I can say that I have no wish to do so. But if I could influence the selection, it would be to favour a candidate who shares my passion for the electorate of Fowler and for the Western Sydney region in general. It would be to favour a candidate who, guided by Labor principles, would place the interests of their community above the wishes of a state or federal Labor government. And it would be to favour a candidate who would be dedicated to mending the factional rift in Fowler branches and rebuilding the party with genuine Labor Party members. Such a person would unfortunately find their talents in demand at higher levels of government, and the task of rebuilding may be left to another factional warlord, someone to keep up the numbers in the branches and to continue the cold war stand-off. Having spent the first 25 years of my membership in the left faction, and the last 18 years in the right, I can honestly say that in policy terms there is no difference between them. Factions exist and thrive as the sources of power for individuals. While they can simplify dispute resolution, they can be a destructive force at ALP branch level. They are, however, as far as I can see, here to stay. While party politics has changed over the last 40-odd years, some things have remained constant. The principles of Labor have been stretched and bent but they are still there for this and future generations of Labor parliamentary representatives to follow. I like to think that the light on the hill described by Ben Chifley is not a distant beacon but a torch passed on from one generation to the next. I ask only that I be remembered as one who nurtured that flame and passed it on stronger and brighter to the next generation. To my staff past and present: thank you for your support and loyalty. To my beloved family, especially my husband and best friend, Geoff, my father, Alan, who passed away in July 2006, and my mentor, my mother, Lois Welsh: you are and always will be my light on the hill. 9502 9502 21:49:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to record my protest against this Labor government’s culling of camels in the outback of Australia. This Labor government is spending some $19 million to cull the wild camel population, which is estimated to be over one million head. It is believed we have the largest herd of wild camels in the world and that they carry some of the world’s purest breeding lines. The news that this Labor government would spend some $20 million to cull around 650,000 camels made headlines around the Western world. Indeed, one American news anchor branded our Prime Minister a serial killer for launching air strikes on camels. This particular news anchor made note that almost $1 billion in meat and milk products would be wasted. I obviously would not endorse those comments in relation to our Prime Minister, but by simply culling these animals we are wasting a perfect opportunity to take a significant step in Australian production and trade in camel meat and milk. I acknowledge that camels can inflict serious damage on Australia’s habitat, but so too can wild pigs and kangaroos. And to solve the problem by simply culling them from the air is a quick fix solution from a government that has not properly considered the potential trade opportunities for camel meat and milk. Camel meat is a lean source of protein and low in cholesterol. Camel meat is considered to be healthier than cows’ milk and contains five times more vitamin C and less fat. It is also a good choice for diabetics and the lactose intolerant because it contains less lactose and more insulin. Camel meat and camel milk have been consumed for hundreds of years in the Middle East and both are still popular. In fact, there is even a quality chocolate made from camel milk. We can take advantage of the Middle East’s familiarity with camel products by trading in camel meat or by the live export of camels. By adding camel meat to our beef, lamb, venison and kangaroo meat industries, we would help to increase the job opportunities for many rural communities, in particular the Indigenous communities based in our outback. Whether it is the harvesting stage or the processing stage, there would be many jobs created in rural communities. An abattoir in the Northern Territory has begun processing camel meat. In fact, an Egyptian meat-importing company hopes to build a designated camel abattoir in South Australia, which would cost around $15 million to build and could process up to 100,000 camels a year. Indeed, the Kangaroo-harvesting industry is a perfect example of taking advantage of a large meat source instead of simply culling the marsupials in large numbers. Kangaroos, like camels, can wreak havoc on properties by damaging fences and competing with livestock for food. There is nothing new in that. But they also provide an alternative meat source for Australian families and for restaurants both here and abroad. The Kangaroo-harvesting industry has provided jobs for professional shooters as well as boners and packers. If we were to apply the same approach to the plague numbers of camels as we do to kangaroos, we would be able to provide another income stream for rural communities which have long been struggling with the drought. Of course, the culling of camels is not just an issue of wasted trade opportunities. Shooting them from helicopters, as happens, means that their corpses are left to rot in the sun, which attracts feral pigs and wild dogs—two pests that pose a far worse problem to agriculture than do camels. They will spread diseases and attack small mammals in that part of Australia. In fact, wild pigs are estimated to cause agricultural and horticultural losses of some $9.2 million and wild dogs almost $50 million, plus they carry diseases. We must remember, too, that Australia’s expansion across the outback was not without the aid of the ships of the desert. Before the introduction of rail, camels were a key mode of transport for outback pioneers. After their uses became very limited compared to those for motorised transport, they were released into the wild and are now considered a pest. But if we were properly to utilise the potential of this huge camel population we could alleviate this potential pest and turn it into a win-win. The contribution of camels to Australia is not over yet and we should embrace their economic potential rather than doing what this government is doing, which is to spend millions of dollars shooting them from the air, leaving them to rot in the hot sun in outback Australia. (Time expired) 9503 9503 21:54:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —The 29th of September each year holds a very special significance for police throughout Australia. It is on this day that National Police Remembrance Day is observed and, significantly, it is a time for members of the police force across the nation and the community to pause and honour the lives and memories of the many fine men and women who have had their lives tragically cut short in the execution of their duties. This day also recognises the unique nature of policing and the dangers that police face in their daily duties. We know that the primary role of police officers is to provide for the safety and security of our communities, and it is on this day and at this time that we reflect on and remember those who have unquestionably paid the ultimate sacrifice in providing us with that safety and security. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the continued efforts and hard work of all the police associations across the nation, as well as our colleagues in New Zealand, along with the Police Federation of Australia, who persist in raising the profile of Police Remembrance Day and embedding the occasion in the hearts and minds of police members and the community generally. This day holds significance on the national policing calendar, and with the passing of years larger crowds, now numbering in the thousands, have attended Police Remembrance Day ceremonies across the nation. I have had the opportunity in the last year to lay a wreath at the Wall of Remembrance in the Domain, Sydney, together with the commissioner, Andrew Scipione, and afterwards attended a service at St Andrew’s Cathedral. It is with some great delight that I stand here tonight, almost 12 months since I last spoke about the issue of Police Remembrance Day, to report that for the second year running there have been no police deaths in Australia. At this point I can say that that is rather a unique situation, given that it has not occurred since 1872. Whilst the record is both encouraging and remarkable, there is no room for complacency. I congratulate all state and territory governments for their continuing work to provide our police forces with the resources and support they need to do their outstanding work. In particular, I would like to lend my support to the decision made by the New South Wales government, which will invest $10 million to provide tasers to all front-line police officers in New South Wales. The benefits of this announcement are enormous. Putting tasers in the hands of police who need them most will save lives. Equally importantly, it will also help dramatically decrease the number of assaults on police and ultimately save their lives as well. May I also offer my deepest condolences to the families and colleagues of the two police officers from New Zealand who tragically lost their lives in the past 12 months. On 5 May this year Constable Len Snee of Napier and, on 11 September 2008, Sergeant Don Wilkinson in Mangere made the ultimate sacrifice in serving their communities. Additionally, I have been informed that this year there will be an additional 10 names added to the National Police Memorial in Canberra. All 10 are historical Tasmanian deaths that occurred between 1817 and 1944. I recognise and appreciate the tremendous work that our police do and I greatly value the difficult and often dangerous job that all our officers perform. Policing comes with a degree of risk that most of us, thankfully, will never have to face. It takes a special kind of person and a special kind of courage to commit to and wear the police uniform. My local community is truly indebted to the men and women who do so, and I want to assure every police officer across the nation—and particularly the 600 local police officers attached to Liverpool, Campbelltown, Camden and Macquarie Fields local area commands—that we do not take them for granted. I encourage all members to join with me in remembering those police officers who have been killed in the line of duty. On behalf of my colleagues and the community, and to all those men and women who have given their lives for our safety, may they rest in peace. 9505 22:00:00 House adjourned at 10 pm 9505 Notices The following notice was given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a bill for an act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes. 2009-09-14 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 4 pm. 9506 Constituency Statements 9506 9506 16:00:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this afternoon to discuss a very serious issue that is a threat not only to the safety of young people in my electorate of Maranoa but also to young people across Australia—indeed, to anyone who has access to the internet through a mobile phone. I am raising the issue of mobile internet safety in the parliament today because of concerns brought to me by a constituent. While I am not going to go into any further detail, the story she told me was any parent’s nightmare. Over the past decade, with our ever-increasing reliance on the internet for communication, families have become more aware of the potential dangers of an online presence. Many people know never to provide personal details to anyone they do not know or trust. And many children are aware that they should never meet in person with any friends that they have made through chat forums over the internet. The former coalition government and this government have made great efforts to educate families about the dangers of the internet. The federal government provided a free content filter for home computers, before it was abolished by Labor over the Christmas season, so that families could protect their children from viewing inappropriate content on the web. Two years ago, Choice magazine rated 15 net filtering software programs, with three of the top six being government supplied. Yet one area which we should be focusing on is the safety of young people who access the internet through their mobile phones. Today’s mobile phones are capable of doing almost everything that can be done on a home computer. People can check their Facebook, MySpace, Twitter and email. They can watch YouTube, they can use Skype and they can go online to forums to supposedly get help with games or to chat with a friend—and, of course, chat with complete strangers. I am sure there are a lot of parents out there who are not aware of the potential dangers their children face when accessing the internet through their mobile phone. Many parents provide their children with mobile phones so that they can be easily contacted and have a means of contacting their family or authorities if they run into trouble. Yet because children can use mobile phones anywhere at any time, it is difficult for parents to keep an eye on what their children are viewing through the mobile’s internet, but the same threats to children that are lurking on the home internet also exist on mobile internet. Paedophiles can and will try to find their next victim through any means, and mobile internet is just another playground for their criminal practices. But parents can protect their children, even if they are not around when their children are using a mobile phone. Parents can call their mobile provider and ask to have an internet blocking on their children’s phones. They must also teach their children that the same rules that apply to the home computer are the ones they want them to use on their mobile phones. (Time expired) 9507 9507 16:03:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —My speech this afternoon was researched and prepared by Michael Rutherford, a high school student residing in my electorate of Fowler who recently undertook work experience in my electorate office. I quote: In 21st century Australia, we as a people should value and respect the rights of our fellow Australians, regardless of individual circumstance, including mental and physical disability. Those sentiments are echoed around the world. In 2006-2007 the United Nations adopted and opened for the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Australia was one of the 83 countries which signed the convention on its opening day, but it took a new change of government to ratify the convention in July 2008. I am pleased to say that last month Australia ratified the optional protocol that accompanies the convention. This protocol allows individuals who feel their needs are not met by the government to ultimately take their case to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities if all domestic avenues of appeal are exhausted. I congratulate the government for ratifying the protocol. This will clarify the domestic avenues of appeal for disabled citizens who have a complaint. We have nothing to fear of our treatment of the disabled. I believe that this government should have a direct role in the research and development of communication technology, such as braille, mobility devices such as wheelchairs, and assistance devices such as hoists, and provide these technologies at an affordable cost. This would align us further with the convention. The convention requires that governments engage in consultation with the disabled, through disability organisations, when developing related policy. I congratulate the government on its current level of consultation with these groups and hope that this continues so that high quality policies can be developed in the future. One of these is the recent Helping Children with Autism program, which is an important step forward and will provide much needed assistance to thousands of families with autistic children. The provision of preschools for autistic children is crucial in delivering the education that these children deserve. It is a base from which we can build policies for children suffering from other disabilities such as Down syndrome, cerebral palsy and others. While the autism policy focuses mainly on children aged 6 and under there is room to expand the policy to provide greater support for autistic children in primary and secondary schooling and into adulthood. I believe that this government is committed to providing a greater standard of living for Australians with a disability. I urge the Rudd government to continue to build on the United Nations convention so that disabled Australians can actively participate in all aspects of our society. I congratulate Michael on his excellent research and speech. I give my regards to his wonderful sister and his beautiful parents. 9508 9508 16:05:00 Smith, Anthony, MP 00APG Casey LP 0 0 Mr ANTHONY SMITH —I would like today to congratulate one of my constituents, who has just received a prestigious international healthcare award for the Spark of Life Club Program, which is making significant inroads into the treatment of people with dementia. The Spark of Life approach won the 2009 IAHSA Excellence in Ageing Services Award and was deemed to be a model of innovation and excellence by the International Association of Homes and Services for the Ageing awards committee. Dementia Care Australia, based in Mooroolbark, is a small, independent, self-funded information and education organisation founded in 1993 by Jane Verity, who developed the Spark of Life Club Program. Hilary Lee implemented the program in Perth and experienced the spectacular changes brought about by the Spark of Life approach. She has since clinically researched the program. Both Jane and Hilary flew to London to receive the award in front of 700 high-level executives and representatives from the major aged-care organisations worldwide. The award ceremony was followed by a reception at the House of Lords, where they were personally thanked by Baroness Greengross, OBE. As Jane Verity said on receiving the award: Receiving this award is a great acknowledgement of the significance and uniqueness of this powerful program. I hope this Award will take the Spark of Life to many more facilities in Australia and the international arena, bringing benefits to thousands more people around the world. All of us here have seen in our families, among our friends and in our communities the traumas that dementia brings to those diagnosed and to their loved ones. I am a supporter of the Spark of Life. I have seen it grow from humble beginnings to, now, an internationally recognised program which is giving hope and life to an area that is so often seen as tragic and the start of a downward spiral to the end of life. The program enriches the lives of everyone involved and will greatly benefit Australians with dementia and their carers. So often we go overseas to find solutions, but here we are fortunate to have one on our very own doorstep. I commend Jane Verity and Dementia Care Australia for all the work that they have done, for their contribution and for the greater good their program will bring to many families in the months and years ahead. 9508 9508 16:08:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Last week I had the great pleasure and honour to attend and be part of the launch of National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month here in this place. It was very pleasing to see many members of this parliament from all sides of politics in attendance, including the Treasurer, who launched the awareness month and also spoke about his own experiences with prostate cancer. Part of the theme was the colour blue—you may have seen the blue badges and blue ties that were worn last week. This widespread blue hue marked the start of the rollout of a myriad blue barbecues around the nation to promote prostate awareness. The barbecues will come with all the trimmings, of course, but in the name of good health. Blue barbecue aprons were given out and are to be worn and blue tongs will promote awareness of prostate cancer. These barbecues will be hosted by men who want to share the importance of knowing about good health and continuing health. This, of course, is all for a good cause: National Prostate Cancer Awareness Month. There are fewer things that men around Australia need to become better aware of. One in nine men in Australia will develop prostate cancer in their lifetime. As many men die from prostate cancer as women die from breast cancer, yet the proportion of men who have felt informed about prostate cancer is only two thirds of the proportion of women who have felt informed about breast cancer. I encourage all and sundry to spread the word and join the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia to raise the community’s awareness of how big a problem this condition is and why people should get themselves checked. The chance of developing prostate cancer increases as men get older and, if there is a family history of prostate cancer, again the chances are high. Early, curable prostate cancer may not have symptoms. However, simple testing by a GP can indicate prostate cancer. These are really simple messages. As is so often the case, the message is not difficult. Getting a person to hear it is the difficult bit—hence the blue hue and the blue barbecues of last week, which will continue this month. I encourage all members here today to get in touch with the Prostate Cancer Foundation of Australia and get their neighbourhood community groups, congregations, parents, friends and book clubs to help spread the message so that many losses in families around our nation can potentially be avoided through talking about prostate cancer, spreading the message, understanding the risks and getting checked just to be safe. I would like to congratulate the foundation for its fantastic work, but I would also like to congratulate all those doctors who are bringing up the subject with their patients turning 40. Our responses might be mixed, but please persist— (Time expired) 9509 9509 16:11:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —I take the opportunity to read from a letter to the editor which was published in the Coffs Coast Advocate, relating to the recent floods of 31 March. It was written by Georgia Newell, a very articulate 14-year-old. Georgia writes: Lately I bet you have been getting a lot of complaints from the adults of the Mid North Coast about the floods from March, but have you heard about the problem from a child’s point of view? I may only be 14 years old, but I do know what is right and what is wrong. You are supposed to be sticking up for all Australians. Let me guess, did your government fund all the victims of the Victoria Bushfires? Of course you did. All those people had lost homes and belongings, Labor Party or not. It’s hard enough with Australia going through a recession, but when hundreds of Australian homes go under water, you don’t seem to care. You tell Australians not to discriminate against each other, yet you are discriminating to the people of Coffs Harbour all because our member of parliament is with the Nationals. Now what kind of example are you showing to the future adults of Australia? We will be voting in a few years and how do you expect us to vote for you if we know that you won’t help all Australian when they are in crisis? Most of the people who lost their homes are elderly who only have a small retirement fund because they spent it all on the house that just got destroyed. These people are mums and dads, grandparents, neighbours and you can somehow sleep at night knowing that they do not have a home to sleep in too. All Australians are equal, Labor Party or not. You should start treating us like it. Set a good example to the youth of today. To you I may be a kid, but I know when people have stepped over the line. That was 14-year-old Georgia Newell, with a very insightful letter to the editor—one that the Prime Minister and the Minister for Community Services should take heed of. They should treat all Australians equally; they should pay the Coffs Harbour flood of victims in exactly the same way that victims of other flood events were treated and exactly the same way as the victims of the Victorian bushfires were treated. There is no logical reason to have any discrimination between the Victorian victims of fires and the Coffs Harbour victims of floods. It has been absolutely outrageous that this Prime Minister and the Minister for Community Services have abandoned these people. Fourteen-year-old Georgia Newell knows what is right, yet our Prime Minister and our Minister for Community Services cannot seem to get the message. 9510 9510 16:14:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Employment 1 0 Mr CLARE —In 11 days 15,000 people will converge on Paul Keating Park in Bankstown to celebrate the 11th annual Bankstown Children’s Festival. As I have said before in this place, it is a fantastic event. There is everything from face painting to fireworks. This year the festival will have a new addition. It will officially welcome the new additions to our local community at an event that I am organising called Welcoming the Babies. Bankstown is the baby capital of Sydney. In 2007 there were 2,700 babies born in Bankstown—more than almost anywhere else in Australia. Having a child is one of the most important decisions that we will ever make. This event is a small way to say thank you to those parents and guardians who take on this important responsibility. Australia’s fertility rate has fallen dramatically over the last 50 years. In 1961 the fertility rate was 3.5 children per woman. Today it stands at 1.9. As the second Intergenerational report, released in 2007, shows, the drop in our fertility rate is one of the main factors contributing to the ageing of our population. This in turn will slow economic growth and the rise in living standards and puts more pressure on the budget in areas like health, aged care and the pension. It is the decisions that we make here and that parents and guardians make that will help us meet the challenge of an ageing population. That is why I am organising this event. Every child will receive a special certificate welcoming them to our local community, and every mum and dad will get a bag full of helpful parenting information on things like developing babies’ learning and motor skills, breastfeeding, healthy food options, playgroups, immunisation and toilet training. I want to thank Baby Kingdom, Bounty, Centro Bankstown, Inky Feet, Advent, Church and Dwight Co., Gaia Skin Naturals, Nicepak and Nutricia Australia, who have all donated the information and the products that are going in the bags. I also want to thank Bankstown City Council, who have donated a native tree to each family. I also thank Creating Links, Bankstown Community Resource Group and the Benevolent Society’s Brighter Futures program along with Centrelink Bankstown, who are holding information stalls, and Bankstown Family Day Care, GymbaRoo and Bankstown Library’s Lapsit Storytime program, who are going to provide entertainment on the day. Welcoming the Babies promises to be a great event, and I hope it becomes a permanent addition to the Bankstown Children’s Festival. 9511 9511 16:17:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —I have come not to talk about Poowong Dairy Expo, to be held on 23 to 24 September this year. But last year at that same expo—they are celebrating their 10th year—Professor David de Kretser, who you would know better as our state Governor and who is Patron of Andrology Australia, which deals with men’s health, male reproductive health and associated conditions, requested that we have information for men at the Dairy Expo this year. Peter Ryan and I have put together a package, with the support of our great staff, to have that information at the stand. There will be a diabetes stand as well at the Dairy Expo from 23 to 24 September at Poowong. It was a very ordinary day, a beautiful day, when in the evening a farmer went down to check his trough. It was normal to check that particular trough just before dinner. He was concerned about it. Dinner was on pretty soon so he had five or 10 minutes to go and check it. He took the old farm ute down, parked the farm ute, pulled on the handbrake and walked around the back of the ute to check the trough. Blow me down; the handbrake gave way and slammed the farmer up against the trough, trapping him. His wife back at the house, knowing that he was ready for dinner, thought he had been a little too long at the trough and was concerned. She could see the ute up there on the hill and it had not moved. She thought it was time to move to go and check. She found that her husband was crushed under the ute behind the trough. He was quickly flown out of there by air ambulance and he is now recuperating in a rehabilitation hospital. I bring this to your attention not because we have farm accidents—they do happen—but because the ute was not registered. It was the old farm ute; therefore in Victoria the farmer would not come under the TAC. My address today is to tell farmers across Australia—if it affects them in the same way—that, if they are using vehicles on their property that are not registered and they have an accident with them, the vehicles are not covered by the TAC. It is a plea from me and every member of this parliament for care in farm safety. Another great plea is: for heaven’s sake cover your loved ones, your family and those who work for you by making sure that the equipment on your farm is registered and can do the job that it is meant to do. 9511 9511 16:20:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —The matter of breast screening has been in the news lately with the release by the government of the final report by the Evaluation Advisory Committee of the Australian Health Ministers Advisory Council into BreastScreening Australia. This committee was chaired by the eminent Helen Zorbas. It puts forward a number of recommendations. One is contentious—not in terms of the medical evidence but because it is about access to medical assessment and medical care that can and does save lives. The recommendation says: Women aged 40-44 years and women aged 75 years and over— I noticed that the latter age was not so contentious in the media— should no longer be able to attend the program. I have read the report and, because I was for a long time involved with the North Coast BreastScreen program and was the president of it, I know a fair bit about it and why it has come about. However, we do not want to deny access to anything that can help save lives and that can make sure that women get diagnosed. Younger women do get breast cancer. We know that. Women like the late Belinda Emmett, the late Jane McGrath and now Kylie Minogue have been in the media recently, as have women not previously known: Josie Dietrich, Wendy Bryant and Therese Dunn. Therese Dunn is from Wollongbar in my seat of Page. She is 44 and, according to the Northern Star coverage of Therese’s story, she was diagnosed at 40. She had some comments to make about this. Also, in my home town, our Mayor of Lismore, Jenny Dowell, herself a cancer survivor, said: Once women hit 40 I would be concerned that there is no free screening for them. She said: Resources for breast screening should increase. I have a few figures about breast screening. Currently, 36 women in Australia are diagnosed with breast cancer every day. I have some New South Wales figures—and these are from the Cancer Institute New South Wales in 2005—which show: Most women who develop breast cancer are aged 50 years or over. Of the 4,103 women in NSW diagnosed with breast cancer in 2003, 76.7% (3,148) were women in this age group— generally up to 69. The figures continue: In comparison, 17.5% (718)— that is still quite high— were women aged 40 to 49 years— so some of them were in that target area— and 5.8% (237) were women aged 39 years or younger. It would be a real tragedy if some of them were denied access. I would also like to raise the issue that in my area, under the North Coast Area Health Service, there is a breast screen program that operates. There has been a loss of mobile units and three breast cancer survivors have written to me asking to meet me to talk about this. (Time expired) 9512 9512 16:23:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise today to speak on netball and in particular the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association. This association operates up at the Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex in the electorate of Cowan. For a long time they have been adding great value for the young women of the northern suburbs. In fact, I doubt whether any young lady from the northern suburbs of Perth would not be aware that the heart of netball is at Kingsway Regional Sporting Complex and the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association. My eldest daughter has participated in netball and, as we approach the spring season starting next month, I hope to have my 10-year-old and six-year-old daughters participating in this very fine sport. I understand that netball is the second biggest sport in Australia in terms of participants. That is a great example of what a great sport it is and how it is regarded by the people. On Saturday morning I was honoured to be able to attend the Wanneroo Districts Netball Association awards breakfast. I would like to acknowledge that, at that breakfast, the Spirit of Netball award was won by Irene McCoach, the Junior Spirit of Netball award was won by Sophie Ridley, the Rising Coach Award was won by Leanne Bruce and the Carol Horrocks Award, named after the inaugural president and life member of the association, was won this year by Lauren Bridges and Tracey Meade. I would also like to acknowledge the president and vice-president of the association, Joanne Clark and Peter Brems, and the board members of the association, Lauren Bridges, Patricia Taylor, Estelle Walker and Bev Hyde. As I said before, this is the second biggest sport in Australia in terms of participants. A lot of teams participate in the association and literally hundreds of volunteers make sure that all of the teams can play on the weekends. We are talking about coaches, managers, umpires and club administrators. I would just like to say what a brilliant association they are and what great value they add for young women in the northern suburbs of Perth. It is a great honour for me to have them within the electorate of Cowan. 9513 9513 16:26:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —This is the time of year when Australia’s racing industry is usually preparing for another spectacular spring carnival and season of great racing. However, the industry is locked into a dispute over changes to rules governing how jockeys can use the whip. I had the privilege in a previous occupation, with the Australian Workers Union, of representing jockeys. This afternoon I wish to speak in support of jockeys and their organisation, the Australian Jockeys Association, in representing the valid concerns raised by their members and others in the racing industry. I acknowledge the member for Solomon and his interest for allowing me to take his three-minute statement. I commend the Australian Racing Board for meeting with the AJA and senior riders this afternoon to resolve differences. The issue at the heart of the debate, which has seen recent industrial action taken by jockeys, is changes to the Australian Rules of Racing in the use of the whip. Under the new rules, which came in on 1 August, jockeys can still use the whip in a backhand fashion behind the saddle, but rules about using the whip with a forehand grip have changed. Under the new rules, a jockey is allowed to use the whip five times up to the last 200 metres, and then, in the last 200 metres, on 12 occasions in a non-consecutive pattern, there being 24 strides for the horse in the last 200 metres—except on one occasion, where the jockey can use it in a consecutive pattern. These new rules are very confusing to longstanding jockeys. The Australian jockeys understand that change is inevitable, and there is debate about animal welfare, integrity in racing and the need to have competition. But these rules have been brought in on 1 August and the Australian jockeys have reported that to change a work practice and the skill of riding a thoroughbred, which is a complex and athletic feat, requires more notice and debate than has been allowed the jockeys. I can report that the Australian Racing Board is ably led by chairman Bob Bentley and CEO Andrew Harding. I believe they understand that they need to listen to the concerns that have been raised by Australian jockeys, particularly when these views are shared by many owners, trainers and breeders. Australia’s 850 working jockeys are superb, committed, fearless and hardworking. Professional jockeys love to race, they care for the horses, they risk their safety and they are at the heart of the industry. I do not believe they have taken the decision not to ride lightly. The AJA advises me the situation is caused by a breakdown of communication. What we now need to see in racing in order to secure the spring carnival is what we are seeing the first signs of today, ongoing negotiations. I know the jockeys care very much for their colleagues. They understand that when they ride it could be their last time and that, following a fall, when they wake up in a hospital bed, they may be unable to walk, if indeed they wake up at all. I know the stories of jockeys such as Gavin Lisk. I believe the meeting this afternoon should be successful and I hope that the impasse is resolved. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! In accordance with standing order 193 the time for members’ constituency statements has concluded. 9514 Bills R4181 9514 Debate resumed from 20 June, on motion by Mr Bowen: That this bill be now read a second time. 9514 16:30:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to make a few brief statements in support of the Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill 2009. Ostensibly the bill looks to bring margin lending, trustee companies and promissory notes under nationally uniform regulation in the Corporations Act. The regulation of all financial services in a nationally consistent manner has long been considered a desirable outcome by industry, government and consumers. Indeed, the last Howard government tried to achieve the same ends. Perhaps they were stopped by the intransigence of some of the states. Whether that is the case or not, the good result is that this bill brings the last vestiges under federal control and, more importantly, under the statutory authority’s watch—that being ASIC. It is disappointing that it takes cataclysmic events in investment and financial losses to achieve end-states that had previously been pushed for. In the recent collapse of Westpoint disaster, debentures provided to retail clients were subject to the Corporations Act, chapter 7, Disclosures and consumer protection provisions, but promissory notes were not, and Westpoint proved to be a disaster for those investing in the promissory note financial products. Of course the massive regulatory problems surrounding margin lending in the collapse of Storm Financial in 2008 have been highlighted to the inquiry by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services. Being a sitting member of that committee and having attended many of the inquiries, I have noted that the publicly available submissions and the evidence given in public have pointed to a lack of consistency and regulation and to significant confusion over advisers’ and lenders’ responsibilities. Who was responsible in providing a margin call to consumers? We know that in June 2008, according to Reserve Bank information, there were over 206,000 clients using margin lending facilities. We know that by September 2008 there were something like 2,000 margin calls a day being exercised. Yet, ironically, none were being exercised on Storm Financial customers. Even the Ts and Cs of the bank lenders, like Colonial First State as part of Commonwealth, showed clearly that the bank would provide the margin call to the consumer. There is some indication that the bank had an arrangement with Storm Financial that meant Storm would represent the client. Indeed, clients never received margin calls, were never able to exercise those options, index funds were sold down and $3 billion to $4 billion was lost. Any move to provide a degree of regulation that is sensible and open, that people can look at and understand to avoid huge losses, is certainly a wise move. The federal regulation of consistent oversight by ASIC can only be a good thing. In terms of actual objectives of the bill with margin lending, there will be a licensing of lenders and advisers, and all will require an Australian financial services licence. There will be a clarification under chapter 7 of the Corporations Act of margin call responsibilities—who is responsible for the margin call, who is responsible to ensure communication, and how that will be achieved to the person receiving the margin call. Enhanced investor protections are also being put in place, which include responsible lending provisions that are subsequently being put through by regulation. At present I am not across what the regulation is. It would be preferable if this predilection towards regulation would obey, and the legislative instrument—the act itself—would contain, the provisions. However, my understanding is that responsible lending provisions will come about through regulation. There is also a move to standardise disclosure documents, and that is a healthy thing. The national uniformity with respect to trustee companies will allow companies to operate across multiple state jurisdictions, obviously without the different laws and the complying costs that go with that. It is understanding that financial services cross state boundaries and that they are, indeed, Australian financial services. This is long overdue. Of course, promissory notes will be regulated in the same manner as debentures, and they will be subject to additional disclosure and regulatory requirements. To be able to stand here and look at the last vestiges of financial services being brought across to the Commonwealth is a great thing for the industry. It is a good thing that margin lending, trustee companies and promissory notes will come under uniform national regulation, especially under chapter 7 of the Corporations Act as it regards regulation and disclosure, and that one statutory authority, in the form of ASIC, will be responsible for compliance and regulatory oversight. As communications break down our state boundaries more and more, we need to look towards nationalising key areas like financial services so that there is one regime in which people operate, one body which provides oversight and one body of legislation which provides the necessary guidance. I commend the bill to the House. 9515 16:36:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I commend the contribution of the member for Fadden. He is a member of the committee that has been looking into Storm Financial and the effect on many lenders when margin calls were made, and that inquiry has turned everybody’s attention to these issues. Through the proposed amendment of the Corporations Act, this government is implementing the reforms necessary to ensure that responsible financial lending and consumer practices are advanced in this country. I commend the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law for delivering an amendment bill at this stage. Not only does this step take us closer to the commitments that were made at COAG but it will help ensure the modernisation of a body of financial lending that has for far too long gone unchecked. The Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill 2009 comes about as a direct recommendation of the Australian Securities and Investment Commission. It is an area of financial services that is not yet adequately regulated by the current corporations legislation. Most importantly, the provisions included in the bill complement ASIC’s existing authority in two areas: margin lending and trustee companies. Not only will the provisions ensure more responsible lending practices and prudent regulation but they will ultimately serve to protect and strengthen consumer protection in these financial services areas. There are substantial benefits to the realisation of these reforms. Their implementation is necessary to give protection to the many who utilise these services but are vulnerable because of inadequate legislation. The member for Fadden alluded to Storm Financial. That matter is being considered by a parliamentary committee at the moment, but those of us who follow it in the papers would know that over 3,000 people have been affected. People in their retirement were encouraged to take out loans affecting their housing which were subject to a margin call. Three thousand families that thought they were making provision for their retirement and long-term economic security now find themselves very much in the forefront of a financial catastrophe. That catastrophe is not of the making of the economic downturn but a direct result of a margin call being made, as can occur, and those 3,000 families’ exposure was such that they were significantly affected. That is why this is an important and prudent piece of legislation at this time. Over the past decade the use of margin lending has increased dramatically in Australia and, despite the surge in this type of lending, it has really escaped consumer credit regulation and consequently a gap has occurred. There is no point simply focussing on issues such as Storm Financial. We are all being encouraged to look at ways that we could actually make retirement incomes and security, and I think that is a good thing. What has occurred through this process in the practice of margin lending is that areas have been left with a significant degree of exposure because legislation has not been developed that regulates in that respect of a lending practice. In implementing the changes the amendments have targeted lenders by requiring both them and their advisers to be licensed. As a consequence, through ASIC, they will be regulated not only now but into the future. Through that process we can at least ensure consistency and a high level of compliance through the licensing arrangements. Licensing components will provide enhanced, comprehensive and consistent protection for consumers entering into margin loans and will encourage the improvement of standards for margin loans offered by lenders. The proposal also includes provision for guarantees of an enhanced level of responsible lending by preventing lenders from approving unsuitable loans to consumers that may put them at risk of losing their own homes. This new margin loan disclosure document, introduced by these changes, will allow borrowers to be informed in a concise manner of the facts they need to know before entering into such a significant arrangement as a margin loan agreement. This, combined with a dispute resolution process, will actually be able to deliver an independent, expedient and free dispute resolution service. Again, that will act to protect consumers from unnecessary harmful lending practices that have the potential to destroy a family’s future. The government has made extensive efforts to ensure that there is an adequate transition period for the industry and its stakeholders, and a 12-month buffer period has been created to do that. The second aspect of this legislation, as I indicated at the outset, involves legislation relating to trust property and trustee companies. It will alleviate many of the concerns raised by ASIC by extending the existing powers that apply to these financial products. The extension of their authority will allow ASIC to access vital information relating to trust property and will increase the control over trustee companies. Allowing ASIC to access greater amounts of information, such as details of the persons involved in a transaction about a trust property, will allow better judgments as to whether they pursue a formal investigation. As a result of increasing their control over trustee companies, ASIC will have the authority over the trust property. In certain circumstances this will prevent the disposal of such property. The other significant aspect is that with the current state based systems, where a trustee company operates in more than one state we find companies being subject to compliance with differing inconsistent authorisations and reporting requirements. By creating a national framework of trustee companies under the authority of ASIC the unnecessary barriers to entry for companies will be eliminated, as well as the compliance costs and burdens associated with that. The benefits of national regulation will also be felt by consumers. The traditional services of trustee companies will be regarded as financial services, and will fall under the consumer protection and disclosure requirements dictated under the Corporations Act 2001. By binding trustee corporations to existing financial product disclosure, licensing, conduct, advice and dispute resolution, these reforms will all move to significantly protect consumers. I commend the legislation to the House. 9517 16:45:00 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 spoken on this Corporations Legislation Amendment (Financial Services Modernisation) Bill 2009, particularly the honourable member for Werriwa. This bill will give effect to the COAG agreement to provide for national regulation of margin lending and trustee corporations. The bill will also make long awaited improvements to the regulatory regime covering the issue of debentures. Until now, margin lending has not been subject to any specific regulatory regime at all. This is a serious issue particularly because non-standard margin loans contain some features that borrowers often find difficult to understand. As we saw in the fallout from several recent high-profile financial collapses, when investors put their money into sophisticated financial products they do not fully understand they can stand to lose up to hundreds of thousands of dollars and, sometimes, their family home. Under this bill, lenders and advisers will need to be licensed and regulated by ASIC. Consumers will have access to independent, free and fast dispute resolution services. Importantly, under the new responsible lending requirements, advisers will be required to only provide advice if it is appropriate to the client’s needs and circumstances. A further consumer protection measure clarifies which party is responsible for notifying borrowers when a margin call occurs where both a lender and a financial adviser are involved. In the past, delays in margin call notifications and disagreements between lenders and advisers contributed to losses suffered by consumers. The new margin loan regime provided for by the financial services modernisation bill represents a major and long overdue improvement in consumer protection. The second area covered by the bill is the traditional activities of trustee corporations. These include personal trust and deceased estate administration services. Trustee corporations which carry out these tasks are currently regulated by the states and territories, but the regulatory coverage is often inconsistent. Under the Commonwealth system there will be a single licensing regime administered by one single well-resourced regulator, ASIC. Under the financial services modernisation bill, the traditional services of trustee corporations will be deemed to be financial services and will be covered by the consumer protection and disclosure requirements of the Corporations Act 2001 and the ASIC Act 2001. This will ensure that, in providing these services, trustee corporations will be bound by the financial product disclosure licensing conduct advice and dispute resolution provisions of those acts. This will mean greater transparency for trustee corporations and far better protection for consumers. The third area covered by the bill is debentures and promissory notes. The bill will amend the regulatory framework in the Corporations Act to align the regulation and promissory notes with debentures and also provide additional protection for investors by removing uncertainty in the law. This is a much needed change following the collapse of Westpoint, which tried to use the issue of promissory notes with face values of at least $50,000 to avoid the operation of the law. Under the amendments, all promissory notes issued to retail clients will be subject to the same regulatory regime as debentures requiring the issue of a trust deed, the appointment of a trustee and the issue of a prospectus. The amendments will also enhance transparency for debenture holders by creating a publicly available register of debenture trustees. The register will be established and maintained by ASIC. Since the introduction of the bill on 25 June 2009, there have been some proposed changes which are reflected in the parliamentary amendments I will move in the consideration in detail stage. In relation to margin loans, the amendments address the regulatory gap when an issuer of a margin loan uses a subsidiary or another organisation to sell the loan. Currently, the lenders of a margin lending facility can be exempt from obtaining an Australian financial services licence if they rely on another AFSL holder to meet their legal requirements. If so, they could potentially avoid responsible lending and other conduct obligations. To address this issue, I propose to introduce a regulation mechanism to enable issuers of a margin-lending facility to be removed from the exemption, thereby closing a potential avoidance loophole. The regulation-making power will provide the flexibility to address different corporate structures in the margin-lending context and potentially other lending arrangements or products at a later stage. The amendments will also clarify the use of the term ‘provider’ in relation to the margin-lending facility. In relation to trustee corporations, the government is seeking amendments to ensure that ASIC can access certain powers to regulate the industry. The amendments ensure that certain existing ASIC powers are available to it in relation to trust property held by trustee companies. The amendments replicate or amend, as appropriate, certain existing ASIC powers that apply to financial products, so that they can be used in relation to trust property held by a trustee company. In essence, the amendments allow ASIC to obtain information about trust property outside a formal investigation under part 3, divisions 1 and 2 of the ASIC Act and certain information-gathering powers under part 3 of the ASIC Act. Further, the amendments allow ASIC to make certain orders in relation to trust property in certain circumstances. An anomaly in the ASIC Act in relation to unconscionable conduct in business transactions is also corrected. In conclusion, by introducing national regulation for margin loans and improving the regulatory framework governing trustee corporations, debentures and promissory notes, this bill will make important changes to the regulatory framework, changes which will bring far greater consistency, clarity and fairness to our consumer credit regulatory regime. I commend the bill to the Main Committee. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 9519 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 9519 16:51:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum to the bill. DZS Bowen, Chris, MP Mr BOWEN —by leave—I move government amendments (1) to (14) together, for the reasons outlined in my second reading speech: (1)    Schedule 1, page 8 (after line 30), after item 11, insert: 11A  After subsection 911A(5) Insert:       (5A)    Despite paragraph (2)(b), the regulations may provide that the exemption under that paragraph does not apply in relation to:               (a)    a particular financial product or a particular kind of financial product; or               (b)    a particular financial product or a particular kind of financial product that is issued, varied or disposed of by a particular person, or a particular kind of person. (2)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (before line 5), before section 985E, insert: 985EA   Application of this Subdivision                   This Subdivision applies to a financial services licensee (the provider) in relation to:               (a)    the issuing of a margin lending facility to a retail client; or               (b)    the increasing of the limit of a margin lending facility that was issued to a retail client. (3)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (line 7), omit “A financial services licensee (the provider)”, substitute “The provider”. (4)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 9 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraphs 985E(1)(a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    issue the margin lending facility to the retail client; or               (b)    increase the limit of the margin lending facility that was issued to the retail client; (5)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 12 (line 32), after “critical day”, insert “referred to in subsection 985E(1)”. (6)    Schedule 2, page 19 (lines 4 to 11), omit items 1 and 2, substitute: 1  Subsection 5(1) Insert: traditional trustee company services has the same meaning as in Chapter 5D of the Corporations Act. 2  Subsection 5(1) Insert: trustee company has the same meaning as in Chapter 5D of the Corporations Act. 2A  Subsection 5(1) Insert: trust property, in relation to a trustee company, means property that is or was held by the trustee company as trustee. (7)    Schedule 2, page 19 (after line 24), after item 3, insert: 3A  Subsection 12CC(5) After “financial products”, insert “or financial services”. (8)    Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3A, insert: 3B  Division 4 of Part 3 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Division 4—Requirements to disclose information (9)    Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3B, insert: 3C  Section 40 After “section 41”, insert “or 42”. 3D  At the end of paragraph 40(c) Add:              (iii)    an alleged or suspected contravention, by a trustee company, of a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, being a contravention that involves fraud or dishonesty and that relates to trust property; or (10)  Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3D, insert: 3E  After section 41 Insert: 42   Acquisitions and disposals of trust property by trustee companies          (1)    ASIC may require a trustee company to disclose to it, in relation to an acquisition or disposal of trust property by the trustee company, all or any of the following:               (a)    the name of:                     (i)    the person from or through whom the trust property was acquired; or                    (ii)    the person to or through whom the trust property was disposed;               (b)    whether the acquisition or disposal was effected on the instructions of another person, and the nature of any such instructions;               (c)    the names of the beneficiaries of the trust. Note:   Failure to comply with a requirement made under this subsection is an offence (see section 63).          (2)    Information required to be disclosed under this section need only be disclosed to the extent to which it is known to the person required to make the disclosure. Note:   In criminal proceedings, a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matters in subsection (2).          (3)    An offence under subsection 63(2) relating to subsection (1) of this section is an offence of strict liability. Note:   For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code. (11)  Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3E, insert: 3F  After section 43 Insert: 44   Exercise of certain powers of ASIC in relation to trust property acquired or disposed of by trustee company          (1)    This section applies if ASIC considers that a contravention of a law of the Commonwealth, or of a State or Territory, may have been committed by a trustee company, being a contravention that involves fraud or dishonesty and that relates to trust property.          (2)    ASIC may require a director, secretary or senior manager of the trustee company to disclose to ASIC information of which he or she is aware and that may have affected an acquisition or disposal of trust property by the trustee company. Note:   Failure to comply with a requirement made under this subsection is an offence (see section 63).          (3)    If ASIC believes on reasonable grounds that a person can give information about particular matters, being any or all of the following:               (a)    an acquisition or disposal of trust property by the trustee company;               (b)    the financial position of the trustee company;               (c)    an audit of, or a report of an auditor about, accounts or records of the trustee company; ASIC may require the person to disclose to it the information that the person has about those particular matters. Note:   Failure to comply with a requirement made under this subsection is an offence (see section 63).          (4)    An offence under subsection 63(2) relating to subsection (2) or (3) of this section is an offence of strict liability. Note:   For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.          (5)    ASIC must not exercise a power conferred by subsection (2) or (3) except for the purpose of investigating the possible contravention referred to in subsection (1). (12)  Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3F, insert: 3G  Subsection 63(2) Omit “section 41 or 43”, substitute “section 41, 42, 43 or 44”. (13)  Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3G, insert: 3H  After paragraph 71(b) Insert:           or (c)    trust property acquired or disposed of by a trustee company; (14)  Schedule 2, page 19, after proposed item 3H, insert: 3J  After subsection 73(1) Insert:       (1A)    If paragraph 71(c) applies, ASIC may make one or more of the following:               (a)    an order restraining a specified person from disposing of any interest in specified trust property;               (b)    an order restraining a specified person from acquiring any interest in specified trust property;               (c)    an order directing a body corporate not to pay, except in the course of winding up, a sum due from the body corporate in respect of specified trust property;               (d)    an order directing a body corporate not to register the transfer or transmission of specified trust property. Note:                The heading to section 73 is altered by inserting “and trust property” after “financial products”. 3K  Subsections 73(2) and (3) After “subsection (1)”, insert “or (1A)”. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. Ordered that this bill be reported to the House with amendments. 9522 Business 9522 Mr HAYES (Werriwa) 16:52:00 —I move: That business intervening before order of the day No. 4, committee and delegations reports, be postponed to a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 9522 Committees 9522 9522 Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Dreyfus: That the House take note of the report. 9522 16:52:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —Access all areas: report of the inquiry into Draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards addresses many of the inequalities those with a disability encounter when going about their day-to-day activities. I congratulate the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee and its chair, the member for Isaacs, for their work in drawing to the attention of this House the impediments faced by people with a disability in accessing buildings that the rest of us take for granted. Those affected by a lack of access to buildings, and indeed affected by the fitout of some buildings, are not an insignificant group because one in five Australian people are estimated to have a disability—that is 20 per cent of the population. Indeed, I would suggest that number will grow quite rapidly as our country faces the ageing of our population. So it is a very important matter which has been on the agenda for some time. I am not a member of the committee; however, I feel so strongly about this matter that I wanted to take the opportunity to say something about it. I suppose I first became aware of the difficulty people with a disability face when I had ministerial responsibility for disability services in 1996. I have continued to take an interest in these matters, particularly as I moved to the role of chair of the Public Works Committee, a role that I undertook for nine years—I think it was nine years; it seemed like an awful long time anyway! During that time, I felt very proud of all members of that committee, both in terms of their interest and the interest they took in questioning the adequacy of access for people with a disability in new buildings, and refurbishments, that were being proposed by government agencies, or agencies of the Commonwealth, that came before that committee. Disability does cover many different conditions. It can include people who are wheelchair-bound, blind, and indeed, older Australians. People suffering from rheumatism and arthritis sometimes have great difficulties with access to buildings. For those of us who do not face living with these extra challenges, I think, it often escapes our notice that without specific attention to the way buildings are constructed and fitted out, the daily routine for people with a disability can be seriously compromised. The Disability Discrimination Act was passed in this parliament in 1992, just a little before my election to parliament. Its 16 years of operation have highlighted not only some of the positive steps forward in providing for people with a disability within the community by not discriminating against them, but it has also highlighted some of the deficiencies in its operation. Of course it is true that there have been many positive changes, both in accessibility to buildings, and, I think, to community attitudes towards people with a disability. But surprisingly, there are still difficulties and challenges for people with a disability in accessing buildings for work, for necessary services and for leisure. That isolates many people with a disability, both socially and from being able to access the workplace and generally going about their day-to-day business. This report specifically looks critically at the intersection and operation of the Disability Discrimination Act and the Building Code of Australia. While the act enshrines the right of access to premises by people with a disability, it is enforced, in the first instance, through the Australian Human Rights Commission complaints mechanism. But it is up to a person with a disability to take action to have the provision of the act enforced. It is therefore not surprising that few people exercise that right due to the financial and emotional cost of initiating such access. If conciliation is not successful then the aggrieved party must initiate an action in the Federal Magistrates Court or in the Federal Court of Australia. Very few people with a disability, I would suggest, would want to actually pursue that course of action. I am pleased to see that the report makes a recommendation in regard to the fit-out, and to apply disability standards to places other than buildings. Primarily, the committee was asked to inquire into, and report on: the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed Premises Standards in achieving their objects; the interaction between the Premises Standards and existing regulatory schemes operating in state and territory jurisdictions, including the appropriateness and effectiveness of the proposed model process to administer building access for people with a disability; whether the premises standards will have an unjustifiable impact on any particular sector or group within the sector; and any related matters. Under the current arrangement there is too much scope for confusion and uncertainty which does not serve to encourage building owners to comply and it risks leading to a high level of complaint from people with a disability. The Attorney-General does have the power under the Disability Discrimination Act to codify standards and to give greater clarity. This has led to the government’s announcement that it will introduce premises standards in the hope of achieving greater clarity. The premises standards have the potential to ensure that the Building Code of Australia and the Disability Discrimination Act is harmonised and incorporates an access code into the building code. This should assist those engaged in the industry to comply with these acts and ensure that buildings meet disability access requirements. According to the evidence given to the inquiry by the Victorian Disability Advisory Council: The standards are long overdue. The [Disability Discrimination Act] and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act have been in place for 17 and 13 years, respectively. The industry has had 17 years to regulate itself and to progressively and cost-effectively implement changes that would meet their obligations under the Acts. Had they done so, many of the cost arguments mounted today would be irrelevant. Industry has in fact been cost-saving for 17 years at the expense of a large percentage of the population. It is now time to restore that balance. And while cost is frequently argued as a reason to do nothing, it is hard to sustain that argument in the case of new construction. The regulation impact statement estimates that the cost of compliance for a new building or new buildings as a proportion of overall building costs is low. The RIS indicates a scale of cost based on case studies, and for the most part the costs are estimated at between one and five per cent for new buildings, with the bulk of case studies falling between a cost of one and three per cent of the total cost of building. Really, no-one could argue that that is unreasonable where a new building is being contemplated and planned for. Of course cost needs to be considered. None of us in this place is naive enough to think that it is something we should not consider. I suppose, especially with regard to existing buildings, there is certainly a much higher cost in retrofitting existing buildings and perhaps even greater difficulties when it comes to heritage listed buildings. The costs for retrofitting such buildings rise sharply, with the RIS estimating between a two to 20 per cent cost relative to the value of the building. However, that should not prevent us from seeking a sensible way forward to ensure that people with disability are not excluded from accessing necessary services and from social exclusion. I was also pleased to see that the committee did take particular note of the heritage issues. At 4.56 of the report, on page 65, it says: The Committee supports the inclusion of a heritage value provision in determinations of unjustifiable hardship. However, the Committee also agrees with the arguments raised by many submitters that providing access to heritage buildings does not have to diminish the heritage value. The Australian heritage industry could look overseas for examples of how a compromise might be reached. These problems have been addressed in some countries where the buildings were built many, many years ago. They are not new challenges or new problems and I am sure they are ones that could be overcome. They are surmountable. The committee report did go on, at 4.57, to point out that the term ‘heritage value’ is a bit ambiguous. It is unclear, and it wanted greater clarification of those particular words. I think they are sensible suggestions in this report. In the little time I have available, I would like to mention that I thought, looking through some of the submissions, that Vision Australia made an excellent submission to this committee hearing. I cannot go through the whole submission, it is quite a detailed one, but they did raise a matter which is probably relatively easily addressed in all buildings, whether they are existing buildings or new buildings—that is, braille and tactile signage for people who are vision impaired or blind. Vision Australia felt that this is a particularly important matter. They said that the provision of tactile and braille signage is the only way finding device included in the draft standards, and they did not regard features such as hazard warning TGSIs and luminance contrasts as way finding devices per se, rather they are safety features. They said: However, there are several cases where there is no specific requirement to provide braille and tactile signage even though other signage is required … They went on to say: Perhaps the omission of the words ‘braille and tactile’ in these cases is an oversight. In any case, Vision Australia’s strong view is that if signage is considered necessary to provide useful information to the public, then people who are blind or have low vision are just as entitled to this information as other members of the public. They also said: Braille and tactile signage could be provided at minimal cost, and would have significant benefits for people who are blind or have low vision. They also talked about the safety issues around moving people out of buildings. I have to say that a matter that concerned me as the Chair of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works when we were approving proposals for Commonwealth buildings was emergency egress from buildings for people who have a disability. I know that the committee at that time shared my views that this is a matter of considerable import. Vision Australia just highlighted the issue for people who are blind. They went on to say: It goes without saying that people who are blind or have low vision should have their needs taken into account in the design of systems for the same evacuation of people from premises in emergency situations. It is a very serious matter and some of those issues go to: Adequate lighting of emergency egress routes Braille and tactile signage of emergency egress stairways and exits The need for wayfinding features such as directional TGSIs to provide an accessible path of travel from emergency exits to designated assembly points. In closing, I think it is apt to quote from one of the submissions, from People with Disabilities in Western Australia: Every person, with or without a disability has the right to enter and use buildings and facilities housed within the built environment. Stating that certain areas do not need to meet the Standards may prevent people with a disability from working, living, or socialising in specific areas. This is discriminatory. Once again I congratulate those involved in putting this report together. I hope that this parliament can look forward to seeing some of the worst of these issues addressed in the very near future. 9526 17:08:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I will start by concurring with many of the remarks that my colleague the member for Pearce made. I also congratulate the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on this report, Access all areas. It is a terrific report and one where I not only support the recommendations but also urge the government to implement the recommendations as expeditiously as possible. Increasingly, the issue of access is gaining greater prominence in the community and, as the member for Pearce has indicated, not only because so many Australians—some one in five—have a disability but also as a result of our ageing population, where greater disability or a lack of mobility is becoming an increasing issue in the community. Frankly, it is wrong for people with a disability to be denied adequate access to buildings. This can have repercussions not only in a social sense but especially for their employment and it raises issues associated with social inclusion. I am particularly pleased that the report has not just determined that the issues of access are about access to buildings. I congratulate the committee on the broadening of the definition of ‘to place’. Indeed, it is only right and proper that people with a disability have access to all manner of opportunities in their lives. The report seeks to achieve a number of objectives. The first is to recommend harmonisation of the Building Code with the current provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act by containing the access code as schedule 1. I applaud that. People in the past have done a good job with the Building Code, despite the fact that they struggle with different legislative and planning requirements across the nation. There has not been a clear and precise set of standards developed with respect to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act. The second objective of not only harmonising the act with the Building Code but incorporating the access code into the Building Code is something which we should congratulate. Apart from anything else, it will provide a huge opportunity for consistency in development and for certainty for building owners and people in the building industry. I am also delighted at the recommendations which will see a shift from what has been very much an individual complaints based framework to a compliance based framework. I am particularly pleased with that change. That would be achieved by incorporating prescribed requirements into a code. That alleviates the need for us to wait for an individual to experience some sort of disadvantage or discrimination before a complaint can be made and, presumably, action is taken. This way we will see a proactive role to ensure that particularly new buildings are constructed in an accessible manner. Increasingly, we will also see the role of the Disability Discrimination Commissioner encouraging, through not only compliance but greater information, building owners and the like retroactively dealing with rectifying obstacles that are identified. I endorse the approach of the committee, which is, frankly, ‘Let’s get something into place as quickly as possible,’ and the acknowledgement that anything in terms of standards is better than what we have now. I say that because clearly there are some, for want of a better description, kinks in the current code. The fact of the matter is that these regulations, if they come into effect as an access code, will have the greatest impact on new buildings and major upgrades. That is something that will have real value for people with disabilities. It is, no doubt, long overdue. The code in many respects should be measured against the intent of the Disability Discrimination Act which applies now. On that basis it should not be onerous to implement the code immediately, because, frankly, people should have been complying with these sorts of standards. One would hope that current plans for buildings would not have been approved if they did not meet accessibility standards like those set out in the report and its recommendations. I am very pleased to say that I think this is the beginning of a better system for everyone. It removes business exposure to prosecution by complaint and ensures better compliance for disabilities. The publishing of the report has created the opportunity for what is necessary dialogue with the broader community. I notice, for example, that the committee found it difficult to find accessible public hearing venues, especially in places like central Melbourne and Brisbane, which is almost unbelievable in 2009. That in itself immediately highlights issues that can be addressed. The report also touched on things such as—and I appreciate the debate—accessible rooms in our four- and five-star hotels for people with a disability. It was reported that many hotel staff were reluctant to offer available accessible rooms to patrons who appeared to have a disability for fear of giving offence. That is on page 97 of the report. I hope this public discussion and recognition of the importance of accessible public venues and buildings will begin to see accessible room requirements as a positive opportunity—indeed, a marketing opportunity—for the hotel and tourism industry. On many, many pages the report stresses the need for haste in the implementation of change. It notes that there will be further research required, for example, in the area of dimensions of modern wheelchairs. It encourages that to be done as a matter of some urgency. But to proceed in any event is important. Again, I think this recognises the time that has been taken to get this far. Indeed, the member for Pearce referred to a particular quote that the committee includes in its introductory comments at paragraph 1.19: In calling for a speedy conclusion to this process, the Committee notes that most submitters have also requested that the Premises Standards be introduced without further delay: The standards are long overdue. The [Disability Discrimination Act] and the Victorian Equal Opportunity Act have been in place for 17 and 13 years, respectively. The industry has had 17 years to regulate itself and to progressively and cost-effectively implement changes that would meet their obligations under the Acts. Had they done so, many of the cost arguments mounted today would be irrelevant. Industry has in fact been cost-saving for 17 years at the expense of a large percentage of the population. It is now time to restore that balance. I concur also with the quote from the Victorian Disability Advisory Council and with the committee’s conclusion that the premises standards should be introduced without further delay. I do note that the committee recommended that the Australian government provide funding for new research—they specify a 12-month timetable from the tabling of the report—into wheelchair sizes and the dimensions of building features necessary to accommodate them. I endorse that recommendation. I understand that the data the committee had been relying on for the development of the standards was based on a study conducted in 1983. Frankly, we know that the population requiring accessible facilities is increasing and we know that the technology available to assist them is improving. It seems to me that to be unaware of whether that has meant that wheelchairs are changing shape, getting bigger or getting smaller or by how much seems to be a gap in the research and information available to the committee. I hope that that research will be able to be conducted and perhaps improvements to the code made in that regard. In the case of my own electorate office, we found that a constituent with a child with a disability whose electric wheelchair would be unable to come through the front door of my office. With the support and approval of the Special Minister of State that resulted in some renovations to my office to ensure that we had access for all my constituents who may need to come and see me. I referred earlier to my delight at the committee’s recommendations that the Disability Discrimination Commissioner be given power to investigate noncompliance with the premises standards and to be able to bring a complaint where there is noncompliance with the premises standards without requiring any individual complaint. I think this is an incredibly important reform. Our experience in this area shows that an individual complaints based system is less effective than it could be or should be—when I say ‘less effective’ in some cases it is totally ineffective—in bringing about the sort of change that would ensure not only social justice but improved social inclusion for people with disabilities. The process of pursuing a complaint can be lengthy and costly for the individual who has been disadvantaged or discriminated against in the first place. It seems to me not a desirable system when you are dealing with issues associated with discrimination. So I fully support this role for the Disability Discrimination Commissioner and I hope that this will hold drive change effectively across our community. In conclusion, can I say that I would again urge the government to implement the committee’s recommendations expeditiously. It is clear to me that out there in the disability services sector—and certainly amongst advocates and representatives of people with disability—there is a great anxiety to see these changes implemented as soon as possible. I am also confident that the recommendations, if implemented, will drive positive change in our community. In that regard, I could not possibly conclude today without acknowledging the disability services sector in Western Australia for the work that they continue to do in advocating for the rights of people with disability. I talk here about not only community based organisations but also our own Disability Services Commission in Western Australia. They understand completely that accessibility is critical to the full participation of people with a disability in all that life has to offer. I am pleased that access has been the focus of substantial campaigns and public policy development in Western Australia. Indeed, the West Australian state government has a regime in place—and has had for many years—which requires all state government agencies and departments, as well as all local governments in Western Australia, to consider their buildings and facilities and to ensure that they have plans for disability access. Disability access and inclusion plans have been required to be tabled in Western Australia for some time, and it has helped provide some focus to this issue in Western Australia. The Disability Services Commission, who have driven much of that change, have also campaigned successfully on this issue. I would like to close with a quote from their campaign: Good access for people with a disability means good access for all people. Again, I commend the report. I commend the committee, and in particular the chair, the member for Isaacs. I look forward to seeing the Rudd government, especially led by the parliamentary secretary in this area, act on the recommendations of the report at the earliest opportunity. 9529 17:22:00 Shorten, Bill, MP 00ATG Maribyrnong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and Parliamentary Secretary for Victorian Bushfire Reconstruction 1 0 Mr SHORTEN —I rise to congratulate the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Standing Committee led by my colleague the member for Isaacs, for its hard work in examining the draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. I would also like to acknowledge the work of the countless number of people from the disability sector who made submissions. There were also constructive contributions from many in the property sector, including Peter Verwer, the head of the Property Council of Australia. The Rudd government is still finalising its response to the report, I can advise the member for Hasluck, but I believe that the thoroughness of the consultation process and the work that has been done will influence the final decision. The battle for access to public buildings for people with disability is one that has been fought for many years and unfortunately despite some victories is not over. I believe that without access to buildings and public spaces there cannot be true equality for Australians with disability. Until people with disability can enter shops and cafes, enter workplaces, get to appointments that are not on the ground floor and enjoy the same concerts and sporting events as the rest of the population then their inclusion in society cannot be considered complete. Too many Australians are literally on the outside looking in. Throughout the history of all civil rights struggles, access to public premises has been a key test. Whether it be black Americans forced to ride at the back of the bus, or Aboriginal Australians barred from public swimming pools, second-class citizenship has always been clothed in physical exclusion. Despite the passing of the Disability Discrimination Act in 1992 and the progress that has been made since then, people with disability are still excluded too often in society in terms of access to premises. I believe that this exclusion is generally not through active malice but through a combination of indifference and neglect that sometimes takes refuge behind a spurious economic argument. It has been suggested to me by one advocate that buildings that are not accessible should be required to have signs prominently displayed telling the public which classes of people with disability are not welcome in the building, and therefore we could shame people into changing the way they build their buildings. I think this suggestion shows the importance of this issue to people with disability and how keenly exclusion is felt. The idea that we would design labels on buildings saying, ‘You’re not welcome here,’ would be anathema to Australians. But that is exactly what happens with disability standards and access to premises. The Rudd government recently released the Shut out report, the result of consultations on our national disability strategy, which is due next year. This report is an honest look at the frustrations of having a disability in Australia today and the barriers that are routinely and needlessly placed in the path of people with impairments. Twenty-seven in every 100 respondents to the massive survey in the Shut out report said that lack of access to the environment acts as a barrier to their full participation in the life of the community. The report quotes one as saying: “We want to contribute to Australian society but we usually find that we can’t access the workplace, can’t access public venues, can’t have a holiday because there is no suitable accommodation.” Another was quoted as saying: “Many professional services [such as dentists] are based on secondary levels with stair access only. Many cafes have step entry. Cinemas and swimming facilities are still often inaccessible. This prevents me from participating in these recreational activities with family and friends.” This inability to access facilities compromises a person with a disability’s quality of life and acts as a persistent reminder that they are only partial members of the broader Australian community. Nothing reinforces the sense of internal exile that many feel more than the experience of arriving at a shop or restaurant only to find that they are effectively locked out. If they are not locked out, they might be forced to go around the back, through the kitchen or up the goods lifts—made to feel less than the person they are. People with disability have the legal right not to be discriminated against with regard to access to premises and the built environment. The Disability Discrimination Act affirmed those rights when it was enacted in 1992. This act has done great work, and in the hands of dedicated advocates for people with disability it has been used as a tunnel-boring machine driving through the rock line of entrenched prejudice. However, the act does not provide detailed guidance as to what a building owner, designer or manager needs to do to ensure accessibility. It is clear, and has been clear for some years, that the Building Code of Australia needs to be amended to outline the legal responsibilities in detail. Premises standards would harmonise the requirements of the Building Code and the Disability Discrimination Act. As well as providing more access for people with disability, premises standards would provide more certainty to the building industry by letting them know in advance what is required. It is obvious to anyone who has renovated a house that including accessibility features in the original design is far cheaper and easier than trying to retrofit them to an existing building. We have reached a point, I am pleased to say, where environmental sustainability is automatically considered as part of the design of a new building, reinforced by the star-rating schemes established by the states. But where is the same treatment for people with a disability? Are they less important than our environment? I think not. We are not at the same point with disability access. It is still seen as an add-on cost, something separate from the main design of a building. In my role as the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services I am constantly being presented with issues of accessibility—from poorly located disability parking places and ramps leading straight into grilles that a wheelchair could not negotiate to shortages of disabled toilets. I am grateful for some research from the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations for the following paragraphs: Disabled toilets appear to be a particular issue. Even in new buildings, such as Rod Laver Arena and Federation Square in Melbourne, or the Pacific Fair Shopping Centre on the Gold Coast, there are issues with the quality and access of disabled toilets. I hear that the toilets are often not suitable for people who require a hoist, or for those who require assistance and an adult-size change table. In one case reported to me, the lock on the door required both hands to open and shut—making it difficult for some people with disability to enter. Often these toilets are combined with baby-changing facilities. Presumably this is to save space, but it increases the demand on a scarce resource. I know that people with disability are frustrated by the sporadic application of accessibility principles and the number of new buildings that appear to have been built without any thought about or input from a person with a disability. I am also aware that local councils are all too often failing in their responsibility to their ratepayers with a disability by allowing exemptions to accessibility standards for new construction. I am also concerned about the way our houses and apartments are being built in Australia. The issue of residential premises is not covered by these draft standards, but I believe it is one that will become of increasing importance as Australians age. I would love to see more builders embrace the concept of universal design, the simple yet powerful idea that houses should be able to change as we change and to adapt to our changing needs as we go. Along with ageing Australians, there are approximately 1.3 million Australians with a severe or profound disability, and this number is likely to increase. It is also obvious that most people prefer to age in their own homes, on their own terms, with as much independence and dignity as possible. Some of the practical features of universal design are simple: solid walls in bathrooms so that rails can be easily attached; showers where a person does not have to step over the side of a bath or another obstacle to get into them; benchtops in kitchens at both sitting and standing heights; extra living spaces on the ground floor of homes to accommodate future needs; a level main entrance to a house and a sloping landscape to allow easier access; and windows that can be opened or closed with one hand by a person in a sitting position. None of these items adds significantly to the cost of a new house, and indeed the builders would find a greater market to purchase these houses. The battle for equality for people with disabilities is not one that is going to be won overnight, as many decades of struggle would indicate. I suggest that it is a series of small victories and incremental changes. However, measures such as these building standards are an important signal to the building industry that the needs of people with disability and their right to access buildings easily and with dignity are important. I think these draft standards show that we in this place no longer accept that the needs of people with disabilities are secondary to the needs of other Australians. We accept that they need to be included and consulted when buildings are designed. For too long people with disabilities have been told they are the ones who have to adapt to their environment rather than having the built environment adapt to them. They have had to waste valuable time and energy dealing with products, rules and systems that have been put in place with no thought for how a person with an impairment might deal with them. Need I add that we are all only one terrible car accident or, indeed, the effluxion of age away from having the very same issues that we talk about when we refer to people with disabilities? This is not an acceptable situation for people with disabilities, who are, in fact, us. I hope that the introduction of building standards will be a recognition that it is time for the rest of the community to begin more serious thinking about the needs of people with disability in every aspect of their lives. 9531 17:32:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I too welcome the opportunity to speak on the report by the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs entitled Access all areas. It is a report on the draft Disability (Access to Premises—Buildings) Standards. I could not help reading the opening commentary in that report, which was a statement by Brian Howe MP made on 26 May 1992 in his second reading speech on the Disability Discrimination Bill. Having read that statement, I believe it sums up very eloquently what we as a society should be aspiring to when it comes to redressing and addressing the issues, difficulties and disadvantages being faced by people with a disability throughout our communities. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak on this report because it enables me to touch on some of the matters that cause that disadvantage and create barriers to people with a disability not just in Australia but right around the world. I say from the outset that this is a matter that has been neglected and somewhat ignored for much too long. I certainly welcome the fact that in recent years this parliament has begun to address many of these issues. We nevertheless have a long, long way to go. I say that in the full knowledge that it is indeed a very complex matter that is effectively endless. You can start on this project, as I suspect the committee members did, and once you begin to make your inquiries and hear the stories you begin to delve into areas that you had not intended to from the outset but which are just as relevant to what you are trying to achieve as the final recommendations that you bring back to the parliament are. Clearly, the committee had a focus on addressing the issues relating to buildings, and quite rightly so, because, without access into buildings, that level of disadvantage is just compounded so much more. Access denied into buildings is in fact one of the most serious kinds of barriers that we place in front of people with a disability. I say that in the full knowledge that there is such a wide range of disabilities and trying to address every aspect of improvement that is required for every kind of disability that is out there is indeed a mammoth task. For that reason I accept that we can address these issues by taking them one step at a time, and I believe that is exactly what the committee has endeavoured to do in this report by, in the first instance, addressing the building standards. I congratulate the committee members on the effort they have put into this report. It is clear that they have put an incredible amount of work into listening to the representations that were made and then put some very considered thought into the recommendations that they brought back to the parliament. Just a moment ago I listened to the Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities and Children’s Services and I, too, will be waiting with interest for the government’s response to the report. It is well known and, again, repeated in the report that one in five members of our society has some form of disability. As I said earlier on, that disability can take on a whole range of different forms. As a result of that, those people with a disability, whatever it might be, have to live with a level of hardship on a daily basis that, fortunately, most of us do not have to do. It is a hardship that is made worse because we as a society have, over the years, placed unnecessary barriers in front of people with disabilities. We have done so, I believe, not deliberately but unintentionally. We have done so because many of us within society, in our decision-making processes, simply do not have the understanding and the knowledge of what it might be like for a person with a disability to then have to, perhaps, be part of whatever it is we are making a decision on. I will come back to that a bit later on and talk about some of the things that can be done. It seems to me that, quite often, many of the barriers that are there for people with disabilities could have been avoided, probably without any additional cost whatsoever to society, but rather with some foresight. I said earlier that this is a complex issue and indeed it is. It is a complex issue because of the multiple nature of barriers that are there and the multiple nature of disabilities that exist amongst the community. For that reason I expect that our response to all of these matters will certainly be a slow one. Extensive reform is possible without, I believe, doing much more than just changing the culture and the mindset of the decision makers, the designers and the people who make decisions within society generally. In saying that, I believe it is possible to do all those things without imposing an unreasonable obligation on the rest of society. I highlight the word ‘unreasonable’ in my remarks because there is a level at which you have to make a judgment about what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. It is all about: what is reasonable? We live in a society where many of our laws, practices and principles we adhere to are built on a spirit of social justice or social equality. Yet, when it comes to disability issues, reform seems to have occurred at a much slower pace than it has in so many other areas. We can talk about inequality, whether it is to do with women’s issues or racial issues and so on, and we moved and acted on those many years ago, but it seems we have been pretty slow when it comes to the disability sector. Again, I welcome the fact that this parliament is now speaking about this issue and has brought back this report. As I said, access to buildings is one of those primary areas that we need to overcome if we are going to begin on the road to breaking down the barriers for people with disabilities. Essentially, that comes about by society broadly having a much better understanding of what needs to be done, and you can only have that better understanding if you take the time out to listen to people with disabilities, to listen to their problems and to understand that, more often than not, what they are asking for is not at all unreasonable. It comes about, for example, through changing the designs of many of the things we manufacture, including our homes. I heard the parliamentary secretary talking about that just a moment ago. A classic example of the way we design homes today is that had we designed them differently in years gone by, and if the standards for door making, or windows, or ramps or whatever had been done differently from the start, it would have made life so much easier for so many people, yet without adding any additional cost. All it meant was a different design, not a different cost structure. The cost occurs now because when you retrofit, what you are trying to do and what you need to do incur additional costs because they are not standard fittings anymore. Had they been standard in the first place, they would not have been an extra cost at all. I can think of many examples, whether they are to do with ramps, passageways or doorways, that could easily have been designed differently in years gone by. It now is the case that we have to retrofit in many examples, so bringing about some uniformity in the building standards and standards to address some of those problems will at least ensure that new buildings, or where new work is carried out, will comply with those standards. I believe that is a good thing and is something that is well overdue. I will give another example of how, sometimes, it does not take a lot to do things differently but it can make a world of difference to people with disabilities. Years ago I was the mayor of the City of Salisbury. We adopted a program whereby we would see what we could do to overcome many of the barriers faced by people with disabilities. We set up an advisory committee made up predominantly of members of the community with a diverse range of disabilities, who gave us advice as to what should be done. One of the issues that was a constant problem to people with disabilities was accessing buses—getting on and off buses—because the bus stops were not properly designed and built to enable that to occur. Certainly, if you had a wheelchair, or one of those motorised gophers, it was almost impossible to get onto a bus at most bus stops. We went about redesigning and changing the bus stops throughout the city. Had that been done in the first instance, most of the problems—the redesign and rebuild work that took place—would never have been necessary, and it would not have cost much more to have done it right in the first place than it was to have done it the way that it was. It was simply through genuine ignorance that they were designed and built the way they were. Ultimately, to retrofit was going to cost our city close to $1 million. That is the kind of cost that could have been avoided. Having said that, the work of the committee highlighted to me that people with a disability are not at all unreasonable; in fact, they are probably more understanding and more tolerant than most other people. It was because of that I came to respect the fact that what they asked for was never unreasonable, and if what seemed to be unreasonable was unreasonable, they would be the first to say, ‘We accept that this might create a barrier for us but it is unreasonable to ask the rest of the community to fix it up for us.’ They did not have unrealistic expectations. What we were able to do, as a group, was methodically to work through the areas of disadvantage that were being caused for people with disabilities throughout the city as a result of doing things unintentionally, which created those barriers. This report has a number of recommendations in it, and I suspect they make a huge inroad towards breaking down those barriers. It is a report that, I believe, will lead to a lot more reports in years to come and a lot more areas being explored where the barriers for people with disabilities can and should be broken down, and I welcome that. A number of the recommendations talk about further work being done in different areas. I conclude my remarks by saying that, having read parts of the report—and I cannot say that I have studied it all in detail—the important thing is that we need to ensure whatever standards are agreed to are then implemented throughout the community because it is pointless having a set of standards that overcome the barriers that I am referring to but are not in fact policed in any way, shape or form. That is one of the things that we need to ensure happens. The other concern I have is that because of the cost of housing today and the small allotments that are being created, I am seeing smaller homes being built on tighter allotments with tighter spaces in every sense of the word. I believe that we may regret doing that because in years to come when older people remain in their own homes they will need some of the aids that the parliamentary secretary referred to earlier. The places that we are building now may not be designed to cater for them. Again, that is why I welcome the fact that, at least in future new buildings, or where new work is carried out, work ought to be carried out in a way that complies with these standards. Once again, I congratulate all of the committee members for the work they have done. I look forward to the government response on this; but, more importantly, I look forward to the community’s response on this because this is a matter for which we all collectively have responsibility. Debate (on motion by Mr Ripoll) adjourned. Sitting suspended from 5.46 pm to 6.40 pm 9534 Statements by Members 9534 9534 18:41:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I rise to support my constituents of Tangney in the face of the latest attacks on private health insurance by the Rudd Labor government. Over 74 per cent of my electorate have private health insurance. The remaining percentage rely heavily on the public system. Both groups will suffer if Labor succeeds in decimating private health insurance membership. Insured Tangney residents who earn over $75,000 would have to pay more because of the cut to the private health insurance rebate. If they dropped out altogether, they would still have paid more due to an increased Medicare levy surcharge. Insured Tangney residents who earn under $75,000 would have to pay more because of increased premiums due to younger and healthier people dropping out. Uninsured Tangney voters would be waiting longer in the public hospital queues for essential treatment because of the further influx of people into a public health system already under extreme pressure. In the early 1990s, Labor nearly crippled our health system because of ideological opposition to private health cover. This government is hurtling down the same destructive path, and again Australians rely on the coalition to save them from this unconscionable attack. 9535 9535 18:43:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —The Film and Television Institute of WA, locally known as the FTI, is a creative production and learning hub based in Fremantle that has helped foster talented filmmakers and community interest in this field of the arts since 1971. Its facilities and services include an animation studio, post-production facilities, a 120-seat theatre, an annual outdoor cinema program and accredited vocational education and training courses. The FTI’s CEO Graeme Sward, a man who is passionate about the FTI and its place as one of Fremantle’s pre-eminent creative centres. The organisation faces two major challenges, which I am committed to help resolve. The first challenge relates to the maintenance of the 19th century building that the FTI currently occupies, the heritage listed former Fremantle Boys School, which is owned by the state Department for Planning and Infrastructure. If urgent upgrade and repairs are not carried out, the FTI may be forced to leave the premises due to health and safety concerns. The second challenge relates to being able to effectively connect to the rest of the filmmaking community. The organisation is just one example of why fast, affordable, high-bandwidth broadband is needed across Australia. I note that this was previously highlighted as a major issue for the film industry in a 2004 report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Communications, Information Technology and the Arts entitled From reel to unreal. The Film and Television Institute of WA, located in Fremantle, plays an important role in WA’s film and television industry. I will continue working to ensure it receives the government support it needs and deserves. 9535 9535 18:44:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —This evening I rise to talk about an event I attended on 4 September, the Formula One Technology Challenge. The event involves student teams designing and racing small-scale versions of F1 cars. The 11- to 16-year-olds taking part have to grapple with some challenging engineering concepts. I, along with the parents and teachers, was impressed by their efforts. Producing high-quality engineers is fast becoming a WA specialty. There are 10,000 students in my electorate of Swan and many of them are taking engineering degrees. Part of the reason for our success is the support that engineering organisations give to schools in organising events like this. The F1 challenge is supported by the Re-Engineering Australia Foundation, and I congratulate them on their initiative. I am sure it will go a long way to developing a future pool of engineers in WA. At the event I was pleased to see that Streamline Racing from Wesley College from my electorate of Swan won the senior title. Probably the most impressive entry was from Perth Modern School by a group of young women who finished second in the racing competition on the day I attended. However, credit must go to all those schools, the students and teachers who took part in the event. Last year I was pleased to be appointed joint patron of this event with the member for Hasluck, Sharryn Jackson, who happens to be in the chamber. It has been good to witness the progress of the competition and the students over this period of time. I am sure we will both do our best to support the event and encourage more schools to take part next year. It is a worthy competition and fostering an engineering culture in WA is a worthy pursuit. I wish the WA team all the best in the national titles in Sydney. (Time expired) 9536 9536 18:46:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 0 Mr GIBBONS —I present this petition of 3,885 signatures of mainly Maryborough residents requesting that the Productivity Commission recommendation to remove the parallel import restrictions on books be rejected. In addition to the 3,885 signatures on the petition, another 1,300 of these coupons have been published in each edition of the Maryborough Advertiser over the past month or so. Maryborough has a population of just over 8,000 people, so this means that more than half the population have recorded their strong opposition to the removal of parallel import restrictions. Why? Because they know that this has the potential to decimate Maryborough’s biggest employer, McPherson’s Print Group, who employ around 300 to 350 employees or residents. The Maryborough Advertiser sent a letter to the Prime Minister, published on the front page of the Friday, 14 August edition, requesting his intervention. The removal of parallel import restrictions will not only decimate the printing and publishing industries but also severely retard Australian authors’ ability to get their work published. Imagine an Australia without books by Patrick White, Tim Winton or Kate Grenville. Imagine an Australia where the only places you can buy books are supermarkets or discount stores. Imagine an Australia where the only books they stock are written by Americans, about Americans and for Americans. This is what is at stake if parallel import restrictions are removed as requested by the Productivity Commission. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable The Speaker and members of the House of Representatives: We the undersigned citizens of central Victoria wish to draw to the attention of the House that the Productivity Commission has recommended the removal of the Parallel Import Restrictions on books. Such a proposal if enacted would result in the loss of hundreds of jobs in this community and make a significant downward impact on the economy of the area. Your petitioners therefore ask the House to reject the recommendation of the Productivity Commission regarding Parallel Import Restrictions on books and to retain the current arrangements. from 3,885 citizens Petition received 9537 9537 18:47:00 Laming, Andrew, MP E0H Bowman LP 0 0 Mr LAMING —Pumping through the heart of Redlands is the blood of our service and sporting clubs, Redlands Rugby League Club, Capalaba Warriors Rugby League Club, Capalaba Bulldogs Soccer Club, Victoria Point Sharks, Alex Hills Bombers, the Muddies Rugby Union and the Southern Redlands Rugby Union clubs, but none is any greater than the Redlands United Football Club. They celebrated two great milestones in the last week when they stunned the Queensland State League by winning 2-1 against a foundation and former national league team, the Brisbane Strikers, in Saturday night’s football grand final. They were rank outsiders but they pulled out two goals in the final quarter to win 4-1. The goal scorers were Wayne Knipe, Russell Woodruffe and, of course, our imports Darren Davies from Wales and Englishman Danny Byrne. The man of the match was Graeme Fyfe, another devil Scottish import. They beat the Fire and they beat Olympic on the way to the grand final. Their second achievement was in the under-21s, Forte Skordou, with his own stellar football career on his resume, set out in his first year and coached the under-21s to within an inch of a grand final victory. Thanks go to Tony Brennan, the assistant coach; Daniel Piddick, the manager; players player for the season, Craig Gibson; and young Albert Edwards, who is now signed with the Brisbane Roar. He will be one day, mark my words, a Socceroo. Redlands United Football Club is the home of the Redland City Devils. President, Peter Clarke, and vice-president, Ian Challinor: you are the pantheon of club leaders. Ensuring staffing and support for home games are Liz Austen, Wayne Archer, Keith Cecil, Jodie Preston, Tonya Medlan and Wally Djachenko, the Treasurer. Thanks to Brett Austen for the best home fields in Queensland and Ray Gardner for his media and physio work with our team. Congratulations Redlands United. (Time expired) 9537 9537 18:49:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —Genia Janover is one of those legendary school principals who influences the course of history in their country. At a special function that I attended on Sunday, tribute was paid to Genia with this wonderful book of tribute to her 20 years as principal of Bialik College in Melbourne, a college that she has brought, in the last 20 years, from some 400 students to 1,100 today. To honour her at that wonderful warm ceremony, where the parents, staff and students expressed what I can only describe as love for her, an announcement was made that an early learning centre would be named in perpetuity in her honour. Genia has also been judged by objective criteria. She was named as one of the 10 top educators in Australia in 2003. She was named as principal of the year in 2007. But this does not really describe the way people feel about her. I think it was best summed up by a teacher who said, ‘Most principals are tolerated, some are respected, few are liked, but you are actually loved.’ According to objective criteria, Bialik College is the top performing school in the VCE in Melbourne. That is in no small part due to her extraordinary ethos as an educator. 9537 9537 18:50:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise this evening to speak on something that is really getting stuck in the craw of my rural electorate in Western Australia—that is, the RSPCA. It is a wonderful organisation that is doing great things. They have created a reputation in Australia today that is absolutely iconic and I say, ‘Why don’t they stick with it?’ They have been responsible for protecting domestic pets over the years from the sadists who would inflict pain on them, and for protecting livestock on hobby blocks that would have been neglected, denied food and water and left in dreadful situations. These issues have been brought to the attention of the public through the media that defends them. These days, they are taking out multi-thousand-dollar ads in daily newspapers, stepping out of their iconic role into agriculture and food production generally. It is an absolute nonsense. Among other things, they are suggesting that we have got to stop jockeys using whips in the sport of kings and that we have got to stop the mulesing of merino sheep in Australia, which is ruining our wool industry. They are going to stop the live export of livestock from Western Australia, where there are no abattoirs and therefore no justification for breeding stock other than to send it overseas. I suggest to you that the RSPCA will maintain their iconic reputation in Australia so long as they stick with their core business, which is looking after the welfare of domestic pets. Let them get back to it. 9538 9538 18:52:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —I want to talk this evening about an important investment for Tasmania’s health system. It was just a few weeks ago that I stood with my federal colleague, the member for Denison, and also my state colleague, the Deputy Premier and Minister for Health, Lara Giddings, to announce funding for Tasmania’s first public PET scanner, which is to be installed in the Royal Hobart Hospital. The Rudd government has provided $3.5 million for this new state-of-the-art public PET scanner. The Tasmanian government is also contributing $3.7 million to upgrade the area where the machine is to be installed. This diagnostic equipment will enable the Royal Hobart Hospital to operate a tertiary oncology unit with daily access to PET-CT scans for the first time. We have delivered on yet another election commitment to provide this service for the state of Tasmania and the PET scanner will make a difference for those people who are awaiting cancer diagnosis. The machine will ensure that Tasmanians are able to access the latest diagnostic tools at their local public hospital. The PET scans will also provide important assistance to clinicians in the early diagnosis of cancers, as well as neurological conditions and cardiovascular disease. The machine will have the new time-of-flight technology. The scanner will also be used for clinical research through the collaborative partnership that was recently established between the Menzies Research Institute and the Royal Hobart Hospital. This is a win for the people of Tasmania and we have delivered on what we promised them in the 2007 election campaign. 9538 9538 18:54:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I rise to give my condolences for the life of Matthew John Leonard, who was just 28 years old when he died in a plane crash near Kokoda in Papua New Guinea on 11 August 2008. On Friday, 4 September I attended the funeral of Matt Leonard at the Greenwood Catholic Parish, in the All Saints church. At that moving service, it was apparent to those of us who did not know him that he was held in the highest regard. A graduate of the Western Australian Academy of Performing Arts, he had moved from his home in Western Australia to Melbourne. In Melbourne he embarked on a career with the Metropolitan Fire Brigade, undertaking training and then graduating to serve at the East Malvern station house. Serving for two years as a fireman, he was also involved in training fire fighters in Asia and was a tour guide for No Roads Expeditions, a responsibility that saw him in Papua New Guinea and sadly onboard the plane that crashed and took the lives of 11 passengers and two crew members on that day. At the service for Matthew Leonard, I report to the House, the church was packed. The family, friends and colleagues—those who knew Matthew Leonard well—were abundant. There is nothing surprising about that. The eulogy and the statements paint a picture of a young man who added great value in everything he did. Nothing was too much trouble for Matt and he was a great friend to all. Clearly Matt Leonard’s family, friends and colleagues will miss him greatly. His loss will forever be felt by all those who knew him. Those of us who did not know him feel a very great regret. Once again, for their loss, I express my condolences to Matthew Leonard’s parents, Bill and Anne, and his brothers, Russ and Mike, and his sister, Bec. 9539 Private Members' Business 9539 Debate resumed, on motion by Ms Hall: That the House: notes that: National Stroke Awareness Week  is 14 to 20 September 2009; 60,000 people in Australia will suffer a stroke this year; stroke is the second most prevalent cause of death, and leading cause of disability, in Australia; one in seven people will suffer a stroke in their lifetime; twenty per cent of all strokes occur in people under fifty years of age; stroke costs Australia $2.14 billion a year, and is preventable; and education plays an important role in reducing the occurrence of stroke; and acknowledges the: role played by the families and carers of stroke victims; and National Stroke Foundation’s launch of its new Face, Arms, Speech, Time Campaign. 9539 18:55:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —This week is National Stroke Awareness Week. Stroke is one of those diseases that I think Australians, and for that matter people through the world, do not understand fully. They do not know the signs and do not know the correct treatment and the correct way to react at the time of having a stroke. Stroke is the second greatest killer after coronary disease and a leading cause of disability. In 2009 Australians will suffer around 60,000 new and recurrent strokes—that is one every 10 minutes. One in five people having a first-ever stroke will die within one month, and one in three will die within a year. The number of strokes will increase each year due to the ageing of the population unless something is done to reduce the incidence of stroke. With the increased incidence of stroke comes an increased cost to our community. It comes in the necessity to have more beds in aged-care facilities. It also comes in the form of a greater reliance on family and carers, a cost in terms of loss of production and the simple human cost associated with people suffering strokes. The FAST test is an easy way to recognise and remember the signs of stroke. Using the FAST test involves asking three simple questions. Face: check the person’s face. Has the person’s mouth drooped? Arms: can they lift both their arms? Speech: is their speech slurred? Do they understand you? If the answer creates any concern, then it is time. Time is critical. If you see any of these signs, call 000 straight away. In the next 10 years more than half a million people will suffer a stroke. Stroke kills more women than breast cancer. About 88 per cent of stroke survivors live at home, and most have a severe disability or some kind of disability. Close to 20 per cent of all strokes occur in people under 50 years of age. Stroke costs Australia approximately $2.14 billion per year. So it causes enormous disability and it increases the demand for aged care facilities and it puts an enormous burden on carers. Once a person suffers a stroke some of the things that they need to do is undertake lifestyle change: look at their diet, level of exercise, level of alcohol intake and smoking. These are all behaviours that impact on a person’s ability to recover from a stroke and to ensure that they do not have future strokes. In the time that I have remaining I would like to share with the House details of a research project that has been conducted by the Hunter Medical Research Institute’s Stroke Research Group. The group has developed a system for fast-tracking stoke treatment which could benefit thousands of Australians who suffer from strokes and save millions of dollars. The system is called Pre-hospital Acute Stroke Triage, or PAST, Protocol. It reduces pre-hospital and emergency department delays to allow more stroke patients to receive brain-saving thrombolysis, or clot-bursting treatment, within a three-hour window of having a stroke. A three-hour treatment period is a very important time period. By reversing the crippling effects of the stroke we can enable more people to return to their families, their homes and their jobs. This also reduces the demand on nursing home beds, in-hospital rehabilitation programs and healthcare dollars. This is a unique system. If the PAST protocol were implemented nationally an additional 2,500 people could receive the thrombolysis treatment. This is a unique process that has been developed in the Hunter and it is one that really benefits stroke patients throughout Australia. This is Stroke Awareness Week. Let us be aware of stroke. (Time expired) 9540 19:00:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I would like to commend the member for Shortland for her contribution and the motion before the House. I thank the member for raising this important issue, particularly in the context of National Stroke Awareness Week and the fact that 60,000 people in Australia will suffer a stroke this year. There is not a person in this place who has not been directly affected by someone they know and love suffering a stroke. As we all know, it is not one person who is affected as a result. While the individual survivor concerned may be left with the most obvious physical or mental impairment, the reverberations are felt throughout their home and community. As the member for Shortland indicated in her motion, stroke is the second most prevalent cause of death and the leading cause of disability in Australia. It staggers me that one in seven people will suffer a stroke in their lifetime and that 20 per cent of strokes occur in people under the age of 50. That figure makes a mockery of the view, which many of us tend to have, that stroke is an ailment that only afflicts the aged. One in five stroke sufferers are aged under 50. If they survive they can face many years of rehabilitation and the need for a range of support services. It is in that context that I want to raise the issue of the Stroke Association of Victoria and the remarkable work that the volunteers undertake on behalf of stroke survivors. I had the opportunity earlier this year to meet with Clare Gray from the Stroke Association when she visited East Gippsland along with many of her members. It is a remarkable organisation on many fronts. The association is made up completely of volunteers who provide support as caregivers to loved ones who have suffered a stroke. These people give their time to supporting stroke survivors and reinforcing the message of stroke awareness to the community at large. They provide a wide range of information and ongoing support long after the medical profession has dealt with the most obvious issues. There is a constant need for support and assistance to make sure the stroke survivor can enjoy the highest quality of life possible. It disappoints me that the work of the Stroke Association of Victoria is not properly acknowledged with ongoing funding for professional support staff. With a relatively minor investment, the work of the association could expand through the use of a professional coordinator to develop and administer services to more than 20 support groups across Victoria. Australia is a nation that relies on its selfless volunteers—and long may that be the case—but we need to make sure that we do not take them for granted. Governments at the state and federal level should urgently consider how we fund such volunteer organisations that could leverage countless more hours of support activities and provide an even better service with just a small investment from the public purse. We cannot talk about stroke without acknowledging the opportunities to minimise our personal risk. The member for Shortland touched on them. There are some factors which are beyond our control, but lifestyle factors such as diet, alcohol consumption, smoking and how active we are in our daily lives will all affect our own level of risk. As members of parliament we must avoid the temptation to become a nanny state and dictate to our communities, but we can do a lot more to promote healthy and active lifestyles for people of all ages through the provision of appropriate facilities and more support for junior sporting organisations. I am a big believer in junior team sports and the role they play in connecting children with their communities and establishing healthy habits for life. I fear that many young people miss out on this opportunity for purely economic reasons. It is an area that I intend to keep pursuing with governments at all levels to increase access to sporting opportunities and the lifelong benefits it provides. As a layman I like the description that the Victorian Stroke Association provides to explain a stroke on its website. They call it a ‘brain attack’ in that it happens when the blood supply to the brain in interrupted and the brain does not get the oxygen is needs. The importance of prompt action to assist someone you suspect of having experienced a stroke cannot be overstated. As the member for Shortland correctly pointed out, the symptoms may include weakness or numbness or part paralysis in parts of the body, difficulty swallowing or a loss of vision or dizziness. The association’s website provides a range of support material but the most important advice is to seek medical assistance immediately if you suspect someone is having a stroke. Fast action can save a life or minimise the level of permanent impairment. The association’s website also makes another important point in relation to the recovery process. It says: The brain is a remarkable organ and is capable of adapting to change. In the weeks and months following a stroke many partially-damaged cells may recover and start to work again.                          …                   …                   … The length of time it takes to recover varies widely from person to person.                          …                   …                   … As a rule, a majority of recovery often takes place during the first year to 18 months, but many people continue to improve over a much longer period. This is why we always say, ‘NEVER GIVE UP’ There is a message here for us all in terms of the activities that we undertake to assist people in recovering from stroke and to support research and development into preventative actions: we must never give up. Dare I say, in the time that is left to me, that I think if more Australian were aware of the contributions made by their elected members during debates such as this, rather than being aware of some of the spectacles that they sometimes see in question time, their respect for those who choose to serve our communities through elected office would rise considerably. I congratulate the member for Shortland for bringing this important matter to the attention of the House. 9542 19:05:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I also want to commend the member for Shortland for moving tonight her motion about strokes and helping to create added awareness in the federal parliament about this issue. I want to make a small contribution to help create that awareness across my electorate and right across Australia, because I think this is one of those important areas of health awareness that not enough people understand, and we ought to do everything we can to make sure that people know the symptoms, know the causes and know the impact and effects of a stroke. To illustrate the impact that a stroke has on people, I want to invite the members present in the chamber and the people that might be listening to imagine what it would be like if you awoke one morning to find one side of your body was permanently paralysed, or to find that you were perfectly able to understand words but were unable to speak or to write or to find that you were having to relearn how to perform the simplest activities of daily living, such as eating, dressing or bathing, things that come naturally to the rest of us. Your life and the lives of your family and friends would need to be completely rearranged. That is a very difficult time for people who have a stroke. It is a very difficult time for their friends and families as well. These are just some of the life-altering ways that a stroke can have an impact on people’s lives. You have already heard tonight, from the member for Shortland and others, some pretty alarming statistics about stroke sufferers in Australia, so I want to talk mainly about the topic of prevention. To give a background setting, there are a range of signs of stroke which may include one or more of the following things. People may experience numbness, weakness or paralysis of the face, or of an arm or a leg on one or both sides of the body. They may find they are having difficulty in speaking or understanding what somebody is saying to them. They may find themselves dizzy, or experiencing a loss of balance or having an unexplained fall. They may have some loss of vision or suddenly blurred or decreased vision in one or both eyes. They may have a headache, an unusually severe one, or the abrupt onset of a headache. They may have some unexplained change in a headache pattern, with one that might persist, or have difficulty in swallowing. This is not an exhaustive list. These are just some of the things that may happen to people. Having lost a close friend of mine to a stroke only about five years ago, I have a sense of just how quickly it can happen to someone, someone who is not necessarily an older person. In fact, as we have heard, most strokes happen to people who are under 55 years of age. They can even happen to really young people in their 20s or younger. Strokes are very debilitating. They can also lead to death. People might not recover at all from their stroke, particularly within 48 hours of having it. It would be a safe assumption to make that many Australians just do not realise the extent of a stroke or what it can do. That is why I think awareness campaigns such as the FAST campaign are essential. They really do help people to better understand what is happening either to themselves or to somebody close to them, being a friend or a family member. Not only is stroke Australia’s second biggest killer; the number of strokes will increase each year as Australia’s population ages unless we can reduce the incidence rate. FAST is a simple way of remembering the signs of stroke and what to do if you experience them or if you see the signs in another person. FAST stands for Facial weakness, Arm weakness, Speech difficulties and Time to act fast. Calling 000 immediately could prevent death or severe disability. This brings me to another aspect of stroke: not only can it be prevented but if you act quickly enough you can minimise the impact of a stroke on someone by getting them to hospital in time. I have been active in the FAST campaign. I have promoted widely the need for people to carry FAST wallet cards to assist them in recognising the symptoms. They are still available from my office and I know they are available from other members’ offices as well. I know everyone in this parliament is committed to trying to help reduce the incidence of stroke. In the short time that I have I also want to make mention of the things that we can all do to try and help prevent a stroke. There are obviously easy things such as not smoking or giving up smoking, losing weight if you are overweight, limiting your alcohol intake—a moderate amount of alcohol can lower your risk of stroke, but more alcohol is harmful to your health—keeping your blood pressure low with a low-salt diet and undertaking physical activity. If required, medical attention is also necessary. You can also live by the motto, ‘The lower your cholesterol, the lower your risk of stroke.’ The two are intimately linked. You can control cholesterol with a combination of diet, exercise and, of course, medication. Being physically active is also very important, so we should try to do some moderate exercise every day. There is a lot that people can do. We all have to be aware of the symptoms and we have to try and help our friends and family, not only beforehand but also afterwards if something does happen. 9543 19:11:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —by leave—I take up the points raised by the previous speaker in relation to opportunities to prevent the frequency of stroke occurring in our community—in particular the issues raised in relation to older people and those with certain medical problems such as high blood pressure and diabetes. There is no question that lifestyle factors such as diet, alcohol consumption, smoking and how active we are in our daily lives affect our individual risk. In particular I refer to the issue of smoking. As someone who had a father who was a regular smoker and tragically suffered from lung cancer later in his life due to his smoking habit, formed as a very young man, I am very committed to encouraging young people in our community to avoid taking up smoking in the first place. As a government there is a lot more that we could do via public health initiatives on the issue of smoking. The Quit campaign, which has been very successful across Australia, is an initiative which needs further support in the future. There are a whole range of initiatives being considered in terms of restricting the amount of advertising and the display of cigarettes. Also, in many states legislation is being put forward to prevent smoking when children are in cars. These are all very good and positive initiatives. If we can avoid young people in particular taking up the habit of smoking early in life, the benefits will flow through in minimising the number of strokes in our community. Healthy eating is also an issue that the previous member referred to. Again, it is an opportunity for us as elected members of parliament to lead by example. We should support our food producers across our nation and encourage young people in particular to enjoy five portions of fruit and vegetables each day. It does a lot for your health, in terms not only of minimising the incidence of stroke in our community but of overall quality of life. In my previous contribution to this motion before the House I referred to the need to encourage healthy lifestyles, particularly amongst our young people. It is something I would like to expand on further if time permits. We have an opportunity in our nation to encourage young people in particular to be active members of their communities. There is a real prospect for us to do a lot more in reducing the economic barriers for a lot of our young people. I represent a regional constituency, and a lot of our young people have trouble accessing sporting opportunities. There is a real opportunity for us to make sure that we provide those opportunities in our regional communities, taking into consideration the extra transport costs involved for a lot of families. Again, early habits formed in terms of a healthy lifestyle will have immeasurable benefit in reducing the incidence of stroke in our community. I also referred previously to the Stroke Association of Victoria and the excellent work they are doing in supporting people who have suffered from stroke and, of course, their families and caregivers. As members of parliament we need to reflect more on the contribution that is made to our community by carers. Carers save our nation a king’s ransom in forgone costs to the community if we had to provide that care from the public purse. With a little further investment from us at the state and federal levels to support our carers we would be able to achieve a lot more in supporting people with illnesses. In this particular case I am referring to strokes. The support groups that exist in Victoria provide a wide range of support to families and to survivors, helping them through a very traumatic time in their lives. By their very nature, strokes are unexpected. They occur suddenly and it is like a lightning strike on the families involved. It hits them in an instant and, from then on, their lives are different. It is up to us as a government and as members of parliament to make sure that we provide support for the survivors and also to the caregivers. There are opportunities for us to make sure that the caregivers and the work that they are doing in the community are more widely recognised and appreciated. It is with that in mind that I repeat my earlier remarks encouraging state and federal governments to see what support they can give to groups like the Stroke Association of Victoria in terms of professional facilitation work, because I find that a professional facilitator or coordinator can leverage off the amount of work the volunteers undertake on behalf of those who have suffered a stroke. Again, I thank the member for Shortland for the motion before the House and commend her for her work in this regard. 9544 19:16:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —In rising to support this motion, I too wish to congratulate the member for Shortland for bringing this motion before the House today and for giving me the opportunity to speak on this very serious and very important issue. If there is one thing I have learnt in the 18 months I have been in this House it is that there are many very important and very serious issues that we feel passionate about. We in this House have the opportunity to raise many of those issues on behalf of our electorates and on behalf of groups that we may be involved in or work with. National Stroke Week is a great opportunity to speak on this issue because, by raising awareness of the issues of stroke, the causes of stroke and the very important medical research and medical support that goes into dealing with the results of stroke, we can perhaps make a difference. There are many causes that we as individuals and members of parliament passionately believe in but, unfortunately, we cannot make a difference in all of them. But through public debate and awareness-raising we can contribute to the prevention of stroke and perhaps raise the number of medical opportunities available to deal with the symptoms of stroke. As I and speakers before me have said, stroke is preventable. It is an issue that fits, I think, quite closely with the government’s agenda when it comes to health reform and health policy around increasing our support for preventive health and primary care. It is at those two levels that we can make a real difference for stroke victims and, as importantly, potential stroke victims in this country. There are three key ways in which we can prevent stroke from happening. One of them is through clinical ways in terms of medication and, where appropriate, surgery. With the wonders of modern medicine in this country, we can deal with some of the causes of stroke through medical technology and medical expertise and so prevent strokes from occurring. But, as other speakers have said, the critical way of preventing stroke in our community is through changes in lifestyle. We all know that improving our diets, exercising more and cutting down on the bad habits of smoking and excessive intake of alcohol can improve our health in so many ways. Indeed, it is very clear that there are direct correlations between preventing strokes and addressing those lifestyle issues. So if just a few people are paying attention during the short time that we have available for this debate this evening and get the message and start to improve their lifestyle and physical health, it will be a great improvement for our community. Whilst we all know the major focus is on the benefits to individuals we must also acknowledge that stroke costs the taxpayer around $2.14 billion each year, so there is clearly an incentive from a financial perspective for us to encourage people to take up lifestyle changes that will help prevent them from becoming victims of stroke. As I said, this is important not just from the financial perspective, but also due to the fact that stroke is the second biggest killer in this country after coronary heart disease. As has been mentioned before, a statistic I was not aware of until I started to research this topic, is that stroke kills more women than breast cancer. We all know how effective the breast cancer campaign has been right across this country in many different aspects. This campaign has raised awareness and I believe it has meant that a lot more young women have taken the time to ensure that they put together a range of checks, balances and lifestyle changes to prevent them from becoming victims of that disease. In the time remaining can I echo the previous speaker’s comments about carers and volunteers in this area. (Time expired) 9545 19:21:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —It is a great honour to be able to give personal and bipartisan support to the work of the member for Shortland on this motion. I want to begin with a human tale, in fact two. I will not name the people involved for reasons of privacy, but the story of stroke in our community is about the impact of a tragic condition on real people. One is the mum of a young girl called Grace. This mum was in her early forties when she was struck by a stroke. She was not a smoker. To the best of my knowledge she may have had one or two glasses of wine a week. She kept herself well, healthy and fit. There was a time when her family thought they would lose her. Fortunately, due to the combination of the love of her husband, the strength of a friend and the skill of those in the stroke unit who helped take care of her, she has been able to make a tremendous recovery. That is an exemplar of what we are looking at here. I want to deal briefly with the problem, the prevention and the cure. There is another story as well and that is of a young woman known to our family who was in her late twenties at the time, an athlete, a non-drinker and a non-smoker. What occurred in her situation was that during the week in which she finished her PhD thesis, she was also the victim of a stroke attack. For a long while we thought that this young woman would also be lost. There is nothing explicable; that is chance, human tragedy. Again, because of the strength of the individual, the support of her husband and the care, skill and professionalism of those in stroke units, there has been a very solid recovery. In each case there has been loss of quality of life. I do not want to pretend that there have been miracle recoveries, but there have been solid improvements which mean that there is a future. But there is a loss of amenity and there is suffering as a consequence. Let me explain the problem. The problem is that in this country 60,000 people will suffer a stroke each year. The causes have been well documented during this debate. There is some genetic predisposition for stroke, and for that there is screening and work can be done. But many strokes result from lifestyle issues, and it is these things which we can address—through National Stroke Week, through the work of the National Stroke Foundation, through the work of the different health bodies in relation to healthy lifestyle, control of our intake of alcohol, reduction and hopefully eradication of the use of tobacco products, and exercise on an appropriate scale. These things can help us make a real difference on the side of prevention. That is a profound and important task and that is why the National Stroke Foundation’s launch of its ‘Face, Arms, Speech, Time’ campaign is extremely important—it helps people to identify the risk factors and helps them to respond so that they take responsibility for their own lives and for those around them. That leads to the question of, where we cannot prevent, what we can do to help to cure. The research of the National Stroke Foundation is very clear that care in a stroke unit compared with general medical care can lead to a 20 per cent reduction in death, in the early days, and in disability, in the longer periods. This is an extremely important contribution. We need to spread these stroke units from within major hospitals and bring them to regional hospitals to give people the opportunity for early and immediate intervention at the moment of greatest need. That is our task. I thank the member for Shortland because, in bringing this motion to the House, she gives us a chance to cooperate in a bipartisan way on an issue of genuine bipartisan and national need. 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—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. 9547 Debate resumed, on motion by Dr Stone: That the House: recognises the crisis now facing the dairy industry supplying export markets, as they are forced to take prices close to or below the costs of production; and calls on the Government to: provide the immediate assistance needed to ensure these dairy farmers are not forced to sell their herds or their water, destroying the prospects for recovery of this industry when export markets recover; and remember how swiftly it responded to the crisis in Australia’s automotive and retail sectors, as it considers support of the multi-billion dollar dairy export sector which employs some 30,000 workers. 9547 19:26:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —The dairy industry is, without doubt, in crisis. An extraordinary overlapping of terrible events has meant that for the first time in 30 years we are seeing prices so low that dairy farmers are right now saying it is just too hard to continue. We have had drought in the southern Murray-Darling Basin and northern Victoria for seven years. We have had the global contraction of credit as a result of the global recession and so the contraction of demand for dairy product. That came on top of a scare in relation to contamination of milk powder in China. Put all that together and we saw the doors to our export industry slam shut some six to eight months ago. On top of those hard-enough-to-deal-with factors, we have federal and state government policies creating the destruction of the irrigation infrastructure of northern Victoria and southern New South Wales. The economies of scale of production which are needed to sustain dairy manufacturing depend on drought proofing. In some parts of Australia, there has been high rainfall. In most parts of Australia where milk is produced for dairy manufacturing, that production has been sustained over the last 100 years through low-energy, gravity fed irrigation. Unfortunately, through this government’s policies, we are seeing irrigators forced to sell out at prices offered by a federal government with very deep pockets when their lenders say to them: ‘You are in debt. The drought continues. You can leave right now or you can sell some of your water and hang on a little while longer and maybe it will rain.’ The problem with that scenario is that, once you have sold your water, if you are in the Goulburn Valley, the Murray Valley or the Loddon Valley—the homeland of dairy manufacturing in Australia—it is all over; you cannot afford to repurchase water and, with the loss of the security of supply and the contraction of the numbers of dairy farmers in the region, your own dairy manufacturing factories are looking very closely at whether it is a good idea to remain in the region. You can imagine the distress of dairy farmers when they saw the Rudd Labor government bail out the multinational car industry with nearly $6 billion and the ailing retail sector primed with another $4 billion before Christmas. We have also seen this Labor government look very kindly towards textiles, clothing and footwear. All of these industry sectors have for years battled to be classed as internationally competitive, but these particular industry sectors were handed billions of dollars to stay afloat. On the other hand we have the dairy industry—the manufacturing or export oriented dairy industry. It has been an industry that has held its head up despite no subsidy for generations. It generates, in fact, billions of dollars—$4.6 billion value at the farm gate and $11.5 billion annually of wholesale value to the economy. The export industry alone contributes $2.9 billion to the economy. Between 30,000 and 40,000 jobs are dependent on the dairy industry. The economic regional multiplier of the dairy industry is estimated to be 2.5. This is a major industry for Australia and it is one which has been world’s best in practice for generations. It is not like our automotive industry—a multinational-led industry that staggers from crisis to crisis; the dairy industry has been superb and supreme. Now is its time of make or break. We have been appealing to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Minister Burke, now for six months. He says he is very understanding and sympathetic. He has visited my electorate, he has visited other parts of the Murray-Darling Basin to look at the dairy sector, and he has had his advisers come to the region. What he has told them basically is: ‘You’re in a great amount of strife here. You should be sympathised with but, sorry, we are not about to give you a hand.’ What the dairy industry needs is the difference between the below-cost-of-production prices offered and a reasonable return so they can hang on for at least 18 months, when we hope the prices will come back with international credit better restored and international demand back where it used to be. We are looking at only about $74 million. That is all it would take to give a future to Australia’s export dairy manufacturing sector and to protect the jobs for all of those who are involved, not just in the dairy production itself, but in the transport sector associated with this industry, the food manufacturing sector, the research and development sector, and the commercial sector with the retailing that goes with all of this production. Dairy milk powders were the biggest export by commodity volume and value out of Geelong for years, yet this Rudd Labor government has turned its back on the dairy industry. It is extraordinary to contemplate. What is the difference between keeping something like automotive, retail or the textile, clothing and footwear sectors afloat and the dairy industry? I am afraid some people simply say it is the way they vote. That should not be the way that this government deals with taxpayers’ funds and with retaining jobs in this economy. Let me say, too, that we have the most appalling water policy now. We have the minister, Penny Wong, thinking that if she puts enough dollars on the table, buys enough water from desperate farmers—who are not willing to sell, who are being pressured by their lenders—she is doing a favour to the environment. We have even the environmentalists, or those who say they have green credentials, now alarmed and disturbed that this water buyback measure has done nothing for restoring wetlands. What it has done is strand the assets of the irrigation sector and drive some of our best performers as dairy producers out of business. Let me give you an example of how perverse and extraordinary this whole business of the water buyback is for the dairy sector. Here I have from the Australian government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts an offer to buy the water entitlements, for them to be sold to the Commonwealth, under the Restoring the Balance in the Murray-Darling Basin program. The offer to these farmers, who were forced to put their water on the market, was for $2,400 per megalitre. The date of the offer is 26 February this year. Note: 26 February. We have in this case and so many like it not a word since that offer was made—or, rather, their offer was accepted. The department recommends that this party get some accounting advice in relation to signing the contract. It is supposed to be a done deal. The government has said ‘here is $2,400 per megalitre; get out of business’. They do not even have the gumption or the values to say this particular dairy farmer is completely finished because he has not been able to sell his water to save even part of his herd. This is the sort of thing our dairy farmers are facing. I have to tell you that it is an industry that has been world’s best practice. It is one that can continue to be world’s best practice and provide dairy food security for Australia ad infinitum, protecting the environment as it goes, building on its fantastic genetic values in its herds. Its human capital is the envy of the world and yet this government has turned its back on this industry. Only $74 million we are asking for—not $4 billion, not $6 billion—$74 million. The time is almost too late but not quite. If this government gets off its backside now we could have a dairy industry for the future. 9549 19:36:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 0 Mr ADAMS —I thank the member for Murray for introducing this motion and I believe this issue has been long overdue for recognition, as there is a problem with the dairy industry in Australia. However, I think she is only looking for bandaid measures in the short-term, rather than looking to provide a future for the dairy industry in the long-term. Hopefully, some good suggestions will come out of the Senate inquiry but I note it has been spearheaded by our Tasmanian senators. I feel we have to look at the takeovers early in 2000 to see what has been going on and going wrong. I believe there have been some deregulatory changes that have not worked in favour of primary producers but have merely consolidated the market of two major overseas-owned companies. The recent history is quite interesting. From 1 July 2000 longstanding marketing arrangements, under which state governments regulated farm level prices for an output of fresh milk, ceased to exist. This development is generally referred to as dairy deregulation but it should be noted that post farm gate aspects of the dairy marketing had been progressively deregulated over several years immediately prior to that. The main drivers of market milk-market gate deregulation were the long foreshadowed determination of the Domestic Market Support Scheme, DMS, for manufactured milk on 30 June 2000, the push by Victorian producers and processors for deregulation and the National Competition Policy, NCP. The above factors were all interconnected to some extent and it is difficult to identify the specific role played by each. The DMS scheme contained a sunset clause in its legislation that would end on 30 June 2000 and it was clear that the main manufacturing milk producer states—especially Victoria and Tasmania—would be the major losers from the cessation of the DMS. Farm gate deregulation was strongly advocated by Victoria, which dominates the national dairy industry. The Victorian major dairy companies and producer organisations strongly sought deregulation to coincide with the determination of the DMS. This is not surprising, given their expected associated income losses. But Victoria’s support for deregulation was not confined to the big players. In December 1999 nearly 8,000 out of 9,000 eligible Victorian farmers took part in a plebiscite on deregulation and 89 per cent of those voting supported deregulation and accepted the Commonwealth government’s assistance package. The state NCP dairy reviews, while seeming to coincide with the termination of the DMS, actually had their own momentum and timetable. The first part of the dairy industry examination examined under the NCP was the post farm gate sector and this has been progressively deregulated with all retail pricing and supply controls removed from 1 January 1999. It was the subsequent NCP review of regulation at the farm level which created controversy. The Victorian NCP review of farm level regulation strongly backed deregulation, while other states’ reviews were lukewarm at best. Nationally, however, governments and the industry recognise that national deregulation was inevitable if Victoria chose deregulation. The Tasmanian picture is interesting. Some 445 dairy farmers are expected to produce 700 million litres of milk in 2008-09. This represents some seven per cent of the national milk output. The dairy industry directly employs 1,475 people on farms and a further 1,250 in the processing sector. Dairy companies manufacturing product in the region includes Fonterra, National Foods and Cadbury. The estimated value of farm gate production in the region in 2007-08 was $275 million. Dairy export from the region was valued at around $260 million. The farms surveyed in Tasmania were milking around 351 cows and producing 1.9 million litres on average in 2008-09. The average area of dairy land was 160 hectares. Seventy-seven per cent of Tasmanian respondents have been affected by price step-downs. Step-downs had a major effect on 68 per cent of farms in the region. As a result of step-downs, 33 per cent of those affected decided to decrease the level of supplementary feed used. Seventy-four per cent of farmers in the region undertook some capital investments in 2008-09. The average grain usage dropped from 1.2 tonnes per cow per year to 1.1 tonnes; 87 per cent of land set up for irrigation was actually irrigated in 2008-09 and 78 per cent of respondents typically purchased grains and supplements as required while 25 per cent used forward contracts. For 73 per cent of farms in the region, the most common production scheme was seasonal calving. Some 21 per cent of farms used split or batch calving, while six per cent produced milk all year round. Tasmanians have had a tough time because they have had a very severe drought in recent years, and there has been an enormous effort to start drought-proofing land in order for farmers to plan their future investment. In recent times we had floods which caused problems with spring calving and generally caused problems because of the long-term drought. With the market now concentrated in two companies in south-east Australia, there is little room for proper competition to work. The changes that occurred after deregulation were largely driven by the impact on farm-gate returns. There have been some important developments in farm-gate milk pricing. These include changes in the price determination process for year-round milk production, the impact of deregulation on average price received for milk and the emergence of distinct regional variations in milk pricing. Deregulation has affected export returns, which now have a greater effect on the average price received for milk as they have taken into account changes in the values of seasonal milk used for manufactured products. Dairy companies compete for milk supplies on the basis of annual prices offered for seasonal and non-seasonal milk. The RIRDC report Industry adjustment to policy reform suggests that the key is the monthly profile of milk production. Manufacturers are after seasonal milk for cheese, butter et cetera whereas milk processors need the short shelf-life products like fresh milk. It is the milk processors that need a constant supply. Apparently, the RIRDC commercial requirements for the reliable supply of non-seasonal milk have caused processors to introduce supply contracts. They provided a guaranteed source of supply for a significant proportion of their annual milk requirements, according to the National Competition Council in 2004. Contract pricing conditions have replaced the regulated price controls as an indicator of the farm gate value of year round milk supplies. These prices are set at different levels depending on the monthly cycle. The average price for non-seasonal milk is supposed to be higher than for seasonal milk as it has traditionally worked, but somehow in Tasmania the contracts have failed to hold their price over a 12-month period. I believe we should have put into place some resource guarantee so that when contracts were negotiated there were some bottom-line principles to work up a sustainable price. I do not see why the manufacturing companies can send the primary producers broke to compete in the world sense. The deregulation in Victoria caused this dilemma and there was no research done to see how some of the levy that was put in place could have been put aside to hedge against lower world milk demand. This is not something that can be discussed here in a mere 10 minutes. I will be talking to both manufacturers and producers in the next few weeks to see whether I can get a clearer picture. The federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has told me that there are measures that farmers can pursue to assist in the short term. Although we have already provided some assistance through the exceptional circumstances program, there may be other assistance for which Tasmanian farmers can apply. I am looking forward to see what farmers need to help them to negotiate sustainable contracts for their domestic fresh milk. 9551 19:46:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I would like to commend the member for Murray for putting this important motion before the chamber and I associate myself with the comments she made, particularly in relation to the need for government assistance for the dairy industry at such a critical time in its history. The member for Murray and the member for Lyons understand the importance of the dairy industry to their communities and the great difficulties that farming families are facing, particularly with reduced prices and the ongoing drought. It does beggar belief that, in that environment, Melbourne Labor ministers at state level would be stealing water from the Goulburn River. But then again they are about to steal another 10 billion litres from the Thomson River in the electorate of Gippsland, and that is an issue for another day. The dairy industry is as critical to the seat of Gippsland as the car industry is to a city like Geelong and yet we have seen a remarkable double standard in the government’s treatment of the two industries at this time of economic crisis. It is a crisis which I stress is beyond the control of individual dairy farmers. I note with a great deal of interest that the Senate is about to undertake an inquiry into a range of issues which are relevant to the motion which is before the chamber. That inquiry will investigate the economic impact on the dairy industry of the reductions in prices that are paid to producers by the milk processors. There are a whole range of important issues that the Senate inquiry will consider, particularly in the context of the ongoing drought conditions in parts of Australia and the fact that the cost of production for many of our dairy farmers is higher than the prices that are currently on offer at the milk factories. The dairy industry in Gippsland is concentrated in the Macalister irrigation district, which is the largest irrigation area south of the Great Dividing Range in Victoria. As I have told the chamber previously, our dairy farmers are among the most productive and efficient in the world. They are world-class producers of a world-class product. The dairy industry is quite big business for the people of Gippsland, with the Wellington shire having more than 400 dairy farms, the majority of which are located in the MID. The region has its own major collection and processing facility at Maffra, with the Murray Goulburn co-op, which produces a range of products mainly for the export markets. My community has been particularly hard hit by the drop in prices and I have sought assistance from both the state and federal agriculture ministers for the development of an industry assistance package. I have argued in my correspondence to the ministers that the dairy industry has a strong long-term future in the region but there is a need to assist my community as it deals with the current difficulties. I am particularly concerned about our younger farmers who may be carrying significant levels of debt. I believe we need to give them confidence in their futures on the land. I have taken up the point in the member for Murray’s motion that the government could provide assistance to ensure our dairy farmers are not forced to sell their herds or their water, destroying the prospects for recovery when export markets inevitably recover. As I said, I am optimistic about the longer term future but we need to take action now to help our farmers get over the hump before them so that they are in a position to continue to produce quality Australian dairy products in the future. There needs to be a survival plan developed to assist our farmers through what I believe will be a difficult 12-month period. Both state and federal governments need to demonstrate their support for a viable dairy industry right across Australia and be prepared to offer assistance during this period. As a nation we have bailed out the car industry, as I referred to earlier. We have also handed out billions of dollars in $900 cheques to prop up the retail sector. I think it is reasonable to develop an assistance package for the dairy industry in these exceptional circumstances. It would be a modest package in comparison to those cash splashes that we have seen by the government. I have received a reply from my representations to the federal Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, and I am afraid there is no good news for my local farmers in his response. There is no intention of taking decisive action. While the minister’s response was certainly sympathetic, reflected an understanding of my concerns for the dairy industry, there is no sign that he is actually prepared to take action. He indicated, on a visit to Shepparton, he is aware of the challenges facing the dairy industry in terms of the ongoing drought, the sharp fall in global dairy commodity prices and the decisions by the European Union and the United States to introduce export subsidies. But that is about where it ends from the minister’s perspective. His response is certainly sympathetic and it reflected that understanding of the concerns. However, I urge him to be more than sympathetic, I urge him to be a champion of the industry that he is commissioned to represent in this place. Many farmers have suggested options to me, including a range of measures such as temporary income support to underwrite low prices or triggering exceptional circumstances interest rate subsidies and increased assistance to develop international markets. The minister says that he is dealing with that final point and there has been some improvement in the situation with India, along with funding for Dairy Australia to host dairy events in Dubai and Saudi Arabia. I doubt though that we are doing enough and the end result will be more dairy farmers forced off the land. Referring again to the situation in Gippsland, I would like to comment briefly on the government’s stimulus spending. Apart from the current prices, which hopefully will pass, the biggest issue for dairy farms in my electorate is the issue of water security. It staggers me that this government has been prepared to hand out $900 cheques but has not even looked at a critical issue, such as investing in improved infrastructure delivering increased water security in Gippsland. The dairy industry in Gippsland is faced with ageing infrastructure and an inefficient system. The MID 2030 Strategy was released two years ago and can improve the supply system. This would be a win for the industry and a win for the environment. I urge the minister to be a champion for that cause as well. 9553 19:51:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —Let me say from the outset that it is my view that the dairy industry it is extremely important to our nation and to the future of our nation. It is important that we have a viable dairy industry well into the future. Just before I get to the question of the dairy industry specifically, I note that the motion that is before the House talks about doing something equivalent to the support the Rudd government provided to the automotive industry in Australia. I make this point: in respect to the automotive industry in Australia, the support provided by the government was more than simply about providing support to one particular sector. It was about supporting the sector that underpins the manufacturing base right throughout this country. It was broad support to the manufacturing industry which began with the automotive sector. Secondly, it was about providing an investment in reducing carbon emissions into the future; again, one of the most critical challenges we face not only in Australia but right across the globe. Thirdly, it was about investing in more fuel-efficient motor vehicles, because, in the future when petrol prices are likely to escalate as a result of the world oil shortage, it is important that we bring back value for money for the motorists. So it was more than simply about underpinning a particular industry. Having said that, I do value the dairy industry in this country. It is my view, that, next to water, milk is probably the most critical liquid we have on earth. It sustains life right across the earth. The dairy industry in this country has been in decline for several decades. In about 1980 we had something like 20,000 dairy farmers across Australia, that figure is now down to about 8,000. In my own state of South Australia, in 1980 we had just under 2,000 dairy farmers, today it is around 300 or so. I have seen the decline. Like so many other agricultural and horticultural sectors in this country the decline has been there for a range of reasons. It is not something that I would like to see continued; I make that absolutely clear. Nevertheless, the dairy industry would not be unique in the agricultural sector in the difficulties it is facing. These difficulties were acknowledge by the previous government when they introduced the 11c per litre levy on milk in order to try to provide some income back to the farmers, but, in reality, led to a rationalisation of the industry but seems to have done very little else in sustaining the industry well into the future. It is an industry which got the benefit of the $1.9 billion from the 11c levy that was raised, but, nevertheless, is still facing very real hardships today which I very well acknowledge. These are hardships that, I believe, arise from two areas. One is because of the water shortages that members opposite have spoken about—and which I acknowledge. As a result of those water shortages, the ability to irrigate the pastures required to sustain their herds has become much more expensive. Water shortages are a critical issue being faced by orange growers, vignerons and people across the agricultural sectors. They are facing the same cost pressures on their ability to remain viable. Nevertheless, this issue is very real and we need to do what we can to improve water availability for our agricultural and horticultural producers right across this country. I will not labour the point, but the $13 billion that the Rudd government has invested in securing our water supplies for the future will go a long way to doing that. Ultimately, more may need to be done. The critical issues, however, are the multinational takeover of the milk industries in this country and the subsidies provided to overseas dairy producers by their governments, which we are regrettably unable to match at the moment. The Minister for Trade, Simon Crean, is working through the Doha Round to create a much more level playing field for our dairy farmers. If that can be achieved it will hopefully go a long way to giving them some additional support. No-one would deny we are going through the worst global recession since the Great Depression. That too has contributed to the downward trend in milk prices. What can be done is being done by the government, and I support the measures that are already in place. 9554 19:56:00 Forrest, John, MP NV5 Mallee NATS 0 0 Mr FORREST —I congratulate the member for Murray for bringing this discussion to the attention of the House. It has been quite a useful exchange. Between her electorate and mine we jointly represent the great bulk of the dairy industry of the irrigated region of the Murray Valley. I speak today about an industry very exposed and vulnerable, an industry that is a wonderful regional employer across north-western Victoria. Dairy is the largest export industry in Victoria. It employs 10,000 people, and last year more than 2.8 billion Victorian dairy products were exported to markets in Asia, Europe and the Americas. That is why it is galling for my constituents to watch this federal government, in league with the state government of Victoria, allow their precious water to be stolen and sent to Melbourne. ‘Stolen’ is a strong word, but it is the truth. It is not moral and there is no limit to the avarice of the Victorian government. Only last week they announced that they want 12,000 megalitres of the water savings from the Wimmera Mallee Pipeline, despite the fact that there are legally constructed agreements between the government of Victoria and the federal government that all the water savings from the $350 million investment by the Commonwealth would go to the environment and stressed rivers, which certainly includes the Goulburn and the Murray. Dairy farmers are facing the multiple whammy of drought, a surge in production costs caused by the drought, uncertainty about how they are going to be treated in the Rudd government’s proposed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, foreign market manipulation and market domination in the retail sector. I note the comments of the member for Lyons and I accept his longstanding association with the dairy industry in Tasmania. But what he overlooked in his comments on the impacts of deregulation and Victorian dairy farmers’ participation in and desire for that outcome is that an unprecedented crisis arrived after the massive reductions in water allocations right along the Murray Valley and the Goulburn River system. These are unprecedented times. What was once the securest water supply system anywhere in the world has now been reduced to its parlous state. On top of that, greedy, avaricious governments want the politically expedient solution to the water supply problems of Melbourne, a big metropolitan city that is not even trying to reuse its sewage water or harvest its drainage water. The dairy industry in Australia does have a future. It is optimistic about that, but it is asking for help in its current calamity. It is going to take years to rebuild the dairy industry, particularly in Victoria. We will lose dairy husbandry expertise. We will lose a large slab of the genetic base of dairy herds, which other countries are now taking advantage of. It is an industry fast losing its capacity to survive and it desperately needs help. You just cannot turn a cow’s udder on and off like a tap. You need the breeding stock and long-term planning. Cows have to be milked every morning and evening and they have to be fed. If those things cannot happen they have to be sold. I note the member for Makin’s comments. He would defend the investments that have occurred in the motor vehicle industry; it is a very strong industry in his electorate. We are not criticising those investment decisions. We are saying that the dairy industry deserves similar consideration. The massive cash injections that have occurred in some sectors of the economy amount to $160,000 to save every job. When the member for Makin talks about the number of dairy farmers, he forgets the huge numbers of jobs—up to 30,000 right across Australia—in the processing sector. Those are the jobs that are at risk, and we are asking for the government to give strong consideration to supporting them. It can support them by making sure it invests in the dairy industry to save the farmers’ herds. The response to the auto industry investment has been huge. There has been massive investment in the financial sector through bank guarantees, which have reduced competition in the market. The government has made the decision to invest there. We are asking that it recognise the massive significance of the dairy industry across Australia to the GDP and stand by our dairy farmers in the electorates of Mallee and Murray. I support this resolution and am grateful that there has been an opportunity to bring the concerns of my constituents to the attention of the House. 9555 20:01:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I thank the member for Murray, with whom I share an identical birth date, for raising issues affecting an important Australian industry, particularly in my region, which is one of the most productive dairy districts not just in Tasmania but in the country. In Tasmania dairy represents 24 per cent of the value of farm production and underpins significant downstream processing. Tasmania’s dairy industry supports some 460 farms, producing over 640 million litres annually, and is a vital regional employer, directly employing 2,200 people on-farm and a further 675 in the processing sector. Tasmania is the third biggest dairying state, behind New South Wales and Victoria. In the last five years production has grown by about 20 per cent. Indeed, it is a growing industry not just in terms of output but in terms of capital investment, as some 25 per cent of farms undertook some form of capital investment in 2007-08. About eight per cent of Tasmania’s milk production is consumed as drinking milk. The balance is manufactured by dairy companies such as Fontera, National Foods and Cadbury into products such as cheese, milk powder, butter and confectionery. The gross value of Tasmanian dairy products after manufacturing is nearly $600 million. In the year 2007-08 this was worth $332 million at the farm gate but, as a stark indicator of the problems facing our farmers, this will drop to less than $300 million this year. This drop has been forced by a number of factors, including seasonal conditions and a falling international milk price. In my part of the world a huge rainfall has made it difficult for some farmers just to get the herd to dairy. In January Fontera announced a cut of about 32 per cent to its suppliers, which I am told is worth between $50,000 and $80,000 to the bottom line of a typical supplier. Fontera is by far the largest player in the Tasmanian industry and has been hit by the global financial crisis and its impact on world markets, where much of its produce is traded. I note that some optimism remains in the sector and a few indicators are starting to show light at the end of the international price tunnel. In more recent times suppliers of whole milk in my state have been hit particularly hard by a cut to prices from dairy company National Foods. The reason for this cut in prices has been the subject of much debate and comment, particularly in my state. It led me to write to National Foods to seek their perspective on what it is a complex situation. In direct correspondence with National Foods on this matter the company tells me its price is aimed at sustaining the company and farmers through what is a difficult time for all with reduced prices across the board. While I am no authority on pricing, what I would seek from both National Foods and farmers is an arrangement where, in effect, they share equally both the gain and the pain. When prices are strong and a market buoyant, then both parties should be rewarded. But, when times are tough, then a company should be staring down a barrel just as much as its suppliers. National Foods says it was forced to pay a competitive price to its whole milk suppliers two years ago when the processing milk price was high. Further, it argues, while the farm gate price rose by more than 50 per cent, the supermarket price for branded milk rose by about 10 per cent and private label pricing rose even less and has since dropped. During this time of price scrutiny, the major supermarket chains must also look closely at their responsibilities. They have a major say over the volume of milk that flows to consumers and the price that they pay. They must consider the big picture and the future of the industry as a whole, and not be completely price driven. We are at a crossroads for some dairy farmers, and the risk to the industry cannot be understated. On the price front, I hope that the current inquiries by the Senate will look more closely at what influences the price milk suppliers of any type receive. I am concerned however that the lack of competition in Tasmania may lend itself to greater market variability when compared with other states. When massive price distortions occur and long-term contracts are subsequently locked in, there is a real risk that producers will be forced out of the industry—and I do not need to remind members what this will mean to the future viability of the local industry in Tasmania. Given the difficulties facing many of my local farmers, farmers in financial hardship can access free and impartial financial advice through the Rural Financial Counselling Service, co-funded by the Australian and Tasmanian governments, and these services are located throughout Tasmania. We need to strive to find the answers to sustain both our farmers and the companies that they supply so that the industry can survive to a time when prices are again strong and all can reap the benefits. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—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. 9556 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Champion: That the House: notes with concern that the incidence of problem gambling has increased since the introduction of electronic gaming machines in communities around Australia, particularly due to the design and structural features of the electronic gaming machines; recognises that the current legislation and regulation of electronic gaming machines do not provide adequate protection to consumers; notes with deep concern that the availability of treatment services for problem gamblers is inadequate; acknowledges that problem gambling associated with the use of electronic gaming machines causes financial and emotional damage to individual gamblers and their families; and calls upon State governments and the gambling industry to work together to limit the harm caused to problem gamblers from electronic gaming machines. 9557 20:07:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 0 Mr CHAMPION —It is a great pleasure to move this motion tonight. In researching my speech, I had a look through the AHA’s magazine. I noticed that one of the newest electronic gaming machines advertised in there has a handbag hook listed as one of its selling points. This handbag hook is an indicator of how important game design is to the industry and how important it is to the debate on problem gambling. The hook did not appear by accident; it is the product of consumer research and industry innovation. It shows that this industry is very focused on its customer, very focused on what makes the customer stay or go from a gaming machine. I have no idea about the effect of this handbag hook on problem gambling. It may have no effect at all. 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr Sidebottom —It’s a service. HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr CHAMPION —It may be a service, as the member for Braddon says, but it might also make the customer stay at the machine a bit longer, helping to create or exacerbate a problem. The Tasmanian Gaming Commission report of 2008 found, on page 6: The machine producers are known to invest heavily in R&D to make their machines more profitable for venue operators. Features are developed and refined to attract gamblers to the machines and keep them engaged with the machines. Vulnerable gamblers are captured by these specifically designed features. This report bells the cat, because the design of these machines is at the heart of the problems they create for the community. And, make no mistake, they create a great deal of harm to problem gamblers: loss of income, debt, family breakdown, low productivity at work, theft, bankruptcy, suicide—all results of these machines. The Statewide Gambling Therapy Service in my electorate has collected statistics on the people they treat. Numbers seeking treatment have increased from 23 to 134 per year over the past three years. Thirty-six people who were treated last year were spending over $1,500 a week on their addiction prior to their treatment, and the majority of clients were spending more than $500 a week. The median figure for the losses of these gamblers was $30,000 before they sought treatment. Behind all of those figures are personal stories of addiction, loss, shame and deep regret, and all of those people have taken the personal responsibility of getting treatment. Meanwhile, I think parliaments across Australia—governments and oppositions alike—fail to take into account evidence that has been found in many reports that the design of gaming machines is directly related to problem gambling. I do not think we should sit on our hands. We should act on areas of design like reinforcement schedules, spin rates, the appearance of the near miss, multiple-line betting, reducing maximum bet levels, the presence of note acceptors, clear displays of losses as well as wins, visual and sound effects, the design of venues and even small things like the handbag hook. All these design features need to be up for examination to find a comprehensive set of protections for the community. Even the industry’s own research, the 2001 report by Blaszczynski, Sharpe and Walker, stated on page 11: The present study found evidence to support the view that the reduction of maximum bet size from $10 to $1 on electronic gaming machines would be a potentially effective harm minimisation strategy for a small proportion of players. I am informed that on some machines you can play $9 per spin by betting on multiple lines and that the average spin rate on these machines is three seconds, so you can lose $180 per minute, or $10,000 an hour. So this recommendation made by the industry’s own commissioned research is very important, but unfortunately it has been ignored, as so many reports around the country have been ignored. There have been reports from South Australia, and in Tasmania there has been a lot of research throughout the industry over the years. Every day we ignore these reports and the effects of machine design, people are placed at financial and emotional risk. One cannot predict the future. Politicians rarely make guarantees. The one thing I can guarantee to this House is that somewhere in my electorate tonight someone will leave a gaming venue feeling ashamed, desperate and remorseful, all because of addiction to these machines. They have a responsibility to get help, but we have a responsibility to get the industry’s hooks out of their handbags. 9558 20:11:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —Electronic gambling is a scourge, as all gambling is a scourge that is bad for families and takes advantage of human frailty. I therefore welcome the motion brought forward by the member for Wakefield, which addresses the issue of problem gambling, the proliferation of electronic gaming machines in communities and the way these machines are designed. The motion also raises the inadequate legislation and regulation of these electronic gaming machines and the inadequate treatment services available, as well as calling upon state governments and the gambling industry to work together to limit the harm caused to problem gamblers by these electronic gaming machines. Gambling is the best example of the genie being let out of the bottle. It is like the Ebola virus, with serious financial mortality for those who are afflicted with gambling addiction. The great thing for my state of Western Australia is that successive state governments have rejected the proliferation of gaming machines beyond Burswood casino. Consequently the state of Western Australia has never relied on the revenue generated by gambling machines in licensed clubs across the state, and long may that be the case. I am certain that under the Barnett Liberal government there will not be any change to that policy. With regard to electronic gaming machines—which I think of as, as we used to call them, poker machines—there are, sadly, a lot of people in this country who make an all too regular pilgrimage to put money into the machines in many places around the country, including the casino in Perth. They primarily do so in the many licensed clubs in the other states around the country. In response to this criticism, licensed clubs talk about how much money they have put back into the community, and there is no doubt that junior sport has benefited from the money that has flowed. But I ask: at what cost? Junior sport in the eastern states should not be built on the financial wreckage of the families brought down by gambling and human weakness. A telling statistic comes from the 1999 productivity study into gambling, which suggests that 43 per cent of the revenue from gambling comes from problem gamblers. I recall that many years ago, on a visit to the Wrest Point casino in Hobart, I put $20 on the chocolate wheel and promptly lost it. I felt bad, and I will recall that incident for the rest of my life. I therefore have never gambled again, and clearly I am not an addicted gambler, but many are. It also seems to be the case that so many of these people cannot afford to lose their money. I put this down to two things: an addiction to gambling coupled with the so often misplaced belief in luck. More people in this country should come to the stark realisation that there is no such thing as luck. Achievement is based on hard work and the taking of opportunities. No benefit is going to fall in one’s lap as a result of luck; benefits come about only because of the specific action taken by the individual. In considering this motion I am torn between my fundamental belief in the principle of personal responsibility and the need for government action to take away the risk posed by these electronic gambling machines. That brings me to what must be done. It does not look like any of the state governments are going to take action on this issue, but there are some things that could be done. Firstly, they could withdraw the licences for all gaming machines outside casinos. If not, they could take ATMs out of casinos, licensed premises and clubs. They could also remove EFTPOS and credit card machines out of anywhere apart from the restaurant facilities in these places. With that, they could make sure that none of the electronic gaming machines accept banknotes. These measures are about harm elimination, not harm reduction. But these are the harder measures, whereas some form of tax imposed on the industry or treatment programs and other reactions to the outcomes of problem gambling just deal with the symptoms, not the underlying issue. So far I have talked about the actions available to state governments, but I return to the responsibility of individuals. Never having been addicted to anything, I just do not understand it. Perhaps it is easy for someone like me to just say: walk away and turn your back on that path of self-destruction—that is, gambling. Yes, it takes strength of character, but action should not come down to government alone. Acceptance of responsibility is important for individual problem gamblers. Gambling causes financial cost and loss of employment, and sometimes it turns a person towards crime. It can even cost a person their family. These are the costs that await problem gamblers. Gambling is a national problem that affects families. Money is being made and government revenue is being generated, but it is the families of problem gamblers who are without doubt the big losers. They are suffering because their family members are gambling. The gambler should firstly look in a mirror and confront their own responsibilities, but governments should not make it so easy for these people to be parted from their money either. 9559 20:16:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —I commend the member for Wakefield for raising this very important issue and I thank other members for their contributions. We certainly have a culture of gambling in this country. If you look back at The Man from Snowy River line, ‘There was Harrison, who made his pile when Pardon won the cup,’ there is certainly a culture of gambling in our country. We have always enjoyed a punt on the horses or a game of two-up on Anzac Day at various venues around the community. As gaming machines come into casinos, less of the floor is taken up by the old style of games and more of the floor is occupied by poker machines. I certainly welcome this motion from the member for Wakefield because it is a mature debate that the country needs to have. We do not want it to be the elephant in the room, where we ignore the fact that there are people within our society who do have a problem with gambling. These electronic machines have taken gambling to a new level. The member for Wakefield alluded to the amount of money that can be lost in a very short period of time. There are clubs throughout Australia that are working diligently on trying to address the issues that face problem gamblers within their organisations. However, more still has to be done. The Australian Hotels Association has a lot of responsibility falling back onto it for a raft of different reasons. It is an organisation that was established in 1839. Many of the challenges that it faces have to do with the essence of Australian culture, whether that is to do with gambling, smoking regulations or the global financial crisis, as well as the impact that alcohol and illicit drugs make. As the private sector pulls back on sponsorship during the global financial crisis, it will be the clubs that will step up and sponsor organisations. However, they still have a responsibility to continue to work closely with government to protect people who find themselves in a position where they are affected by gambling. Some 6,800 hotels in Australia employ 188,000 people, with a total spend of $12 billion to $13 billion a year. It is not an issue that we can sweep under the carpet; it is an issue that needs to be discussed. I welcome the fact that the Productivity Commission will be making findings. There have been something like 260 public submissions already and I encourage people to continue to put submissions forward so that we can have a whole-of-nation approach. It is up to the federal government to work with the state and territory governments in order to address the problems that are facing problem gamblers. I commend the Palmerston Sports Club, the Northern Territory government, the Casuarina All Sports Club, Tracy Village Social and Sports Club and Charles Darwin University to name but a few organisations within my electorate that have decided to put submissions forward in relation to this. One of the disturbing things that I found while researching for this contribution tonight was in a submission made by the National, State and Territory Councils of Social Service. We all had a vision, I suppose, of the lady with the blue-rinse hair sitting in front of a poker machine. Certainly, when I was a golf course superintendent on the Murray River there were a lot of those types of people, but increasingly this is a problem that is affecting young people. You only need to go into a casino nowadays to see that the age of the people who are playing the machines has come down dramatically. There are a lot of young people, people at risk, people with disabilities and certainly people from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities that are affected by this. The number of young people that you see is quite unbelievable. I think it is really important that our society addresses quickly the poker machine problem that is starting to occur amongst our young people. We certainly need to have a debate about the issue. The community services in Darwin do a lot of work in this area and they find that there are spin-off effects from gambling. There are the effects on the person with the gambling problem and also the neglect of family, the overlooking of social and cultural obligations, family breakdown and the spin-off effects of people losing their jobs. We certainly need to have a debate on this issue in this country. I look forward to the Productivity Commission’s final report. I commend the member for bringing it to the attention of the House. 9560 20:22:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I would like to thank the member for Wakefield for bringing this motion before the House and giving members the opportunity to reflect on gambling within our communities. The topic is of particular interest to my electorate of Swan, which contains the Burswood casino, one of the largest casinos and gambling centres in WA. I also have in my electorate two horseracing tracks, Belmont Park and Ascot, and the Cannington Greyhounds. I guess you could call it the gambling electorate of Western Australia. I will try to bring a Western Australian perspective to today’s debate—obviously, following up on the member for Cowan’s contribution. Statistics show that Western Australia has the lowest gambling rate in Australia. In 2006-07 the average Australian adult spend $1,131 on gambling. However, in Western Australia the average per adult expenditure on gambling was $630, by far the lowest in all states and territories. In terms of gambling turnover, Western Australians contributed just 2.9 per cent of all gambling turnover across Australia. With just 10 per cent of the population, that is a remarkable figure. The 10 per cent figure also reminds me of the remarkable figure of the enormous amounts of exports from our great state—close to 40 per cent of all Australian exports. And at times Western Australia is considered a cowboy state, although we do have a really low gambling rate! Gaming policy has traditionally been a responsibility of the states, and part of the reason for our low gambling rates has been WA’s long-term gambling licensing legislation. WA has placed restrictions on gaming ever since 1892, when the Western Australian Police Act made gambling illegal. Many Western Australians will remember the illegal gambling places in Northbridge that went under the policy radar until about the mid-eighties. Very few obeyed the laws and, over time, legislation was introduced to carefully manage gambling and ensure that the proceeds benefited the community. For example, the 1932 Lotteries Control Act led to permits for lotteries and in 1972 the Lotteries Commission granted bingo permits for religious or charitable organisations. Perhaps crucially, though, a report of the Royal Commission into gambling in 1974 strongly recommended against the introduction of poker machines. Successive governments have maintained this policy. This was a contentious decision and in the ensuing years many argued passionately for and against the ban. Luckily, those against have prevailed. However, introduction of the Casino (Burswood Island Agreement) Act in 1995 represented a compromise. WA legalised slot machines in only one place—Burswood. As a result of the semi-ban Western Australia today has just 523 pokies, compared with 45,000 in Queensland. Members will be well aware of the evidence linking pokies and problem gamblers, and I think it is fair to draw a correlation between the two. I support a continuation of the pokies ban in WA, even though the WA government is foregoing tax revenues in excess of $300 million by maintaining the ban. We have to strike a balance between defending individual rights to gamble and protecting individuals and communities from the problems that gambling causes. I think in WA we have got that balance right, but we can do better. Having said this, there remain serious examples of problem gambling in WA, and I am aware of people in my electorate who have suffered. I have two family members who have fallen victim to gambling addictions in Victoria. The member for Wakefield has gone into the problems associated with gambling in detail, and I do not need to repeat them here. He addressed these issues with a compassion which I applaud. The Productivity Commission estimate that problem gamblers lose around $3.5 billion annually, or an average of $12,000 each, and that there are around 1,600 gambling related divorces annually and between 35 and 60 suicides. In WA I know the state government runs free counselling services to help address this problem. As members of parliament, we must continue to support these programs. At the same time, it is important to continue to ensure WA’s tradition of investing gambling proceeds back into communities. Burswood Casino does contribute to worthwhile community projects. I recognise its contribution to St Vincent de Paul’s winter appeal and its $500,000 contribution towards the Victorian bushfire victims, helping these families and communities rebuild their lives. A levy on the pokies has led to $15 million of much needed investment in the Swan River. In conclusion, the Western Australian experience shows that electronic gambling machines can be used in a way that recognises community needs and benefits local communities. If we contain the use of the machines, the temptation is reduced for problem gamblers and the machines are less accessible than those that exist in sporting clubs or other venues on the east coast. At the end of the day, I understand personal responsibility but the primary issue here is to minimise the gambling environment, support those who have fallen under its spell and help them recover from the damage gambling addictions cause to families in our communities. At a federal level, we also have a responsibility to oversee this industry. I acknowledge the good work done by previous parliaments, particularly in passing the Interactive Gambling Bill 2001. (Time expired) 9562 20:27:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I am very pleased to rise to support the motion by the member for Wakefield. I commend him for bringing it to House and commend the contributions by all the other speakers here today. I would like to add my concern about the impact that electronic gaming machines have on some members of our community. It is estimated that there are over 290,000 problem gamblers here in Australia and over two million Australians are affected in some way by problem gambling. The member for Wakefield mentioned that there was probably someone in his electorate tonight leaving a place having been affected by problem gambling. I would say that there is probably someone in all of our electorates tonight who is leaving a place having been affected by problem gambling. Previous to working as a member of parliament, I used to work as a psychologist. I saw firsthand some of the terrible effects when someone becomes addicted to gambling. What struck me more than any economic detriment was the psychological detriment that occurred to these people, whether it was intense shame, intense embarrassment or depression. For the families as well there were severe trust issues that occurred. It really did tear some families apart. So this has a particular importance to me, and I am pleased that the motion recognises the inadequacy of some of the consumer protections in place at the moment. The member for Wakefield rightly pointed to the area of consumer protection when it comes to the design of electronic gaming machines. There are many elements of these machines that make them incredibly reinforcing to the player, including the music, the pictures, the physical features—the handbag hook has been mentioned—the payout schedules, the amount of payout and the amount that you can bet. All these are designed to encourage patrons to stay longer than they intended to. In addition, it has been acknowledged that the surrounding environment also gets people to keep on playing these machines. Research suggests that gamblers, especially those who play more than once a week, find it difficult to stop playing once the session has commenced. This was made evident to me by the sharp decline in gambling revenue that occurs—it has been acknowledged in South Australia and by the Productivity Commission in 2001—when smoking bans occur. That got me thinking: what actually is happening here? 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 41. The member will have leave to continue speaking when private members’ business is resumed. 9563 Grievance Debate Debate resumed from 7 September. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—The question is: That grievances be noted. 9563 9563 20:30:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —I feel like a bit of a sooky la la today as I have got so many grievances that I am not sure that 10 minutes will be enough. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—I can assure you 10 minutes is all you will have. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr BILLSON —I hope those few seconds did not come off my time, Madam Deputy Speaker! I want to pick up where the member for Kingston’s contribution left off. I commend her and her colleagues and, in fact, members on both sides of the House for looking at the insidious impact of gambling. I am always flabbergasted that poker machines, in which I find I have no interest as they offer no entertainment whatsoever, seem to be the single focus of this. What about interactive gambling? What about this area under direct federal jurisdiction where we are seeing little baby steps of new technology being introduced, bringing the curse of being able to lose your shirt without even having to put one on. Yes, you can lose your shirt without putting one on by gambling at home, with all the sights and sounds of race day coming and booming at you through your high-definition plasma television, while you are banging away at your betting investment, able to EFT or ring in for more credit. So where is the conversation about that? There is nothing. We had Prime Minister Rudd and the Labor government talking about a war on gambling. What they were talking about is a little skirmish over to one side, being the most supervised and observed part of gambling that you have ever seen, while there is this enormous internecine gambling problem brewing with interactive gambling and this government will not lift a finger. There is something very strange and very perverse about that. I grieve for the people in families who are raised on a diet of interactive gambling at home without the brakes that you see on betting in gaming venues, without the limit on transactions that you see with poker machines, without the supervised use that you see in gaming venues, without someone observing whether you are tired and without someone making sure that you are not intoxicated. All of these supervisions and safeguards are there with poker machines, and today we have been talking about more—and I commend people for that. But what about interactive gambling? It is out of sight and out of mind, bringing havoc to households right across Australia through what I think is an overreach against the current legislation by some gaming providers. We will get to the point where we are like the United States, where one of the biggest problems on university campuses is interactive gambling, a form of entertainment where people are geed on by friends and colleagues making them go that bit further than they actually can. How about a bit of action from the Rudd government, in its war on gambling, on a war that is on its own home turf and is directly the responsibility of the Commonwealth? We do not hear too much about that. Grievance No. 2 relates to the impact on, the stealth over and the destruction of Work for the Dole that is being overseen by this federal Labor government. We know they begrudgingly came to the last election saying they would keep Work for the Dole. Well, they have not killed it outright but they are starving it. In communities such as mine, you see the smaller Work for the Dole providers who have understood that there is a balance between the development of skills, workplace know-how, improving the kit bag of people seeking work and benefits for the local community. That mutuality of benefit was what the program was about. Now those small providers are being starved out. They are being pushed to the wall by what can only be described as a grotesque underfunding of Work for the Dole places. Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises is a wonderful organisation headed by the citizen of the year down our way, Russell Ardley, with a very dedicated band of people. At the moment, if they continue to participate in the delivery of Work for the Dole programs they will go broke. The allocation of funding is $750 per participant. That is supposed to cover 26 weeks of activity. There is now a new requirement that there needs to be one supervisor for every four participants. For that one supervisor, funded at $22.50 plus on-costs, $6.90 an hour is what is received. That is a significant loss by any measure in any proportion from anyone’s perspective. What is unique though is that enterprises like Mornington Peninsula Youth Enterprises are trying to engage with the community, as they have always done, to reach out to other not-for-profit groups to try to deal with this incredible funding shortfall. Other Work for the Dole providers seem to be moving away from the original model of skill development, workplace know-how and engagement in the workforce, so that people present an enhanced curriculum vitae to prospective employers and a community benefit is delivered. We have seen it at football clubs. We have seen it in revegetation programs. We have seen it in community newsletters. We have seen it in skill development, in support for the ageing and in mosaic projects right across our city. It is a great program that has delivered benefits but there are no resources for this under the current construct of this contract. People who take this new funding offer—and respect the one supervisor for every four employees—will go broke very fast. They are trying to set up trade based training schemes but we have seen reports in the paper about how difficult it is to get access to higher level training funding support and this has been commented on in the media recently. So what you are seeing is a death by stealth of Work for the Dole. You are seeing community organisations committed to delivering outcomes for participants, and the community starved of the resources to be able to do that. The only ones who can then operate on this basis are the larger organisations offering, effectively, a work placement. Now there is nothing wrong with work placement but call it what it is. Let us make it clear that it is not designed to deliver a mutual benefit for the participant and the community—it is about placing a job seeker in a work place. This can have positive outcomes but let us not call it something it is not—it is not Work for the Dole. That is not the way this program was designed. This also highlights how the Rudd Labor government is not that interested in Work for the Dole. They are trying to keep it because they know it is popular in the community—and then reorientate it so that it does not actually behave or perform in the way that it did. They then starve it by a lack of funding, so it is ‘death by atrophy’ not by a blanket removal of that program. Another area of grievance is an opportunity potentially being missed and that relates to the stimulus program that the federal Labor government has put in place and the process through which applications are made for regional and local community infrastructure projects. I was encouraged by the first funding round seeing Frankston City Council picking up on a program I called for, which was to make use of the savings generated by the Howard government over its years to save water for the years to come. Some of that funding went towards a water recycling scheme. What I am encouraging our community to do—and, if the federal Labor government is interested, there are further opportunities of this kind around the Mornington area—is come together, with the support of the Mornington Peninsula Shire working in partnership with South East Water and Racing Victoria, to move forward the Mornington-Tyabb Road recycling scheme. This program was one that I had secured funding for under the previous government but, because of the take-or-pay contract that was being enforced by South East Water at the time, it was not worth their while using recycled water. If it rained and there was no need for recycled water they still had to pay for it. If there was a prevailing wind from the south-east that may have pushed some of the spray that was being used to irrigate the track onto neighbouring properties, they could not use it—and they would be billed for it anyway. That recurrent funding burden outweighed the entire benefit of funding the capital works upfront through what was then a water grant program by the Howard government. It seems we have made some progress there by involving the Dallas Brooks Reserve and the council’s Civic Reserve as part of that outlook but now that that infrastructure is reaching into Mornington why don’t we take it further? Why don’t we extend that waste water recycling system and head north so we can pick-up Mornington Park Primary School, Padua College, Mornington Secondary College, Mornington Country Golf Club and the winegrowing and agriculture businesses in that area? Whilst I declare a pecuniary interest of being an honorary member of Mornington Country Golf Club, I am pleased to say that it is a golf club that has been harvesting its own water for generations. As that water harvesting opportunity is being limited, they are looking at needing to bring water onto the property. Using potable water would be a shame—a crying shame—when so close is the recycled water out of the south-eastern treatment plant that would be perfectly suitable for that activity. The golf club is prepared to pay its way, to partner with broader community users such as the school communities that I touched on: Mornington Secondary College, with its ambition of hosting athletics at a more senior level, the activities of the local primary school, and also the winegrowing, equine and agriculture activities—properties like Morning Star and others in that immediate vicinity. These could all participate in a collaborative scheme that would see benefits delivered not only to the local economy but—more broadly—for the sustainability of economic activity, agriculture, leisure and the broader economy in the Mornington area. So I encourage people to have a look at that opportunity. In the minute that is available to me, a further grievance relates to that stimulus funding. I am optimistic that my meeting with Minister Gillard on Thursday can deal with the crying shame that Langwarrin Primary School has been told they have to demolish a building simply to build another one in its place and not pursue the master plan the school had developed and end up with portable loos as a permanent feature of their site. So be it—a description of a primary school for the 21st century. Hopefully, we can overcome those problems and actually save some money on the way through. A similar example is flowing out of Mornington Park Primary School. They are being told they have to demolish certain buildings to build new classrooms and a library, but along the way they are going to lose their general purpose room, an art room, a current library, a sports store area, their music room, a demountable canteen and the work they have done in creating a life skills program and funding some of the equipment that makes those rooms function through enterprise and fundraising by the parents. Surely we can work collaboratively to get a better outcome for those local communities, to save some money for the taxpayer and actually deliver benefits that school communities are looking for, not being fitted up with projects not of the schools’ choosing. (Time expired) 9566 9566 20:40:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I want to grieve tonight about what is unfortunately becoming a community-wide problem. When we think of community-wide problems many of us think of things such as poverty, cancer, homelessness and issues of social inclusion. In fact, the list is very long. Yet in many electorates across the country we face another community-wide problem that is calling on all of us for some real change. That problem is alcohol use and associated violence. There is an overwhelming swell of support arising across the federal electorate of Ballarat to tackle these two major issues. It is pretty distressing when you open the local newspaper on a Monday morning and read about yet another incident of drunken and violent behaviour that has occurred over the weekend at a local nightspot but unfortunately this is becoming a regular occurrence. It is not only of concern for me as a federal member of parliament but also of concern to every member of our community. Binge drinking appears to have become normalised within some areas of our community and this appears to be contributing to alcohol fuelled violence. If you ask any lawyer, police officer or emergency department doctor, they will tell you that on the whole, in the majority of assaults, alcohol is invariably involved. Over recent months we have seen a spate of reports surrounding violence at late night precincts in my electorate. The crimes have ranged from damage to local businesses in the CBD, damage to cars and personal property and injuries requiring medical treatment, to the unfortunate death of a local young person from an alleged punch to the face. These events are not uncommon. Stories are frequent in my electorate of nights out that have turned into nightmares. These incidents are not only confined to nights but are now also happening at family events. I would like to read from the front page story of today’s edition of one of the local papers in my electorate, the Courier. Entitled ‘Brawl at football’, it reads: Police officers were injured during an alcohol-fuelled incident at the Central Highlands Football League grand final on Saturday. Last Saturday morning hundreds of families around the region were waking up excited about getting along to the Central Highlands Football League grand final. Parents and children gathered to see Daylesford play Hepburn in what was to be a thrilling match with the teams finishing first and second on the ladder. But during the third quarter things went horribly wrong. Police were called upon to defuse an alcohol fuelled dispute that saw five spectators arrested. These troublemakers will face a variety of charges including drunkenness, resisting arrest, assaulting police and discharging missiles. Fuelled by too much alcohol and a complete disregard for anyone else, these louts—and that is all you can say that they were—allegedly threw cans at police. Reportedly, a number of police officers were injured while attempting to evict these drunken few. Pepper spray had to be used a number of times to help subdue the melee. It was necessary to call in more police from around the region. Senior officers held such fear for the safety of the general public in the face of increasingly aggressive behaviour that a further 10 officers from the Police Force Response Unit in Melbourne, over a hundred kilometres away, were called in. All of this took place under a doubling of private security at the event, put in place by organisers to help prevent antisocial and aggressive behaviour. At 4.30 pm police ordered alcohol sales to be completely stopped at the event. I attended the event with my 15-month-old son and I am very thankful to say that I had to leave a bit earlier and I am very pleased that my son was not present at the time at that community event. Those involved showed absolute contempt for their community and contempt for families at the ground looking to enjoy a friendly day out. They also showed contempt for the Victorian police. The cost of additional protection called in, as I said, from the ranks of officers in Melbourne came at a price and would have been easily avoidable if it had not been for a small and drunken minority. I hope the grand final for the second league in my electorate, the Ballarat Football League, will be different this weekend because the eyes of many in our community will be watching. If we look at this incident more closely, it is difficult for the wider community not to feel partly responsible for this surge in substance abuse. I want to touch on the issue of alcohol advertising and just how endemic our alcohol use is and is becoming in everyday life. When attending sporting events young people are subject to alcohol advertisements and alcohol use is very much normalised within those environments. Many sporting clubs get significant revenue from sponsorship that is associated with alcohol and revenue from alcohol sales is an integral fundraiser. The best and fairest medal in the local league is sponsored by alcohol retailer and franchiser, the Premix King. For the best and fairest medal, the Henderson Medal, to be sponsored as the Premix King medal, I think, is profoundly disappointing. The website for Premix King proudly proclaims ‘The party starts at our door’. If you look around any football ground you may see advertising for Heineken and other alcohol brands. On that note, at last week’s City of Ballarat Council meeting it was great to see local councillor Des Hudson ask for a report within three months on the council’s position on alcohol advertising on council owned assets. This is a real challenge for those who hold leadership positions in our community. If we are to take the issue of alcohol related harm seriously then we must address the messages that are communicated within our communities. It is something that is incredibly difficult to do because it is just so endemic and, unfortunately, sporting clubs have become highly reliant on funding associated in some way with alcohol. I do think that sport and alcohol is a good place for us to start. There are a number of campaigns that are already running across the country. These include the federal government’s ‘Don’t turn a night out into a nightmare’ campaign, the Victorian government’s ‘Your move/championships move’ and also ‘Will you handle your alcohol or will alcohol handle you?’ There is a local B-safe social marketing campaign, a campaign that has been successful in our local region but obviously not as successful as we would like. A campaign that has really pushed forward in recent times is Geelong’s ‘Just think’ campaign which involves a partnership between the Geelong Advertiser and the Geelong football club. The program has received positive support from Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd and Premier, John Brumby. Yet only on the weekend we heard of an East Geelong footballer who had died after reportedly being struck in a fight during the club’s grand final celebrations. What should have been an exciting day out after winning a grand final turned into a tragedy for that family. Over recent months in Ballarat locals have come together to discuss a range of ways our community may tackle binge drinking and its effects. A group of 20 or 30 residents ranging from local parents to police officers, city councillors, and even students has met regularly. We have been looking at the gaps that are occurring in policy not just from a local government perspective but from a whole-of-government focus. Locally these community leaders will be submitting an application under round 2 of the government’s National Binge Drinking Strategy. They will be putting forward an application that would see young people in Ballarat leading a local campaign to curb binge drinking and its impact on the regional community. That is a key point. This group recognises that the most effective messages to target the younger members of our community—and these are the people who are most at risk of binge drinking and its associated violence—are best formulated and channelled by the members of that generation. The aim is to get them involved, to harness their creativity, energy and unique view of the world, to utilise their language and social networks to create messages that entertain, persuade and ultimately convince. It will be an exciting program. In 2009 it is really difficult to fathom that we live in a community where the culture of some denotes that the only way to have a good night out or a good day out at the football is to binge drink. It is harder to comprehend that some members of the community find it okay to violently abuse fellow community members. But the most difficult of all would be to wake up to learn that a brother, sister, son, daughter, cousin or friend did not come home safely one night because they were caught up in a fight, particularly an alcohol fuelled fight. I do not think people are aware of just what a chronic and long-term problem it is if someone gets an acquired brain injury. To see a young person full of life, with all their personality spilling out and then to see that person later with an acquired brain injury is just the most horrendous thing for any family to have to experience. I think that we absolutely have to own responsibility for the problem of alcohol and violence in our own community. We are determined to try and do something about it. Advertising and the link to sporting associations is obviously just one example that I have highlighted here tonight of a very complex problem but I did want to put that particularly on the record. There are obviously issues in relation to licensed premises and opening hours. There are issues around the spread of liquor outlets within our community. There are also issues around how people actually resolve and manage disputes, what they do when they are in situations where they have had some alcohol and how they have to learn to handle their anger in different ways. We have a long way to go. We have certainly got a long way to go in our community. We do have a wonderful community, but it is something that we as a community have to own up to and it is certainly something that we have to deal with. It is a community problem that does require all of us, whether it is sporting groups, parents, students, teachers, community leaders and the liquor outlets themselves, to join together and tackle the issue. We need to say that this is not the sort of community that we want to live in. It is not the sort of community that we want our kids to grow up in. It is not the sort of community where we want our children to go out and not enjoy a great night out. We want them to be safe, we want them to be happy and we want them to enjoy their nights out. We do not want to come home with an injury and we certainly do not want the alcohol and violence to continue. (Time expired) 9569 9569 20:50:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 0 Mrs MARKUS —I would like to note that the issue of broadband has been raised today in debate on the Telecommunications Legislation Amendment (National Broadband Network Measures No. 1) Bill 2009, but I would like to make some points which are particularly relevant to my electorate. The $43 billion broadband announcement of the Rudd Labor government is a farce. It is a cruel joke being played on this nation. The announcement, like many others, raised unrealistic expectations within the community that a modern, fast, broadband network available to all was just around the corner. It is typical of Labor governments to overpromise and underdeliver. They will underdeliver on access. Under the proposed plans some areas will apparently get 100 megabits per second fibre to their premises while those living in regional and rural areas will receive services almost 10 times slower delivered by wireless and satellite. I have spoken in this parliament and in the media of my concern that over 5,000 people in broadband black-spot areas in my electorate, such as in Agnes Banks, Freemans Reach, Kurmond, Kurrajong Heights, Londonderry, Marsden Park, Pitt Town, Vineyard, Yarramundi and Colo Heights will either miss out or will have to take an inferior service. Labor will underdeliver on infrastructure. News reports in the last month that above-ground aerial cables strung between old power poles—old technologies—will be used in the broadband rollout. That is astonishing but not surprising giving the penny-pinching this Labor government will have to do because of its reckless spending and blow-out of government debt. Labor will underdeliver on fairness. Under the plan, people living in regional and rural areas will have an inferior service to people living in cities who already have access to high-standard services and infrastructure. Is this an example of how Labor governments allocate infrastructure spending; of selectively providing more infrastructure funding into Labor marginal seats rather than spreading the funding across all electorates? This is an issue making headlines in the media and has been referred to a Senate inquiry, and rightly so. Why should people in non-Labor or non-marginal electorates miss out on vital communication infrastructure because Labor is making political judgments, not decisions that are in the best interest of the nation. To allay the concerns that this is a deliberate strategy to starve people in regional and rural areas of vital infrastructure the Labor government needs to explain why it will not release coverage maps which will show the areas that will get the infrastructure. So much for the rhetoric! Those people feel badly let down and abandoned by the city-centric Labor government. I am sure that when they are struggling with their broadband because of their inferior service they will remember who denied them the service. Labor have underdelivered on timing. When the coalition was in government its broadband policy was that 100 per cent of Australians would have access to broadband by 2009. Under Labor’s plan, 98 per cent—a questionable number; it is more likely to be 75 per cent—of Australians will have access to broadband by 2013. Well, the Labor government had better get a hurry on. We are now in the latter part of 2009 and the expectation was raised that Tasmania would be the first state to have a rollout date. Despite expectations that a rollout date would be announced, all that happened was that the minister confirmed the release of a tender for the supply of fibre-optic cable. The Tasmanian announcement is being labelled as a stunt. Before any rollout can begin on the National Broadband Network, the implementation study commissioned by the Labor government which will deliver the rollout plan is expected to take eight months. Eight months will take us up to the middle of next year. Labor again have underdelivered on cost. The implementation study is estimated to cost taxpayers around $54 million. If you add to that the $20 million already wasted on the Labor government’s failed National Broadband Network mark 1 tender process, the Labor government would have spent around $74 million, and we do not have one broadband connection to show for it. Labor have again underdelivered on probity. A greater issue in this broadband farce is the Labor government’s refusal to provide a rigorous cost-benefit analysis of the project. The coalition has repeatedly called on the Labor government to provide this information and the government have refused. Is that the action of a responsible and accountable government? I think not. I congratulate my coalition colleague the Hon. Nick Minchin, who made a freedom of information request for documents relating to the failed National Broadband Network mark 1 tender process and for information on the formulation of Labor’s reckless mark 2 plan. The coalition believe such a move is in the public interest, but we are told the cost to have the freedom of information request processed will be $24,000, and there are no guarantees that anything will even be released. Our job as opposition is to hold the government accountable, and on the broadband issue the Labor government have much to answer for. Labor have failed to deliver on their promises. Labor have been in government almost two years and all we have in the broadband plan is an announcement for the supply of fibre-optic cable—and promises, promises and more promises. As I said at the beginning, the Labor government’s broadband plan is a farce. On broadband, the Labor government has a track record of broken broadband deadlines. Now people waiting for broadband have to wait another eight months for the implementation study recommendations. How long after that will the rollout start? We have no idea. What we do know is that the delaying of the introduction of the Labor government’s broadband plan could see this parliament going through another election without the government having delivered a single new broadband connection. The $43 billion broadband proposal will take at least eight years to implement and will be funded predominantly from government debt. Adding to the problem is the massive $315 billion gross debt created by Labor’s economic mismanagement. The coalition is concerned that taxpayers will be forced to fund all of Labor’s risky $43 billion spend on their broadband plan. It is important to note that the coalition had a broadband guarantee program that provided subsidised support for Australians living in broadband black spot areas. We had a plan because we had the money in the bank to spend on infrastructure for all. We had the money in the bank because of sound, responsible, conservative economic management. We not only paid off $96 billion of Labor debt but also created a $60 billion Future Fund, other funds for roads, health, education, water infrastructure and the Building Australia Fund. The coalition can deliver. On economic management, the Labor Party will be remembered for creating a mountain of debt that is not sustainable. This will lead to rising interest rates, rising unemployment rates and budget cuts in the future, which will impact on programs, services and benefits to the Australian people—the taxpayers who have every right to expect their elected government will be responsible with that money. The Australian economy will have challenges ahead. Given the time it will take to finally roll out the plan and the enormous budget cuts that will have to be made, I seriously doubt that the Labor Party’s national broadband plan will happen. I again mention the suburbs in my electorate where 5,000 people will not have their needs met by this plan: Agnes Banks, Freemans Reach, Kurmond, Kurrajong Heights, Londonderry, Marsden Park, Pitt Town, Vineyard, Yarramundi and Colo Heights. They deserve a broadband plan that will respond to their needs and provide them with access to 21st century broadband communications. 9571 9571 20:59:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I will not speak for long because I am expected in the House of Representatives chamber for a private member’s bill. I thank the Main Committee and various members for allowing a rejigging of the speakers list to accommodate my needs. I rise tonight to talk about the United Nations and its relevance to the local community of the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. I attended a dinner last week, which several members of this place also attended, with former UN ambassador Robert Hill. At the same dinner were representatives from the United Nations Association of Australia, the United Nations Youth Association, the United Nations Information Centre and various promoters and supporters of the UN. I said in my first speech to this place, 12 months ago, that the United Nations and similar international organisations do get rough trade in this place and within Australian culture, with the typical ‘them versus us’ positioning about what the UN is and somewhat of a fear of what the UN means for Australian sovereignty and Australian life. The point was made by Robert Hill, and has been made by many others, that, if we as members of parliament and we as Australians generally believe in the principles of peace, justice, reconciliation, mediation and negotiation rather than in war and violence, it is a logical extension that a body like the United Nations is important. If you do believe in those principles, there is not only an opportunity to place a value on those principles but almost an obligation that we have as holders of those principles to support, promote and advocate for the various United Nations processes. The reason for making that point is that on 11 October we are going to try something a bit different on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales and establish a United Nations Association of Australia branch. It is being held at the well-known palaeontologists’ retreat Falls Forest, Dr Mary White OAM’s farm. I am trying to encourage many members of the local community to participate in this exercise and hopefully in UN processes into the future. Why? It is not only because of what I have just said; I will now put on the record three particular examples of issues this week that an organisation like UNAA should be involved with. If anyone in the mid-North Coast region wants to participate in advocating on these issues, participating in the branch of the UNAA is a good way to do it. The first example is the Micah Challenge issues that have been promoted this week. In my first week here last year I ran into my former church minister, Mr Perini, who I had not seen since my school days. He was down here lobbying on the Micah Challenge. I did not know what it was, and now that I do I am a great advocate for its work. I think that generally advocating for the Millennium Development Goals is important. One in 10 Australians today might know what MDG stands for, and I think that a challenge for and a responsibility of members of this place is to, like those promoting the Micah Challenge, advocate for exactly what those Millennium Development Goals are, their importance in the Asia-Pacific region and how we as a country and as a parliament can do a lot better in advocating, promoting, defending and understanding what those Millennium Development Goals are and how we can contribute to achieving better outcomes. The second example is the case of James Elder, an old uni mate, who is the UNICEF spokesman currently being thrown out of Sri Lanka in an extraordinary case in which he is being accused of being a promoter of propaganda and being akin to a terrorist. I do not know where people stand when giving character references, but I can certainly give one for James. He is one of life’s great larrikins in the journalistic tradition, but in no way would he be a promoter of propaganda, in no way should he be likened to a terrorist. He is being challenged by the Sri Lankan government for merely doing his job, and doing it well, as a spokesperson for children in the refugee camps—children very much in need in the conflict situation in Sri Lanka. Again, this is an opportunity for local Australians to get involved in not only defending the interests of someone I know, but also defending current Australian passport holders doing Australian aid work overseas—good Australian aid work through legitimate agencies—and future Australian passport holders who I would hope we encourage to be involved in legitimate international aid work. The third issue is the Guy Campos case. Guy Campos came to Australia on a World Youth Day temporary visa. He was identified in the local community as being involved in war atrocities in East Timor and in the independence movement. The AFP, to their credit, started an investigation in that process. The DPP were given a brief of evidence, as I understand it. A great deal of concern arose about the end of his temporary visa being on the horizon—that is, tomorrow. A lot of people were pushing, myself included—Bob Brown in the upper house, to his credit, has done a lot of work on this—to try to get the Australian government to act to either deliver on the brief of evidence through the DPP or to keep Guy Campos in Australia so those investigations could be completed. It is my sad duty to tell House today that Guy Campos has skipped the country. We have an extraordinary situation where Immigration has potentially had the mickey taken out of it by Guy Campos, the AFP and the DPP have potentially had the mickey taken out of them by Guy Campos, and it is potentially a very embarrassing case for the Australian government generally if this is not elevated to the status that it deserves. Someone such as Guy Campos has clearly been identified as being involved in war atrocities. This is potentially Australia’s best war crimes prosecution, and we have missed it. The guy has gone, the guy has skipped the country, and it should be to the great disappointment of the Australian government. Going back to the UN processes, it is now a matter for the international processes to make sure that the brief of evidence makes it to the country where Guy Campos has gone to and that international pressure is applied if he has returned to a country that is not going to prosecute. This is very relevant to local Australians on the mid-North Coast of New South Wales. UN processes do matter, they are relevant and there is an obligation for every single one of us to be aware, to understand and to be involved. I would strongly encourage residents on the mid-North Coast to take up the chance of joining the branch, and once again I thank the House for the opportunity to speak. 9573 9573 21:08:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I wish to take advantage of this debate to share with the House some observations and knowledge arising from the recent opportunity I had to visit Mongolia and Timor Leste. These experiences, when reflected upon, have significance when related to what we do here in this parliament, the legislation we enact and the policies we deliver. In June 2009 an invitation was extended from His Excellency Mr Enkhbold, the Vice-Chairman of Mongolia’s State Great Khural, the Mongolian parliament, and Chair of the Mongolia-Australia Friendship Group—or the ‘Mozzies’ as they affectionately call it—offering on behalf of the Mongolian parliament to host a delegation from our parliament. The delegation included Kirsten Livermore, the member for Capricornia, who led our delegation. She is particularly deserving of great praise for her diplomacy, her skill and her level of engagement with Mongolia. The delegation also included the Hon. Peter Lindsay, the member for Herbert, and Dr Mal Washer, the member for Moore, as well as Mrs Washer. The visit was particularly extended to people interested in mining communities such as the Hunter region. We were assisted by public servants Ms Bayasa and Mr Batbold, who were excellent advocates for their country. The delegation’s program was divided into formal meetings with members of the executive and the parliament, visits to two national parks showcasing the natural environment of Mongolia and meetings with Australians who are representatives of Australian companies operating in Mongolia. We also had the great opportunity to visit Oyu Tolgoi, an Ivanhoe-Rio copper mine in the Gobi Desert, as well as spending an afternoon with children from Didi Kalika’s Lotus Children’s Centre. Didi is originally from Albury, and her work in setting up that orphanage and the work of the carers whom she employs is outstanding. Whilst visiting the mines in the Gobi Desert, it was a great pleasure for me both to find that the geologist was from Newcastle and to hear them talk about their discovery of 40 dinosaur eggs in the final drilling that disclosed all the copper and gold that is present there. To meet a young Novocastrian who was studying for a PhD, looking at the impact of mining on the Mongolian people with particular reference to gender relationships was a true delight. I was not surprised but was certainly pleased to see that Novocastrians play a role there. We were there because Mongolia extends to us the desire for a ‘third neighbour’. Landlocked between Kyrgyzstan, China and Russia, it is certainly in need of a third neighbour and it looks to us. It has a strong desire for Australia to establish an embassy in Mongolia. We discussed particularly the significance to Mongolians of the AusAID scholarship program and other areas of cooperation, particularly mining, between our countries. In many ways Mongolia is reminiscent of Australia pre the economic boom. Mongolians struggle with the challenge of negotiating beneficial international investment agreements—ones that will benefit their communities and their country and that will still be attractive for international investment. We are pleased to report that an investment agreement with Rio was signed shortly after our visit, and I can only praise Mongolia’s Prime Minister, His Excellency Mr S Bayar; the Minister for Mineral Resources and Energy, Mr D Zorigt; and Foreign Affairs Minister S Batbold for their very frank discussions with us. Certainly I understand that they look to Australia for our technical expertise as well. Although very grateful for the scholarship program, which many Mongolians have benefited from, they would like to see it widened so that they can look to develop the technical skills necessary to deal with mining regulations and safety issues. They also ask us to remove any barriers to studying in Australia and to bringing family. There are some real barriers, and we need to look at ways to promote real engagement and the people-to-people exchange that can be offered if families come with what are often older participants in these programs. Overall the trip was an outstanding success. I congratulate the member for Capricornia on her report, which I know has been given to our relevant ministers. I also recently had the opportunity to visit East Timor, or Timor-Leste, on the occasion of its 10th anniversary of democracy. I was there in my role of Chair of the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit to deliver a paper to the East Timorese parliament regarding the Financial Management and Accountability Act. I acknowledge the support of the JCPAA secretariat, in particular the work of Russell Chafer, in assisting me with developing that paper. The conference that I attended was dealing with Timor-Leste’s first legislation regarding accountability and financial management. I can only say that I was so impressed, particularly with the members of parliament that I met. They had many questions, and it was clear that they set the highest goals and ideals for their people. I would like to particularly thank Suzanne McCourt and Brian Diamond, DFAT staff from the Australian embassy there, and Mr Peter Heyward, the Australian ambassador, who extended great hospitality to me during my visit. Fe Gaffud, the senior budget expert and trainer from the UNDP Parliament Project, was responsible for the conference. I thank her for her excellent organisation. I can only say that, when visiting countries like this, you gain a deeper understanding of how important it is that Australia is thoroughly supportive of these countries. In East Timor the life expectancy is 60. In Mongolia it is between 60 and 65. Conditions are harsh and poverty is real. Certainly the work done today by young people to gain our support for the Millennium Development Goals is a salient reminder of our obligations. While I was in Mongolia, 24 people died in 10 days as a result of a flood through their capital Ulaanbaatar. That was just from higher rainfall in that area. Gers were washed away and people drowned. While I was in Timor Leste, in Dili, an earthquake occurred. As I come from Newcastle, it made me rather edgy. But Timorese tell me they are now more frequent. Climate change is very real in countries such as these. In Mongolia desertification is extensive and growing. They do not have climate scepticism. That is an indulgence for developed nations like ours. They know from their everyday lives the impact that climate change has. I can only say to those who may think it is not our role to show regional and international leadership on climate change: please reflect on the plight of our neighbours in our region because they are certainly already experiencing the impacts of climate change. Coincidentally, I also recently visited East Timor on a separate occasion to look at Operation Astute, the Australian Defence Force’s continuing contribution to the maintenance of peace and stability in East Timor. The training they were giving was welcomed and certainly, as always, their professionalism was outstanding. I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the participants in the Micah Challenge who came to see me today in my office. Newcastle remains strongly representative of the community that desires to see global poverty eradicated. I support their work. Also tonight I had the pleasure to spend time with two international students from our university, Alexa Halford and Vicky Chew. I have learnt so much already today in my discussions with international students, having dinner with them tonight and visiting them in their workshops. I know that the federal government will respond appropriately to the issue of international student welfare and learning because the input and the output have been exceptional. I look forward to their communique being presented to the Deputy Prime Minister tomorrow and congratulate them on the work they are doing. I wish Mr Bruce Baird, a former member of this parliament, success in his review of the role and activities of international colleges and private institutions for international students, because the issues raised today were quite alarming. There is certainly a great deal of work to do. 9575 9575 21:18:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —I rise tonight to speak about my ongoing concern with regard to the issue of global food security. According to the 1996 World Food Summit, ‘food security’ means that food is available at all times, that all persons have means of access to it, that it is nutritionally adequate in terms of quantity, quality and variety, and that it is acceptable within any given culture. Almost one billion people around the world are malnourished. This is being exacerbated by unprecedented population growth, high food prices and high oil prices. While food prices remain high in many poor countries, the global economic downturn continues to play a prominent role in this issue. Current food prices have effectively compounded the effects of the recession in many countries around the world. There is no doubt that food prices are the real problem. Millions of people worldwide risk being forced into poverty every time the cost of produce goes up. For example, as an indicator of just how serious this is, in Indonesia alone a 10 per cent rise in rice prices means that two million more people will be officially in poverty. The statistics continue to paint an ominous picture. It is estimated that 100 million people have fallen into poverty in the last two years and that poor families spend up to 80 per cent of their budget on food alone. The Australian government places a high priority on assisting developing countries with food security, as part of reducing poverty and achieving sustainable development. This was evident in a joint statement from the recent G8 summit in L’Aquila, Italy. The communique said: There is an urgent need for decisive action to free humankind from hunger and poverty. Food security, nutrition and sustainable agriculture must remain a priority issue on the political agenda, to be addressed through a cross-cutting and inclusive approach, involving all relevant stakeholders, at global, regional and national level. That is one part of a quite extensive communique, but it is important in noting just how big the problem is. Given the statistics and positions, there is definitely scope for the global food security challenge to be addressed by boosting research and development, helping to remove barriers to global trade and driving productivity along the global food production chain—something that Australia can have a remarkable impact on. Analysis by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization has shown that prices have retreated for most food commodities since the record highs in 2008—just last year—but prices remain high, above long-term trends, and the high cost of food continues to present a food security challenge for many developing countries. The Australian government is supporting improved productivity and innovation in the agriculture sector in the face of climate change and increasing constraints on land and water. We need to do what we can in this country and certainly show the way in other countries. This is being done here through the provision of matching research and development contributions exceeding $200 million each year to the rural research and development corporations; through Australia’s Farming Future package, which provides $130 million over four years to help our primary producers adapt and adjust to the impacts of climate change; and through the $35 million Regional Food Producers Innovation and Productivity Program, which aims to improve the productivity and competitiveness of food industries through innovation and technology improvements. Australia can play a major role. It can do that on many fronts. As a major food-producing country and exporter it is important that we do this. Recognising that food security is a global concern, the government is investing $464 million over four years on the AusAID Food Security through Rural Development initiative that includes increasing investments in international agriculture research and development, improving rural livelihoods by addressing market failures in rural areas, and increasing the capacity of the poor to access food. This initiative builds on existing measures such as last year’s $50 million contribution to a World Bank trust fund aimed at stimulating agricultural supply in developing countries and $30 million to the World Food Program emergency food aid appeal. The government also recently allocated $50 million to assist our Pacific Island neighbours meet the immediate challenges of climate change, which for them is very real and very immediate. Of this, $25 million will be to help implement high-priority, practical adaptation programs in Pacific Island countries, including working with the agriculture sector to address food security issues. In making these points I believe that food security and the food crisis, the global financial crisis and climate change are all interrelated. They are all interlinked. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry has been extremely active in this area and I commend his commitment to the issue. I note that he attended the 35th special session of the Food and Agriculture Organization in November last year, the high-level conference on Food Security for All in January 2009 and the G8 meeting of agriculture ministers in April 2009. Certainly, this government has taken global food security very seriously, and having a minister that is personally interested and active in this area is very commendable. The L’Aquila food security initiative, as it became known, reinforces Australia’s commitment to comprehensive global action to address the underlying causes of global food insecurity. All G8 leaders agreed on the need for the food security agenda to focus on agriculture and rural development by promoting sustainable production, productivity and rural economic growth. In the end we help others by helping them help themselves. It was recognised that substantial increases were needed in aid to agriculture and food security, and commitment was given to a goal of mobilising US$20 billion over three years. The government is also engaged internationally, advocating strongly for increased investment in agricultural productivity while at the same time ensuring liberalised markets for food as a means of contributing to global food security. Freeing up markets through trade liberalisation is part of that process to achieve long-term food security and independence for developing countries. It is promising to see the Rudd government actively helping to liberalise world markets through the Doha negotiations, which will contribute to food security in developing nations and also generate new opportunities for Australian agriculture. Again, that is more good news for Australian farmers. Concluding Doha is the best insurance against protectionism and will give the global economy a major confidence boost. This in turn will contribute to the stability of world food supplies. In the lead-up to the Copenhagen climate change meeting, Australia will continue to pursue a science based carbon accounting system that treats agricultural food production equitably. In doing so, we must ensure that actions to combat climate change enhance our shared goal to meet the food needs of a growing global population. The outcomes from Copenhagen will have significant implications for food security. When it comes to responding to climate change, those who work the land have more at stake than those in any other part of the economy. They have a unique interest in ensuring that carbon accounting matches the science that goes along with it. There are good reasons why countries have been reluctant to include agriculture in their accounting, but we must continue to pursue a science based accounting system that treats agricultural food production equitably across the globe, and this will need more attention in the lead-up to Copenhagen. We must and can ensure that actions to combat climate change enhance our shared goal to meet the food needs of a growing global population. Finally, I note that the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation’s World Food Day on 16 October is fast approaching. The aim of that day is to heighten public awareness of the world food problem and strengthen solidarity in the struggle against hunger, malnutrition and poverty. I inform the parliament of my intention to move a private member’s motion on this important event which I hope gets the chance to be debated in the next sitting period in a few weeks time. Food security is about a range of issues and outcomes around the world. Certainly the global financial crisis has added to those problems, but if we look only at our region and the issue of national security then food security plays a role in that as well. Whether it is food security, fuel security—that is, oil security—or other issues which are the highest order needs for poor people around the world, there is no doubt that Australia must play a role. Australia must invest in those nations and in those people. We can play a very big role in this country through science, through technology, through research and development and through the investments we make in food production, innovation and productivity gains. The things that we learn in this country we can pass on to other countries and help them to become self-reliant. There is an old saying which is the core theme of what global food security is about: ‘If you give a man a fish, he will eat for a day, but if you teach him how to fish, he will eat for a lifetime’. That is the principle we need to adopt on this very critical issue. It is about providing financial support and it is about making sure that we can deal with the immediate issues. But it is about more than that. It is about providing leadership and guidance. It is about providing the expertise that we have—the technology, the innovation and the productivity—and making sure that poor countries, countries that are hungry, have a means of going forward. (Time expired) 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—There being no further grievances, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 9578 21:28:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.28 pm 9579 Questions in Writing 9579 9579 787 9579 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 18 June 2009: In respect of Senate Estimates on Thursday 28 May 2009 where, in an answer to questions from Senator Fierravanti-Wells, a departmental officer indicated that the Minister had established an expert panel to review decisions on refugee applications made on Christmas Island —Is it correct that there are interim arrangements in place and a small panel of people whom the Minister calls upon if there is a need to undertake an independent merits review; if so, (a) how were the members of this panel selected; (b) what is the role of the panel; (c) under what instructions does the panel operate; (d) how is this panel funded; (e) what are the names of the panel members; (f) what are the conditions of employment for the panel members; (g) for what length of time is the appointment of panel members; (h) what were the selection criteria for the appointment of panel members; (i) has the Minister made an announcement about the appointment of panel members and their role; (j) how many decisions has this panel made; (k) will all decisions of the panel be made public; if so, when; (l) how is this panel accountable to the Parliament; (m) who is the panel accountable to; and (n) are the decisions of this panel appellable; if so, to whom. 9579 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: Interim arrangements are in place for conducting non-statutory independent merits review of unfavourable refugee status assessments, in the form of a contract between the Commonwealth and a labour hire firm to provide independent reviewers for the immediate caseload. Under the current interim arrangements, the reviews are conducted by independent people well qualified in refugee status determination processes. The role of the Independent reviewer is to consider afresh all claims for protection as they relate to the Refugees Convention. As the independent review process is non-statutory, the role of the Independent reviewer is advisory and not determinative. I draw on the Independent reviewer’s assessment when considering whether to exercise my public interest powers under section 46A of the Migration Act 1958 . Independent reviewers conduct reviews in accordance with the services and requirements set out in the contract. The Government has provided $0.3 million funding in FY2008-09 for establishment of the panel and $0.13 million each year for associated reviewer costs (this funding is contingent upon fluctuations in the number of unauthorised boat arrivals seeking review of Refugee Status Assessments). At present, three people are contracted as Independent reviewers under the interim arrangements: Mr Steve Karas AO, Mr Christopher Keher, and Ms Sue Zelinka. Under the interim arrangements, the remuneration and related conditions of independent reviewers is consistent with the rates set by the Remuneration Tribunal for ‘public offices’ performing similar work (ie. part time members of the RRT). The current contract in place to provide independent merits review under these interim arrangements was recently extended up to 31 December 2009. Under the interim arrangements, the selection of the independent reviewers was based on the criteria that they were people who had sound experience in administrative decision-making and a background in refugee law. The Government decision to introduce independent merits review of unfavourable refugee status assessments has been announced. Under the interim arrangements, three review assessments have been completed. Taking into account the relatively small number of review assessments and privacy and confidentiality considerations, it is not yet practicable to publish the review assessments. and (m) Independent reviewers are accountable through the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to Parliament. Only the Minister has power under section 46A to allow an offshore entry person to apply for a Protection visa. Assessments may be subject to judicial review in the original jurisdiction of the High Court or in the Federal Court on procedural fairness grounds (but not beyond that). 9580 9580 789 9580 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 Dr Southcott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 22 June 2009: In respect of Employment Services Contract (ESC) 2006-09 and ESC 2009-12: how many ESC (a) 2006-09 sites will be closing on 30 June 2009 (i) in total, and (ii) by Employment Services Area (ESA); (b) 2009-12 sites will be opening on 1 July 2009 as new sites (i) in total, and (ii) by ESA; and; (c) 2006-09 sites will be continuing as Job Services Australia sites (i) in total, and (ii) by ESA. 9580 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: The following Table shows Job Services Australia site numbers, by Employment Services Area, as at 1 July 2009 and the equivalent site numbers as at 30 June 2009. A B C D E F G ESA Sites under previous Employment Services Contracts Closed Sites under previous Employment Services Contracts providing Job Services Australia services Sites under previous Employment Services Contracts continuing to provide other DEEWR Programs Total Sites under previous Employment Services Contracts at 30 June 2009 Total Sites under Job Services Australia at 1 July 2009 New Job Services Australia Sites at 1 July 2009 ACT/Queanbeyan NSW 9 8 3 20 17 9 Adelaide Hills SA 3 3 0 6 4 1 Alice Springs NT 7 7 0 14 35 28 Bayside VIC 25 22 1 48 34 12 Bendigo VIC 10 8 5 23 32 24 Bundaberg QLD 7 6 13 21 15 Cairns QLD 10 12 5 27 31 19 Calder VIC 24 9 2 35 33 24 Canterbury/Bankstown NSW 4 10 0 14 15 5 Capricornia QLD 5 7 1 13 29 22 Central and West Metro WA 15 9 0 24 18 9 Central Coast NSW 12 9 2 23 20 11 Central Western Sydney NSW 10 10 2 22 20 10 Chifley NSW 3 1 0 4 4 3 Clarence NSW 2 3 1 6 10 7 Coffs Harbour NSW 4 7 2 13 20 13 Dale WA 1 2 0 3 5 3 Darwin NT 4 4 2 10 9 5 East Gippsland VIC 1 10 0 11 19 9 East Metro WA 11 8 0 19 14 6 Eastern Adelaide SA 11 8 2 21 19 11 Eastern Suburbs NSW 7 2 1 10 6 4 Eureka VIC 7 5 2 14 30 25 Eurobodalla NSW 1 6 0 7 12 6 Fairfield NSW 8 8 0 16 13 5 Far North QLD 2 9 0 11 32 23 Far West NSW 3 3 0 6 21 18 Fleurieu/Kangaroo Island SA 1 4 0 5 8 4 Fraser Coast QLD 10 3 0 13 12 9 Gawler SA 2 4 0 6 7 3 Geelong VIC 8 11 0 19 40 29 Gladstone QLD 1 3 1 5 7 4 Gold Coast QLD 10 12 1 23 27 15 Goldfields/Esperance WA 10 3 0 13 18 15 Goulburn Valley VIC 7 6 1 14 14 8 Grampians VIC 6 2 3 11 12 10 Gwydir Namoi NSW 3 6 0 9 27 21 Gympie QLD 9 5 0 14 15 10 Hampden VIC 5 4 0 9 15 11 Hastings NSW 1 3 1 5 7 4 Hobart TAS 6 14 4 24 30 16 Hunter NSW 11 1 0 12 13 12 Inner Sydney NSW 8 9 1 18 13 4 Inner Western Sydney NSW 6 1 0 7 7 6 Ipswich QLD 2 8 1 11 28 20 Kadina/Clare SA 2 1 1 4 12 11 Katherine NT 2 2 0 4 27 25 Keepit NSW 6 8 2 16 18 10 Kiewa VIC 3 4 0 7 13 9 Kimberley WA 6 9 0 15 28 19 Lachlan NSW 5 9 4 18 19 10 Latrobe Valley VIC 10 10 2 22 27 17 Launceston TAS 10 4 2 16 22 18 Liverpool NSW 3 5 1 9 7 2 Logan QLD 14 10 1 25 25 15 Lower Hunter NSW 18 11 0 29 29 18 Lower South Coast NSW 8 7 1 16 13 6 Macarthur NSW 4 7 0 11 18 11 Mackay QLD 5 4 3 12 16 12 Macleay NSW 3 2 1 6 10 8 Manning NSW 5 2 0 7 15 13 Maroondah VIC 15 9 0 24 16 7 Mid Murray VIC 4 7 1 12 15 8 Mid West and Gascoyne WA 7 3 0 10 21 18 Midlands/Wheatbelt WA 0 1 0 1 12 11 Monash VIC 8 4 0 12 16 12 Mt Isa QLD 2 8 0 10 38 30 Murray Darling NSW 0 4 0 4 4 0 Murraylands SA 8 6 0 14 8 2 Nepean NSW 13 8 0 21 21 13 New England NSW 1 12 0 13 29 17 North Brisbane QLD 12 9 4 25 25 16 North Coast NSW 1 9 1 11 13 4 North Country SA 6 4 1 11 11 7 North Metro WA 26 13 1 40 24 11 Northern Adelaide SA 13 10 1 24 31 21 Northern Sydney NSW 9 4 1 14 11 7 Orana NSW 6 24 0 30 34 10 Outer North Brisbane QLD 12 4 1 17 17 13 Outer Western Sydney NSW 5 8 0 13 13 5 Ovens VIC 8 13 2 23 17 4 Oxley NSW 3 3 0 6 5 2 Patterson NSW 6 4 0 10 21 17 Peninsula VIC 8 7 2 17 16 9 Pilbara WA 0 13 0 13 53 40 Plenty VIC 18 5 0 23 18 13 Port Lincoln/Ceduna SA 2 2 2 6 7 5 Port Pirie SA 1 1 2 4 9 8 Richmond NSW 1 6 2 9 19 13 Riverland SA 2 8 1 11 12 4 Shoalhaven NSW 3 6 0 9 11 5 South Brisbane QLD 15 21 0 36 44 23 South East SA 3 0 1 4 4 3 South Eastern NSW 4 22 1 27 44 22 Southern Adelaide SA 11 8 0 19 27 19 Southern Ranges NSW 5 6 0 11 9 3 Southern WA 14 8 6 28 16 8 St George-Sutherland NSW 9 4 1 14 7 3 Sturt NSW 3 14 0 17 31 17 Sunraysia VIC 4 6 0 10 8 2 Sunshine Coast QLD 19 10 2 31 20 10 Tennant Creek NT 2 5 0 7 11 6 Toowoomba QLD 8 1 0 9 14 13 Top End NT 7 1 1 9 41 40 Townsville QLD 8 7 1 16 27 20 Tweed NSW 2 10 0 12 13 3 Upper Hunter NSW 8 3 0 11 9 6 Warwick QLD 0 2 3 5 8 6 West and North West TAS 13 13 1 27 33 20 Western Adelaide SA 7 7 0 14 18 11 Western District VIC 3 4 0 7 6 2 Western Downs QLD 5 3 0 8 21 18 Westgate VIC 24 15 6 45 43 28 Windamere NSW 3 4 0 7 4 0 Wollongong NSW 11 10 1 22 19 9 Yarra VIC 12 8 0 20 18 10 TOTALS 816 797 108 1721 2164 1366 Note: The figures in Column B above do not reflect a reduction in the availability of services to job seekers but, rather, the consequence of the amalgamation of the seven previous and separately delivered programs now being delivered through a single integrated service. This improved service will be delivered through more effective site arrangements rather than requiring job seekers to travel to a number of different locations. Under Job Services Australia the increased number of sites delivers increased accessibility for job seekers and employers. 9585 9585 853 9585 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 11 August 2009: Is the Government aware that in June 2009 Mr Liu Xiaobo, one of China’s most prominent political activists, was formally arrested for inciting subversion, six months after he was taken into custody. Is the Government aware that Mr Xiaobo was detained on the eve of the publication of ‘Charter 08’, a document he co-authored which was signed by hundreds of Chinese artists, academics and political activists, which called for political reforms in China, such as a new constitution, judicial independence and the freedom to assemble. What is the Government’s position in relation to the detention and arrest of Mr Xiaobo. Has the Government raised the issue of Mr Xiaobo’s detention and arrest with the Chinese Government; if not, does it plan to do so. 9586 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: Yes. Yes. The Government is concerned about the arrest and detention of Mr Liu Xiaobo and has called for his release. The Government first raised Mr Liu’s detention with the Chinese authorities during the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue, held in Canberra on 9-10 February 2009.  We subsequently followed up with representations through the Australian Embassy in Beijing to the Chinese Ministry of Foreign Affairs.   The Government will continue to make representations to China on the detention of Charter 08 signatories and others who were exercising internationally recognised liberties, including freedom of speech. 9586 9586 860 9586 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 11 August 2009: What specific protests has the Government lodged with the Burmese regime over the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi. Has any Government official contacted other countries on this matter; if so, (a) which countries, (b) at what level, (c) on what dates, and (d) what specific actions were discussed on each occasion. Has the Government made any representations to the Burmese regime about the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi whilst detained. Has the Government been in contact with the Association of Southeast Asian Nations regarding Aung San Suu Kyi; if so, (a) on what date/s, and (b) at what level. 9586 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: A central message in representations to the Burmese regime has consistently been the Government’s call for the immediate and unconditional release of all political prisoners, including Aung San Suu Kyi.  The detention of Aung San Suu Kyi is repeatedly protested by the Government directly to the Burmese regime.  Yes. The situation in Burma is a foreign policy priority for the Government.  It has been, and continues to be, the subject of numerous diplomatic discussions and representations between Australian officials and those of other governments including by Australian Ambassadors, embassy staff, and visiting officials, as well as with members of the diplomatic corps in Canberra.  Consistent with the practice of successive Governments, I do not intend to elaborate further as it would be inappropriate to provide details of confidential discussions with other governments. Yes.  The Government, through the Australian Embassy in Rangoon, has made a number of representations on Aung San Suu Kyi’s treatment in detention, including pressing the authorities to ensure she has access to medical care and legal advice. Yes.  I have raised Aung San Suu Kyi’s situation with the ASEAN Secretary-General.  I have also discussed Burma with my ASEAN counterparts.  Australia’s Ambassador to ASEAN meets regularly with representatives from the ASEAN Secretariat and member countries.  She discusses a range of issues including relevant human rights matters and the situation in Burma. 9586 9586 862 9587 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 11 August 2009: How does the Australian Government intend to implement the Debt to Health Swap program, including its plans for negotiations with the Indonesian Government. Has the Australian Government made contact on this matter with the Indonesian Government; if so, (a) on what date/s was contact made; (b) at what level was the contact, and (c) what was the Indonesian Government’s response. 9587 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: On 12 May 2009 the Australian Government announced the Debt-to-Health Swap with the Indonesian Government whereby Australia will forgive $75 million of debt and the Indonesian Government will contribute $37.5 million to the Global Fund to support HIV and tuberculosis projects in Indonesia. The Debt-to-Health swap will be implemented in conjunction with AusAID and the Export Finance and Insurance Corporation (EFIC). A tripartite agreement between Australia, Indonesia and the Global Fund to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria will be signed once agreement has been reached on the swap mechanism. EFIC will then seek to negotiate a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with the Indonesian Ministry of Finance detailing debt relief arrangements and the conditions that must be met. Resourcing of $75 million allocated as administered equity in the 2009-10 budget will be drawn on and transferred to EFIC once the MoU with Indonesia is finalised. The Australian Government, through its Embassy in Jakarta, has had several contacts with the Indonesian Government on this matter since late 2008. Contacts were made at Deputy Minister level in December 2008, January 2009 and July 2009 and at Director level in June 2009. The Indonesian Government has expressed strong support for the debt swap. 9587 9587 879 9587 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 11 August 2009: Is the Australian Government aware that in June 2009 the Vietnamese Government arrested human rights lawyer, Mr Le Cong Dinh. Is the Australian Government aware that Vietnamese Police have charged Mr Dinh under Article 88 of the Vietnam Criminal Code—‘conducting propaganda against the government’—which carries a prison sentence of up to 20 years. Is the Australian Government aware that Vietnamese Government authorities have accused Mr Dinh of using his work as a defence lawyer for high-profile democracy and religious freedom activists to ‘propagandize against the regime and distort Vietnam’s constitution and laws’. What is the Australian Government’s position in relation to the detention and arrest of Mr Dinh. Has the Australian Government raised the issue of Mr Dinh’s arrest with the Vietnamese Government; if not, does it plan to do so. 9587 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: Yes. Yes. Yes. The Government is concerned about the implications of Mr Dinh’s arrest for freedom of expression and the right to legal representation in Vietnam.  The Government is also concerned about Vietnam’s ongoing use of the broadly framed Article 88 of the Vietnamese Criminal Code under which Mr Dinh and several other individuals of human rights concern have been charged. The Australian Government made representations to the Government of Vietnam on 25 June 2009 regarding the arrest of Mr Le Cong Dinh, consistent with the position expressed in response to question 4.  The Government requested that Mr Dinh be afforded legal representation and visitation rights and requested that a representative from the Australian Embassy in Hanoi attend should the case be brought to trial. 9588 9588 884 9588 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 11 August 2009: Is the Australian Government aware that in July 2009 the Chinese Government detained prominent ethnic Uighur economist Professor Ilham Tohti. Is the Australian Government aware that Professor Tohti had been critical of the lack of jobs for Uighurs and policies that encouraged the influx of Han settlers into traditionally ethnic Uighur areas of China. Does the Australian Government know if Professor Tohti has been charged; if he has, what are the charges. What is the Australian Government’s position in relation to the detention of Professor Tohti. Has the Australian Government raised Professor Tohti’s detention with the Chinese Government; if not, does it plan to do this at the Australia-China Human Rights Dialogue. 9588 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: Yes. Yes. to (5) The Australian Government was concerned by the detention of Professor Tohti, and welcomes his release on 23 August.