2009-10-27 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-10-27 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2.00 pm and read prayers. 11067 Ministerial Arrangements 11067 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Treasurer will be absent from question time today as he is unwell. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will answer questions on his behalf. Further, the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water will be absent from question time today as he is providing the keynote address at Carbon Market Expo Australasia on the Gold Coast. The Minister for Foreign Affairs will answer questions in relation to defence and the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts will answer questions in relation to climate change on his behalf. 11067 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 11067 14:01:00 11067 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the answers he gave in question time yesterday concerning his or his officers’ involvement in the matters to do with the nine days at sea of the Oceanic Viking and the accommodation of the 78 asylum seekers on board in Indonesia. He indicated that he was unaware of who was making those decisions. With 24 hours to find the answer, could he now tell the House what involvement he or his officers had in the decision making with respect to the Australian Customs ship Oceanic Viking? 11067 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As I said to the House yesterday, there are diplomatic negotiations which occur between governments which, as in previous practice, remain confidential. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Well, they have been in the past and they will be into the future. The second thing I would say is as follows: in Indonesia at the time of the President’s inauguration I discussed with him the particular circumstances of that vessel. Third, in relation to the question asked of me yesterday, I think by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I stand by everything I said in that answer. 11067 11067 14:02:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 Ms GEORGE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on recent reports on the impact of climate change on Australia and Australia’s response to the global challenge of climate change? 11067 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank very much the member for Throsby for her question. Australia must not forget the fact that we are one of the hottest and driest continents on earth and therefore will feel the impact of climate change hardest and fastest of most continents on earth. As Treasury has reminded us also, the fact remains that early action on climate change is better for the economy than late action. It is also less costly. By reverse logic, and also consistent with our advice, if you defer action on climate change, the cost of adjustment to the economy becomes much greater later on. The release of the report of the House committee inquiry into climate change and environmental impacts on coastal communities represents an important contribution to the national debate on climate change. Uncontrolled climate change could see a global sea level rise of one metre or more by 2100 and more intense storms threatening coastal housing and infrastructure. The report notes that in New South Wales coastal flooding, erosion and hazards currently cost around $200 million a year. Furthermore, more than 200,000 buildings along the state’s coast are vulnerable. If sea levels rose by 0.9 metres, 4,700 residential building lots along Lake Macquarie waterway foreshore alone would be inundated. In Queensland, coastal communities such as the Gold Coast and the Sunshine Coast are particularly vulnerable. With almost 250,000 vulnerable coastal buildings, Queensland is at the highest risk of all Australian states from projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. In Victoria, more than 80,000 coastal buildings and infrastructure are at risk from the projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion, including some 18,000 dwellings in the Western Port region alone, valued, I am advised, in the vicinity of some $2 billion. In the Northern Territory, some 900 coastal buildings, including harbourside and port facilities, are vulnerable. In South Australia, more than 60,000 buildings along the state’s coast are likely to be at risk from sea level rise. In Tasmania, within the next 50 to 100 years, 21 per cent of Tasmania’s coast is at risk of erosion and recession from the sea level rising, affecting 17,000 coastal buildings. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In Western Australia, more than 94,000 coastal buildings are at risk from projected sea level rise, coastal flooding and erosion. Between Fremantle and Mandurah, an estimated 28,000 buildings and 641 kilometres of road are at risk from erosion due to sea level rising. An opposition member—Rubbish! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I find the interjections from those opposite quite remarkable. These warnings about coastal inundation of every state in Australia and the Territory are described by those opposite as ‘rubbish’. We simply note carefully what the report has said. The fact is that Australia has more to lose through continued inaction on climate change than do our competitor economies. That is why the government is exerting every effort through this place to see the passage of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which we would use to set Australia up for a lower carbon future. That is why the Australian government is equally active globally to secure a strong global agreement on climate change as well. I indicated last week that the bill will be reintroduced into the House. It will be debated in the House this week and voted on in the House in the week beginning Monday, 16 November. It will be introduced in the Senate immediately after the vote in the House and it will be voted on in the Senate in the week beginning 23 November. The government welcomes the negotiations which are underway between it and the opposition. I am pleased to hear from Minister Wong that negotiations have commenced and are proceeding in good faith. I would like to personally thank the member for Groom for his genuine efforts to engage with the government and to reach an outcome that will finally deliver action on climate change. The Leader of the Opposition has been right in his observations when he has said that the ‘biggest element in the fight against climate change has to be an emissions trading scheme’. Furthermore, he was right when he said: … our first-hand experience in implementing … an emissions trading system would be of considerable assistance in our international discussions and negotiations aimed at achieving an effective global climate change agreement. As he said elsewhere: … climate change is a fact, not a theory. Australia needs these good-faith negotiations to work to give business the certainty they need for the future. We need it for the national interest and we need it for business certainty and we also need it to ensure that the climate change outcome for Australia delivers a financially and economically responsible outcome but one which is equally environmentally credible. We therefore welcome the negotiations underway between government and opposition on this. We have brought these bills back to the parliament because it is the right thing to do, it is the responsible thing to do and it is in Australia’s national interest that we do so as well. On the global front, those opposite and others will have noted recent statements by the Prime Minister of Denmark, Prime Minister Rasmussen, who delivered a speech in which he called on all leaders to increase their engagement in negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen over the next six weeks. To give immediate effect to this, Prime Minister Rasmussen, as chair of the Conference of Parties, has asked a number of leaders to work closely with him in the lead-up to Copenhagen. Prime Minister Rasmussen noted in his speech: Negotiations have been ongoing for almost two years and progress has been painfully slow. Clearly, at current speed, we will not make it in the remaining weeks. The leaders engaged by Prime Minister Rasmussen will conduct regular discussions in the lead-up to Copenhagen, focusing on delivering effective action on climate change. Leaders’ engagement is critical to increase the political momentum around the world to delivering a decent outcome at Copenhagen, to capture commitments already made in an ambitious and comprehensive global agreement and to guide ongoing negotiations for the future as well. This is critical for Australia. Our national actions are important through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is why our negotiations with the member for Groom and the opposition are so important. Equally, and more importantly, global action through the negotiations in the lead-up to Copenhagen are fundamental to delivering a lower carbon future for the planet, because, as we have been warned today by this House committee report on coastal inundation, the real costs for Australia of continued inaction on climate change are deep and enduring and damaging to our economy and damaging to the nation’s environment. It is time for national action and global action on climate change. 11069 11069 14:10:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr STONE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House when he was first notified that the people aboard the Oceanic Viking would not be permitted to land at the port of Merak? When was the Prime Minister informed that the people on board were to be transferred to the Tanjung Pinang detention centre? What was his involvement in those decisions? 11069 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —On the first part of the question, if you were to try and ask me—and I thank the member for Murray for her question—as to the precise sequence of events, I cannot recall each step in that sequence of events. I honestly cannot. It was a fast-flowing series of events. As for the second part of the question, I simply refer the honourable member to the answer that I gave on this question yesterday. These are complex diplomatic negotiations and are occurring at multiple levels between the government and the government of Indonesia. Of course, in this connection, I notice a particular report in a national newspaper today about some of the tactics which may be driving opposition questions on this matter—particular tactics which perhaps derive from a report, mentioned in today’s Australian, entitled ‘Digging dirt’. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Even with the very broad definition of relevance which has crept into the parliamentary standards over the years, this could not possibly be relevant to the question he was asked, which was specifically about when he knew certain important pieces of information about the 78 asylum seekers aboard the Oceanic Viking. It could not possibly be relevant. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister knows the requirement to make his material relevant to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Absolutely, Mr Speaker. That is why I always welcome questions from the member for Murray and always welcome the wider environment in which she asks those questions, particularly given the fact that the document in question said: You don’t get new stories by trying to change perceptions, you get them by reinforcing stereotypes … 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, the Prime Minister is defying your request for him to make his answer relevant to the question. It was a very specific question and I would ask you to use your authority as the Speaker to ensure he complies with the rules. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will respond to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. As I said in response to the member for Murray’s question today and again yesterday, the precise sequence of events concerning the handling of this particular vessel I cannot recall in absolute detail—they were complex diplomatic negotiations. But I would hope that, in the member for Murray’s long record of consistency on these questions, which extends through her parliamentary career and her deep and continuing commitment to the interests and fair treatment of asylum seekers, which has not undergone any change at all over time, she too if she were part of a government would also respond to appropriate distress signals which are given in accordance with international maritime law, given that the interests of Australians around the world lie in those conventions also being adhered to. I also wonder whether some of the stereotypes referred to in this note, which was part of the ‘Digging dirt’ document revealed in the Australian today, may have dealt with the stereotyping of asylum seekers. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Prime Minister knows that he has to relate the material to the question asked—and he has concluded his reply. 11070 11070 14:14:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 Mr ZAPPIA —My question is to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. How is dangerous climate change predicted to affect Australia’s coastal zone environment and how is the government responding to these predicted impacts? IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order in relation to questions to ministers. Under the standing orders the question must relate to something that the minister has in his administration. The Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts is not the minister for climate change and nor is he the minister assisting the minister for climate change. He has no responsibility for it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mayo raises a point of order which depends on my expert knowledge of the administrative orders under which ministers are appointed. Earlier in this parliament, some 18 months ago, I did refer to that document because this was something in prospect. I suppose I should be charitable to the member for Mayo as this was an issue even before he was a member. I would think that if the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts had a whole list of legislation and agencies that are within his portfolio responsibilities, and without being precise, I would have thought that matters to do with the coastal zone—environment protection matters—would be within those portfolio duties. I would think that on that basis the question is in order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I call the Leader of the House— SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Is he taking a point of order? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his seat. I will decide who I will give the call to, and behaviour like that will get the treatment that other occupants of the chair have adopted in similar circumstances, which is selective blindness. The Leader of the House, on the point of order. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I speak to the point of order. The Prime Minister, in the ministerial arrangements read out at 2 pm when parliament began today, indicated that because the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Water is absent from question time, being at a climate change conference, the Minister for the Environment is representing him here during this question time. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House has assisted in one way but I maintain that, like the question yesterday, the question today, in that it goes to the way in which the climate change prospect can affect environmental matters, would have been in order even barring the ministerial arrangements making it clear. The member for O’Connor on a further point of order? SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, under standing order 100 ‘Rules for questions’, item (b) states: A question fully answered must not be asked again. I refer you to the Prime Minister’s answer previously and to his 10-page answer yesterday on this very matter. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Good try, but there is no point of order. 11071 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr GARRETT —I think that most people listening to parliament today will recognise that, firstly, climate change is an environmental issue and, secondly, we take the environment very seriously in this House, unlike those on the other side. I thank the member for Makin for his question. From Bondi to Broome, Australians love the coast—we are familiar with the statistic that about 80 per cent of the population lives in the coastal zone. The important report that the Prime Minister referred to today from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate, Water, Environment and the Arts entitled Managing our Coastal Zone in a Changing Climate: the time to act is now does bring home the real impact that climate change will have on this part of Australia that is much loved by all of us. I want to compliment that committee and the chair, the member for Throsby, for their very good work. This coastal inquiry report notes that small rises in sea level can cause disproportionately large impacts. The report includes an alarming statistic that approximately 711,000 addresses are within three kilometres of the coast and less than six metres above sea level. It is important for us to realise that sea level rise is only one of the impacts that climate change can have on the coast—it interacts with other changes like the daily climate, increases in storm tides and flooding from heavy rainfall. It is the way that those impacts work together and trigger other changes that is cause for concern. It is a chain reaction of impacts and it is identified in this important report. I give one example: in the World Heritage listed Kakadu National Park, which I have responsibility for, the extensive lowland wetlands are particularly vulnerable. As the sea level rises the salinity in these wetlands will also rise. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister has the call; he should be heard in silence. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —As the sea level rises the salinity in these wetlands will also rise. Some 80 per cent of the freshwater wetlands are predicted to convert to saline, while salt will contaminate the fresh groundwater system. It is also the case that the human impacts identified for the coastal zone are also serious and costly, and the Prime Minister highlighted them previously: 900 coastal buildings, together with harbour and port facilities, are vulnerable to sea level rise in the Northern Territory. There are a quarter of a million vulnerable coastal buildings in Queensland, and our greatest recreation and tourism assets, our beaches, are also vulnerable, with the Department of Climate Change predicting that by 2100 sandy beaches could recede by up to 88 metres. That is a significant prediction. The Australian government takes these risks seriously. Under Caring for our Country, we are protecting and rehabilitating coastal habitats through the $100 million Caring for our Coasts coast care program. This is an unprecedented injection of funds into the coastal environment. We are also reducing harmful run-off into the Great Barrier Reef and working with farmers to improve land management practices through our $200 million unparalleled investment in this national icon, and through Minister Wong’s portfolio there is an additional $25 million through Caring for our Coasts to help prepare coastal communities for the impact of climate change. The government will carefully consider the findings of this coastal inquiry and will be providing a response. We initiated this inquiry as a first step to developing a national coastal policy. That is what this country now needs. The report confirms the need and the importance of federal leadership, and it is a responsibility that Labor accepts. The fact is that none of these actions I have outlined would have taken place if there had not been a change of government in 2007. While the science shows that we are tracking to the higher end of climate change predictions, the coalition is heading in the opposite direction. Just this morning Senator Abetz was in no hurry to act on coastal erosion. He said: That is something that is going to have to be taken into account for future planning but, having said that, I assume it’s not going to be happening overnight, so we’ve still got some time. Senator Abetz reminds me of Steve Miller’s song: Time keeps on slipping, slipping, slipping into the future … whereas here— Opposition members—Sing it! Sing it! HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Here you go! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will ignore the taunts. The minister will respond to the question. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —The lack of public policy rigour on the other side of the House means they are easily distracted. The member for Warringah this morning on Sky, asked about this particular coastal inquiry report and that the sea level had risen along the New South Wales coast by more than 20 centimetres, said to reporters: Has anyone noticed it? No, they haven’t. The answer is that people are noticing this, and it is extraordinary that the member, a serious contender on the front bench, could have a position like this. Opposition members interjecting— HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —We have got interjection after interjection coming from the other side of the House as they are exposed in their total incapacity to recognise the seriousness of this challenge, which has just been confirmed in an inquiry that has been brought down by a House of Representatives standing committee. The member for Gippsland is relaxed about the CPRS legislation: ‘I believe we’ve got time to wait.’ The coalition just do not seem interested in the impacts on the farming sector, on urban communities running out of the water, on coastal communities who are vulnerable to sea level change. They want to delay. They want to do nothing. For the coalition, all that we can say is: the Australian coast is a good place to stick your head in the sand. 11073 11073 14:25:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House who is making decisions regarding the Australian Customs vessel Oceanic Viking? Who is issuing instructions to the Australian personnel on board? 11073 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. I would assume that, consistent with our normal arrangements, that would be done through the Customs agency of the Australian government. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —That would be done through the normal agency of the Australian government—the customs and border protection arrangements of the government. That is where the command and control lies. I imagine it is an operational matter. That is where it is being processed. 11073 11073 14:26:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 Mr MURPHY —Mr Speaker, on indulgence, and very relevant to my question, I want to join with the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts and congratulate the member for Throsby and also give credit— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Lowe will get to his question. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —for this report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, the member for Lowe will get to his question. 83D Murphy, John, MP Mr MURPHY —My question is to the Minister for Human Services, Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law. Minister, how is climate change impacting on the insurance industry and the development of Australia as a financial services hub? 11073 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr BOWEN —I thank the honourable member for his question and his interest in this very pressing issue. The government has consistently said that the costs of action on climate change are dwarfed by the costs of inaction. One industry that understands this is the insurance industry. An increase in the number of insurance claims will place significant pressure on the financial sector and may result in reduced insurance availability and increased premiums for those in vulnerable areas. The insurance industry understands that climate change is real and it understands that the community, business and government need to act. It is clear that insurance premiums and the availability of insurance will be affected if there is no action on climate change. The most obvious impact of climate change on the insurance sector will be the increase in property losses from extreme weather events. As the Business Roundtable on Climate Change has said, 19 out of the 20 largest property insurance losses in Australia since 1967 have been weather related. Anything that is insured, whether it be property, crops, livestock, business operations or human life, is vulnerable to weather related events. In its submission to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, the Insurance Australia Group estimated that the value of property in Australia exposed to risk of land being inundated or eroded by rising sea levels ranged from $50 billion up to $150 billion. The member for Hume and others can make their jokes about building arks. This is the view of an industry which understands the impacts of climate change on Australia and understands the costs of not acting. The Climate Change Working Group of the United Nations Environment Program Finance Initiative estimates that the weather related losses could grow to be as high as US$1 trillion in a single year by the year 2040, so the longer we wait for action on climate change the more it will cost and the worse its effects will be. That is why the government has a clear strategy to shift Australia to a low-carbon future with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which we are exerting every effort to have passed so we can start to address some of these looming costs for our nation and for individuals. There are some in the House and elsewhere who have attempted to peddle the false dichotomy that you can have action on climate change or you can act to support jobs. This is very much a false dichotomy. Many people would want us to believe that, but the opposite is the case. The truth is that the fight against climate change can also be an opportunity to create jobs: opportunities not just in green technologies, not just in alternative energy but also in areas which might not be so obvious even to the climate sceptic leader, the member for Tangney—areas like financial services. The opportunity for timely action by Australia gives us an opportunity in the financial services field. Last week I informed the House that Australia had been ranked second in the world in terms of global financial centres by the World Economic Forum, and this provides us with a great opportunity. We are committed to using this strength to position Australia as an early mover in the creation of new and significant markets, especially in relation to the trading of carbon credits. What are these actions predicated upon? They are predicated upon action. Further delays and further uncertainty provide a great obstacle to Australia capitalising on these opportunities. They provide an obstacle to us capitalising on the opportunity of being the carbon trading financial services hub of the Asia-Pacific region. This is a great opportunity for Australia, but further delay and further uncertainty are a great threat to that opportunity. Australia has before it two clear paths—action or delay. We are committed to action—action to combat climate change and action to create jobs and a new economy which adjusts to climate change. 11074 11074 14:31:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer him to the interview with the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government on the ABC’s Lateline last night, in particular to the minister’s response to a question about whether the Australian government had a moral responsibility to ensure children aboard the Oceanic Viking would not be detained behind bars at the Tanjung Pinang detention centre. The minister’s answer was, ‘Well, Tony, what’s the moral issue?’ Will the Prime Minister guarantee that the children aboard the Oceanic Viking will not be detained behind bars? 11074 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the opposition in particular for that question, which comes from the party of children behind razor wire. I thank the opposition in particular for raising a question from the party of ‘children overboard’. I thank the opposition in particular for the consistency of their moral purpose in asking questions of this nature. Could it be that again this question has a little bit to do with the overall politics of stereotyping which the digging dirt document refers to as well? 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: my question to the Prime Minister was whether he will guarantee that children aboard the Oceanic Viking will not be detained behind bars. Will he answer that question? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. She has made her point of order on relevance. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Are we interrupting somebody’s conversations here? The Prime Minister has the call and it does not assist the House to have all these conversations across the table by the frontbenches. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I recall in particular that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition’s question referred to moral issues and what I was seeking to respond to was the moral content or non-content of their policy on handling asylum seekers in the period that they were in office. As for the proper treatment of asylum seekers anywhere in the world, and including in Indonesia, we would expect that in consultation with the UNHCR and the IOM proper conditions are provided for the treatment of asylum seekers. We actually cooperate with the UNHCR, in fundamental contrast with the culture of noncooperation led by the member for Menzies and the member for Berowra in the past who prided themselves on sitting outside the framework of international— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Not true! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. Has the Prime Minister concluded? 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock —Mr Speaker, I intend to take a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Before the member for Berowra takes the point of order, the member for Sturt will withdraw. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —What am I withdrawing? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —You know full well what you are withdrawing. It was an interjection that you made towards the end of the Prime Minister’s answer. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, the Prime Minister claimed that we did not cooperate with the UNHCR, which is a falsehood. So I am not sure how I am supposed to express the fact that it was a falsehood other than saying that it is—which it is, a lie. We did cooperate with the UNHCR, always. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will go to the despatch box and he will show some leadership to his side by withdrawing as he is required. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I will seek your indulgence at a later point in time to deal with the very serious reflection on my integrity in relation to refugee issues. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Berowra will resume his seat. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, a point of order under standing order 90: I regard the imputation of improper motives against the members for Menzies and Berowra as deeply offensive and I ask you to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that imputation of improper motives. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Oxley may as well sit down, because I am not willing to proceed with the House behaving in this manner. Thanks for proving my point—you just continue. I would hope that members would start to show a little bit more respect on a fairly sensitive issue over several parliaments. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr Ruddock —I hope the Prime Minister will start— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Father of the House, by indicating that he knew that there were other avenues open to him, I thought had settled that point in time. Then several members engaged across the table in unwarranted debate. If you want to have a debate, find a mechanism to have the debate. This is question time. There are questions about things that have raised the emotions of members on both sides. I would have thought that that would ring some alarm bells for members on both sides to perhaps settle down a little bit. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have ruled by not ruling at all. I simply say to several members in this place that, whilst I try to disregard the way in which people behave in other aspects of the way the House is operating, I just remind individuals that, if when they approach the dispatch box—give an inch, take a mile, then bounce up—they are seeking some cooperation at a delayed point, that cooperation might not be forthcoming. My ruling has been that the member for Berowra suggested that he would be taking an action, and I am satisfied that I will allow him at the appropriate time at the end of question time to take that action. HK5 Andrews, Kevin, MP Mr Andrews —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to standing orders 89 and 90, the Prime Minister’s remarks were offensive and I ask that you request he withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —If the member has been so concerned by the remarks, in the context of assisting the proper carriage of business of the House I will ask the Prime Minister to withdraw. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Of course I withdraw, Mr Speaker. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Oxley has morphed into the member for Wakefield. The member for Wakefield has the call. 11076 11076 14:40:00 Champion, Nick, MP HW9 Wakefield ALP 1 Mr CHAMPION —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. What is the government doing in response to job losses at Bridgestone tyres? 11076 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 Wakefield for this important question and I know that as the local member for the affected communities he is deeply concerned about the job losses at Bridgestone Australia. The job losses here are as a result of the challenging global conditions we find ourselves in and the particularly challenging days we live in for the motor vehicle industry. As a result of those pressures, the Bridgestone tyre factory in Salisbury in South Australia has indicated that it will be closing, and our first concern, of course, is for the 600 workers and their families who will be affected by this closure by April next year. I advise the House, and of course the local member is aware of this—but I presume all members of the House would be interested—that all workers who are made redundant by Bridgestone Australia are eligible for employment assistance under the government’s Automotive Industry Structural Adjustment Program. Under this program all workers who are made redundant will be eligible for immediate access to intensive employment services at the stream 3 level with a local Job Services Australia provider. Jobs Services Australia providers will help each worker develop a tailored Employment Pathway Plan to help them find another job as quickly as possible. The Australian government has allocated up to 600 training places to provide assistance to those workers through our Productivity Places Program. The Commonwealth government assistance to these workers will be worth an estimated $4.7 million. We are also working together with the South Australian government to ensure that this help is available immediately. I understand that Premier Rann has just announced an additional support of up to $1 million will be committed by the state government to assist these workers. My department and the South Australian department of employment met with the company on Monday this week to discuss services to the workers caught up in this closure. Onsite information and advice sessions will be available to workers to enable them to understand what their options are and to assist them to access new employment opportunities. Bridgestone’s Adelaide plant is in one of the government’s priority employment areas, and I know that the local member is well aware that we have declared the northern and western parts of Adelaide a priority employment area. That means that there is a local employment coordinator in that area. The job of that local employment coordinator is to work with my department and with the Bridgestone staff and to work on the ground coordinating help from agencies like Centrelink and Jobs Services Australia and training organisations. We obviously want to access the community resilience and the goodwill in the local community to assist these workers during this difficult period. As a government we believe in action in the face of what is a very challenging global outlook. The government’s steadfast approach when challenged by the global recession has been to act, and act quickly. We acted to maintain confidence in Australian financial services and we acted to stimulate demand and to support jobs in the Australian economy. Of course, secondly, we have acted to invest in human capital and productive capacity for Australians in training and skills opportunities. Thirdly, we will always be there standing shoulder to shoulder with those workers who are affected by these economic pressures and, clearly, our thoughts and priorities now are on assisting these 600 workers at Bridgestone. 11077 Distinguished Visitors 11077 14:44:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon members of a parliamentary delegation from Bosnia and Herzegovina led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mr Milorad Zivkovic and the Speaker of the House of Peoples, Mr Ilija Filipovic. On behalf of the House I extend a very warm welcome to our visitors. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 11077 Questions Without Notice 11077 11077 14:45:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is again to the Prime Minister. I refer him to his previous answers and indeed his answers in this House today. Why is the Prime Minister seeking to absolve himself of all responsibility for the decisions that led to the Oceanic Viking and its 78 passengers spending nine days at sea before dropping anchor off the island of Bintan? If the Prime Minister was not consulted on the decisions that have led to this chaotic episode, why was he not consulted? 11077 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —As Prime Minister of the country, I accept responsibility for our policy on immigration. Our policy is one, as I described yesterday, which is tough and humane. We believe it is the right balance. We therefore believe it is the right approach to be absolutely hard-line with people smugglers and it is the right approach also to conform with our obligations under international law when it comes to dealing with asylum seekers. That is the right approach of a mainstream government in a mainstream country dealing with the challenge, which is a global challenge. As Prime Minister of the country, I accept full responsibility for the policy we have embraced as a government. It is consistent with the undertakings that we made to the Australian people prior to the last election and consistent also with the changes to policy which occurred subsequent to the election, which the member for Murray embraced in her statement of last year though she now chooses to try and distance herself from it. 11078 11078 14:47:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 Ms BURKE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Why is nation building infrastructure important for Australia’s future economic growth? 11078 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank very much the member for Chisholm for her question because it goes to nation building for recovery and how we are doing better than most other countries in the world at present, despite having to deal with the worst economic global downturn in three quarters of a century, in part because the government took early and decisive action through our nation building for recovery program, our stimulus strategy and our investments in infrastructure. We have acted in a manner entirely consistent with the principles of conservative economic management by expanding the role of government when the private sector is in retreat and by contracting the role of government as the private sector recovers. Furthermore, as we have outlined in the budget, we have a clear-cut plan for returning the budget to surplus consistent with the disciplines which were articulated by the Treasurer at the time. As a result of this action Australia is doing better than most other economies in the world with the strongest economic growth, the second lowest unemployment, the lowest debt, the lowest deficit of the major advanced economies and the only one so far to have remained out of recession. Right now the government’s nation building for recovery plan is rolling out projects right across the country. I would like to inform the House that the latest available data shows that 25,000 major projects have commenced across Australia including 10,000 projects under the National School Pride program, 8,000 projects under the Primary Schools for the 21st Century program, 36,000 repair and maintenance projects for social housing, 2,000 new units of social housing, 150 road black spot projects as well as 2,500 community infrastructure projects right across the country. We are also in the business of beginning to outline our arrangements for the National Broadband Network in Tasmania for three regional towns there. We also have large-scale projects in which we are investing such as some 60 road and rail projects worth $9.3 billion. In New South Wales there is the F5 widening in Sydney, the duplication of the Pacific Highway in northern New South Wales and the Hunter Valley rail track upgrade. In Victoria there is the upgrade of the Western Ring Road, completion of the Geelong Ring Road, and the upgrade of the rail track between Melbourne and Adelaide. In Queensland there is the Pacific Motorway upgrade and also the improvements on the Bruce Highway and the Ipswich Motorway. In WA there is the Great Northern Highway upgrade as well as the construction of the Bunbury Port Access Road and Outer Ring Road. In South Australia there are the Dukes Highway, the Northern Expressway and the Port Wakefield Road upgrades. In Tassie there is the Brighton Bypass upgrade and other targeted work on the Midland Highway. Up in the Territory there is the extension of Tiger Brennan Drive. These are all important infrastructure projects for the nation because they are all about building long-term productivity growth. We are on about nation building for recovery and nation building for the future because, according to the OECD, infrastructure measures have a multiplier of some 0.9, higher than for government consumption and transfer to household measures. That is why our stimulus package is supporting over 200,000 Australian jobs. It has helped make Australia the fastest growing of all the advanced economies despite the difficulties of the global economic recession. Also the stimulus has represented the difference between following other advanced economies into recession and Australia’s unemployment going up by hundreds of thousands of people. The human and economic costs of that would have been formidable. Our stimulus has proven to have a positive effect in also supporting business confidence. I have good news for the House and I am sure those opposite would welcome today’s good news as well. The National Australia Bank’s quarterly business survey showed an increase in business confidence of 20 points. This is the highest level since early 2002. The NAB say in the survey: Not surprisingly, business judge the government’s actions as having had a positive impact on their plans—net balance plus 12, with significantly larger impacts on construction—net balance plus 28, with even larger impacts on residential infrastructure as well as retail and as well as wholesale. Investing in infrastructure is an effective way of building our nation’s long-term productive capacity. As I have said repeatedly, this government believes in building a big Australia, which means we have got to be out there building the infrastructure of tomorrow as well. As CEDA said some time ago, simply addressing the existing backlog of infrastructure investment could increase GDP by 0.8 per cent and reduce the CPI by 3.2 per cent. The BCA had some things to say about this in recent years as well. The BCA report in 2005, remember, in relation to the previous government said: There is at present no overarching stocktake, vision or strategy that enables governments to quantify, prioritise and deliver Australia’s future infrastructure needs. Also let us not forget those 20 separate warnings from the Reserve Bank about infrastructure bottlenecks and skills constraints within the Australian economy—yet those opposite refused to take action, as if we were sleepwalking towards some of these major economic problems. That is why the government have acted. We are nation building for recovery, nation building for the future, creating jobs and small businesses and apprenticeships today while building the nation-building infrastructure our country needs for tomorrow, but, critically, also setting up the country for long-term economic growth through productivity growth by investing in these capacity constraints which have historically plagued our economy—building our infrastructure and building up our skills base, becoming the great economic powerhouse of the future that Australians expect this government to lead this country towards. 11079 11079 14:53:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government. I refer him to his claim in parliament last week that the government has ‘announced, built, completed’ 32 large-scale projects since the 2007 election. I ask the minister: why did he claim stage 1 of the four-lane upgrade of the Bruce Highway through Gympie as one of those Labor projects, when the project was announced by former coalition transport minister John Anderson in 2004, was funded and built and completed under the coalition’s AusLink program and was officially opened by me on 5 October 2007, two months before the federal election? Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order, those on my left! The Leader of the National Party has asked the question. The minister has the call. 11080 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the shadow minister for his question. I am pleased to get a question on infrastructure from that side of the House, because it has been over a year since we had a single question on any infrastructure from that side of the House. I am asked about the Bruce Highway and the investment in the Bruce Highway that this government is undertaking. The important initiative that we took in the budget was Cooroy to Curra, a road described by the shadow minister as the worst road in Australia. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, on a point of order. It is on the question of relevance. In his wildest dreams— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —he cannot consider himself to being relevant. To be caught out— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. On the point of order relevance and not the debate that followed it, the minister is responding to the question. Minister. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I was asked about the Bruce Highway and I am responding about the Bruce Highway, because the fact is that this government has doubled road funding, quadrupled rail funding— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister for infrastructure will resume his seat. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —On a point of order going to relevance, Mr Speaker, the question was— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the National Party has not got the call yet. TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott interjecting— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think now the member for Dunkley and colleagues have finished. The Leader of the National Party now has the call. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Mr Speaker, the question was about the Bruce Highway through Gympie, not the road around the Traveston Crossing Dam that the minister is currently talking about. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the National Party will resume his seat. The minister for infrastructure has the call. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I was asked about infrastructure spending and I am happy to respond because it is in fact very unusual for those opposite to try and run the duplicitous argument that they. On the one hand, we are spending too much on infrastructure—there is too much debt—but, on the other hand we are not doing enough. That is the tenet of the document. Indeed, the shadow minister said at the doors this morning that nothing could take away from the fact that Labor ‘is spending $5 billion less on road and rail than the coalition government had promised before the last election.’  He said that, instead of building more, we are actually building less. That is their argument. So now they are arguing that they would spend $5 billion more than they committed on road and rail transport infrastructure at the last election. What a joke. There is no person in the House who is more pleased to hear that than the finance minister, I assure you! The fact is that what they actually committed to AusLink 2 in the last election was $22.3 billion. They committed $22.3 billion, they ran around and made promises for $31 billion, and they want to argue against our infrastructure program, saying that we are spending too much. They say the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow finance minister will wind it back, but at the same time they are arguing we should spend more. You cannot have it both ways. You have to make up your mind what projects you support and what projects you would wind back, as the Leader of the Opposition has said he would do and as the shadow finance minister has said she would do. 11081 11081 14:59:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 Mr RIPOLL —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy. How is information technology such as the internet and email assisting businesses and organisations to achieve their objectives? Are there any examples where businesses or organisations have failed to ensure the security of their e-communications, thereby undermining those objectives? 11081 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Oxley for his question. Labor is investing in the National Broadband Network to help businesses and organisations improve their productivity within their work places and, indeed, beyond. But all technology brings with it some risks. That is why in June of this year the government launched the E-security Awareness Week. Members of the House will recall that during the last week of sittings in June I outlined to the House some of the precautions that we need to take in protecting our electronic communications. But I have to report, with some regret, that in spite of that not everyone learned the lessons of E-security Awareness Week. In today’s Australian, in an article entitled ‘Dig dirt, Turnbull office urges’, it highlights the risks of electronic communications being leaked. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes—with due respect to Matthew Franklin—to know that this email instructing coalition media advisers was about digging dirt because the subject line on the email was headed ‘Digging Dirt’—nothing if not subtle, this one. This is no ordinary guide to dirt digging. The Liberal Party guide to dirt digging is no Lonely Planet-style digging-on-a-shoestring guide. This is the Encyclopaedia Britannica of dirt digging. It is a comprehensive, detailed, considered and targeted guide to digging dirt, to smearing your opponents in your own political interests. Like many on this side of the House, I shudder when I hear the three words together ‘Malcolm Turnbull’ and ‘email’. But here is what the email said: While policy discussions are nice, the simple fact is that in opposition, the majority of our successful news stories are going to be ones which are a little quirky… According to the Australian: Malcolm Turnbull’s office has been advising Coalition press secretaries to demonise special interest groups and attack public servants as fat cats. There we have it. The modern Liberal Party’s core philosophy: don’t worry about policy, just stick to dirt digging and scare campaigns. That is the core message of this approved email. That is the core message of the leadership of the Leader of the Opposition. That is the core message of the modern Liberal Party: don’t engage in the big policy debates like climate change, the economic recession response, telecommunications reform—just stick to digging dirt. But the opposition is digging itself into irrelevance because when you do not have any policies all you are left with is the dirty politics of fear and smear on every single issue, and dirty emails to spread them with. 11082 11082 15:03:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Education, and Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to her comment today in relation to the Principal Autonomy Report—commissioned by the previous government in early 2007—that has sat on her desk since December 2007 and which she now claims as her own. I quote from the report: It is important principals have the support and the flexibility they need to respond to the needs of their students. Will the minister now amend the guidelines for the Building the Education Revolution to give principals and local school communities the flexibility they want to respond to the needs of their students by building what they need and want rather than being forced to accept Julia Gillard memorial school halls that they neither need nor want. 11082 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I genuinely thank the shadow minister for this question because what it enables me to say to the House is a point that needs to be made. It is that the Liberal Party in government talked about things to do with education—it just did not get anything done. It talked about transparency but never got anything done. It talked about a national curriculum but never got anything done. It talked about improving teacher quality but never got anything done. It talked about principal autonomy but never got anything done. The Liberal policy about education is no more than this: get a cheap line, make a cheap statement, see if you can get yourself in the newspaper. If you are really desperate, claim that there is a Maoist in a curriculum board—that was always a good one. Get yourself a run in the Australian newspaper; go home and look in the mirror and say to yourself ‘job well done’. The problem for the Liberal Party about that approach to education, which is what they did for over 10 long years, is that it was all about them talking about themselves and not one bit of it—not one skerrick, not one minute of effort—was ever about the kids. That came last on their agenda: actually making a difference in Australian schools for Australian school children. We are a government that believes in getting things done, in the hard work necessary to drive the reforms in Australian schools that will make a difference for the kids. That is why transparency will be delivered at the start of next year. Transparency, so that we know what is happening in Australian schools. That is why a national curriculum is being developed and delivered. That is why we are driving reforms in teacher quality and school leadership. That is why we are already seeing the best of our teachers teaching in the disadvantaged classrooms that need them most. That is why we have got Teach for Australia to bring a new cohort of high performing graduates into teaching. That is why we have got HECS relief initiatives to bring maths and science specialists into teaching. That is why we have got a $1.5 billion partnership for disadvantaged schools. Now, it should amaze and disgust this House that when I became Minister for Education you could not get a list of disadvantaged schools in this country. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question asked whether the minister would amend the BER guidelines so that she could walk the walk rather than just talk the talk. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —It would assist if a number of people on my right just ignored comments from the member for O’Connor. That is one thing. Secondly, in approaching the point of order about relevance the Manager of Opposition Business has mentioned one aspect of his question. I think if he took the question in totality he would realise that the Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —As I said, it should amaze and disgust this House that until we came to government it was not possible to get a list of disadvantaged schools in this country. If you sat in the chair of the minister for education and said, ‘Can you get me a list? There’s 9,500 schools in the country; get me a list of the 2,000 most disadvantaged ones,’ it could not be done. And why? Because no-one who had ever sat in that chair as a Liberal minister for education had ever cared enough about disadvantage to ask. It was all about themselves. Not one minute of their time was ever spent driving a reform that would make a difference for Australian children. We know exactly what this Liberal Party is about courtesy of the e-mail from the Liberal leader’s office. We know that this opposition is not about policy; it is about dirt-digging. The one thing we should actually remember, though, is that when they were in government, they were not about education policy; they were about inaction. They were about carrying on in public but not one thing that made a profound difference to the quality of school education got done. We will continue to drive the education revolution because we are about making a difference for Australian kids. And as part of that education revolution we will deliver the biggest school modernisation program in the nation’s history. Over there, looking for their dirt, mired in filth, they can keep carrying on but parents and teachers around the country know that reforms that make a difference for Australian children are being implemented. They know that the biggest school modernisation program in this nation’s history is making a difference for Australian kids. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I look forward to getting a question on education when the shadow minister, who bellows and yaps, has finally bothered to write a policy. 11083 11083 15:10:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Mr Speaker, my question is to— HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I noticed that the member for Fadden was not here earlier on this week. HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —Did you miss me, Mr Speaker? 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No, not really. I would suggest to the member for Fadden that if he is going to talk to himself—because he was not having much impact—that he do it sotto voce in the future. He is warned. HVZ Thomson, Craig, MP Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Mr Speaker, my question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. What is the Australian government doing to acknowledge the experience of children who suffered in the past in institutions and out-of-home care? 11083 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Dobell for his question. On 16 November, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition will offer a national apology to more than half a million forgotten Australians and former child migrants—those more than half a million people who grew up without their families: their mothers and fathers, brothers and sisters. More than 500,000 children were deprived of their childhood for many reasons. Whether it was through child migration, the death of a parent, poverty or illness, these were events beyond their control and for so many there was no safety net to catch them. It meant that little children, even babies, were left alone to fend for themselves in institutions and in foster homes. For the most part, these were cold, loveless, authoritarian places, with no time at all for the exuberance and innocence of childhood; no time for the love or laughter and warmth of family life; no time to play, to eat healthy food or to get a decent education. Instead of school, for many of them of course there was menial, hard work, so that when they were released into the outside world, many of them could neither read nor write. Many of these children were subjected to emotional, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of those who had responsibility to care for them. Today, many of them continue to struggle as a result of their experiences, grappling with mental illness, homelessness, substance abuse, and educational and family relationship difficulties. On 16 November, together as a nation we will acknowledge their experiences and together apologise for their loss—the loss of identity, family, and, in the case of former child migrants, the loss of country. These are the children who grew up in children’s homes, orphanages and other forms of out-of-home care between the 1920s and the late 1970s. They have become known as the forgotten Australians, and they also include the 7,000 people who arrived in Australia as children from the United Kingdom and Malta under historical migration schemes and who were also subsequently placed in homes and orphanages. We have had three unanimous Senate inquiries calling for an apology and I am very pleased at the way we have been able to work across the parliament to develop the proposals for the apology. I would particularly like to thank the members for Corio, Blaxland and Swan, as well as all the senators who have been involved in those inquiries over many years. I would like to acknowledge the very significant work done by former Democrat Senator Andrew Murray, who is heading the advisory committee alongside the interest groups. I would like to mention and thank the individuals involved: Ian Thwaites, from the Child Migrants Trust; Harold Haig, from the International Association of Former Child Migrants and Their Families; Caroline Carroll, from the Alliance for Forgotten Australians; and Leonie Sheedy, from the Care Leavers of Australia Network. All of these people—members, senators and these representatives—have been extremely helpful in making sure that we get this apology right. The apology will be delivered on behalf of all Australians at a special remembrance event in the Members Hall in Parliament House. It will then be tabled in the House of Representatives and the Senate to enable all of us to contribute to the debate. It will make sure we put what has been a largely invisible period of our history on the record. It will acknowledge that what happened to these children was real and it was wrong. It will demonstrate our shared resolve to make sure that this never happens again. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 11084 15:15:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —On indulgence: on behalf of the Liberal-National Party coalition, I would like to associate us with the comments made by the minister. This will be an acknowledgement for a lot of Australians—500,000, as the minister mentioned. I know that the Leader of the Opposition is looking forward to delivering the apology on behalf of the coalition on 16 November. I was in an institution at an early age but was fortunate enough to move into a foster care situation, which was a positive outcome. Members of my family and many Australians suffered in institutions and as wards of state in abusive and uncaring situations. The members of CLAN, the forgotten Australian and UK migrants, and the other associations who represent those people are looking forward to this apology. It needs to be taken by all the members of this place and the other place and fed out to their electorates so that we make this apology as important and significant as we can. It is vital to these people. They are not looking to further or enhance their situation; they are just looking for acknowledgement that they suffered. They did suffer. They were put into institutions where they would have expected—as all Australians would have expected—that they would be nurtured and cared for, which they were not. So, on behalf of the coalition, I associate our side of the House with the minister’s comments. Excuse me for getting a bit emotional, but it is an important apology to these people. I thank you for the opportunity to acknowledge that. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I thank the House for the reaction given to the question by the member for Dobell, the answer by the minister and the speech on indulgence by the member for Swan in supporting this step in national leadership on this important matter. 11085 11085 15:18:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr DUTTON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the Treasury secretary’s concerns over Australia’s revised population increase. Minister, how many additional public hospital beds will be required to cope with a population increase of over 12 million people, as publicly supported by the Prime Minister? Will the federal government build those beds? 11085 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Dickson for his question. Firstly, he is right to point to a recent statement by the Secretary of the Treasury concerning robust population projections for Australia’s future. Our population is now about 22 million. The Treasury secretary projects a rise to 35 million, approximately, by mid-century. That is a very significant increase. Therefore, the impact on all categories of infrastructure will be great. That is in part why the government has been determined to engage in a debate about the future provision of infrastructure nationally, not to simply to pass the buck to the states on all categories of infrastructure. I will come to the question of hospitals in a minute. The infrastructure minister referred earlier to the contribution which the Commonwealth is making in relation to roads. Can I also refer to the investments we are now making in urban transport and urban rail. We are also making investments—for the first time, significantly—in the port infrastructure of the country. But beyond those categories of infrastructure there are of course the emerging needs for social infrastructure. One such area is education and making sure that we have the proper classrooms to accommodate our kids for the future, given this population growth, and that they are appropriately modernised. To go directly to the point which was raised by the honourable member: hospital infrastructure is an emerging need as well. He is right to point out the need in terms of population increase. Something he did not mention but I am sure he would readily concede is that the ageing of the population means there is going to be a huge burden on the hospital infrastructure of Australia. As part of the consultations that I am currently in with the minister for health, I visited the electorate of the member for Lyne and Port Macquarie Base Hospital. That was one clear case study of the sort of trend which the honourable member for Dickson points to—namely, hospitals are built with a given population assumption in mind and then there is a rapid increase in population. In this case it is an aged population, as people retire from Sydney to Port Macquarie and that region. Consequently, the issue is the sheer physicality of the infrastructure which is therefore needed to provide health services to that community. There is a gap already between design on the one hand, and the population and demographic assumptions behind that, and then, barely 15 years later—if I recall correctly—the current population pressures in the member for Lyne’s part of New South Wales. They are plainly misaligned. The honourable member for Dickson then went to the question of how we manage this for the long-term future. That is why we are currently engaged in an extensive national consultation on the three strategic options which were put out there in the Bennett health reform commission report. The first concerns a partial takeover of funding responsibility for the nation’s health system. The second is to take over in a staged way full funding responsibility for the health and hospital system. The third option is for that to be done simultaneously—a recommendation which is not embraced by the health reform commission itself. What we intend to do is complete our round of consultations on this. The Minister for Health and Ageing and I, so far, together have visited some 65 hospital and health communities around the country. Personally, I have visited some 15. The minister, together with the minister responsible for rural health and Indigenous health as well as the relevant parliamentary secretaries, has been attending these consultations, as have many government backbenchers. For the information of the House, we spent several hours discussing this in the caucus room today, as each of the caucus members reflected on the contributions from their individual areas and their consultations with GPs and with local hospitals—right across the country—and their responses particularly to the road-testing of the recommendations contained in the report. This is a major area of long-term social infrastructure need; therefore, the options are there contained in the report. The government’s process is to road-test those options with those who actually deliver these services in regional areas, as we undertook in the Port Macquarie consultation that I referred to before, and we will then take proposals for the future to the states and territories on what options the government will then embrace. This is a major pressure on the country for the future, as is water infrastructure, as is school infrastructure and as is the proper planning of our cities. This government intends to be comprehensively in the business of nation building rather than abandoning the field, as our predecessors did for a decade. 11086 11086 15:23:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport. What action is the government taking to promote positive body image amongst young Australians? 11086 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms KATE ELLIS —I thank the member for Kingston for her question. I know that, with her background in psychology, this is an issue she is particularly concerned about. I would also like to acknowledge the member for Chisholm who has worked for many years to bring to the attention of this House the need for us to act on this important issue of negative body image. Contrary to the views of some, we know that negative body image is not just some teenage fad which will pass by. It is something to take seriously. It is a serious issue affecting the health, the confidence and the productivity of thousands of Australians—in particular, young Australians—and it is an issue which this government intends to act upon. It is critical for us as a House to recognise that in an age of increased media, advertising, digital technology and plastic surgery, as the Prime Minister said earlier today, the pressures which may have existed for a long time have been turbocharged, and it is in the best interests of all of us to work in partnership to build the self-esteem, confidence and resilience of our young people. It is interesting to note that body image was the highest ranked concern amongst young people in Mission Australia’s national survey of young Australians in 2007. At least 20 per cent of women who are underweight still believe they are overweight and are currently dieting. Between 70 and 76 per cent of Australian high school girls consistently chose an ideal figure which was considerably thinner than their own. It is not just for women—and young women—but increasingly we are seeing men come forward with the concerns of body image. The truth is there is no one simple solution, but that does not mean that this is an issue that governments can continue to ignore. The Victorian government took the first steps to walk towards a code of conduct, and I commend them for their work, but we know that the time has come for a national approach, which is why in March of this year this government appointed a national advisory group on body image to develop a national media and industry code of conduct. Today I was pleased to receive the report of this group, which includes the industry code of conduct on body image as well as national strategies to promote positive body image amongst young Australians. The code sets a standard of best practice for the industry using models of a healthy weight and of diverse weights, using realistic and natural images of people and disclosing when images have been digitally manipulated. There is a growing momentum from consumers, from the general public and from parents alike that enough is enough. We want to see more realistic images in our advertising—real images of diverse women—to sell products to diverse women. It is interesting to note that tomorrow the Women’s Weekly will release for the first time an Australian magazine which will feature a cover and an article of a completely ‘untouched’ woman. It is Sarah Murdoch—no doubt she still scrubs up remarkably well—but this is a step that shows that the media is starting to recognise that the Australian public want real images and they want diverse images. It also shows that realistic images not only are healthy but can be beautiful and economically smart too. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the members of the body image advisory group, particularly the chair, Ms Mia Freedman, the former editor of Cosmopolitan magazine, for the hard work they have put in and for the suggestions they have put to government, which we will now be considering and reporting back on early in the new year. I assure them, as well as this House and the Australian general public, that we will tackle this issue and finally give it the attention it deserves so that we can have strong, confident and resilient young Australians for the next generation. 11087 11087 15:28:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 Mr IRONS —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. Given that the minister’s department identified the need for 1,208 new residential aged-care beds in Western Australia in the 2008-09 aged-care approvals round but delivered only 519 new beds, a shortfall of 689, and that in the first 15 months of the government’s term over 280 Western Australian bed licences were handed back to the department, can the minister advise the House where future aged and frail Western Australians in the southern suburbs of Perth will be accommodated in aged care? And how does the minister propose to make bed licences attractive to Western Australian providers? 11088 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for his question. I outlined to the House yesterday some of the investment we have made when it comes to aged care in Western Australia. I will run through that again shortly, but can I again confirm that the situation we inherited was over a decade of neglect from the previous government, particularly when it comes to health, hospitals and aged care as well. Since coming into government, as I pointed out yesterday, we have seen record funding. Indeed, over the next four years, our funding for aged and community care will reach $44 billion. SJ4 Tuckey, Wilson, MP Mr Tuckey —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I refer you to House of Representatives Practice, 5th edition, page 48, where it refers to the 1976 report of the Royal Commission on Australian Government Administration, which stated: It is through ministers that the whole of the administration—departments, statutory bodies and agencies of one kind and another—is responsible to the Parliament … I draw your attention to the fact that this is a question about supplying assistance and facilities to aged people with dementia. It is wrong for the minister to raise issues either of the past or, more particularly, to read a diatribe of expenditure that is not materialised. Give the old people a go! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for O’Connor will resume his place. The question was in order. The minister is responding to the question. It would assist if the chamber listened to the answer. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I was referring to the neglect of the previous government when it comes to aged care—over a decade of neglect. I note that the member for Sturt seems to be interjecting quite a lot. Perhaps we can recall the time when he was the Minister for Ageing. I think his only contribution was when he said he didn’t like old people. That was the sole contribution he made. Let us get back to Western Australia. As I said, this government has invested record amounts in aged and community facilities— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt! The minister has the call. I was just trying to get the member for Sturt to remain quiet. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Since the election of the Rudd government, operational residential aged-care beds in Western Australia have increased by nearly 90 beds and community care places by more than 820. Indeed, the latest aged-care approvals round saw a total of 1,544 new aged-care places for Western Australia. It consisted of 519 residential aged-care places, as I pointed out yesterday—414 were high care and 105 low care; and 1,025 community care places worth over $50 million in annual recurrent funding. This brings the total of operational aged-care places in Western Australia to more than 19,900, which is quite a considerable number. The member asked me generally about the aged-care approvals round and the action that this government was taking in terms of future provisions. I would like to remind the House that back in June I announced the results of the aged-care approvals round. Across the nation more than 10,000 new aged-care places were made available. That included another successful aged-care— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister was not asked about the national aged-care round; she was specifically asked about southern Perth. She was asked about the southern metropolitan area in Perth. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will respond to the question. The chamber will sit in silence so I can get an opportunity to listen to her. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Thank you, Mr Speaker. We seem to be having interjections from a whole series of former ministers for ageing from the coalition, all of whom contributed to that neglect and did nothing in the time that they were there. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The minister will ignore the interjectors. The interjectors will cease. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —As I was saying, when we look at the aged-care approvals round, there were more than 10,000 places right across the country, which included more than 5,700 new residential aged-care places and over 4,699 community care places. The allocation was a mix of residential and community care places. We understand that people want to remain in their communities for as long as possible. When that aged-care approvals round was announced it was very pleasing to see some of the support from many members of the House. I would like to share that with members today. We have a variety of different comments that members made. The member for Hinkler said he was ‘very pleased to see all of these allocations come in’. He said: Each of these places means more people will get the care they need, when and where they need it. We also had the member for Gippsland, when the ACAR came out— HYM Irons, Steve, MP Mr Irons —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a point of relevance, I would ask that you bring the minister back to the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! On the point of order of relevance, the minister knows her obligation to respond to the question. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Thank you, Mr Speaker, I was merely quoting some from the coalition who were very supportive of our ACAR. One more, the member for McMillan, was very pleased about that, saying that it would ‘guarantee long-term availability of appropriate care for the aged in an area of demonstrated need’. It was great to have that support from the coalition when it came to our latest aged-care approvals round. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —On a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will resume his seat. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —On a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will resume his seat! The minister has the call. The minister will commence to conclude her answer. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —As I was saying, I commend those coalition members who made very positive contributions to the aged-care approvals round. I conclude by repeating what I said yesterday about this government’s National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission agenda. What we have been doing, as the Prime Minister referred to earlier, is consultations around the country about our future health, hospital and aged-care systems. Because all these areas were neglected by the previous government and we acknowledge there is a huge amount of work to be done, we have been engaging with front-line health professionals in relation to all these important issues. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The minister will conclude her answer. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, I raise a point of order. My electorate is in the Perth south area and I would like the question answered so that the minister can be relevant— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will resume his seat. On the point of order of relevance, the minister will respond to the question and conclude her answer. DZW Elliot, Justine, MP Mrs ELLIOT —Of course, all this is in contrast to the absolute lack of policies from the coalition in relation to health and aged care—no policies at all. 11090 11090 15:38:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Will the minister update the House on the outcome of the recent meeting of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna? 11090 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Fremantle for the question. There has been bipartisan support for some time for the work of the Commission for the Conservation of Southern Bluefin Tuna. The meetings which concluded over the weekend had to deal with some very difficult scientific information and have resulted in some outcomes which are going to create some genuine challenges, in particular for the community of Port Lincoln. It is a very high-value fishery—in the order of $187 million—and we need to remember that, of that value, 99 per cent goes back in exports to Japan. The scientific information that confronted the commission at these meetings was that fish stocks have now got down to somewhere in the order of between three and eight per cent of their original unfished levels. There have been from time to time calls for unilateral action, and some people have argued that Australia should unilaterally either radically cut or completely stop and close the fishery. Given the migratory nature of southern bluefin tuna, this does not necessarily do anything for the species and simply creates a serious situation for our own industry without delivering any actual improvement. That is why there has always been the need for an international response, and I am pleased to say that on this occasion the commission was able to look at reductions in catch across all the members of the commission. This is the first time in some time that we have had that. There was good work done, which I think is important for the government to acknowledge, in 2006 by the then minister in addressing overcatch and making sure that henceforth there was much better compliance as well as a significant reduction at the time in the Japanese catch. What has happened to the reductions rate this time is that there has been a 25 per cent cut over the next two years. The 25 per cent cut applies to Australia and Japan and to other members of the fishery. There have been some reports which mistakenly have claimed that Japan did not take the full 25 per cent cut. Those claims are based on the fact that there was a subsequent agreement between New Zealand and Japan for a small transferring quota, which is why there is ultimately a different figure there in percentage terms. But the actual cut, aside from the agreement that was reached between New Zealand and Japan, finds Japan and Australia, as well as New Zealand, Korea and Taiwan—far and away the major players in the fishery—all taking 75 per cent of the previous rate, making a 25 per cent reduction over the next two years. This creates real challenges for the Port Lincoln community. Because the reduction is being done over the next two years, industry is now working through how much of the reduction it will take this year and how much it will take next year. We are working with industry on that issue, and the challenges for employment of people employed in that fishery will be able to be dealt with the full suite of government services once we have worked out the order in which industry will address these reductions. It is a difficult decision but one taken at a time when every alternative was worse. I am pleased that we are currently organising for the shadow minister to be able to receive a full briefing on the outcomes of the commission, but these decisions had to be taken and had to be taken internationally, when we had a major high-value fishery facing an alternative of potential total collapse. 11091 11091 15:42:00 Somlyay, Alex, MP ZT4 Fairfax LP 0 Mr SOMLYAY —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the thousands of chaplains who will start their final month of employment next week, following the government’s decision to cut the successful National School Chaplaincy Program, supported by over 95 per cent of the participating principals in Australia. Will the Prime Minister step in, reverse this decision and ensure that the School Chaplaincy Program continues? 11091 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Fairfax for his question. Let me make a first point about chaplaincies in general, including those which are funded under this program. As you know, many have existed prior to this program coming into operation and, in fact, in the state of Queensland go back to a time when I used to work in the Queensland government, back in the early nineties. They actually do a fantastic job— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Let me come to the question about the future of this program. They do a fantastic job and, in many school communities where there is the unavailability of social workers or other forms of social support mechanisms, they actually are providing the glue which keeps school communities rolling. That is my experience of them. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Then don’t abolish it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I say to those opposite, before they interject in too partisan a fashion: chaplains existed in schools prior to them introducing this program. It might be a historically difficult fact for those opposite to grasp, but it is not exclusively an innovation of the previous government—far from it. Second, as far as the existing program is concerned, I am advised by the education minister that it runs also into next year. We are currently in the process of reviewing the program. I believe they are doing a fantastic job, and we will wait till we conclude the proper review processes concerning the future. 11091 11091 15:44:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. What steps is the government taking on preventive health? Are there any impediments to this reform agenda? 11091 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Deakin for his question. He has always taken a keen interest in health issues and particularly the health reform agenda that the government is undertaking. The Rudd government has been committed, from its first days in office, to tackling Australia’s chronic disease epidemic. It is why we have put so much effort and attention from our early days into our preventative health agenda, and it is why we are attempting to establish Australia’s first National Preventive Health Agency. Just five days ago we had Liberal Party support to do just that; of course, why wouldn’t we—this is a good initiative. I think nearly 20 members of this House spoke in support of the bill, in support of establishing the National Preventive Health Agency. It is all good news about investing more time, energy and focus on keeping people well for longer and out of hospital. In fact, the member for Dickson in this House said: The objective of preventative health measures to alleviate pressures on the public hospital system is rightly supported by both sides of politics. However, only five days later we see that the member for Dickson might support this measure in the House but the real health spokesperson, a senator from Western Australia, has now opposed it and directed the Liberal Party in the Senate to oppose this measure. Interestingly, in this House we heard rumours that the Liberal Party might be opposing this measure in the Senate. My office contacted the shadow minister’s office, or the nominal shadow minister’s office, to inquire about the Liberal Party’s plans to amend the legislation. We were told that they did not know anything about it. When we had a copy of the motion that had been distributed in the Senate we again called the member for Dickson’s office. His office still did not have any of the terms of the motion and did not know anything about it. It defies logic that after this was recommended by the 2020 conference, by the Health and Hospitals Reform Commission’s interim and final reports, by the Prevention Taskforce’s interim and final reports, when it was agreed to by COAG, by the Prime Minister, by all the premiers, including the Western Australian Liberal premier, that it was voted for in this House by the Liberal Party, in fact it was moved as a non-controversial bill to the Main Committee because there was so much agreement across the parliament that this was a good initiative. So what is actually going on? What has caused this sudden about-face? I have to confess that I smell a rat. That rat is not Senator Cormann sniffing around for Mr Dutton’s job; that rat, I suspect, is the alcohol industry and the tobacco industry calling in their favours yet again. They are concerned about this: tobacco donations still being received by the Liberal Party, the distillers having written the alcopops policy for the Liberal Party for 12 months. Senator Cormann in the other place asked questions just before question time. His specific queries about this bill were, No.1, will the government make tobacco products more expensive; No. 2, will the government change alcohol taxation; and, No. 3, will the government impose restrictions on advertising for alcohol? These are legitimate questions in a reform debate. However, they are questions for the government; they are not questions for this agency. They will not be the remit of this agency; they are not good reasons for an opposition to suddenly decide to oppose important infrastructure to support preventative health measures across this country. It is time for the Leader of the Opposition and the actual, at least current, health spokesperson to stick with the position they had only five days ago and to command the respect that they should have from the Senate for this measure, and ask that their Liberal colleagues in the Senate pass this bill. It is all good news and it is an important reform. Until today we had absolutely no inkling that the Liberal Party would oppose such a sensible measure. It is about time Senator Cormann got called to account and the tobacco companies stopped writing your policies. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 11092 Personal Explanations 11092 15:49:00 Ruddock, Philip, MP 0J4 Berowra LP 0 0 Mr RUDDOCK —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —Yes, very much. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 0J4 Ruddock, Philip, MP Mr RUDDOCK —During question time the Prime Minister suggested that during my tenure as minister for immigration Australia did not work with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and by implication did not honour its international obligations to refugees. Never while I was minister did Australia refoule a person found to be a refugee and, further, Australia at that time funded and worked very closely with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees as evidenced by the fact that the testing of the claims by those people found on the Tampa were undertaken by the UNHCR. 11093 Questions to the Speaker 11093 11093 15:50:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr ROBERT —Mr Speaker, I refer to question No. 854 on the Notice Paper, a question from me to the Treasurer. It has been 77 days since the question was submitted. I ask that you write to the Treasurer and ask him to expedite a response. 11093 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —If question No. 854 has not been responded to I will do as I am required under the standing orders. 11093 Personal Explanations 11093 15:51:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —Mr Speaker, I seek to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member claim to have been misrepresented? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Today in question time the Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party asked a question of the Prime Minister in which she selectively quoted my comments from Lateline last night. I went on to say: No, Tony, we are not. We are engaged in a policy process which is trying to work through what is an extremely difficult and complex issue. I also said: Tony, these people, these people have come to Indonesia. They haven’t come to Indonesia via Australia. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: as the Leader of the House well knows,  he needs to simply show where he has been misrepresented and not try to debate the issue. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —That is correct. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —And, quite frankly, he has not so far shown that he has been misrepresented at all. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Sturt will resume his seat. The Leader of the House knows his responsibilities. The Leader of the House is giving his personal explanation. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Thank you, Mr Speaker. I said: So, in terms of the policy, I don’t think would be advanced, as you would be very clear, clearly aware, if Australia was to lecture our neighbours about the way that they conduct their policy. What we can do is engage in diplomacy in an appropriate fashion, which is not to lecture on Lateline. 11093 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:52:00 —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: Australian Rail Track Corporation Limited—Statement of corporate intent for 2009-10 Australian Reward Investment Alliance—Commonwealth Superannuation Scheme, Public Sector Superannuation Scheme and Public Sector Superannuation Accumulation Plan—Report for 2008-09. Australian Security Intelligence Organisation—Report for 2008-09. Australian War Memorial—Report for 2008-09. Commissioner for Superannuation—Report for 2008-09. Commonwealth Grants Commission—Report for 2008-09. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Report for 2008-09. National Offshore Petroleum Safety Authority—Report for 2008-09. Office of the Official Secretary to the Governor-General—Report for 2008-09. Renewable Energy Regulator—Financial Report for 2008-09. Debate (on motion by Mr Pyne) adjourned. 11094 Business 11094 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:53:00 —by leave—I move: That, unless otherwise ordered, the time and order of business for the sittings on Wednesday, 28 October 2009 and Thursday, 29 October 2009 be as follows: standing orders 31 and 33 be suspended; so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following arrangements applying on Wednesday, 28 October 2009, unless otherwise ordered: subject to (c) and (d), the House adjourn at 11.00 p.m. Government business have priority from 7.30 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. during the period from 7.30 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister, shall stand deferred until 9 a.m.on Thursday, 29 October 2009 when the Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate; and during the period from 7.30 p.m. until 11.00 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at 9 a.m. on Thursday 29 October 2009; and so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent the following arrangements applying on Thursday 29 October 2009, unless otherwise ordered: subject to (c) and (d), the House adjourn at 8.00 p.m. Government business have priority from 4.30 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. during the period from 4.30 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. any division on a question called for in the House, other than on a motion moved by a Minister, shall stand deferred until 12 noon on Monday 16 November 2009 when the Speaker shall put all questions on which a division has been deferred, successively and without amendment or further debate; and during the period from 4.30 p.m. until 8.00 p.m. if any member draws the attention of the Speaker to the state of the House, the Speaker shall announce that he will count the House at 12 noon on Monday 16 November 2009. I thank the Manager of Opposition Business for his cooperation on this. This is all about maximising the number of people who can participate in the CPRS debate. Question agreed to. 11094 Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 15:55:00 —I move: That consideration of government business notice No. 1 be postponed until the next sitting. Question agreed to. 11094 Matters of Public Importance 11094 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for Wide Bay, the Leader of the Nationals, proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The consequences of the Government’s failure to invest in productive economic infrastructure for the long term benefit of Australians and the national economy. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— 11095 15:56:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —In true Labor style, the government believe that the process of governing is just about spin, announcements and taking credit for whatever good things might be happening in the country. They give themselves credit or they give credit to their economic stimulus package for almost anything that has been constructed or built in this country over recent months or years. But when the Coordinator-General released his first progress report on Labor’s nation-building and economic stimulus package he showed how seriously flawed Labor’s rhetoric actually is on what they are achieving by way of infrastructure. Of over 33,000 approved projects, only 370 have been completed—only one per cent. When you look at some of the major projects about which the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government—the captain of spin—likes to boast, you see that only four out of the 14 major road projects that have been announced have even commenced. Ten out of 17 major rail projects have commenced, and the credit for that belongs to the ARTC, a body set up by the previous government to manage the rail track infrastructure. There are 607 black spot projects announced, but only 88 have been commenced and only five completed—five out of 607. Thirty-seven of the 292 boom gate projects have been completed, and most states have not completed a single one. And this is the stimulus package that we are told is rescuing Australia from the global recession. Only one per cent of projects have even been completed. With Labor, it is all spin. It is about pretending that they are achieving things, they are doing things, when it is all empty talk. We had another example this morning of this government being caught out trying to revel in the majesty of everything else that is good in Australia. At question time last week the minister for infrastructure said: We have completed 32 large-scale infrastructure projects within our first two years in office—32 projects announced, built, completed. That was the minister’s boast, that the government had completed 32 infrastructure projects. This morning the Labor government was caught out. When the minister was asked to provide a list of these 32 projects, he could provide only 29 and some of those are a bit indecisive. Of those 29 that he has listed, at least 22 of them are not projects that were announced, built and completed by the Labor government at all. At least 75 per cent of them were not announced, built and completed by the Labor government. In reality, very few of the projects were announced by Labor at all, very few of them were funded by Labor, very few of them were built by Labor and quite a number of them had actually been completed before Labor even came to government, before they were even elected; yet we have the minister including on his list of achievements projects that were completed before he even came to office. I drew attention to one in question time today—stage 1 of the four-lane road upgrade through Gympie. This was a project that was not announced by Minister Albanese; it was announced by the then Minister for Transport and Regional Services, John Anderson, in 2004. It was funded under AusLink 1 by the previous government and the official opening on 5 October 2007, which I had the honour to perform, was almost two months before the election. In fact, I have brought along a picture of the official opening and I cannot see Mr Albanese there anywhere. The mayor is there. The contractor is there. The engineers are there. You can see in the back of the picture that the road is already completed. There are cars driving on it and it is all landscaped. This was two months before Labor came to office, yet this is a project they are taking credit for. I have brought in another picture of me as a local member announcing stage 2 of the project. That also happened before Labor were even elected. So before the minister starts to claim credit for stage 2 of the project I would remind him that he did not announce that either. That is not the end of these projects that he claimed to be Labor’s projects but which he did not announce and in many cases he did not build or complete. Let us go through a few of them, such as the Pacific Highway upgrade between Karuah to Bulahdelah. Section 1 of this particular road was completed in December 2006. The project received initial funding of $131 million for sections 2 and 3 in the 2006 budget. So the previous government not only announced this project but did the design and provided the funding. Yet this is top of the list of projects that the minister is claiming as Labor’s achievement. Let us move to the Hunter Valley and the Maitland to Branxton rail project. This project was announced, designed and funded by the previous government. Indeed, work started on that project only a couple of days after the election before the minister was in his plush chair, yet he is claiming that this is a project that helped Labor save the nation’s economy through their stimulus package. The Coolac bypass is another one featured on his list. This is a project north of Gundagai that was also announced, designed and funded by the previous government. The tender for this project was awarded to Abbey Group in February 2007. The contract was let 10 months before the election, yet Labor are asking us to believe that this was one of their triumphal projects that helped save the national economy. I move now to the Hume Highway safety works. Both sides of politics committed to the duplication of the Hume Highway. We actually provided $800 million for this in our 2005 budget, yet it is one of the projects the minister puts on his list as part of Labor’s achievements in government. Let us move to the Sheahan Bridge, a single-lane bridge at Gundagai which has been duplicated. Construction of this duplication project commenced before the election in October 2007. It was announced, designed and funded by the previous government, yet Labor are claiming it on their list of achievements. Moving on to the Trewilga realignment project, this is actually only a design project. The minister included this on his list of big picture construction projects. This is on his list of the 29 projects out of the 32 that he was referring to in question time last week, but it is actually only a design and planning project of $1 million. The $1 million was actually flagged in AusLink 1 and the funding was provided in the 2006 budget by the previous government. Yet this is one of Labor’s great achievements. There was a package or works on the Newell, Sturt and New England highways. Again, funding for this was provided in the 2006 budget by the previous government. The Donnybrook Road grade separation was announced, designed and funded by the previous government. The funding allocation was in the 2007 budget. I move to the Goulburn Valley Highway and the Arcadia section project, which was a $30 million contract to construct the duplication of the Goulburn Highway. The contract for this project was awarded on 18 May 2006. That was a year and a half before the election, yet this is one of Labor’s great triumphs, one of the things that it has done in its infrastructure package. The Deer Park bypass on the Western Highway was a 9.3 kilometre project announced, designed and funded by the previous government. The first contract for the project was signed on 19 July 2006 and the project commenced. The second two contracts were signed in early 2007. Labor had no role in devising and dreaming up this project. The contract was signed by the previous government and it was designed, funded and delivered by the previous government. Moving on to the Calder Highway, there are two projects—Kyneton to Faraday and Faraday to Ravenswood. Again, these are more coalition projects. Construction started on the Kyneton to Faraday section in November 2005. That was two years before the election and Labor is taking credit for the project. The construction started on the highway between Faraday and Ravenswood in October 2006, yet Labor is claiming credit for it. Some of these projects were actually completed before Labor’s stimulus package was ever even invented. In fact, Labor was still telling us that the inflation genie was out of the bottle; we could not spend money. These projects were completed during that era and now Labor is claiming them as a part of its response to the stimulus package. And the list goes on. There is the Geelong bypass. All three stages of the Geelong bypass were announced and funded by, and construction commenced under, the previous government. The first stage commenced on 17 February 2006. Stage 2 commenced on 27 September 2006, and stage 3 on 14 September 2007. All three projects were designed, funded and announced by the previous government. Yet the minister says that he announced these projects. He built them. He completed them. The answer was simply dishonest. Let us move on to the Dynon intermodal precinct, the grade separation in Melbourne, of Footscray Road. I remember this project very well because I had turned the first sod in June 2006. Yet Labor claims that it is its project. I was there with the Victorian minister and together we turned the first sod. But this minister claims it as his own project. Let us move quickly on to a couple of the other projects. I have already mentioned the Gympie four-laning. Let us move further north into Townsville in Queensland and the Townsville ring road, extended from Shaw Road to Dalrymple Road to Hervey Range Road. It opened in 2005 and yet it is on the minister’s list of his achievements. It was opened two years before the election and yet he is taking credit for it. Then there is the Douglas arterial, the precursor to the Townsville ring road. This project commenced in September 2005 and was finished in April 2009—but the work commenced in 2005 and this minister thinks that it is his project. What about the Great Eastern Highway in Western Australia? This project involved the realignment of 1.5 kilometres of the Great Eastern Highway and was another project that the coalition had designed, announced and funded. Indeed, construction commenced in January 2007, a year before the election, and finished only days after the election. Yet Labor thinks that this was one of its great achievements. There is the Great Northern Highway from Leonard Street to Muchea—another coalition project that Labor has taken credit for. There were three stages. The first stage was completed in June 2005, the second stage in July 2006, and construction began on the final stage in November 2006. It was a year before the election and Labor claims it as its project. What about going to South Australia? There is the Sturt Highway, a five-year program which commenced in 2005, and Labor claim credit as though that was one of their brilliant ideas. In Tasmania, on the Bass Highway, there is the duplication, stage 2. A $42 million project, the first tender to construct the second bridge over the Leven River, was awarded in July 2006, and the second contract for the roadworks, awarded in August 2006. Labor takes the credit for that project as well. This is the list of 29 projects that the minister announced as Labor’s great achievements in road building. The reality is that Labor has always been about spin and no substance. This time the minister has been caught out. The projects he is taking the credit for were not his. They were not announced by Labor. They were not built by Labor, and very few of them were completed during Labor’s time. This government cannot run away from the fact that it has actually cut expenditure on road and rail and will spend $5 billion less on road and rail infrastructure over the next five years than the coalition had committed before the last election. That is a clear fact. Labor talk about being the big spenders on infrastructure but in reality they are spending less than the previous government. They cannot boast about their achievements. They have been caught out, dishonestly claiming credit for projects in which they have had no role whatsoever. (Time expired) 11098 16:11:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I am pleased to get, finally, a matter of public importance on infrastructure. Today I had the first question I have been asked all year on infrastructure from the shadow minister for transport—quite extraordinary. Day after day we see infrastructure at the heart of the agenda of the response of the government to the global financial crisis and yet nothing has been said by those opposite. They talk about what we have done during our first years in office. I will tell you what the previous government did when it came into office. They slashed $2 billion from the federal roads budget over their first eight years in office. They refused to invest in any ports. Indeed, Peter Costello, the former Treasurer, was on the record as saying that investment in ports was purely the responsibility of the states. They ruled out federal involvement in urban public transport despite the escalating cost of urban congestion. They left Australia ranked 27th out of 30 on average download speed for broadband. Under the previous government Australia ranked 20th out of 25 OECD countries when it came to investing in public infrastructure as a proportion of GDP. Over their period in office public investment as a share of national income fell by close to 20 per cent, and this occurred in spite of the record revenues coming in from the once-in-a-generation mining boom. Those opposite say, ‘It’s all about debt.’ They are going back to their two-pronged strategy. On the one hand they want to argue that they would have invested more in infrastructure. On the other hand, of course, they are calling for cutbacks. Indeed the shadow minister said at the doors this morning—and repeated here again today—that Labor is spending $5 billion less on road and rail than the previous coalition government would have. The fact is that the press release issued by Mark Vaile and Jim Lloyd on 8 May 2007 indicated that their commitment for AusLink 2 from 2009-10 to 2013-14 was $22.3 billion. The statement of the Leader of the National Party exposes the extraordinary inconsistency in the opposition’s economic argument. There is only one side of politics that is arguing to cut back spending on infrastructure. When asked by the Adelaide Advertiser on 20 May whether he would maintain the current levels of infrastructure spending, the Leader of the Opposition said: … everything will have to be reviewed. There’s no question about that. Helen Coonan, the shadow finance minister told the ABC on 7 October: … the Government should start by looking at the $8.5 billion earmarked in this year’s Budget for a series of road, rail and ports projects. She said: It’s a very good opportunity for the Government to take a very good look at whether this final part of the stimulus package is really necessary That was the statement. Let us have a look at what the 15 projects are. Construction of the Hunter Expressway in New South Wales is expected to commence in 2010 with a total federal investment of almost $1½ billion. There is the Bruce Highway Cooroy to Curra section B duplication—I have turned the first sod on that project—in the shadow minister’s electorate. They could not do anything about it for 12 years but we have got on with the job of doing something about it and are investing $488 million in the project. The Queensland government are contributing $125 million to the project. Perhaps that would not go ahead if the opposition were to win the next election. There is the Kempsey bypass on the Pacific Highway in New South Wales. I have been up there and had an inspection with the state minister. It is expected to commence in 2010 and is scheduled for completion by 2014, with a total federal investment of $618 million. Here it is, in National Party heartland and ignored by those opposite for 12 years in spite of the fact that the National Party had the transport ministry for that the entire time. Construction of the Ipswich Motorway in Queensland and additional works commenced in 2009 and is scheduled for completion by 2012, with a federal investment of $884 million, bringing our overall commitment to the Ipswich Motorway to over $2½ billion. Perhaps they would stop work on that project. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —Yes, we would build the Goodna bypass. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Yes; the shadow minister confirms in parliament that, yes, he says they would stop work on that. So we have got one response from them. The Leader of the National Party is here in the parliament and he says they would stop work on that project and build the Goodna bypass. That is what their position remains. Construction of the regional rail link in Victoria is expected to commence in 2010. The preliminary work has already been done and I have been down there with Premier Brumby on two occasions so far already. It is scheduled for completion in 2014, with a federal investment of $3.2 billion. There is the Gawler rail modernisation in South Australia—perhaps that would just stop. It has a total federal investment of $293 million. Construction of the Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension in South Australia is expected to commence in 2010 and is scheduled for completion in 2013, with a total investment of some $291 million. Preconstruction work on the east-west rail tunnel in Victoria is underway with construction expected to commence in 2012. It has an investment commitment of $40 million. The Northbridge rail link is a project asked for and agreed to in conjunction with the Western Australian government and is expected to commence this year and be completed in 2014, with a total investment of $236 million. All of these projects are going ahead under this government’s Nation Building Program and are part of the doubling of road spending and the quadrupling of rail spending that we have seen from this government as part of our commitment to nation building infrastructure. We have involvement in ports. For the first time there is direct Commonwealth involvement in our ports, opposed by those opposite. We have $339 million for an equity injection into the Oakajee port common user facilities north of Geraldton. It is a visionary project to establish a new port on the west coast to improve productivity for Australia into the long-term. There is $50 million for the Darwin port expansion. These two projects have money set aside subject to further work and consideration by Infrastructure Australia. Those opposite say that they would simply get rid of some or all of these projects. It is up to them to say what projects they would cut back. We have got a $36 billion Nation Building Program on transport infrastructure. Those opposite are saying that they have $5 billion more than us so they would argue that somehow there is $41 billion over this period of time. The problem for the shadow minister is not just the budget papers, because it was news to the National Party that the budget papers have figures in them that are publicly available and able to be scrutinised. Therefore they say, ‘Oh well, that was months later. We made promises.’ The problem is, I have here a release from the member for Wide Bay in October 2007 where he is indeed inspecting works—not opening—on the first stage of the Gympie extension. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —It was finished. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —Your release says you were inspecting works on the first stage. We have the release here and on that he says: AusLink involves a record $38 billion spending on road and rail infrastructure over 10 years— 10 years— to 2014. So he is on the record in lots of places arguing what their commitment is under AusLink. AusLink of course had a period of AusLink 1, and then they committed to having AusLink 2. They say ‘10 years to 2014’, but then they argue they committed to $5 billion extra. They try to argue two different positions, two diametrically opposed positions. They are wrong about lots of the detail as well in terms of, for example, the Black Spot Program and boom gates. All these measures, as part of the economic stimulus plan, have been critical to supporting jobs in the short term whilst building the infrastructure we need in the long term. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —And Mr Truss repeats his error by saying that one per cent of them are going. It is simply completely wrong. They are unable to keep up with the present. That is the problem. Before, we had from the Leader of the National Party the comment about the Kempsey bypass. Well, not everyone says that, not even everyone in his own party. The Leader of the New South Wales Nationals, Andrew Stoner, said, ‘It is great that Kempsey is finally getting some attention from government.’ That is what he had to say. The member for Cowper said: The Kempsey bypass is long overdue … He sat here as part of the former government. We take action, and he says the Kempsey bypass is long overdue! Indeed. Indeed, the member for Cowper has spoken about this issue on a number of occasions, as has the state member. What happens is that they actually go out there and claim the work that is taking place right now as their own. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —We have seen the work of the member for Gippsland. We have seen the work of those opposite, project after project. They voted against the economic stimulus plan, but they come in here— Opposition members interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —and they want to argue that they support it in their own electorates. They are turning up to project after project right around the nation. Whether it be a sod-turning or the announcement of new projects, whether it be a road, rail or community infrastructure project, they are turning up and arguing that somehow their electorate is different—because they have not come to terms with the fact that they lost the last election. That is their real problem, and that is why they are such a disjointed opposition which has nothing to say about any of the real challenges facing this nation. They are reduced to internal chaos, to being a rabble without a cause, because they simply are unable to come to terms with where they are at. But we are working with the business community on the infrastructure agenda. Indeed, the BCA report yesterday said: The good news is that these problems are now well recognised, and economic infrastructure is now back centre stage in the economic policy debate. … the solution directions seem largely agreed, and the Commonwealth is now engaged in all sectors, including urban transport and urban water. That is where the BCA are at. That is where the business community are at. That is where the Australian Industry Group and the Constructors Association were with their report last week, when they recognised the importance of our infrastructure investment in insulating the Australian economy from the impact of the global economic recession. Australia is performing ahead of the rest of the world. Part of that is because of our commitment to infrastructure development. That is a commitment that is long term, a commitment that is at the heart of Labor’s economic agenda—one that has served us well to date and will serve us well into the future. 11101 16:26:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I am pleased to have the opportunity to talk on this matter of public importance today, the consequences of Labor’s failure to invest in productive economic infrastructure. The consequences are these: higher debt, high deficits, higher interest rates, fewer jobs, unaffordable housing, congested cities, isolated communities and lower standards of living. The population growth projections that have been put forward by the Treasury bring challenges and opportunities. A growing population provides the demand we need to grow, but failure to manage and support this growth creates major problems for our cities, our regions, our towns and throughout rural and remote Australia. We can loiter at the edges of this problem, and we can talk about issues of managing demand, but our principal response must be to address supply. We have seen the problems in the housing industry, because this government and state governments around the country have failed to issue instructions and conduct policies that deal with the supply of land and the supply of housing, and so we are seeing housing becoming uncontrollably unaffordable in this country—through a failure to act. The government has raised expectations on this matter, and the minister just alluded to that. In the BCA report it actually says that the government has raised expectations on these matters. But these expectations, I am sad to say for the government, remain unfulfilled. They remain unaddressed, despite the government’s attempts at spin to the contrary. From listening to this debate, under the government’s mantra, there is the time before 23 November 2007 BK—before Kevin—when the earth was a great expanse of darkness! It was a formless void in the BK period, if you listen to those who sit on the other side of this place. According to the government’s version, on 23 November 2007, they emerged from that darkness and pronounced, ‘Let there be pink batts and let there be school halls,’ under this government’s false understanding that this constituted investments in economic infrastructure in Australia’s long-term interests and in the long-term interests of our economy. The truth is something quite different. The truth is that, under the coalition, infrastructure investment rose from three per cent of GDP to 5.6 per cent of GDP. Each year, that is an increase from $15 billion a year to $56 billion a year. We undertook that task in recognition of the increasingly central role that the private sector plays, and must, in delivering on the nation’s infrastructure challenge—an infrastructure challenge that is estimated at somewhere between $450 billion and in excess of $700 billion. We are not going to meet that challenge if we think that the government sector is going to do it all on its own, which is the illusion this government is working under. Under the coalition, not only did we have a significant increase in the amount—almost a doubling—that is spent as a percentage of GDP on infrastructure but we also had an increase from one-third to two-thirds of the component that was invested by the private sector. The government might want to put itself at the centre of the economy but, if we are going address this nation’s long term infrastructure challenges, that is not the answer. We need to put the private sector at the centre of our economy and ensure that we can deliver on the challenges ahead. While the investment infrastructure was increasing, the government that John Howard led was paying back Labor debt—a point that this government seems to forget on every occasion. It was not just $96 billion worth of debt that was paid back; it was also the $56 billion of interest that had to be paid on that debt in order to retire it. What of the government’s action? As we read in the Business Council of Australia report yesterday, only 14 per cent— 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —One in seven. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —One in seven, as the member for Dunkley said. Only one in seven dollars of the government’s stimulus has been spent on economic infrastructure. As a courtesy to the government, I thought I should inform them of what economic infrastructure is, because they seem to have a difficulty in understanding it. According to the Productivity Commission, it means this: electricity, gas, water and sewerage, urban transport, ports, railways, telecommunications—that is what economic infrastructure is. Investments in these things provide for the long term performance of our economy and the long term future of this country. In response to questions in this place yesterday, I understand, the minister came to the dispatch box and talked about school halls and public housing being economic infrastructure. He is deluded. Economic infrastructure is infrastructure that produces an economic dividend that will help us pay back the mounting debt that this government is racking up on a daily basis. So only 14 per cent—one in seven dollars—found its way into actual economic stimulus projects that were involved in economic infrastructure. Of the $22 billion that was announced in the budget, only $8 billion was spent on roads, rail and ports. These projects, incidentally, require another $60 billion of investment so that they can be finished. The government is happy to start some projects but, unless they can find $60 billion, none of those projects gets to be finished. The government’s program is one that they have deliberately decided to be wide but not deep. This project does not go deep; this program does not go deep. What it does is to spread noise far and wide—an announcement here and an announcement there, there is something for everybody—but when you look hard or under the surface the roots do not go down deep. It reminded me of when I went to Sunday school. There was a great story we used to learn at Sunday school. It was the parable of the sower. I remind members that the parable of the sower told of where the seed was scattered. It reminded me of where the government are scattering the funds that they have available to them. When I read that parable—if it was the Prime Minister who was doing parables it would be the parable of the spinner, not the parable of the sower—it said: Behold the sower went out to sow and as he sowed some seeds fell beside the road and the birds came and ate them. With the economic stimulus projects, I would call that the cash splash. Others fell on the rocky places where they did not have much soil, but immediately they sprang up because they had no depth in soil… like so many of the government’s projects. …but when the sun had risen they were scorched because they had no root and they withered away. Think no more about pink batts and even the First Home Owners’ Grant, which was a worthy project in its endeavours but in terms of economic infrastructure it meant absolutely nothing. The parable continues: Others fell among the thorns and the thorns came up and choked them out… —and we think of things like the SIHIP program in the Northern Territory where we can spend hundreds of millions of dollars and not build one house. We can think of the public housing program where only one in 10 of the projects which need to be completed by now have been completed and fewer than half of those that need to be under way by now have got under way. Projects that are lagging and falling behind are going to be the ones that put the pressure on interest rates down the track. These are the projects that the Reserve Bank governor is worried about because of the delays. The projects we needed to invest in, when I go back to the parable of the sower, were those that fell on good soil and yielded a crop some hundred-fold, some 60-, and some 30-. They are the projects we need in this country but they are not the projects we are seeing. We are seeing only 14 per cent of stimulus spending going into projects that deliver that type of an economic dividend. The BCA had many other things to say and I will run through them in the time I have remaining. They raised serious questions, and effectively put a vote of no confidence in the government’s plan when they said in relation to urban infrastructure that the government had created confusion about roles and responsibilities. The government has stormed in, thrown some money around, and they have created confusion about who is responsible for what. With regard to transparency, where the government made much of its great approach, it refused to release the cost benefit analysis undertaken by Infrastructure Australia on the projects it has spent money on. It refused to provide that information. The BCA was highly critical of that approach. No plan to address the nation’s freight challenge, at all. With water, they are buying air—thin air, rather than spending on replumbing Australia’s rural and regional areas. With electricity, they have completely lost control of the agenda and they have let go a transitionary agenda regardless of what happens to the ETS. What they are not doing, if the ETS goes ahead in its current form, is dealing with the problem of electricity generators. It will be on this government’s head if the generators switch off as a result of its failure to provide a transitionary plan. But the best is the broadband: from $4.5 billion or thereabouts to over $40 billion and we still do not have a business plan. As the BCA report said, ‘…with little or no supporting analysis…’. This is not a plan to invest in deep. This is a plan to invest in wide. It is a disgrace. (Time expired) 11104 16:37:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —It is always somewhat perplexing when the Leader of the National Party, a former minister who had some interest in roads and transport, seeks to pit his record on infrastructure spending over the 11 long years of the Howard government against the massive investment that this government has made in productive infrastructure in our two short years in office. It prompts me to ask of the Leader of the National Party: are you actually serious about this motion? Who put you up to this? I really want to ask that, because—I hate to tell you—I think you have been set up. Here we have a former minister of the Howard government who failed when he was in office to advocate the case to fund major productive infrastructure in our roads, rails and ports. Here is a former minister who, may I remind the House, only just last week during question time interjected on the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government when he was talking about our funding for the Midland Highway. He interjected: ‘Finally, someone’s funding it.’ I do not know what he was doing in office but, frankly, that was a pretty helpful interjection. In fact, in the speech that we heard from the shadow minister I think we were all a bit misled by the terms of the MPI. Of the 15 minutes of the speech by the Leader of the Nationals, 12 of them were not about investments in infrastructure; they were all about him being upset—he did a massive dummy spit—because he was not being given credit for infrastructure projects that were commenced under the Howard government. Now, frankly, how petty! What a waste of this parliament’s time to have the Leader of the Nationals in here for 12 minutes calling on an MPI about why he is not personally being given credit for the funding of infrastructure projects under the Howard government. Well, I have some advice for the Leader of the Nationals: frankly, get over it! You lost government; you do not get to claim credit for projects that are completed when another party is in government. Get over it. Actually start contributing substantially to the national debate about building infrastructure and provide some decent opposition in relation to what you would do, as you purport to be the alternative government. I want to pick on one project in particular. I have to do this, because it was mentioned in the Leader of the Nationals’ speech. It is a project that is dear to my heart. In 2001, when I was first elected as the member for Ballarat, we desperately needed to have funded the Deer Park Bypass. I am digressing a little from what I wanted to say but I cannot help myself on this because of the amount of stunts I had to pull, as a local member, to get the Deer Park Bypass onto Auslink II funding, and the work I had to do to get promises from our shadow ministers in opposition to promise to fund the Deer Park Bypass, which then, finally, got the government to fund the project. Member for Wide Bay, you are upset about us claiming credit for it but I have news for you: you bet I am going to claim credit for it! I worked damn hard for that project and I am very proud that I got alongside the Premier to open it, finally. I am sure the members representing Geelong feel exactly the same about the work they had to do for the Geelong Bypass. Let’s look at the facts here. Labor really is the party of nation building. Since coming into office this government has a strong track record on infrastructure. We have appointed a minister for infrastructure—the first one in our nation’s history—and, as a result, established a federal department for infrastructure. We have established Infrastructure Australia to tackle our infrastructure challenges for the future—a body the coalition did not know which way to vote on; frankly, they were all over the shop. Through Infrastructure Australia, for the first time we have undertaken a national audit of infrastructure priorities. The outcomes and methodology by which it was developed have been made public, unlike the lottery of infrastructure project funding that occurred under the previous government. In the May budget we invested some $389 million in port infrastructure. We invested $36 billion in transport infrastructure over six years—more than the Howard government spent in nearly 12 years—including two projects in my own electorate: the Anthonys Cutting realignment and, in the member for Wannon’s electorate, the duplication of the Western Highway between Ballarat and Stawell. That is a project that has been on the member for Wannon’s priority list for a long time but was on the never-never under the previous government. In addition to all of this there is our commitment to building a national broadband network. As a government we have set infrastructure investment as a priority and our track record is strong. Since the budget, we are already seeing projects around Australia being built. Construction is already underway on the Brighton Bypass, which has received $164 million. The Western Ring Road in Melbourne has received $1.2 billion. In Ipswich we are seeing the upgrade of the motorway with $2.5 billion. We are seeing the Victorian Regional Rail Express set for construction in 2010. That is a project that is very important for my electorate and the electorate of Bendigo. Construction is set to begin on the Noarlunga to Seaford rail extension in South Australia next year with federal investment totalling $291.2 million. And the roll out of new projects is expected to continue into 2010. Currently about to get started is the upgrade to the Princess Highway East between Traralgon and Sale—an important project for the Gippsland region. The list goes on: the Hunter Expressway; the upgrade of the Warrego Highway; the Kempsey Bypass, the east-west rail tunnel pre-construction works in Victoria; the Gold Coast light rail in Queensland, championed so well by the member for Forde; and the Gawler rail line modernisation in South Australia. We are investing to set our port facilities up for the future. The $389 million set out in the budget is the best investment in ports that a federal government has ever provided. This investment will work alongside our national ports strategy that Infrastructure Australia is currently developing. Under the previous parliament, the House transport committee, then under the excellent leadership of the member for Hinkler—I am disappointed that he is not here at the moment—undertook a major inquiry and produced a very informative report called the Great Freight Task. It was a bipartisan report but I remind the House that it had previous Howard government members as the majority. I highly commend the report to the Leader of the Nationals as he will find that many of the projects that are being funded by this government were recommended in that report. A great example of that is Port Oakajee—a significant project for Western Australia and particularly for Geraldton. That project was strongly recommended in the Great Freight Task. This government’s commitments do not end with roads, rail and ports. The government is also taking significant steps to revitalise our nation’s major cities with our $4.6 billion commitment to urban public transport. The national urban policy is currently being developed and is a significant step in urban planning. Our nation broadband network is yet another example of critical long-term infrastructure that members opposite do not support. We have continually reiterated the importance to this country’s future economic growth of investing in the high-speed broadband infrastructure we need today. We have here a motion from the Leader of the Nationals that really shows they are all over the place on infrastructure. First they claimed, quite incorrectly, that they would have spent more on infrastructure. Then the Leader of the Opposition said that stimulus spending should be cut. The Leader of the National Party was in the House here today saying that they are upset that they are not getting credit for a large number of projects, some of which started and were completed under the previous government but many of which are still ongoing. AusLink 2 stretches out to 2014, so it is understandable that many of its projects are funded under the current government. Some of the opposition voted against the establishment of Infrastructure Australia. Some of them abstained and some of them did not quite know what to do or what they were voting for, I suspect. They have voted against the Nation Building and Jobs Plan funding. Frankly, they are all over the shop on this government’s investment in infrastructure. Yet in the motion the Leader of the Nationals states that we have failed somehow to invest productively in the nation’s infrastructure. The Leader of the National Party had the opportunity in the House today to lay out his plan but spent 12 minutes instead basically dummy spitting. He had the opportunity today to lay out his better plan for investment in infrastructure, to table that or outline that for the parliament. I ask him to go and do that when he has the opportunity. If the Leader of the National Party is absolutely serious about this motion, if he seriously believes that the infrastructure investment that this government has made is wasteful and not productive for the economy then he and every single member of the coalition need to tell us which projects they think funding should be withdrawn from. They need to have the courage to go into electorates like mine and say that they do not support the work at Anthony’s Cutting. The member for Wannon should say that he does not support the duplication of the road between Ballarat and Stawell. They need to be honest about which projects they do not think are productive and which projects funding should be withdrawn from. They need to come into my electorate and tell local councils why they do not think investment should be made in the National Broadband Network. Unfortunately, I doubt very much whether they will be honest in their electorates. We have seen them say one thing in this place and another out in their own electorates. 11106 16:47:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I too appreciate the opportunity to take part in this vital debate on matters of public importance. Today, in response to the accusations from the opposition, we have seen the government trying to defend the indefensible. Prior to the 2007 election, there was a great statement made to the voters of this nation that a Rudd government, if elected, would solve all of the infrastructure problems. Voters went to the polls confident that if they elected Kevin Rudd and the Labor Party all of that infrastructure that was presumed lacking, especially in regional Australia, would suddenly be created. Nothing could have been further from the truth, because we are now a couple of years down the track and where is this infrastructure? Where is the infrastructure that the people of Australia voted to obtain? It is missing. The simple facts are—and we have heard them stated and restated here today—that prior to the 2007 election the coalition government of the day had committed, if re-elected, to nearly $6 billion more than the Rudd government committed to. I very seriously believe that we, as an experienced government, would have presented those positions and created the infrastructure—unlike the current Labor government, who consistently make poor and hasty decisions and as a consequence put at risk the whole future of ordinary Australians. The one thing that is guaranteed today for the future of ordinary Australians is that they will wear the millstone of debt around their necks for generations to come. Anyone conscious of today’s state of affairs, with rising interest rates and enormous debt, will ask: how is the Labor government going to develop a plan that will see this debt paid back and once again ease interest rates for ordinary Australians? Ordinary Australians with increasing mortgage costs today have a great deal to be concerned about. What they ought to be doing is basking in the rewards of a Labor elected government that is creating infrastructure across this nation—but it is not. Furthermore, I would suggest that, seriously, the government are best at spin. They are wonderful at stunts. They provide photographic evidence of their race around the nation to bring to the press and therefore the people of Australia their great achievements. But what are they achieving and where is the sincerity? As the member for Cook said previously, ‘Where is the depth of policy?’ Where are the roots going deep down to provide for the future needs of the population of Australia—the ordinary indebted members of Australian society? Those roots are not to be seen. When it comes to sincerity, I wish to bring to your attention, Mr Deputy Speaker, another matter. On the Notice Paper appears a notice of motion given on 17 June to the Table Office. This was a motion to be moved by Mr Albanese, the member for Grayndler. He is the current minister responsible for the fiasco of hasty decision-making. The motion reads: That the House supports borrowing for Nation Building for Recovery to help Australia through the worst global recession in 75 years; Nation Building in rail, roads, ports, broadband— that is a joke— and the biggest school modernisation program in Australia’s history to help support the economy, local jobs and small businesses in each of the following electorates … I am ashamed of this minister, and he should be embarrassed to a mortal condition, because amongst the list of electorates that he mentions there is no Kalgoorlie. (Time expired) 11107 16:52:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —The debate today is about infrastructure and productivity. The Leader of the National Party spoke for 15 minutes. I did not really hear him say much about productivity, but productivity is very important for growing the economic prosperity of this nation and infrastructure is a very important part of that. Looking back over the 12 years of the Howard government—which we have heard members opposite describe as some sort of golden age of investment and infrastructure—and comparing that to the two years of the current Rudd government, we need to look back at the context even of the last few years of the Howard government. We saw that after the 2004 election, when the current opposition—the then government—promised to keep interest rates at record lows, they went up 10 times and the independent Reserve Bank Governor was talking about infrastructure bottlenecks and the skills crisis in this country being a major driver of that, because infrastructure and skills are important for driving the productive capacity in this country. The Reserve Bank Governor was saying, very clearly, there were infrastructure bottlenecks in this country that the Howard government had done nothing about. We need to focus on infrastructure and we need to invest in nation-building infrastructure if we are going to put downward pressure on interest rates. The Rudd government came to power in November 2007 and created the first ever infrastructure minister. We put in place—in our first budget—the Nation Building Program and we have continued to invest in nation-building infrastructure, in our response to the global financial crisis that led on to the global recession. Seventy per cent of our investment in economic stimulus has been in nation-building infrastructure. That, in the broad scheme, is the difference between the current government—the very proud Rudd government, with an infrastructure minister—that is about nation building, and the opposition and previous Howard government, who approached infrastructure with pork barrelling and short-termism. That is the way the National Party has always approached economic issues: ‘What can I do for my local constituency,’ and ‘What is in our local political interest?’—not what is in the national interest. We have seen that continued with the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, who shows poor judgement on a range of different issues, particularly issues that relate to the economy. And he shows very poor judgement, particularly when it comes to investment in infrastructure. Let us go to what the Rudd government has done and what the Rudd government is doing. If we look at transport infrastructure we have, as the minister for infrastructure has said, over our six years—two years and the next four years over the forward estimates—committed $36 billion alone in transport infrastructure compared to, in over 12 years of the Howard government, $28 billion; that is, $36 billion over six years and $28 billion over 12 years—more in half the time. I am very proud that in the state of Queensland we are investing $2.2 billion in the Bruce Highway and $1.1 billion between Sarina and Cairns. We heard members opposite talk about investments across the country and I was particularly interested to hear the Leader of the National Party talking about investments in the Douglas arterial road around the electorate of Herbert. He did not have anything to say about investment in the electorate of Leichhardt. The former Liberal member has been recognised as being a good advocate up there but there was not too much road funding that came into Leichhardt during the former member for Leichhardt’s time here—there were a few crumbs off the table. I can assure you that in the lead-up to the last election we got a commitment of $150 million to upgrade the southern approach to Cairns. The then minister for transport in the Howard government made no commitment—silence. The then member for Leichhardt, Mr Entsch, made no commitment. We had the then opposition spokesman—the current Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism—come up and make a $150 million commitment to upgrade the Bruce Highway south of Cairns. The current minister for infrastructure has committed to that and later this year we will be rolling out the last couple of options. Over the next four years we will see $150 million investment in the southern suburbs of Cairns, more than we ever saw under 12 years of the previous member for Leichhardt. I am very proud of the work that this government is doing. It is building the nation—nation-building infrastructure—not only across the nation but in my particular electorate. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The time for the discussion has concluded. 11109 Bills R4203 11109 Bills R4200 11109 Bills R4206 11109 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 16:57:00 —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I indicate to all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to 11109 Bills R4169 11109 Bill returned from Main Committee with an amendment, appropriation message having been reported; certified copy of the bill and a schedule of the amendment presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Main Committee’s amendment— Schedule 2, item 14, page 22 (line 25), after “is”, insert “or has been”. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The question is that the amendment be agreed to. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 11109 Mr MARLES (Corio —Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry) 16:59:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 11109 Bills R4209 11109 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered at the next sitting. 11109 Bills R4182 11109 Bills R4181 11109 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment. 11109 Bills R4180 11109 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 11109 Bills R4183 11109 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 11110 Bills R4175 11110 Bill returned from the Senate with an amendment. Ordered that the amendment be considered at a later hour this day. 11110 Bills R4028 11110 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at a later hour this day. 11110 Bills R4193 11110 Debate resumed from 26 October, on motion by Ms Gillard: That this bill be now read a second time. 11110 17:05:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker Scott. I acknowledge you were in continuation and look forward to hearing the rest of your speech sometime soon. I rise to speak on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009—an important reform for regional and rural Australia and areas such as the mid-North Coast of New South Wales, where there is not a bricks-and-mortar university presence. Ours is an area with some of the lowest income levels, with some of the lowest lengths of stays in education and with some of the highest unemployment rates by comparison throughout Australia. So we are very sensitive to any reform in this area. Many aspects of these changes to Youth Allowance and trying to broaden the base for access to government payments to get students to university and help them stay at university—the broad suite of reforms that we are seeing—are genuinely pretty good. We are seeing increases, for example, to parental income tests. That is good. Measures such as the start-up scholarship are good. The actual amount of Youth Allowance is also increasing. That is good. I sincerely hope that in areas such as mine, which are generally areas of lower socioeconomic status, and where traditionally students have remained in education for shorter periods, this reform package talks to the community and we do see some significant changes in those lengths of stay in education. If that happens, I think we will see those census figures on unemployment and income levels also change as a direct consequence of people being much more engaged for longer in the education system. That is the good news. There are elements of concern, as we have heard many speakers in this place talk about. I certainly hope that the government keeps an eye on those issues of concern and also looks very closely at what I hope is a good report by the Senate Standing Committee on Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport. The report of its inquiry into rural and regional access to secondary and tertiary education opportunities is expected to be released later in the week. I hope there is nothing suspicious or sinister about this bill being introduced before the release of the Senate report. I will take it on face value that there is not, but as the process moves forward I hope that the minister and the executive take good note of that Senate report. From anecdotal reports, they have been doing some good work throughout regional and rural areas such as mine. I have faith that that report will be a good one, and therefore the challenge is for government to take up the recommendations as they are presented. I also want to raise the outstanding concern that I continue to have about this package. I hope that, either via response from the minister or through some ongoing oversight of this reform, the government keeps a close eye on the issue of the workforce criterion for 30 hours of work a week, which is a substantial change to the independence test to receive Youth Allowance. This has been raised by many students. To their credit, they have been incredibly well organised over the last six months in responding, advocating and lobbying on the issues in and around this reform package, but this issue in particular remains outstanding. For regional and rural students, particularly in high-unemployment areas, I hope the government keeps an eye on the effects of this change from 15 hours a week to 30 hours a week. It is a concern that has been raised constantly since this reform package was announced. In areas of high unemployment, accessing 30 hours of employment a week can be difficult even if you want to. That does not necessarily mean that someone is not independent. It may mean that, in the closed economy of a regional or rural community, 30 hours of work a week is difficult to get for some 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds. I encourage the government to keep an eye on that reform. I can certainly understand the reason the change is being made and the argument that no-one wants people adjusting their behaviour to demonstrate a need to access government support. However, this shift from 15 hours to 30 hours of work a week to demonstrate independence has caused genuine concern in regional areas where there are comparatively higher unemployment rates than in some of the metropolitan areas. Those rates are well above state averages in most of the states of Australia and certainly in New South Wales. I ask the government to keep an eye on that. I will not speak for long on this because I think, to their credit, the government have taken note of a lot of the concerns that I and my community have had since this announcement was made and, where possible, made some changes. I, along with two incredibly engaging advocates from the mid-North Coast, met with the minister along with several other members of parliament. We saw some changes made and they were good. That process was certainly appreciated. I finish, therefore, by congratulating those advocates on the ground. Within 48 hours, these young year 12 finishers and first-year employees were on the phones, getting organised, setting up Facebook sites and setting up a national network of people concerned about the impacts, particularly on some gap year students, of these reforms. The three musketeers from the mid-North Coast—Heidi Pett, Laura Bereicua and Jess O’Callaghan—ran an absolutely brilliant advocacy campaign. When 18-year-olds mount such a campaign, I would happily invite anyone who rips into young people and says they are no good or are layabouts to come and talk to me. I will introduce you to these three very engaging individuals and I am sure they will restore your faith in the generations to come. A big congratulations to those three in particular. There was some leadership from the Port Macquarie community, particularly from those three, in getting the 18- and 19-year-olds of Australia organised. As a local member, you cannot help but be proud to see people advocating and lobbying in a very professional way for their interests, their colleagues’ interests and their community’s interests—and, ultimately, the national interest. Congratulations to all involved in the campaign. I hope the changes we have seen so far are good, and I certainly hope it is not the end of the road. The Senate inquiry into regional and rural students is important. I hope the government remembers that and does not just put the report recommendations on the shelf but tries to include as many of those recommendations into the finetuning of this reform package as possible. In an overall sense, I think it is a pretty good package and will hopefully engage more students from the mid-North Coast in tertiary education in the future. 11112 17:14:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I endorse some of the words of the member for Lyne, particularly his words on young people and the way in which they have conducted and conveyed their views to the parliamentary process. Along with the member for Lyne, I held a number of functions and a press conference early in the piece on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. I was very impressed with some of the young people who had taken the time to analyse the issues, to come to the parliament and to express their views in a friendly fashion, and I am sure that this was being demonstrated across Australia. I think that this, in no small way, is one of the major reasons why the minister, to her credit, changed the government’s view in relation to the retrospectivity of the bill. The member for Lyne and others have highlighted a very significant point about the original proposal to change the legislation. This was that people who completed year 12 last year and who had engaged in various forms of employment to pass the independence test were suddenly being told that the rules had been changed. This was not only a great shock to them; it was a very bad message, in my view, to send to young people on their first involvement with the political process. At that stage there was great concern about the way in which these young people were being addressed and the fact that the government and the minister were looking at retrospectivity. I remember having meetings and telephone conversations with some of the minister’s staff on a couple of occasions. I thank them for the way in which they addressed that issue, because I think they understood that it was a very serious issue. I congratulate the minister for removing the retrospective part of the legislation. I think that in a sense the young people themselves drove the change. And there is a very real message that if people do bother to get involved in the political process they can effect change. There is a saying that I use from time to time, and I can imagine one of my staff, Graham Nuttall, looking at the screen saying: ‘Oh, he is not going to say it again,’ because he has heard it on many occasions. Well, I am going to say it again: the world is run by those who turn up. Think about it: if you do not get involved in what is going on in your world, whether it be in your school, community, state, nation or the world, you end up with a world that is determined by those who do bother to turn up. I have met with many students in my electorate and with some from the member for Lyne’s electorate and from other electorates around Australia. I remember that one of the first interactions I had with the students in my electorate was a petition that I delivered to the parliament from students of McCarthy Catholic College in Tamworth. They bothered to turn up; they bothered to agitate, they bothered to look at the way in which the legislation was being written and they bothered to look at what needed to happen, not only for themselves but for many others within the community. There was a very harsh message in the original retrospectivity proposal that sent a shiver down the spines of people, particularly of our youth, who believe that governments who put the rules in place should not engage in a process where they reverse things. I am very pleased that through the agitation of the young people themselves we have seen a change in relation to the young people who left school last year and who are going through the 18 months of work to achieve the $19,532 that proves that they are independent of their parents. Those young people will now be considered favourably by the government. However, there are other issues that need to be articulated, one of which was part of a scare campaign that the coalition—some members of the coalition at least—ran. Even though the government—and we have to bear in mind what was in place before these changes were intimated—had increased the income threshold from something like $34,000 up to $42,000, that was condemned as quite inappropriate, and I would agree. I listened to the member for O’Connor yesterday when he commented on the affordability of parents on that kind of income, particularly if they had other children in school and had to pay insurance, school costs and the usual day-to-day family budgetary costs. However, it was not the case that if you earned more than $42,000 your child would suddenly receive nothing, which is what the scare campaign was suggesting; rather, it was that students from a family with an income above that level would receive some part of the youth allowance. It was mooted that $42,000 was a cut-off, but that was really only the cut-off point for a student to receive full youth allowance under the income test, not the independence test. I thank the minister’s staff who helped me when I raised a number of scenarios. This was done on 28 May 2009 so I hope it is still appropriate, but I think it should be mentioned because there may be some parents who are still concerned about some of these issues. With a family income of $60,000, for instance, the youth allowance for an independent student away from home in year 1 was $9,646. The new arrangements would also give a year-1 relocation scholarship of $4,000 and a start-up scholarship of $2,254. So on a family income of $60,000 there would be youth allowance arrangements of something like $15,900. In year 2, that would drop to $12,900 because of the drop in the year-1 relocation scholarship from $4,000 back to $1,000. The youth allowance under the parental income test, with no independence test, at a $60,000 family income, would be $12,414 in year 1 and $9,414 in year 2. I will just add that the examples are of various scenarios regarding a family with one student living away from home at various gross family income levels, one with a student having qualified for the independence test for youth allowance and the other without an independence test but based solely on family gross income. I have given the scenario at a $60,000 family income. At an $80,000 family income, the youth allowance for an independent student away from home would be the same, at $9,646. You would add to that the year-1 relocation scholarship at $4,000, which was independent of income, and you would also add the start-up year-1 scholarship of $2,254. So the youth allowance in that case stayed at the $15,900 figure. The youth allowance under the parental income test, with no independence test, at an $80,000 family income, would drop by something like $4,000—compared with at a $60,000 family income—to $8,425. In year 2 it would be $5,425. The point I am making is that the fear that was being spread, that at the $42,000 level there would be no access for families to some degree of assistance by way of the youth allowance, was not correct at the time and I do not think it is correct now. At a family income of $100,000, for instance, the youth allowance for an independent student away from home would be $9,646, with the $4,000 relocation scholarship and the start-up scholarship, so the income or allowance would be $15,900, and in year 2 $12,900. Those numbers are similar to the scenario of a family income of $80,000. But what is significant is that the youth allowance under a parental income test, with no independence test, is nil because there is a cut-out figure at about $92,000. The second scenario I would like to work through, but not in the same detail, assumes that there are two children living away from home, one student in year 1 and the other a continuing student in another year. In that scenario, the youth allowance for an independent student away from home in year 1 is $15,900. For the year 2 student it is $12,900, which takes into account the drop in the relocation scholarship. So the total family payment in that scenario is $28,800. The youth allowance based only on family income—only on family income, not the independence test—is $25,316. That is in the scenario where there is one student in year 1 and a continuing student in another year. I am pleased to see that the minister is here now because she may be able to correct me on some of the fine detail. I compliment her staff who helped me back in May, so I am a little bit rusty on the numbers. I am hoping they have not changed because if they have it will be a severe embarrassment—and I have no doubt someone will point that out. Minister, the scenario I am talking about assumes two children living away from home, one in year 1 and the other a continuing student. On an $80,000 family income, the total family payment for two students is $28,800, assuming independence, and that has not changed. But the youth allowance, based only on family income at $80,000, is $21,327. Again, that is for the scenario of two children at university, one in year 1 and one in another year, and it takes into account the various start-up and relocation scholarships. At a family income of $100,000, and based on the independence test, the figure would remain at $28,800. But the youth allowance, based only on family income not on the independence test, would drop to $17,338. That is very different to the scenario that was being painted: that at $42,000 everything stopped, that no payments would be made. And that scenario, that if the family income was $42,000 you would get absolutely no help at all, has been painted on a number of occasions through this debate as well. At $138,000 of family income for two students, with one student in year 1 and one student in year 2, student 1 would receive $6,250 and student 2 would receive $3,250 plus a nominal youth allowance of between $10 and $15 a fortnight. So it will be approximately $10,000 for that particular family in that particular scenario. What has really complicated this is that everybody has a slightly different situation. Their income levels might be different. The status of their children might be different. The complete cut-out of payments occurs above a family income of $139,000. The minister might like to comment on some of those things if they are still an issue. One of the real issues that I do not think this legislation has fully embraced—I hope that the Senate inquiry does have a very close look at it and I hope that the government has a serious look at this as well—is that there are scenarios with the new changes and the 18-month work test, particularly in those smaller country towns, where children will actually have to leave home and be away from their parents in order to find work to pass the income test and prove that they are independent of their parents. That is a scenario that is highly unfair because many country students do not have the luxury of having a university close to them. I might cop some flak in my electorate about this, but I have a university in Armidale and a student who lives in Armidale and has the choice of living in Armidale with their parents or of living away from their parents should not receive the same level of assistance as someone who is living in Walgett for instance, which is not in my electorate at all, and does not have the luxury of a university. They have that distance to overcome and their parents will incur additional costs. I do not think the legislation as it stands at the moment fully addresses that particular issue. There is absolutely no doubt that there is a cohort of country students in particular that will not go to university because of these changes, not because it is unfair in terms of the scenarios that I have run through in those examples but because of the fact that they are going to have to leave home to find 30 hours of work a week for 18 months to prove that they are actually living away from their parents. There is no choice in a lot of our country towns. We want to encourage children in smaller country towns that are disadvantaged to actually strive to go to university, but if we put a roadblock in their way at day one and say, ‘That is virtually two years out of your life before you go to university,’ we know from our own personal experiences that if you are two years out of the game you are less likely to go back into it. That does not mean that everybody will not go back into it, but there is a very real issue there that I think the government should really address. It is an issue that concerns a lot of people in my electorate. Even some of the Labor Party members were intimating their concerns for those country kids who do not have the luxury of being near a university, who do not have the luxury of wealthy parents, and who do not have the luxury of finding work in their own town to prove that they are independent. In terms of fairness, this legislation has not reached that point. There are still scenarios in this legislation where the city based child who has the choice to live at home or prove independence can do both at the same time. I am not certain that is what the government was actually trying to achieve when it was talking about equity between people. I can understand and I agree with what the minister has said about there being more people reached by these changes, but there is a cohort of people who will be severely disadvantaged and they, by and large, happen to live in country areas. We need to resolve that particular issue. 11115 17:34:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek leave to continue my remarks. Leave granted. YT4 Scott, Bruce, MP Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I thank the Minister for Social Inclusion for granting leave. I rise to continue my speech on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. Like the member for New England I have real concerns about the impact that this bill will have on students from rural Australia. I will continue where I left off last night. I found it rather ironic that this legislation has been introduced by the Minister for Social Inclusion because this bill will exclude so many rural and regional Australians from realising their dreams of attending university and completing a bachelor degree, a masters or even a PhD. That is a great tragedy for so many students and young people doing exams right now as they finish their secondary education. What this bill will do is essentially force students who want to qualify for independent youth allowance to work some 30 hours a week, which is only 8 hours short of the maximum 38-hour working week under award conditions. Currently, a student can prove independence by fulfilling one of the three criteria: working full-time for a minimum of 30 hours a week for at least 18 months in two years, or working part-time for at least 15 hours for two years since leaving school, or earning in the 18 months since leaving school 75 per cent of the maximum wage A level, equalling some $19,532. The proposed changes push for the removal of the second and third of the three criteria I have just mentioned, a move the federal government claims will ensure that income support is available only to those who most need it while excluding approximately 27,000 prospective claimants and saving the government over $1.8 billion over four years. So in many ways this is not about the students from rural and regional Australia that the member for New England spoke about prior to my address; it is about a savings measure. I know that we have had the Bradley review, and there are recommendations in that and some of those have been welcome in this bill, but I still have real concern for the young people of rural and regional Australia. I know that the changes have met with outrage. When the budget came down it was only a matter of a week and there was shock right across Australia. My office—and I am sure that most offices, including offices from the other side of the House, I might say—have been inundated with phone calls and emails, with stories about how this would affect students who have taken a gap year or who are in year 12 at the moment and have had the rug pulled right out from under them. They had plans about the gap year and this was really the first issue that had to be addressed. I think the member for Lyons mentioned some of the comments on the Facebook, and I am sure that the minister, who probably has a Facebook, would have had some comments placed on hers. Young people are venting their anger, and I know that in my electorate they are. There is a group called the Bring Back the $18k Gap-Year Youth Allowance Eligibility Criteria. It was set up by the National Union of Students and has almost 11,500 members. Another group, named Keep the Old Youth Allowance, has more than 4,000 members. It is on the wall of that Facebook group that someone has perhaps best summed up this piece of legislation: K.rudd needs a reality check, seriously. These are young people, students, who use this technology—and what great technology it is to send a message. Young people are using these technologies and K-Rudd certainly, as it goes on, does need a reality check, because he and his education minister—and I welcome the minister in the chamber at the moment—talk about an education revolution and yet by handing down this legislation they are single-handedly destroying a future at university for many rural and regional Australians. What message does this send to the youth of regional and rural Australia? Young people in non-metropolitan areas already are disadvantaged by the tyranny of distance. In order to undertake a degree they must move out of their home away from their family and set themselves up in a new city and a new place, buy furniture and textbooks and start paying rent. Many of these teenagers took a year off after high school to work so that they could qualify for youth allowance, which made it easier for them to move away from home and meet the high costs of setting up in a new town or city. The government’s changes to the youth allowance criteria, which are essentially retrospective, were a huge slap in the face to the some 30,000 gap year students who have taken 2009 off to make money in order to qualify for financial assistance. After huge pressure from parents and students across Australia—and I acknowledge this—the minister made a partial backdown, which will help some of those gap year students. But there is still the criterion that applies concerning distance: as long as they live more than 90 minutes from a university by public transport. It is good news for the some 5,000 of the 30,000 students affected by these changes. Of course in my electorate of Maranoa we do not have a university. With the new boundaries it is 750,000 square kilometres in area, and I can assure you that we do not have too many public transport systems. Unlike the subsidised public transport systems in our capital cities where students can live at home and go to the sandstone or new universities and hop on subsidised public transport, we do not have those in Maranoa. My electorate extends from Warwick, Darling Downs, and the Great Dividing Range right out to the South Australian and Northern Territory border. I was reading in today’s local paper, the Warwick Daily News: ‘Country kids’ dreams on hold’ about young people who want to return to the bush. I will share with the House one comment here from Bec, who says she believes: … the changes may mean some students who put off further education might be lured by a steady income and unable to reinvigorate the study momentum. She goes on: I’m 18 years old so I want to get back into study and the workplace quickly. I don’t want to take two years off because I’ll be 20 when I start uni and about 24 by the time I finish. This is not me speaking; this is a student from a country town in my electorate—no public transport there, no university within 90 minutes. It is more like a three-hour or four-hour drive. This is a young, bright person wanting to further her education. Another young student, Hannah—and this is a very important point as well—says that the changes mean she will have to work 30 hours a week for 18 months or 15 hours for two years to be classed as independent from her parents so she can claim the payment. She says: It just doesn’t make sense to make it harder, especially when there’s a shortage of doctors and pharmacists in rural areas … Some city students turn up their noses at rural placements, rural kids will return to the country. This is Hannah, who wants to study pharmacy. She is from a rural area and she would like to go back with her degree behind her into a country town and be a pharmacist. We have a great problem in my electorate in attracting people out into rural communities. It has been a great challenge getting professional people into my electorate. We have many workers on 457 visas, which is a visa classification allowing people to come into Australia and work in a geographic area in a particular profession or even in a blue-collar area. I hope the minister is listening. This is a young person from a rural community who wants to go away and study pharmacy. She is from a rural area and she said: Some city students turn up their noses at rural placements, rural kids will return to the country. I hear that all the time. Minister, I am sure you have heard those sorts of comments. This is not the member for Maranoa speaking. These are people who know that these changes will disadvantage this family and might see this student deferring her education indefinitely—as the other young student said, she might not get the momentum to go back into study—and not going back into study. As I said, people like Hannah and Bec will return home. They will come back with their degrees in hand and they will bring those skills that we are short of at the moment. It is about training your own to come home. They will fill positions of accountants, lawyers, doctors and dentists—people we are short of in those professions out there. The member for Kennedy has just joined me. Census data from 2006—only three years ago—shows us that the rate of students between the ages of 17 and 22 from Maranoa undertaking some form of higher education is 16.9 per cent or about 1,558 students. Not quite 17 per cent of young people from the electorate of Maranoa go on to further education post their secondary education. It is an issue that I think the member for New England raised. It is about how we are going to address the post-secondary education participation rate for students from rural and remote Australia—that is, for people who do not have a university within 90 minutes of where they live. They have to leave home. Their parents cannot afford to subsidise them to go to university without some financial support from the Commonwealth government. The ICPA have repeatedly raised with me the issue of a post-secondary access allowance. This is an issue that I acknowledge I championed when we were in government, and I will continue to champion it for the reasons that Hannah and Bec outlined as reported in the Warwick daily paper today. The issue is the fact that they have to leave home to gain access to a post-secondary education. There is not a university within an hour-and-a-half’s drive, except on the very fringe of my electorate near Toowoomba. They have to leave home to gain access to that education. This bill will make some improvements. I acknowledge that, and I acknowledge that the minister has addressed the issue for those on a gap year currently—but it will not help those who want to do it in the future. Minister, I urge you to listen to the recommendations that may come from the Senate inquiry into this issue. If there is one thing that we in this place should be ensuring it is that we support students who want to go on and who should be encouraged to go on to post-secondary education. Too few from rural Australia do go on, but if we continue down this path—and it has been there for far too long—fewer and fewer people will bring the professional skills that we so desperately need in rural Australia. We support students with a basic allowance if they have to leave home to gain access to a basic primary and secondary education. But once they have completed that secondary education there is not a basic allowance without an income or asset test. There is one in secondary and primary education, which I know previous governments supported and which this government continues to support and must continue to support, for those geographically isolated students. It is an issue that we must look at, Minister, for those who have finished their formal secondary education and are geographically isolated. To ask them to do two years work in the workforce to qualify for a youth allowance is nonsensical. As the local paper reported, Bec said she will get out of the habit of studying in those two years. She may remain in the community, put off that education and never return to further education. As I said, there are some good elements in this bill but I know that the overriding negatives will have disastrous consequences for so many young people in rural and regional Australia. I do encourage the minister to listen to the recommendations of the Senate inquiry. I also urge the minister to support the amendments that have been put forward by the coalition. I certainly encourage the minister to rethink the changes that will save $1.8 billion. When you put a price on education for young people who are going to be denied it because of this legislation and these changes, $1.8 billion is not a lot to put towards supporting young people, particularly young people from rural and regional Australia who want to go on to further education and gain professional qualifications in order to return to our rural and regional areas, where we are so short of professional people. We are in desperate need of them. I would urge the minister to rethink the proposed changes. 11119 17:51:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —in reply—I thank members who have spoken on the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. In the way of these things, the quality of contribution has varied. But there we have it; that is our great parliamentary debating system at work. I say to the last member who spoke, who gave a contribution that I think mirrored some of the things said by many opposition members during this debate, that I agree with him. I agree that the legacy of the Howard government for disadvantaged kids from country Australia is a truly shocking one; I agree with that. I agree that the legacy of the Howard government is that kids in his electorate do it tough. This government, piece by piece, bit by bit, is delivering an education revolution to make a difference to just that. I would ask the member to reflect on the fact—which he knows, as I know—that disadvantage starts in the early years. This is a government that is investing in the early years to make a difference to disadvantage. The Howard government was the government that had us coming at the back of the class in the OECD. I think the member would acknowledge that this is a government investing in disadvantaged schools to make a difference. Under the Howard government no-one even bothered to ask for a list of disadvantaged schools, so disconnected were they from the reality of education today. Nothing was done by the Howard government to put the best teachers in front of the classrooms that needed them the most. Nothing was done on a national curriculum. Nothing was done on the question of school leadership. Nothing effective was done on the question of literacy and numeracy. Then higher education was the subject of cutbacks, so people from the member’s electorate could not get opportunities in universities. We put universities on a growth path. The Howard government never bothered to try to work through the issue of how to get universities to enrol more people from low-SES backgrounds, including rural and regional backgrounds. The Bradley reforms delivered that. Against this track record of neglect it has fallen to this government to make a difference for country kids—for rural and regional kids. This bill is doing just that. This bill, the Social Security and other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009, amends the Social Security Act 1991 to implement a key aspect of this government’s landmark reform agenda for higher education and research after a decade of neglect. It has fallen to us to revitalise Australia’s university system, to put it on a growth path and to make a difference for the most disadvantaged students. This bill contains the government’s response to the recommendation on student income support from the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education. Student income support and other financial assistance is critically important to getting financially disadvantaged students into higher education. The measures contained in this bill ensure that student income support payments are better targeted and will provide more assistance to those students who need it the most. These reforms must be passed if we are to open up our university system to young Australians from disadvantaged backgrounds, something the Howard government cared nothing about and that we are acting on. We know from statistics that the Howard government’s legacy is a track record of failure. To those opposition members who have participated in this debate, somehow assuming that under the Howard government there was some sort of Nirvana for country children, I point to the following statistics—the crushing reality that ought to require them to reconsider their position. Under the failed old system of student income support—the Howard government system—the participation of low-SES students languished at around 15 per cent, against a population share of 25 per cent. Participation by regional students at university fell to 18 per cent, against a population share of 25.4 per cent—underrepresented and going backwards under the Howard government’s student income support system. Even some Liberals have finally been prepared to say that the system they created has failed. I refer to the contributions of the member for Casey when he was the shadow education minister, who at least had the courage to pan the former government’s scheme, in a speech a little more than a year ago, when he said about the Howard government’s student income support scheme: … it has become too easy for students from affluent backgrounds to qualify and too difficult for students from modest backgrounds … He was right. He further noted that the current system: … particularly disadvantages many students—particularly those from the country—who have to leave home to study, and has resulted in a situation where record numbers of students … defer their studies with many of them taking a year off to earn money to qualify for independence for Youth Allowance and possibly not returning. He was right about that—a good perceptive criticism of the circumstances the Howard government had left regional and rural students in. Under the current system the parental income threshold for students to access support as dependents has become so low that many students have thought that the only way to gain access to student income support is to qualify as independent youth allowance recipients. This has often caused them to delay their studies for a year, potentially not returning. Many of these young people are not actually financially independent of their parents. The Bradley review found that as a result of the current independence test youth allowance is being accessed by some students who are living at home in higher-income households. For example, the review found that 36 per cent of independent students living at home were from families with incomes above $100,000 per year, 18 per cent were from families with incomes above $150,000, 10 per cent were from families with incomes above $200,000 and three per cent were from families with incomes above $300,000. Yes—you heard that right: government dollars going to kids who live at home in households that earn more than $300,000 a year whilst the participation rate of poorer students and country kids is going backwards. Someone had to fix that disgraceful situation. The government has made the sensible decision, in view of this track record of failure and inequity, to tighten policies— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —The disgrace I refer to is the fact that the two opposition members at the table were participants, as ministers, in a government that watched country kids and poorer kids go backwards, go out the back door whilst they cheerfully made sure that kids who lived at home in families with incomes over $300,000 per year got precious taxpayer support. That is the record of the Liberal Party members sitting at the table—a disgrace. We are fixing this disgrace. We have made the sensible decision to tighten the current workforce participation criteria for independence in line with the recommendation of the Bradley review, and we are redirecting funding into a massive suite of reforms. Parental income will now be the primary measure of eligibility. More students who previously had to prove independence and wait 18 months to receive support will now be able to access support automatically as dependants through the raised parental income test. Key elements of our changes include the fact that all students who receive youth allowance will receive a $2,254 start-up scholarship every year unless they are currently receiving another equivalent Commonwealth scholarship. This will benefit around 150,000 students next year. The parental income test will be raised so that families with two children studying away from home can earn more than $140,000 before their allowance is cut completely. The higher parental income test particularly recognises the needs of families whose children need to move away from home to study—and the member for New England referred to that. Over 100,000 students will benefit from either receiving the allowance for the first time or getting a higher rate of allowance. Students who want to move to study may be eligible for an additional relocation scholarship—and the member for New England referred to that—worth $4,000 in the first year of study and $1,000 in each subsequent year. This will particularly benefit rural and regional students. From 1 July 2010 students will be able to earn $400 a fortnight up from $236 without having their payments reduced. The age of independence will reduce progressively from 25 years to 22 years by 2012, which will see an estimated 7,600 new recipients of the independent rate of allowance. The reforms to Youth Allowance will have consequential effects for Abstudy and in some cases Austudy. Now let us have a look at who has endorsed these reforms and we find people who care about education. The Group of Eight universities has endorsed these reforms; the Australian Technology Network has endorsed these reforms; the National Union of Students said of our budget measures: This is a big win for students, a substantial investment in future productivity and jobs. The National Union of Students said on budget night: Thumbs up for massive education funding, thumbs up for massive student income support. Universities Australia, the peak university organisation, has lauded these changes saying: Lowering the age of independence progressively from 25 years to 22, and ensuring student support can be claimed by more of those students who are truly in need is commendable. This is a system that deserves the support of this place and of the Senate. Can I say, obviously in the transition to the new system there are a number of students who told us, while they liked the new system and they understood why we were changing the system, they were concerned that current gap year students who needed to move to study would be caught between the old and the new systems. After wide consultation the government announced a transition measure to allow gap year students, who completed school in 2008 and who need to move to study, until 30 June 2010 to qualify for independent status under the workforce participation criterion. This will be financed by delaying until 1 July 2012 the introduction of an increase to the amount of money students can earn from part-time work while receiving income support to $400 per fortnight. These were sensible changes that have been welcomed by students and the peak organisation of universities. Unfortunately the coalition, presumably still wedded to its past track record of discriminating against country kids and poorer kids and favouring kids who live at home in richer households, has not as yet indicated that it will pass this bill in full. Inexplicably it has put forward amendments before the House that will permanently cut support to students to deal with what is essentially a transition issue. The coalition wants to delay the new independence criteria by a year for all students including those living at home, but to do this it wants to rip almost $700 million from scholarships by permanently—it is an important word, permanently—reducing the value of the new student start-up scholarship to $1,000 per annum, a permanent cut to the amount of money going to students. This will cost students on income support over $3,700 over a three-year degree and leave 150,000 students worse off. That is what the coalition amendments mean. Now, clearly, they need to be rejected on that basis. I would also note that, whilst the coalition have put forward a fig leaf of $120 million for a rural and regional scholarship to try and disguise this permanent cut, there are absolutely no criteria attached to it. So how do we know the coalition will not be back to their old tricks of making sure that students in upper income households get this money, because that is the system that they used to operate in government and did nothing about? Students who are at the centre of these reforms do not support the coalition amendments. The National Union of Students has called these proposed amendments—and I quote—‘scabby and sloppy.’ That is the approach of the coalition in their amendments. The government will not support these scabby and sloppy amendments. We will not support a $700 million rip-off out of scholarships. Clearly the coalition, after their track record in government, come to this debate with no credibility. We will press to have this bill passed not only here this evening but also through the Senate and it will be clearly to the disadvantage of Australian students, a disadvantage for which the coalition will be fully responsible, if they do not pass these Bradley inspired reforms in the Senate expeditiously. With those words I commend this bill to the House and I urge all members to support this bill in its entirety. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 11122 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 11122 18:07:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —by leave—I move opposition amendments (1) to (4): (1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 13-14), omit ‘30 June 2010’, substitute ‘31 December 2010’. (2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5 (lines 18-20), omit paragraph (e). (3)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 5, (line 23), omit ‘1 July 2010’ substitute ‘1 January 2011’. (4)    Schedule 2, item 4, page 20 (line 17), omit ‘$1,127’ substitute ‘$500’. These opposition amendments are important. We will be insisting on these amendments. They cover two areas, but the primary amendment is to remove the retrospective element from the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009. The government’s changes to the Youth Allowance have moved, during the game, the goalposts for students in their gap year at the moment. We do not believe in principle that that is something that the opposition can support. The Minister for Education did admit the error some months ago and tried to address it for a very small number of students. That was her fig leaf to cover her embarrassment. The change that the minister spoke of in her speech just now to the House will impact in a positive way on about 4,500 to 5,000 students. It still leaves 25,000 or more students facing a change in the rules in the middle of the game or, as I said, the goalposts moved in the middle of the game. We cannot support that. Gap year students, who had at the end of year 12 this year and last year spoke to career counsellors, Centrelink staff and other people about their future and made plans in good faith, who were accepted into university and who deferred university for 18 months in order to be able to qualify for the youth allowance, did so relying on the legislation as it was then drafted so that they could ensure they accessed youth allowance. To change the rules midway through the game on those students is utterly unacceptable. The opposition will stand up for those 25,000 or more students who have been so viscerally affected. The minister says that, in doing so, we are standing up for a flawed Youth Allowance scheme. The opposition support reform of the Youth Allowance. We support many aspects of the Bradley review. We believe that the Youth Allowance does need to be reformed for the good of all students into the future. That is why we support many aspects of the government’s changes to the Youth Allowance. For that reason I find it amazing that the government would not be prepared to ensure that students who are currently in their gap year would not be so negatively impacted upon by retrospective legislation that has changed their entire future. I will not keep the House at length tonight. I spoke in the second reading debate and I outlined some examples and many of the concerns that the opposition have about this government’s legislation. Suffice it to say that there are many people who have been negatively impacted upon by retrospective legislation. The government says that we are going to assist more students so that those students must suffer. A better way to manage reform of the Youth Allowance would be to do so from 1 January 2011 so that students in their gap year are not retrospectively impacted upon. The second opposition amendment will ensure that we do not punch a hole in the side of the government’s budget, because it will cost several hundred million dollars to ensure that the retrospectivity is removed. I believe we will get support for this in the Senate—obviously, in this place we will not. To ensure that the changes that we propose are revenue neutral, we are proposing that scholarships be reduced from 1 January to $1,000—the current government figure is $2,254. That will raise enough money to ensure that our amendments are revenue neutral. (Extension of time granted) I will not be much longer. I appreciate the courtesy of allowing me to continue my remarks. The second amendment will ensure that the opposition’s changes are revenue neutral and will leave a sum of money available—probably about $120 million—for the establishment of a rural and regional scholarships program. Now that the Senate committee has reported in the Senate on this bill, the detail of that program will be clearer in the days and weeks ahead. The only other thing I would add is that the government needs to very seriously consider how it wants to handle this legislation in the Senate. I warned the minister in June and again last sitting week that, if she insists that the Commonwealth scholarships remain part of this bill rather than being decoupled from it, as I proposed in June, we will potentially be voting this legislation down with the support of probably the Greens, Senator Xenophon or Senator Fielding. As a consequence, it will be on the government’s head that the students affected by the scholarships change will not be able to get any scholarship at all from 1 January 2010. I have laid that on the table for many months. If the minister insists and believes that she can hold a gun to the head of the opposition, I am warning her that it will be her problem. It will not be the opposition’s problem. We are not in government. I have at least worked that out. Therefore, we will not have responsibility for the government’s pigheadedness and foolishness in linking to this retrospective Youth Allowance change with a scholarships program. That will be a matter for the government to handle. I hope she will see reason rather than the rather embarrassing display of mindless partisanship that she showed in her speech during the second reading debate just then, where she inferred that the good ideas come from only one side of the House. I think she may be guilty of starting to believe her own rhetoric and the praise from the peanut gallery, because that display was straight out of the Australian Union of Student’s handbook rather than the Obama handbook, which says that good ideas can come from all parts of the political spectrum. But we know that she is essentially an old Cold War warrior from the Left, and old habits die hard. With that, I recommend my amendments to the House. 11124 18:15:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —It is not my intention to delay the House and I understand that it would suit the convenience of the House to have any divisions before 6.30 pm. For the reasons I gave in my summing up, obviously the government will not be supporting these amendments. There was a transition issue and that transition issue was for people who had commenced to make arrangements about GAP years, for example, before the announcement of the government’s changes on budget night. That transition issue has already been dealt with by the government in this bill. The government does not support a permanent rip-off of scholarship money out of the hands of students, and that is what this amendment is all about. To take the House back to basics, I remind members that, if it had not been for the election of the Rudd government, we would not have had the Bradley review. If it had not been for the election of the Rudd government, we would have seen a continuation of the student financing system that was seeing country kids and poorer kids go out backwards, while some kids living at home in families with incomes of more than $300,000 benefited. Everybody is now saying, apparently—according to the shadow minister—that everybody understands that that is the wrong system. It strikes me as passing strange that the Liberal Party—now conceding that that was the wrong system—year after year in government did not do anything about it. It fell to this government to have the Bradley review, it fell to this government to introduce this bill in the name of equity, it fell to this government to finance higher education and put it on a growth path, and it fell to this government to put money into the system so that universities have an incentive to enrol kids from disadvantaged backgrounds. They are the reforms that we are seeking support for, and, when the bill moves from this place to the Senate, they are the reforms that we will stand by. If there are students next year who do not get their scholarship money because of a belligerent display by the opposition, who did not have the wit in government to make a difference for kids going to university, then the opposition will be judged by it. The Australian people passed a verdict about the Liberal Party in 2007 and they passed a verdict about the Liberal Party in part on its track record of failures in education. It falls to the Liberal Party at forthcoming elections to try and seek to regain the confidence of the Australian people on those questions, but I would say to the Liberal Party and to the coalition generally: it is no way to try seeking that confidence by blocking much needed equity based reforms like this one; it is no point trying to seek that confidence by punching a $700 million hole, a permanent hole that rips scholarship money out of the hands of students; and that is the course that the coalition is on. Question put: That the motion (Mr Pyne’s) be agreed to. 18:22:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. JE Moylan) 54 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Katter, R.C. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. 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. 70 Adams, D.G.H. 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. 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. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. 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. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 4 Neville, P.C. Ellis, A.L. Robb, A. Crean, S.F. Hockey, J.B. Ferguson, M.J. Hawker, D.P.M. Gray, G. * denotes teller Question negatived. 10000 Moylan, Judi (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. JE Moylan)—The question is that the bill be agreed to. Question put. 18:27:00 The House divided.     (The Deputy Speaker—Hon. JE Moylan) 70 Adams, D.G.H. 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. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Elliot, J. Ellis, K. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. 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. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. 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. Roxon, N.L. Saffin, J.A. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Sullivan, J. Symon, M. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. 53 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Forrest, J.A. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. * Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. 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. 4 Ellis, A.L. Neville, P.C. Crean, S.F. Robb, A. Ferguson, M.J. Hockey, J.B. Gray, G. Hawker, D.P.M. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Bill agreed to. 11126 Ms GILLARD (Lalor —Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion) 18:32:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 11127 Bills R4160 11127 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered at the next sitting. 11127 Bills R4166 11127 Debate resumed from 24 June, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 11127 18:34:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am pleased to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 would like to make some preliminary remarks in order to place this bill in its full context, which is transnational organised crime and Australia’s response from the perspective of our law enforcement agencies. We need to understand the environment in which organised crime operates in the modern world. Those who work in the field combating organised crime often describe it as a threat, no less damaging and just as deliberate as national security. The CEO of the Australian Crime Commission, John Lawler, stated in an address to the Financial Review Defence Conference in September this year: … in the last two decades alone, organised crime groups have: contributed to the fall of the Japanese government through massive systemic corruption, been behind activities that represent roughly 12 per cent of Italy’s entire economy, and taken control of most of Russia’s 200 banks and half of its financial capital. Organised crime is deliberate with far-reaching consequences. Current Australian Crime Commission intelligence suggests the cost of organised crime is between $10 and $15 billion each year. A significant proportion of this is being sent offshore and illicit drug trafficking represents the source of approximately half of these funds. Modern-day organised crime involves the laundering of billions of dollars using complex corporate structures and financial instruments. Our agencies are having some success in this fight. The Australian Crime Commission’s task force Gordian, which went from May 2005 to June 2007 and investigated networks and structures used by organised crime groups, is a good example. It investigated how those groups financed criminal enterprises, laundered money and evaded tax. As a result, 16 criminal syndicates have been disrupted and 73 persons charged for laundering what is alleged to be in excess of $93 million and for drug and other offences. This has significantly disrupted the activities of an organised crime syndicate with well-developed channels allegedly used to siphon the profits of drugs to South-East Asia. In this case, the money launderers had infiltrated an international airline and international banks. The challenge that we face is that when you place increasingly sophisticated organised criminal syndicates in today’s unpredictable and ever-changing business environment there are opportunities for criminals and there are gaps in intelligence. Criminals are able to hide their activities and remain undetected within an industry and white collar criminals are able to mask their illegitimate activities behind perfectly legitimate ones. The landscape is constantly changing. We do not know the identity of all of the criminal groups operating within our jurisdiction. It takes time, resources and expertise to understand and untangle criminal economic movements. Legitimate businesses may unwittingly provide facilities and financial instruments that can be used for money laundering or fraud. High-level criminal groups can expand operations quickly into an area, carry out their activities and then move on into something else. The Australian Crime Commission has an important intelligence-gathering function. This intelligence is shared with partner agencies, including the AFP, the state police forces and the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service to name a few. The Australian Crime Commission is looking for the criminal footprint in datasets and where there are opportunities for intervention and where the weaknesses lie. It is not just about arrests and seizures but about collecting information. Part of this intelligence collection involves data matching. It might, for example, show that those on the ASIC database of company directors may also be known identities within, say, outlaw motorcycle gangs. There is also the example of the high rollers at our casinos. Some may be money launderers, for example. An individual—and this is from real life—completely off the radar of law enforcement spent $13 million at a casino in one year. Further investigation finds that he is collecting Centrelink benefits. This instance led Centrelink to perform more such data matches with the ACC of its customers and those who the casino reports as dealing in cash amounts above $10,000, according to its obligations with AUSTRAC. This money finds its way offshore. There are three ways that this can happen. Criminals can use the regular financial system, which should be picked up by AUSTRAC through the reporting requirements that entities such as remitters have. There is also trade based money laundering. For example, an academic took a segment of trade based data, looked at the invoices and found that seven per cent of the total was under invoiced. The proceeds of crime were moving from one country to another. The third way is called ‘cuckoo smurfing’. This is when criminals replace legitimate money intended for legal transfer into Australian bank accounts with the proceeds of crime. The original funds are then used overseas. We should consider the impact of potentially billions of dollars going offshore in terms of lost jobs, lost projects, lost infrastructure and lost revenue. The lifeblood of serious and organised crime is money. We have to identify and attack those criminals who are generating the most illicit wealth. Literally billions of dollars every year leave the Australian economy. This criminal wealth reappears in the legitimate economy. The movement of money between the two creates vulnerabilities for criminals and the opportunity for law enforcement to identify and attack organised crime through its finances. The profits are extremely lucrative. They are estimated by the Australian Crime Commission to generate $200 from every $1 invested. So examining the real-time money flows allows us to pursue money laundering offenders. Investigators need a range of capabilities, including telephone intercepts, covert sources, surveillance and analytical capacity. They need adequate resources to do their job properly. That is the operational perspective. The legislative perspective involves parliaments providing the right legislative environment. This bill is part of the comprehensive national response to combat organised crime. Criminologist John Walker has stated that we are seeing a failure of traditional policing to fight the drugs trade. When you consider the statistics on drug use, the flow of drug money offshore and the drugs that are clearly slipping into this country through a border protection net that is full of holes, you can sense the frustration of our police services in dealing with what is rapidly becoming an economic problem. The introduction of the unexplained wealth provisions in the bill before us recognise an unfortunate fact: those sitting at the boardroom table of organised crime groups are not the ones going to jail or even going to court. As a member of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission, I was part of that committee’s investigation of, among other things, the confiscation of the proceeds of crime. While all Australian jurisdictions have civil forfeiture regimes—that is, the confiscation of assets is based on a civil rather than a conviction standard of proof—the Northern Territory and Western Australia go one step further, allowing the deputy police prosecutors to apply to the courts for a confiscation order if a person has unexplained wealth. This means that in those jurisdictions it is not necessary to demonstrate on the balance of probability that the wealth has been obtained by criminal activity. Instead, it places the onus on an individual to prove that their wealth was acquired by legal means. As members of the committee, we heard both sides of the argument for and against unexplained wealth provisions. There is, I should add, some support in international law for the adoption of such provisions at Commonwealth level from the Interpol General Assembly, which resolved in 1997 that unexplained wealth is a legitimate subject of inquiry for law enforcement institutions in their efforts to detect criminal activity and that, subject to the fundamental principles of each countries domestic law, legislators should reverse the burden of proof and use the concept of reverse onus in respect of unexplained wealth. The Police Federation of Australia argued strongly for unexplained wealth levels at the Commonwealth level. I will quote from their submission to the inquiry, because it sums up the case very well: Do Australian police know who is involved in organised and serious crime in Australia? Do we know who they are? The answer is yes. Can we prove beyond reasonable doubt that these criminals are involved directly in those crimes? The answer is no. Are we aware that these criminals possess or have effective control of unexplained wealth? The answer is yes. Can these criminals or those holding the assets and wealth for these criminals explain on the balance of probability that they legally obtained that wealth or assets? The answer is no. We do not have to link anything to a crime. It is about them on the balance of probability explaining that they have got legally obtained wealth … We have not got any legislation in Australia to deal with that at the Commonwealth level … Unexplained wealth is the easiest way as a crime prevention method to stop further crime, because, if the individuals who are holding onto these assets cannot explain them … the tendency is to just hand it over because they do not want to get into a debate about whether they are involved in criminality or not. Arguments against unexplained wealth laws had as their main concern the reversal of the onus of proof. The Law Council stated that such laws undermine the presumption of innocence, infringe on the right to silence, have insufficient appeal rights and may be applied in an arbitrary fashion. The Australian Council of Civil Liberties stated that, from their point of view, existing confiscation laws are working adequately. I now turn to the specific provisions of the bill before the House. This bill is a very important one. It is intended to implement a national response to organised crime. All members of the coalition are acutely aware of the great cost including human costs that organised crime imposes on society. Our record is a proud one of developing and implementing innovative methods to defeat this national scourge. However, we are also conscious that the measures used to combat organised crime have the potential to sweep up the innocent in their net. Great powers given to our law enforcement authorities, despite our best intentions, are also capable of producing injustice and oppression if the use of those powers is not properly circumscribed and subject to effective oversight. When introducing significant new anti-crime measures, as legislators, we must always weigh up the potential for and consequences of abuse of those measures. The key proposals of this bill are criminal asset confiscation and unexplained wealth. Schedule 1 amends the Proceeds of Crime Act by introducing unexplained wealth orders to the confiscation processes. This targets wealth that a person cannot demonstrate to have been lawfully acquired. If a court is satisfied that an authorised officer has reasonable grounds to suspect that a person’s total wealth exceeds the value that has been lawfully acquired it can compel the person to attend court to prove on the balance of probabilities that the wealth was not derived from offences with a connection to Commonwealth power. If the person fails to meet this onus, the court must order them to pay to the Commonwealth the difference between their total wealth and their legitimate wealth. Restraining orders are available in aid of this order and in advance of such an order. At the time of applying for a restraining order, the DPP need not prove that the property is subject to the person’s effective control but must state the grounds for such a suspicion. If these requirements are met, the restraining order must be made even if there is no risk that the property will be disposed of or otherwise dealt with. It may also apply in relation to property that is not yet in the possession of the suspect. Property may be excluded from the scope of the order if the court is satisfied that it belongs to another person and is not under the suspect’s effective control. A restraining order will cease to apply if the DPP has not applied for an unexplained wealth order within 28 days or if an unexplained wealth order is refused and avenues of appeal are closed or otherwise disposed of. The bill also provides for time limited asset-freezing orders in aid of the Proceeds of Crime Act. These apply for three days and are directed to accounts held by financial institutions. Schedule 2 amends the regime applicable to non-conviction based orders. Currently there is a limitation period which precludes confiscation if offences are not detected until more than six years after the offence was committed. The review recommended extension of the limitation period to 12 years but the bill proposes removing the time limit altogether. Amendments are also proposed to ease the recovery of legal costs by legal aid commissions from restrained assets. As to controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection, the bill proposes amendments to the Crimes Act 1914 in response to the High Court’s decision in Gideon v Commissioner of the New South Wales Crime Commission (2008), which placed in doubt the protection of participants in a controlled operation. A controlled operation is one in which undercover law enforcement officers are authorised to do certain things that would otherwise be illegal in order to obtain evidence of a serious offence. The amendments to the assumed identities regime will introduce mutual recognition provisions to permit undercover officers lawfully to obtain identity documents in other jurisdictions. The witness identity protection scheme applicable to undercover officers will enable certificates issued in one jurisdiction to be recognised in other jurisdictions. In regard to joint commission, the bill proposes to amend the Criminal Code Act 1995 to cover circumstances in which there is an agreement to commit an offence and an offence is committed under that agreement. Recent court decisions have raised doubt that the common-law principle of joint criminal enterprise is encapsulated in the code. The concept is broader than conspiracy, procuring or complicity and is intended to ensure that full criminal liability attaches to participants. As to telecommunications interception and criminal organisations, the bill proposes to amend the Telecommunications Interception and Access Act 1979 to include in the definition of ‘serious offence’ associating with, contributing to, aiding and conspiring with a criminal organisation or a member of that organisation for the purpose of supporting the commission of prescribed offences. These are recently introduced state and territory offences commonly known as the bikie laws. Telecommunications interception will be made available to state and territory law enforcement agencies for investigation of these offences. The provisions of this bill relating to undercover operations and joint commission of offences make relatively technical amendments. However, the provisions relating to unexplained wealth raise significant civil liberties concerns and have generated substantial criticism. The unexplained wealth provisions are invasive. It is important that this bill should be placed under close scrutiny to ensure that adequate safeguards exist and that the arguments in favour of the proposals are properly articulated and justified. The bill was referred to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee, which delivered its report on 17 September. The evidence to the committee included detailed submissions from the Law Council of Australia and all of the principal Commonwealth law enforcement and prosecution agencies. Significant concerns were expressed, in particular about the unexplained wealth provisions, by the Law Council, Civil Liberties Australia and members of the committee across party lines. Particular concerns were that an unexplained wealth order was mandatory rather than discretionary; the only link to any wrongdoing was an authorised officer’s suspicion that a person’s wealth was linked to any Commonwealth offence, state offence with a federal aspect or foreign offence; and the safeguards against abuse of these powers were very limited. The committee recommended quite extensive amendments to the bill. The most important of the committee’s recommendations are that a court should have a discretion to refuse to make an unexplained wealth order; the ground upon which an officer suspects that a person’s wealth exceeds his or her lawfully acquired wealth must be specified in any supporting affidavit; and, in relation to joint commission of offences, there should be safeguards where an accused person terminated his or her participation and took reasonable steps to prevent the commission of an offence. The government has circulated amendments which purport to give effect to some of these recommendations, excluding those relating to joint commission of offences. However, it is still not clear whether the safeguards proposed are adequate. The sole ground for the exercise of any discretion by a judge not to make an unexplained wealth order is if it is ‘not in the public interest’ to do so. Indeed, some aspects of the legislation have been tightened, in particular those relating to hardship caused to dependants by the making of an unexplained wealth order. Despite our heartfelt support for measures designed to combat organised crime, and the fact that these measures will undoubtedly assist our law enforcement agencies in that vital task, there is still a real risk that these laws are open to abuse. In the course of consultations on this bill, we have had many examples of the great benefit they would be in the investigation of the kingpins of organised crime. That is not in dispute. We could hear many more examples and we would agree in each case that unexplained wealth orders would be extremely useful. But what we need to hear is what would happen if the innocent were caught up in the process by an overzealous prosecutor. These things happen. We live in a society where the right to privacy is respected and where ordinary people have the right to live their lives without explaining their lifestyle to the authorities or anyone else or having their assets frozen or confiscated on nothing more than an officer’s suspicion. This is a society that operates under the rule of law, and we on the coalition side will ensure that the rule of law is respected. Organised crime must and will be brought to heel, but it must not be done at the cost of ruining innocent lives. We are confident that the appropriate balance can be struck. The government’s amendments are a welcome start. The coalition have further amendments for which we will seek the government’s approval, failing which we will move them in the Senate. I thank the House. 11132 18:54:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. On 4 December last year, the Prime Minister made Australia’s first national security statement to the House. He said: Organised crime more broadly is a growing concern for Australia, one the government is determined to combat. To put that in context, the Australian Crime Commission—and I have the privilege of being a member of  the joint parliamentary oversight body, the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission—estimates that Australia loses in the vicinity of $10 billion each year to organised crime. That is essentially the backdrop to the Prime Minister’s comment about the need to combat organised crime. He went on to say: The government will develop two initiatives in the related areas of border management and serious and organised crime. We will strengthen border management by simplifying arrangements and improving coordination across all agencies. Second, we will clearly define the role of the Commonwealth in combating serious and organised crime and enhance coordination among Commonwealth agencies. He spoke about us being very fortunate having ‘highly capable police services’, saying: We have highly capable police services which respond to a spectrum of challenges, from threats to public safety to terrorism, and emergency response organisations that protect the community in our most vulnerable times. The Prime Minister laid out the platform of where we are going to act in terms of our fight against organised crime in the security statement. He said we were going to be tough on crime and that we were going to give to those respected people on the thin blue line, who protect our society, the tools they need to be able to get on and do their job more effectively. I rarely let an opportunity to personally acknowledge the contributions of our men and women in uniform go by. They are involved in the fight on our behalf against the global onslaught of organised crime. I think my respect for the police is a sentiment that is shared by everyone in this House. As a matter of fact, it was only on the 29th of last month that we had Police Remembrance Day, where we recognise the men and women who have paid the ultimate sacrifice in protecting our community. There are all those vacant plaques at the national police memorial, and we know, regrettably, they will have people’s names on them in due course. It is a dangerous occupation, and we are extremely grateful to the people who have that special sort of courage and wear the uniform of a police officer. I had the opportunity only last week to address the Police Association of South Australia’s annual conference, entitled ‘In harm’s way’, and I in fact talked to them about this very bill before the House. I take this opportunity to congratulate Mark Carroll, the president of the South Australian Police Association, on a very well run conference. As you would expect, it looked at industrial relations issues that involved his members, but it also had a very clear focus on the professional issues involved in contemporary policing, including the need for modern tools and equipment to combat crime. At any time, this country faces a threat from a wide range of different sources to our people, our institutions and our economy; even our technologies are placed at risk by organised crime. Organised crime clearly affects many areas of social and economic activity, inflicting substantial harm on the community, business and indeed government. In contemporary law enforcement, whilst it is politically palatable for some, it is overly simplistic to evaluate our police services simply on arrest rates. That really misses the mark. The fact that every time a crime is committed, there is a victim—a member of the community, or the community itself, is being harmed. As we are all aware, an arrest and subsequent conviction does not undo the harm that is inflicted on a victim. In protecting our communities, we should be doing more to prevent crime and, in terms of criminal enterprise itself, and to disrupt its activities. To achieve this we need to develop consistent and common strategies that attack those underpinning elements of organised crime. Therefore, it is essential to actually look at the business model of crime itself. There is no doubt in my mind that the increasingly sophisticated and aggressive nature of organised crime requires from us, the legislator, a tough response. Our communities expect nothing less from us. It is important that we have strong, consistent and effective laws to combat serious and organised crime across the nation. Specifically, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 will implement reforms to the Commonwealth laws as part of a comprehensive national response to combating serious and organised crime. This reform is designed to equip our police with the tools they need to defeat the refined methods used by modern day criminals. We are not talking about thugs in balaclavas—the increasing sophistication of organised crime in this country is astronomical. They certainly can acquire the assets they do not have. We must make sure that our police are not fighting crime on our behalf with both hands tied behind their backs. We have to level the playing field. If people tell you that we are winning the fight on crime, they are wrong. Organised crime is developing at a significant pace and we must be there, taking sufficient steps to combat its further development. The bill as introduced focuses on the confiscation of the proceeds of crime whilst strengthening the national law enforcement coordination capability. It is a two-pronged approach. Firstly, you remove the profitability of a criminal activity and, secondly, you increase the likelihood of criminals being caught. The bill seeks to implement measures agreed to between the Commonwealth, states and territories and will strengthen the criminal asset confiscation regimes; introduce the new provisions of unexplained wealth; enhance police power to investigate organised crime, including model cross-border investigation powers through controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection; extend criminal liability for all individuals who jointly commit an offence; and broaden the list of offences where telecommunication interception powers will be available to law enforcement agencies. Fundamental to this approach is the introduction of the new unexplained wealth provisions. This is a new approach—one which has been developed in Western Australia under their state laws and, indeed, it has been introduced in a more refined way in the Northern Territory. It is one that attacks the business model that underpins crime. Crime is there with a profit motive and therefore this approach is designed to attack that profit motive and to put at risk the greater element of finances behind not only the single criminal enterprise but all assets that the criminal might have in their possession. This is achieved by also having a reverse onus of proof. Under this legislation, the onus of proof will be on the accused—they will need substantiate that their assets were gained by legal means. That is pretty significant because what it does for serious and organised crime is to put at risk more than just the proceeds of the crime itself. That will be a key component to these reforms. These provisions will target people who profit from crime and those whose wealth exceeds the value of their lawful earnings. In order to prevent and disrupt crime we must address various aspects that drive criminal enterprises. Central to this is to comprehend that most criminals are by nature business people. I do not make any apology for putting it that way—if you look at how this bill is going to act against criminal enterprise you must look at those who operate these enterprises. They are clearly businesses. Most assuredly they are illegal ventures; nevertheless, they are businesses with a very clear and distinct profit motive. They seek a return on capital, and they will seek to operate in areas of least resistance. They will seek to maximise the return on their investment. In many cases, people who organise and profit from crime are not directly linked to the commission of the offence. They will seek to distance themselves from the crime itself in order to avoid prosecution or confiscation actions. We have all heard the stories of profits from a particular criminal enterprise being divested through various forms, either through family or into other areas of enterprise. Under these provisions, they can be tracked and people will be held accountable for what they have accumulated. It is then with the reverse onus of proof that it is up to them when called upon in accordance with the law to substantiate the accumulation of their wealth. However, unlike the confiscation these new and unexplained wealth orders will not require proof of a link to the commission of a specific offence. Also, the significance as stated earlier, is that with the unexplained wealth provision there will be a clear and effective reverse onus of proof. Vitally, these measures will target the perpetrators and also the profits of organised crime and will provide police with the tools they need to combat an increasingly sophisticated methods used by organised criminal syndicates. As I said at the beginning of this speech, I am proud to be a member of the parliamentary joint committee oversighting the Australian Crime Commission. It is in that capacity that I can advise the House that the committee has recently—over the last 12 months or so—held a review of legislative arrangements to effectively outlaw various elements of serious and organised crime groups. During that inquiry we travelled across the country. We visited most police commissioners and met with other senior officers, who also gave evidence to our hearings. I have to say I was a little disappointed that, although the committee had access to the leaders of all the police forces in the country, we struggled to get a common position from our chief law enforcement officers. As a matter of fact, it was left to the Police Federation of Australia, which represents 52,000 sworn police officers across the nation, to put a very clear, unambiguous position to our inquiry. The PFA called upon the committee to recommend the development of unexplained wealth legislation as a key measure in attacking organised crime. This is evidence of the importance of a national policing voice and I again congratulate the PFA on being able to achieve that position and also in being able to advocate on behalf of all police officers in this country. During the course of the inquiry the committee specifically examined a number of international legislative arrangements to assess their effectiveness in the fight against serious and organised crime. As a consequence, a delegation of the committee took evidence from jurisdictions in North America, the United Kingdom and Europe. Interestingly, the committee’s report and findings with respect to the legislative responses of international jurisdictions to serious and organised crime were tabled in the parliament in June this year. It is worth noting that this report enjoys bipartisan support—as does, I hope, this piece of legislation. I would like now to discuss with you the five key findings of the delegation’s report with respect to tackling serious and organised crime. Consistent across the globe was the view that it was important to follow the money trail when addressing organised crime; that there was a need for information sharing and greater cooperation amongst law enforcement and other agencies, both within governments and between governments; that there were benefits to be gained in developing measures to prevent organised crime, rather than simply reacting to it; that political will plays a critical role in combating serious and organised crime; and that there was a need for governments to take a holistic approach to tackling organised crime, through a package of legislative and administrative arrangements. They were the key and consistent positions that the committee heard, not only across Australian jurisdictions but across international jurisdictions. I think they are very relevant in terms of our tough approach in combating organised crime. From the international experience it was clear that law enforcement strategies which target the business model, including financial and material assets of organised crime, were crucial for disrupting criminal activity. Mr Raffaele Grassi, from the Italian National Police, put it best when he told the delegation that criminal ‘members are prepared to spend time in prison, but to take their assets is to really harm these individuals’. I have long been attracted to the concept of using unexplained wealth as a means to remove the financial incentives associated with organised crime, and whilst this will challenge some aspects of individual liberties my position has always been that we must, first and foremost, do what is necessary to protect our community. If, for whatever reason, organised crime is allowed to flourish it will undoubtedly have a devastating impact on our people, our community and our economy. The security of the nation and its people must remain our highest priority. That brings me back, in conclusion, to what the Prime Minister had to say on 4 December last year. He committed this government to introducing measures designed to combat serious and organised crime. He committed to developing measures to empower our police with the tools that they need to act on our behalf to protect our communities in respect of serious and organised crime. The legislation before the House, the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009, does precisely that. It has the support of the state and territory governments and it will now lay the benchmark in terms of attacking organised crime by using unexplained wealth as a means of addressing this scourge on our society. We have a responsibility to do that. As I have said, I know this will intrude on various perceived liberties of individuals—there is no question about that—therefore various safeguards have been built in to ensure that, where appropriate, those liberties are suitably protected. If people think that just because we are in the 21st century we are winning the fight against crime, it is time to think again. We need to have the tools necessary to compete with and break serious and organised crime enterprises. That is what this legislation will do. It is designed, unashamedly, to be tough—but only to protect our community. On that note I commend the legislation to the House. 11136 19:14:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I appreciate the opportunity to make a contribution on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 because it has always been my belief that the strongest pressure on criminals needs to be applied, from residents on our streets keeping watch, right up to mandatory sentencing and such matters as are raised by this bill. From a personal perspective, I endorse strengthened criminal asset confiscation powers, the protection of witnesses in controlled operations, the wider use of telecommunications interception for offences involving criminal organisations and greater capacities in dealing with the joint commission of criminal offences. This bill deals with the need to amend not only the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995 and the Telecommunications (Interceptions and Access) Act 1979 but also the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I would firstly like to deal with the bill as it relates to the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. The POC Act was a great step forward in hitting criminals where it hurts: with the seizure of assets. The 2006 Sherman report outlined enhancements that were recommended by law enforcement agencies. In schedule 1 of this bill there is an unexplained wealth provision that will allow ‘prove it or lose it’ capacities for agencies in dealings with those who were not actually involved in the specific commission of the offence or offences. This will mean that those who may fund or support organised crime will still be liable to having their assets seized. Once an agency can demonstrate to a court reasonable grounds to suspect that a person’s wealth and assets exceed their lawfully acquired wealth and assets, that person can be summonsed to court to prove that their wealth is not derived from offences. This bill also enhances the power of the police to investigate organised crime through implementing model laws for controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection. It addresses the joint commission of criminal offences and facilitates greater access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. The schedule 1 changes on unexplained wealth are to amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 in order to strengthen the Commonwealth criminal assets confiscation regime in chapter 2 of the act. Unexplained wealth orders are to target wealth that any person cannot prove that they have lawfully acquired. The changes provided for in this bill have been influenced by the successful laws in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. It was in 2000 that Richard Court’s Liberal state government passed laws to allow the seizure and sale of assets used for or achieved by criminal activity. In 2008, the laws were widened so that properties where sex crimes had taken place and where the offender was linked to that property could be seized and sold. The Sunday Times recently reported that more than $840,000 had been generated by the sale of properties owned by two sex offenders. This money is returned to the community in grants. I think these actions are right and appropriate. I hope that the sale of such properties will continue to generate benefits for the community and in some albeit small way offset the material cost to society imposed by sex criminals. If only the social and personal damage done to victims could be offset in that way. The amendments in schedule 2 are to introduce freezing orders to ensure that assets are not dispersed, to remove time limitations on orders, to provide for non-conviction based restraint and the forfeiture of instruments of serious crime, to enhance information sharing and to reimburse Legal Aid Commission legal costs from the Confiscated Assets Account. The purpose of these particular amendments is to improve the ability of law enforcement agencies to target organised crime figures who get the biggest financial benefit from offences but can rarely be linked to the commission of an offence. I would in particular like to make comment on part 4 of the schedule, relating to the disclosure of information. It has long been my view that the sharing of information relating to criminal behaviour and obtained under the auspices of one act relevant to crime should be able to be disclosed to another agency that has investigation responsibilities, as well as being able to be used in proceedings under another act related to crime. As was identified in the Sherman report and as is noted in the explanatory memorandum to this bill, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruling in the Commonwealth DPP v Hatfield case in 2006 stated that information obtained in an examination under part 3-1 of the POC Act could not be disclosed for any other purpose. Clearly it was not intended that information obtained could only be used for dealing with the question of confiscation of property. Information obtained using other gathering powers may have also been at risk. The amendments in this bill will overcome that possibility and ensure that agencies will be able to share information obtained. This effectively ensures that the prevention and investigation of serious criminal offences will not be undermined. The schedule 3 changes are there to implement model laws for controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection. They are intended to prosecute multijurisdictional criminal activity, a type of crime which is becoming more common due to the sophistication of organised criminal groups and in particular those involved in terrorism or transnational crime, including drug trafficking. These model laws will aid the authorisations required for a single jurisdiction to be recognised in other jurisdictions. In relation to schedule 3, I will say that during my time in the Australian Federal Police I was aware of a number of operations which were determined to be controlled operations. That was basically where a member of the AFP was required to assume a false identity and even engage in conduct that broke laws, all in the pursuit of evidence of a serious criminal offence. I would imagine that the number of controlled operations would be far greater now and the governance issues and guidelines would be far more stringent. There are risks involved with operating in this twilight zone of infiltration, investigation and the eventual application of justice. It requires strong safeguards, and I have every confidence that organisations such as the Australian Federal Police have the governance measures and the adherence to legislation to carry out these important roles. To go back to my time in the Federal Police, when I worked in Sydney I met a serving AFP officer who, as part of a controlled operation, knew Sallie-Anne Huckstepp very well. She was a prostitute and drug addict. Her name is somewhat notorious as she was murdered in 1986 by the underworld figure Arthur ‘Neddy’ Smith. Those were the days when the former New South Wales detective Roger Rogerson had, some time earlier, fallen from grace. As a very new constable, I formed the view that I strongly favoured good governance arrangements in those sorts of operations, although I had no direct personal experience in anything more than surveillance and electronic listening posts—unless speeding under orders in unmarked surveillance cars was classified as some sort of controlled operation, and clearly it was not. Perhaps it was, however, one example of where the governance arrangements in the mid-1980s left something to be desired. The schedule 4 amendments to the Criminal Code Act 1995 will enable the prosecution to obtain higher penalties for offenders who commit crimes in organised groups by considering as a group the conduct of offenders who operate together. The purpose of the amendments to the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 is to facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. I would also make some comments about organised crime and the focus on outlaw motorcycle gangs. The media has in the past week widely reported the foundation some time ago of the United Motorcycle Council, representing gangs across Australia, which is soon to open a branch representing seven gangs in Western Australia. The Sunday Times reported that a PR firm had been engaged by the United Motorcycle Council and even ran a story on the young female director. No doubt the United Motorcycle Council would be delighted with the publicity. The PR firm would also be pleased with the profile generated. I would imagine that such a puff piece helped in their ethical concern over the decision to take on these clients. I am sure they have as much trouble sleeping as those members of the legal fraternity that have represented the outlaw motorcycle gangs in past court cases; however, that is a personal opinion. On the high side, the Sunday Times article says that the United Motorcycle Council was rejected originally by a few PR companies. It would seem that money—or fame—is not everything. Whilst at a local shopping centre some months ago I was approached by a very friendly man, whose first question to me was what was my attitude toward Colin Barnett’s bikie law—Colin Barnett being the Premier of Western Australia. I took this as being a response to a number of media reports at the time that talked about tough laws being brought into the Western Australian parliament, although I was not familiar with the detailed proposals. This man was friendly and had a child with him, but he was tall and appeared to spend much of his time lifting heavy weights—certainly more time than I spend. I assumed that he had a vested interest in the outcome of the passing of laws by the WA parliament, but it was clearly apparent that he stood against it. He then told me that he was, in fact, the president of one of the outlaw motorcycle gangs in Perth. I said to him that it was the perception of most people in Perth that members of the motorcycle gangs were involved in crime and particularly drug crime. He told me that he was the owner of a number of small businesses, like tattoo parlours. He also told me that the gang was more like a supportive brotherhood. He went on to say that if a member needed help, all the other members would drop everything to lend assistance, regardless of whether it was even in the middle of the night. I would imagine that what he told me was correct, and that members are obligated to assist other members. Perhaps his gang is different, but when we see images on the news of strengthened clubhouses with high security, these are not images of blokes’ friendship clubs. It is easy to form the perception that there is something to hide and that there are unlawful operations taking place. I also want to comment briefly on the activities in the last week in Western Australia. It has been widely reported that the Finks motorcycle gang have visited Perth in significant numbers and that they are seeking to establish themselves in Perth. The Western Australian police did an excellent job of shadowing them and applying pressure to keep them in line. There appears to be trouble ahead, with the Finks and the Coffin Cheaters predicted to soon be engaged in a turf war. I think that, once again, the Western Australian police have done the right thing and a strong showing by the police has served to demonstrate that the Finks are not welcome, as indeed outlaw motorcycle gangs are not wanted in Perth. I look forward to the state laws being changed soon to increase the pressure on those that organise and commit crime. From the outset I have said that I personally support measures that will toughen up the controls and the ability of law enforcement agencies and the courts to deal with the proceeds of crime for the benefit of society. I also support the sharing of information and the protection of those witnesses undertaking their duties on controlled operations. The accountability of criminals will be enhanced by these measures and I look forward to more effective law enforcement operations in the future, as a result. 11139 19:26:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —I rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. The Roman philosopher Seneca once said, ‘He has committed the crime who profits by it.’ This bill aims to make it much more difficult for criminals and their friends, associates and families to profit from crime. The bill will amend the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 to strengthen the criminal assets confiscation regime. The Prime Minister’s national security statement recognised that organised crime is a growing concern in Australia and a priority issue for this government to address. The Australian Crime Commission estimates that organised crime costs Australia in excess of $10 billion every year. Organised crime is also adaptable and sophisticated and the associated risks carry significant consequences for businesses and the Australian community. According to the commission’s most recent report these costs are realised in many different ways, including loss of legitimate business revenue, loss of taxation revenue, expenditure on law enforcement and regulatory efforts and managing ‘social harms’. This of course refers to when criminal activity compromises the health, safety and wellbeing of individuals and communities. Let us take a little more detailed look at what law-enforcement agencies like the Australian Crime Commission are up against when it comes to organised crime. Through much experience of fighting crime, gathering intelligence and convicting criminals over many years, our key agencies know that organised crime groups engineer much of the nation’s serious crime. These groups are often systematic, well-planned enterprises focusing on making money. In many ways they can be compared with conventional businesses, except of course their activities and profits are illicit. Organised crime groups are formidable in terms of their capabilities, resources and resilience. These groups continue to show willingness to plan carefully, to adapt swiftly to changing law enforcement or regulatory responses and to be inventive in their search for new opportunities for profit. Some of the more enduring networks effectively adopt risk mitigation strategies to protect their illicit profits, and where necessary they behave patiently to ensure the security of the logistic chains and to test to law-enforcement responses. Most groups showed few inhibitions in acquiring expertise from wherever it is available; however, some groups do prefer to deal predominantly with trusted members of their own ethos or ethnicity. The willingness and ability to engage in corrupt activities is a strong characteristic of many organised crime groups, as is their broad geographical reach. Most significant organised crime groups operating in Australia in 2008 were known to have an international dimension to their interests, although the level of direct involvement in transnational activities varies markedly between groups. Governments—and Australia is no exception—will continue to face many challenges as organised crime groups expand their reach and spread. While the strategies and methods organised crime groups use to carry out serious crimes remain largely consistent, they may alter their approach in response to a threat from law enforcement to changing local or global circumstances or to a threat from a competitor. The ability to quickly adapt is a key feature of the current criminal environment and presents a major and ongoing challenge for law enforcement agencies. Interestingly, organised crime groups use new technologies to advance their activities. Organised crime has consistently proven to be an early adapter of new technologies. While this presents challenges for law enforcement, new technologies can also present opportunities for law enforcement to penetrate criminal networks. Not all serious crime is highly organised or undertaken by sophisticated criminal networks. Some people with no criminal background use their particular leverage, knowledge or contacts to commit crimes within their specialised fields. In particular, some elements of the financial service sector can be vulnerable to expert manipulation and other fraudulent actions. Important steps towards improving collaboration between a range of law enforcement, government and industry stakeholders have strengthened the overall response to the threat from organised crime, but addressing the fluid and evolving nature of organised crime will require continued effort and commitment across all sectors. In some areas alternative approaches, such as early prevention and intervention strategies, may be needed more. Increased community awareness is also often required. The Australian Crime Commission has found that, while organised crime groups within Australia are diverse and flexible, high-threat organised crime groups have some consistent characteristics and strategies, contributing to their capabilities and success. Generally, high-threat organisation crime groups: have transnational connections; have proven capabilities and involvement in serious crime of high-harm levels, including illicit drugs, large-scale money laundering and financial crimes; have a broader geographical presence and will generally operate in two or more jurisdictions; operate in multiple crime markets; are engaged in financial crimes, such as fraud and money laundering; intermingle legitimate and criminal enterprises; are fluid, adaptable and able to adjust activities to new opportunities or respond to pressure from law enforcement or competitors; are able to withstand law enforcement interventions and rebuild quickly following disruption; are increasingly using new technologies; and use specialist advice and professional facilitators. Successful organised crime groups have a presence across many sectors and crime types but are typically involved in some form of financial crime or money laundering. They will also have some connection with the illicit drug market. They are likely to be based offshore or connected to an offshore criminal group. They will have the ability to operate in several illicit markets and will move between criminal activities. You can get the idea of the extent and the impact of organised crime in this country from the overview by the Australian Crime Commission. Obviously making money, and in many instances converting that money to assets, is the key driving force behind organised crime. Let us look more closely at this bill and what it aims to achieve. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 implements legislative measures that form part of the national response to serious and organised crime agreed by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General. The bill will strengthen criminal assets confiscation and insert unexplained wealth provisions. The unexplained wealth provisions will permit a court to confiscate a person’s wealth if the person is unable to demonstrate that the wealth was not derived from offences within the Commonwealth constitutional power. The bill will introduce model investigative powers for controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection. These powers will enhance the ability of police to undertake undercover investigations and to target organised crime. The bill will facilitate greater use of telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. The bill will also target persons who engage in criminal activity as part of a group. Controlled operations laws enable law enforcement operatives to be authorised to engage in conduct which may constitute an offence in order to investigate serious offences. The current controlled operations regime is set out in the Crimes Act 1914. The bill will replace a part of that act with the model cross-border controlled operation which was agreed to by the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General in 2004. It will also recognise controlled operations authorisations issued by states and territories to provide state and territory officers with protection from liability from Commonwealth offences. This will strengthen the ability of law enforcement agencies to conduct effective operations targeting organised crime. Assumed identity laws enable the use of a false identity by an undercover operative engaged in investigating crimes, infiltrating organised crime groups and gathering intelligence. The bill will replace the current Commonwealth regime for assumed identities in the Crimes Act. The new regime will allow Commonwealth operatives to access state and territory identity documents to build a more robust assumed identity. This will assist operatives to infiltrate the more highly organised and sophisticated criminal groups. Importantly, implementation of the model laws will also provide for the mutual recognition of assumed identities acquired or used under a state or territory corresponding law. Let us now also have a look at the witness identity protection element of this bill. The bill will replace the current witness identity protection scheme in a section of the Crimes Act with provisions consistent with national model legislation on witness identity protection. The intent of the model legislation is to harmonise, as closely as possible, witness identity protection schemes across Australia. The bill will create a mechanism for protecting the true identity of law enforcement officers, intelligence officers, foreign law enforcement officers or civilian witnesses who have lawfully obtained assumed identities or have been participants in controlled operations and are required to give evidence in legal proceedings. Telecommunications interception plays a very important role in these changes. Part of the proposed national response to address organised crime involves the introduction of criminal organisation offences—for example, associating with a criminal organisation or instructing the commission of an offence for a criminal organisation. Some of these offences may carry a maximum penalty of five years imprisonment, which is below the seven-year imprisonment threshold for the use of telecommunications interception. The bill will amend the definition of ‘serious offence’ in the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. This bill will also amend a part of the Criminal Code Act 1995 to include a new ground for extending criminal liability in relation to persons who jointly commit offences. This is consistent with the common law. The extension of criminal liability under the Criminal Code to cover joint commission of criminal offences will target persons who engage in criminal activity as part of a group. The provision will enable the prosecution to obtain higher penalties for offenders who commit crimes in organised groups by aggregating the conduct of offenders who operate together. The measures governments take through their law enforcement and crime-fighting agencies will never be enough to completely rid society of organised and serious crime. Organised crime operates within and alongside legitimate business, making industry and the public potential sources of information about organised crime. Increased public awareness of the indicators of organised criminal activity may help to support prevention and reduction of such activity. Much fraud is rendered ineffective when the potential victim is able to recognise the signs of an attempted crime. Identity crime can be prevented through improvements to identity verification and public education. Awareness and understanding of the threats of organised criminal activity will continue to be a key component of the fight against organised crime in Australia. There are also specialised strategies in place. Organised crime has the capability to resist law enforcement efforts. Law enforcement uses special tools including coercive powers, covert intelligence, surveillance and a range of specialised analytical and investigative techniques to overcome this resistance. Law enforcement responses will, by necessity, continue to be predominately reactive and directed toward issues affecting single jurisdictions. However, proactive and specialised law enforcement approaches are critical to the success of efforts to combat organised crime. This includes ongoing collaboration between state, territory and federal law enforcement agencies. There are current operations, investigations or task forces addressing amphetamines and other synthetic drugs, illicit firearms markets, high-risk crime groups, tax fraud and other financial crimes, outlaw motorcycle gangs, crime in the private security industry, and Indigenous violence and child abuse. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009 aims to help our agencies better fight crime by making it harder for criminals to profit, as well as bringing the perpetrators of organised crime to justice. I commend the bill to the House. 11143 19:39:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —In addressing the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009, let us start with the problem. The problem is that organised crime still exists on a grand scale within Australia. It takes the form of drugs, prostitution, standover work and illicit and illegal gambling. It is, in short, a blight and a cancer—an illness—upon our society. As a parliament which by world standards has had a remarkably unblemished record of corruption and engagement with criminal activity, we have a duty to ensure that the standards we set will help protect and preserve community life, economic life and public safety and order over the coming decade and generation. I want to reflect briefly on the fact that of course there have been individual cases within the Australian parliament over the last century of improper activity, but we have a parliament of which we should be proud on both sides of this House. There is an almost unique level of probity which exists and resides in the Parliament of Australia. It is something of which we should be proud, it is something to which we should be committed and it is something which we must hand on to future generations. From the sanctity and strength of probity measures within this House we are thereby able to establish a platform and a base to reach out to broader society. Because the nature of crime has moved from state based activity to national and international activity over the last three decades, we must focus on organised crime at the national and international levels. I strongly support the intention of the measures contained within this bill. The Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime Bill) 2009 essentially seeks to achieve four principal outcomes. Firstly, there is the strengthening of criminal asset confiscation and targeting of unexplained wealth, dealt with by provisions into which I will delve in more detail shortly. It is an important means of addressing hardcore criminal activity on an organised basis which seeks to avoid lawful detection. It is, as we have seen in Western Australia and the Northern Territory, an important tool. Secondly, there is the enhancement of police powers to investigate organised crime by implementing model laws for controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection. Thirdly, the joint commission of criminal offences is addressed. Fourthly, greater access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences is facilitated. These are all desirable goals in the fight against organised crime and systemic corruption. They are, however, subject to two key factors, in my view. Firstly, when we set out additional powers there must be safeguards against abuse. We must be the guardians of the guardians. That is the lesson of history not just in Australia but throughout the world. There are numerous examples where significant powers can be misused by a very small number of individuals. That is not the practice or the history in Australia, although of course there are individual examples, but it is the temptation and therefore we must ensure that adequate safeguards are established. To that effect, in good faith, opposition senators in the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which examined this bill, set out a series of concerns—firstly, in relation to an appropriate head of power for this law. We would like to see appropriate guarantees. Secondly, in relation to the trigger for an unexplained wealth order, we would like to see strong consideration either of the standard for the trigger or of the standard of proof once an investigation has been made and a charge has been brought. Thirdly, we have concerns in relation to the Australian Federal Police being empowered to apply for a restraining order under the unexplained wealth provisions. We would like to see that the orders may be required in circumstances of great urgency to prevent the dispersal of assets, and we would like this power of a restraining order to be readily available. It is less invasive than a general explained wealth order and more easily reversed. We think that this is an important tool. Fourthly, we have issues in relation to the disclosure of information, which have been set out by others in greater detail. The general provision is strong support for the concepts contained within this legislation. The duty of this parliament is to ensure that the intent, force and capacity of the Australian Federal Police and of other agencies involved are in no way diminished by the safeguards we put in place. But it is very important that the democratic balance is struck so that the laws cannot be used by the very small number of people who may seek to abuse their position as guardians at some future time. I do not say this is inevitable, I do not say this is likely but I do say that always in giving power it must not be unfettered power; it must be power which is itself subject to review. That is our task, that is our role, that is our duty and that is our responsibility. We want to work in good faith with the government. We want to ensure that there are adequate safeguards and that this in turn will allow us to take clear steps forward to strike at the cancer of organised crime. The other area on which I believe there is scope for amendment is in a very different direction. It is not directly in this bill but it is in relation to the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill (No. 2) 2009 in its mooted form. This is a personal view which I set out—it has not been adopted at this point by the coalition party room. I would like to see one of the penalties significantly strengthened. I would like to see the penalty which is set out in that bill for bribery of public officials strengthened from what I believe is 10 years to a 15-year maximum penalty—a tougher provision, a tougher sentencing arrangement where there is bribery of public officials as part of an organised crime syndicate or in the practice of organised crime. I believe that is something which is significant and which profoundly strikes at the reliability of our systems. I should like to see that these penalties are strengthened, both for those seeking to carry out the bribery and for those who are found guilty of accepting a bribe. I think on each side anybody engaged in bribery of public officials or any public official who receives a bribe should be subject to heavy penalties. That is related, it flows from the intent, it flows from the force, it flows from the direction of this legislation and in my personal view it would add to, enhance and strengthen that which is proposed here. It will put people on watch all around the country that this parliament is serious about brooking no breach of public accountability standards. However, this is not coalition policy; it is a personal view which I put forward for tougher penalties on bribery of public officials, whether it is those doing it as part of an organised crime process or those who succumb to the temptation of accepting a bribe. The general intent of bringing forth legislation which is comparable to that in place in the Northern Territory and Western Australia for the use of unexplained wealth provisions to deal with organised crime—whether it is a traditional crime syndicate, a bikie syndicate or some other form of organised crime—is a very strong measure. I strongly, deeply and passionately support the general direction of the legislation. I commend Senator George Brandis and my very good friend the member for La Trobe, Jason Wood, for their commitment to this legislation and for ensuring that there is a balance of safeguards and toughness. It is responsible if we can ensure that there are safeguards. I want to see this legislation passed, I would like the government to take our advice in good faith. I say to my friend Jason Wood, who cannot speak this evening because of illness, that your work has been recognised. We will stand for, fight for and pursue the provisions which will give us the capacity to take on the organised crime that you faced as a member of the Victoria Police. We will ensure that the sort of thing which hurts mums and dads, shopkeepers, people who seek to live a peaceful life in good order is dealt with and that these organised crime syndicates are ultimately crushed. For those reasons I support the intent of the legislation. I hope we can reach an accommodation with the government in the Senate. I believe that we will be able to do that and I would like to see us work together as a parliament to eradicate forever the prospect of organised crime or of any bribery of public officials. 11145 19:50:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to support the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. It has been estimated that, on average, organised crime costs the Australian economy $15 billion a year. That is a massive amount and it does not take much imagination to think of all the places this money could be better spent across our country. Organised crime is adaptable and sophisticated, and the associated risk carries significant consequences for businesses and for the Australian community. Only by putting in place strong laws to combat organised crime can we target the profits of criminal activity and remove the incentive for criminals to engage in organised criminal activity. I have already mentioned that a conservative estimate of the cost of organised crime to the Australian economy is $15 billion a year. This calculation was made as an extrapolation of current international estimates of the cost of organised crime applied to the Australian environment and, in part, on intelligence developed by the Australian Crime Commission. This is a cost that presents in many different ways: loss of legitimate business revenue, loss of taxation revenue, expenditure on law enforcement and regulatory efforts, and managing social harms when criminal activity compromises the health, safety and wellbeing of individuals and communities. I make particular mention of the fact that the taxation commissioner and the Australian Taxation Office have been involved in the formation of this legislation and I want to praise the Rudd government for its pursuit of crime, particularly corporate crime and crimes such as this bill targets. I think there is now very healthy cooperation amongst regulators, agencies and departments and a much more strategic approach to data sharing and data matching. I do praise the work of the Taxation Commissioner and I was also relieved last Friday to hear him say in a public hearing in relation to taxation that some of the problems experienced in the ATO with staff members suspected of being involved with or inveigled by criminals is under control and being pursued rigorously. That $15 billion that organised crime costs the economy is money that could have been spent on our health system, schools, nation-building infrastructure and the creation of jobs. Instead, it is money wasted, lining the pockets of a small number of very greedy individuals. The groups who are costing our country so much are well-planned enterprises that are systematically focused on one thing: making money. Much like a conventional business, you could say, until you take into account the illegal methods by which they go about accumulating their revenue. Their capabilities are formidable, as are their resources and of course their persistence and resilience. As reported in the 2009 Australian Crime Commission report Organised crime in Australia: Organised crime groups continue to show a willingness to plan carefully, to adapt swiftly to changing law enforcement or regulatory responses and to be inventive in their search for new opportunities for profit. Some of the more enduring networks effectively adopt risk mitigation strategies to protect their illicit profits, where necessary behaving patiently to ensure the security of their logistics chains and to test law enforcement responses. The willingness and capability to engage a broad geographic and demographic scope is a strong characteristic of these groups. We are talking about all levels of Australian society here, from illicit drug-runners to high-end corporate crime. For instance, money laundering and specialist financial advice is incredibly critical for organised criminal groups to succeed. Organised crime operates within and alongside legitimate business, making industry and the public potential sources, we hope, of information about organised crime, but also often unintended or innocent victims. Quoting again from the ACC report: Financially skilled facilitators who knowingly or unwittingly help criminals retain and legitimise proceeds of crime, avoid taxation and other obligations relating to legally obtained income, will continue to be critical to successful criminal operations. Regulatory regimes managing the financial sector will become an increasingly important component in the prevention of organised crime. I am pleased to say this bill is one of a suite of bills. It sits alongside the strengthening of many of our agencies and regulatory bodies—a consequence, too, of the global financial crisis that we can only see as a positive one. Organised crime groups will engage with anybody and everybody, no matter their backgrounds, to maximise their power and their profit. For instance, the ACC found that outlaw motorcycle groups are using standover tactics to intimidate business rivals as they expand from drug trading to legitimate businesses and industries around Australia. Their involvement in outwardly legitimate business enterprises is potentially impacting adversely on a number of key market sectors in Australia, including the finance sector, transport, private security, entertainment, natural resources and construction. Police investigations have also discovered that outlaw motorcycle gangs have attacked businesses that have cooperated with police; forced a man to flee the country after he was involved in a confrontation with a bikie; invested heavily in natural resources, including Australian mining and Indonesian oil rigs; intimidated potential rival bidders at property auctions; and become major players in gun-running, tax fraud and money-laundering schemes. They have also planned to use frontmen to buy a legal brothel in Melbourne, infiltrated government departments to access confidential computer records and hidden a triple killer from police in Melbourne for 18 months. Put plainly, organised crime, like the example just listed, is the main contributor to our nation’s serious crime. The organised crime groups that pose the most significant risk to Australia are transnational; have proven capabilities and involvement in serious crime; operate generally in two or more regions or states; operate in multiple crime markets; are engaged in the illicit drugs market, fraud and money laundering; intermingle legitimate and criminal enterprises; are fluid and adaptable; are able to employ a range of strategies to further their activities, including violence and corruption; withstand disruption; use new technologies; and use specialist advice and professional facilitators. I think that gives you some idea of just how difficult it is to combat and pursue organised crime. This bill, pursuing the proceeds of organised crime, we would hope will be a very effective deterrent. After the outbreak of violence witnessed in the earlier part of this year focused around outlaw biker gangs, public sentiment and outrage demanded that greater action be taken in stemming the reach, influence and pervasiveness of these elements in our society. Seeing individuals act with no regard for law or decency, individuals who have become for all rights a law unto themselves, is not acceptable. That is why in April 2009 the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General, from across this country, agreed to a set of resolutions for a national response to organised crime. First and foremost, this was a shining example of the effectiveness of COAG in coming together to produce effective nationwide legislation in the interests of Australians—except, of course, the criminals. It is also a way to strengthen the arm of the agencies that are constantly engaged in detecting, deterring or stopping criminal activity. We would hope that this legislation does strengthen agencies such as the Federal Police and others. In response to the shared threat posed by organised crime to all states and territories of Australia, this bill will implement the Commonwealth’s commitment as part of a national response to enhance its legislation to combat organised crime. It will strengthen criminal asset confiscation and target unexplained wealth. It will enhance police powers to investigate organised crime by implementing model laws for controlled operations, assumed identities and witness identity protection. It will address the joint commission of criminal offences and facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. According to the Joint Committee on Australian Crime Commission report, the previous difficulties in defining organised crime groups made the anti-association laws very complex and therefore very hard to enforce. The committee also said the laws carried the risk of only netting relatively small-time players rather than senior figures. The committee was strongly of the view that in order to prevent serious and organised crime it was critical to remove or reduce the motivation for it—and, of course, that is money. The committee made seven recommendations, including enhancing data collection. That was based closely on the Al Capone type measures taken in Britain that target individual criminals for tax evasion as well as forcing suspected criminals with extravagant lifestyles to explain how they came by their wealth, instead of prosecutors having to link their wealth to criminal acts. I again put on the record my support and encouragement of the ATO and the work they are doing with detecting high-wealth individuals who are evading tax. Any investigations certainly do need to look at whether criminal activity is involved. This bill will also see assets confiscated from those suspected by the courts of obtaining an income through federal offences. The seizure of criminal proceeds is an incredibly effective way of disrupting the activities of these organised crime groups and hitting them where it actually hurts most. It could be said there is a concern that these new measures attempting to limit criminal activity may impinge on personal privacy and curtail civil rights. Of course, as is the norm for our Attorney-General, the bill does contain important safeguards. The proposed laws will be checked by the regulation of the Commonwealth Ombudsman. Any undercover operations will need special authority granted every three months. No operation will last more than 14 months without having to go through the whole process again. Police will not be allowed to engage in conduct that could cause serious injury, sexual offence or death. It must be said that this bill is not about targeting and discriminating against particular groups and social circles in Australian society. It is about attacking the systemic foundations of organised crime and the individuals who profit from it, and it is about protecting ordinary Australians—working families, the average taxpayer, aged pensioners, single parents, youth—from the rogue elements of our society. As Australia’s new top cop, Australian Federal Police Commissioner Tony Negus, said upon being sworn in: This is an enormous problem that we must fight together for our nation’s sake and for our children’s sake … attacking and recovering the proceeds of crime will play a key role in our future strategy. For those reasons, I commend this bill to the House and praise the work of the Attorney-General in his pursuit of organised crime, reflected in this bill, and that of his staff and the advisers in his department. 11148 20:02:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 0 0 Dr WASHER —It is a pleasure to follow the member for Newcastle in speaking on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. The bill amends the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006, the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002, the Crimes Act 1914, the Criminal Code Act 1995, the Customs Act 1901, the Law Enforcement Integrity Commissioner Act 2006, the Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act 1987, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, the Surveillance Devices Act 2004, the Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 and the Witness Protection Act 1994. I commend the Attorney-General for achieving all of those great goals. In April and August of this year, the Standing Committee of Attorneys-General agreed to a set of resolutions and arrangements for a comprehensive national response to combat organised crime. This bill implements legislative aspects of the national response that were not implemented by the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill introduced in June of this year. The additional measures in this second bill strengthen existing laws to more effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute organised crime activity and target the proceeds of organised criminal groups. In general terms the bill aims to: strengthen criminal asset confiscation and anti-money laundering laws; enhance search and seizure powers and the ability of law enforcement to access data from electronic equipment; improve the operation of the National Witness Protection Program, including by increasing protection for current and former participants and officers involved in its operation; introduce new offences that would target persons involved in organised crime and facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception for the investigation of new serious and organised crime offences; improve the operation and accountability of the Australian Crime Commission; improve money laundering, bribery and drug importation offences; and make minor and consequential amendments to correct references to provisions dealing with the extension of criminal liability. Although these aims are to be commended, there are some aspects of the bill that need to be considered closely. The purpose of schedule 4 is to insert four new offences targeting persons involved in serious and organised crime into the Criminal Code Act 1995. Specifically these new offences are: associating with a person engaged in criminal activity in a manner which may facilitate organised crime, providing material support to a criminal organisation, directing the activities of a criminal organisation and committing an offence for the benefit of or at the direction of a criminal organisation. The first three of these offences extend the traditional boundaries of liability to include alleged conduct which facilitates criminal activity at a broader level rather than conduct which is specifically linked to the commission or planning of an offence. This broadening of criminal liability would certainly enable law enforcement to prosecute those who play an important, if not direct, role in the commission of serious organised crime. However, this benefit must be balanced with the fact that people may be exposed to sanction not because of their specific conduct but because of their associations with offenders or offences. The focus of criminal liability is shifted from a person’s conduct to their associations. Some people in our society have a greater choice than others about the extent to which they may interact with those that potentially engage in criminal activity. Although the defence provisions extend to immediate family relationships, relationships with cousins, aunties, uncles and so on are not covered. The Criminal Code does not currently extend criminal responsibility to include those that attempt to commit an offence; those that aid, abet, counsel or procure the commission of an offence; those that urge the commission of an offence; those that conspire with another to commit an offence; and those that procure conduct of another that would have constituted an offence. Also the code contains substantive offence provisions which criminalise conduct such as the possession, transfer or receipt of property or funds which either are the proceeds of an offence or are likely to be used as an instrument of an offence. As outlined by the Law Council of Australia in its submission to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee, if these amendments can help law enforcement agencies where they have evidence that certain persons are engaged in conduct which is harmful to the community but they are unable to act as the law lacks a provision that prohibits such conduct, then they are to be commended. If, however, law is to be amended to assist where a suspicion of unlawful conduct exists but law enforcement is unable to act due to insufficient evidence to substantiate their suspicion, then it needs to be examined more closely, which is what the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee is currently undertaking—and I look forward to their report being issued on the 16 November this year. Criminal asset confiscation is proposed to be strengthened through schedule 1 of the bill, which amends the Proceeds of Crimes Act 2002. The proposed amendments respond to recommendations of law enforcement agencies and to the 2006 Commonwealth Report on the independent review of the operation of the proceeds of Crime Act 2002, by Mr Tom Sherman AO. The amendments in schedule 1 will: make tests for exclusion and recovery of property fairer and more consistent including strengthening protections for third parties; improve the operation of examination provisions; increase the effectiveness of information gathering tools under the Proceeds of Crime Act; clarify the operation of orders ancillary to restraining orders; address technical recommendations with respect to the admission of evidence; ensure the correct calculation of pecuniary penalty orders; expand and clarify definitions used in the act; and make minor and technical amendments to the act, including to enhance the effectiveness of the Confiscated Assets Account. The overarching purpose of these amendments is to improve the operation of the Proceeds of Crime Act to ensure that it can be used effectively to deprive persons involved in organised crime of the financial benefits of their criminal activity. Schedule 2 contains search related amendments that will target two main aspects of the search warrant provisions in the Crimes Act 1914. Firstly, the reforms will allow material seized under the act to be used by, and shared between, Commonwealth, state, territory and foreign law enforcement agencies This is necessary for the proper investigation of offences which cross jurisdictional boundaries. The second component of the amendments will ensure that law enforcement agencies are able to effectively and efficiently access and search electronic equipment to keep up with technological advancements. Essentially, it will make it easier for police to access and copy data from electronic equipment located at warrant premises. Currently police may operate electronic equipment found at a warrant premise if they believe on reasonable grounds that the data may constitute evidential material. The proposed amendments remove the requirement of believing on reasonable grounds, so essentially data can be accessed regardless of whether that material is suspected to be evidential material. It must be kept in mind that this may have far-reaching privacy implications as such data can include material held offsite at multiple locations where it can be accessed through the electronic equipment. Schedule 3 proposes to amend the Witness Protection Act 1994 to improve the operation of the National Witness Protection Program. The program provides protection and assistance to people who are assessed as being in danger because they have given, or have agreed to give, evidence or a statement on behalf of the Crown in criminal or certain other proceedings, or because of their relationship to such a person. The amendments implement recommendations made in the 2003 Review of the national witness protection program and are informed by operational experience with the program. The amendments aim to: provide increased protection and security for witnesses and others included in the program, as well as officers involved in the operation; allow protection and assistance available under the program to be extended to former participants and other related persons where appropriate; and ensure that state and territory participants are afforded the same protection and have the same obligations as Commonwealth participants. The purpose of part 1 of schedule 5 is to enhance the ability of law enforcement agencies to investigate and prosecute the money laundering offences within the Criminal Code. The amendments aim to address problems that have been identified by the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions and the Australian Federal Police when investigating and prosecuting the money laundering offences under the code. Of particular note, the amendments extend the geographical jurisdiction of those offences and remove limitations on the scope of the offences to enable them to apply to the full extent of the Commonwealth’s constitutional power in this area. The purpose of part 2 of schedule 5 is to address issues identified by AUSTRAC, the anti money laundering and counter-terrorism financing regulator, when taking enforcement action against reporting entities that do not comply with their obligations under the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing Act 2006. Schedule 6 will make an urgent amendment to the Crimes Act to ensure that federal defendants in Victoria can continue to appeal a finding that they are unfit to plead This will address changes to Victorian legislation that will take effect from October 2009. Schedule 7 will amend the Australian Crime Commission Act 2002 to improve the operation and accountability of the Australian Crime Commission, including by enhancing the commission’s powers to deal with uncooperative witnesses, clarifying procedural powers for issuing summons and notices to produce, and requiring regular, independent review of the commission. This addresses the problem highlighted in the 2008 report of Mr Mark Trowell QC, where the lack of contempt power for dealing with uncooperative witnesses in examinations was a significant impediment to its capacity to combat serious and organised crime. These amendments provide the commission with the power to refer uncooperative witnesses to court to be dealt with for contempt. Schedule 8 will substantially increase the penalties for the offences of bribing a foreign public official and bribery of a Commonwealth public official. The existing penalty for both offences is 10 years imprisonment. The courts can impose instead or in addition a pecuniary penalty which equates to a maximum of $66,000 for an individual and $330,000 for a body corporate. In 2006 the OECD, in reviewing the penalties in light of the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, found that they were not effective, proportionate or dissuasive as required by the convention. The amendments will increase the penalty for bribing to 10 years, a fine of $1.1 million or both for an individual; and the penalty of a body corporate the greater of $11 million, three times the value of any benefit obtained that is reasonably attributable to the conduct or, if the benefit cannot be calculated, 10 per cent of the annual turnover of the body corporate during the 12 months ending at the end of the month in which the conduct occurred. Schedule 9 will extend the definition of ‘import’ within the Criminal Code to include ‘dealing with a substance in connection with its importation’. The effect of this amendment is that the Commonwealth drug importation offences will capture a broader range of criminal activity. It is thought that organised crime costs Australia $15 billion every year. These crimes operate across international and state borders and employ high-tech equipment and technology. This bill contains a range of measures to enhance the law’s ability to prevent, investigate and prosecute such criminal activity and to target the proceeds from organised crime. In general I commend the bill; however, I am conscious of the pending Senate committee’s report and recommended amendments to be made in the Senate. 11151 20:17:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise tonight to voice my support for the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. This bill is yet another example of the government’s commitment to making Australia safer and to addressing the problems that we have with organised crime. The key elements of this bill will implement legislative aspects of the national response to organised crime that were not implemented by the first serious and organised crime bill. This bill will introduce additional measures to strengthen existing laws to more effectively prevent, investigate and prosecute organised crime activity and target the proceeds of organised criminal groups. The bill will see practical reforms in six areas. The bill will introduce new offences that will target persons involved in organised crime and facilitate greater access to telecommunications interception for the investigation of new serious and organised crime offences. The bill will improve offences against money laundering, bribery and drug importation. The bill will enhance search and seizure powers and the ability of law enforcement to access data from electronic equipment. Importantly, the bill will strengthen criminal asset confiscation and anti-money-laundering laws. It will also improve the operation and accountability of the Australian Crime Commission. Lastly, the bill will improve the operation of the National Witness Protection Program, increasing protection for current and former participants and officers involved in its operation. The ringleaders of organised crime syndicates often target very vulnerable people to assist them in criminal activities. The traffickers of drugs often use desperate people as mules and this bill will see improved prosecution of organised crime through new criminal organisation offences and enhanced money-laundering, bribery and drug importation offences. Like most Australians, the only exposure I have had to organised crime is what I have read in the newspapers or what I have seen on television. I am sure we have all seen TV shows such as Border Security and the like. I am not sure how close it was to the truth but the Underbelly series definitely exposed a side of Australia I never knew existed. As a father, an uncle and a friend to many teenagers, I often worry about younger kids who are exposed to the social scene of today where, unfortunately, drugs are available and organised crime is happening. This bill will help the agencies fighting this sad reality at the coalface. A good friend of mine, Les Twentyman, whom you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, who runs the charity the 20th Man in Melbourne, has often had to deal with the shattered lives of kids, many as a result of drug addiction. Sadly, I have heard today that in Gove in the Northern Territory a 19-year-old has passed away from a drug overdose in the last 24 hours. I visited Footscray with Les about 12 months ago and sat and spoke to three young heroin addicts in the Footscray mall and it showed me just how close to home this really is. At the time Les was working for another organisation and when we went into their facilities we saw a shrine up on the wall of all the people that had died of drug overdoses during Les’s time with this organisation. A lot of the photos just looked like family photos that all of us would have on the wall at home. There were a lot of young Asian students and a lot of people from different ethnic backgrounds, but there was certainly a good sprinkling, unfortunately, of Caucasian Australian kids, both female and male. It was just like walking into any house in Australia and seeing pictures on the wall. It really drove home to me as the father of five children the things that are going to confront them as they move on in their lives, where these drugs are coming from and how we as a society are going to combat them. I think these types of laws will continue to be revisited, because it is really important that we continue to give the people who are making progress in regard to these crimes, in particular our drug and law enforcement agencies, the powers that let them do their jobs properly. So I do not think that this will be the last time that members get to speak on these types of laws. There is no doubt that the criminals will not sit back and just accept the changes to the law and the new laws that we want to introduce to make a safer society. They will certainly be working hard to tweak their business in order to make detection harder. Serious and organised crime are involved in illegal business. There are bosses, middlemen and distributors, and they all profit from illegal activities, leaving a trail of carnage in their wake. This bill will provide stronger investigative and criminal asset confiscation powers to assist in the detection and disruption of organised crime activity. Australian law enforcement agencies, in all jurisdictions, do a fantastic job. The Northern Territory, as has been mentioned in this debate, have introduced very strong laws in regard to the confiscation of assets that are unexplained wealth, if you like. As a press release from the Chief Minister reads: The Territory Government continues to crack down on crime with the seizure and auction of a three-bedroom house bought from the proceeds of criminal activity. The Chief Minister Paul Henderson said the three-bedroom two-storey Karama house—valued at more than $500,000—was seized under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act last year.  “This sends a strong message—if you engage in criminal behaviour, we will hit you where it hurts and you’ll lose your house, your cars and your boat,” Mr Henderson said. “The Territory Government’s tough on crime package continues to deliver real results with more than $13 million in cash and property seized since 2002. “The 3-bedroom house was seized last year along with vehicles and other household property valued at $97,690 as part of a 3-year police investigation. The resourcing of police is very important. Certainly, the new police station at Casuarina has been very well received by the police force. It is bigger, it allows for greater communication and it has better areas for detectives to do their work—all very important in combating organised crime. The press release from the NT Chief Minister continued:  “All the items seized were under the control of a 47-year-old unemployed male. All the assets were in the names of family members. The laws up in the Northern Territory gave the police the ability to seize this property and to make sure that the person engaged in this activity did not benefit at all, nor did his family, from the illegal activities that he was engaged in. The press release continued: The house is the fourth in Darwin to be seized and sold under the Criminal Property Forfeiture Act. The vehicles, which include a ute, van and sedan, will be auctioned off at a later date. Mr Henderson said the Territory Government is also strengthening its tough on crime package with last week’s introduction of the Serious Crime Control Bill aimed at cracking down on bikie gangs and other organised crime. “The safety of the community is a top priority for this Government and we don’t want criminal gangs fleeing other states and coming here,” he said. So they are really making a difference up there at the Northern Territory, with some of the laws that the Chief Minister and the legislative assembly have been passing in this area. This bill will enhance Commonwealth search and seizure powers to enable the proper investigation of offences which cross jurisdictional boundaries and ensure that law enforcement agencies’ powers to access and search electronic equipment keep pace with technological advancements by enhancing their ability to access data from electronic equipment. As the Prime Minister of Australia said in the first national security statement to the parliament in December last year, serious and organised crime, as an ever-present threat to the safety and prosperity of Australians and a challenge to the integrity of our institutions, is as important as any other security threat, with an estimated cost in excess of $10 billion per year. Crime is increasingly sophisticated and transnational. This bill will help the members of our law enforcement agencies better fight serious and organised crime by making it harder for criminals to profit from their crimes, as well as bringing the perpetrators of organised crime to justice. I commend the bill to the House. 11154 20:27:00 Wood, Jason, MP E0F La Trobe LP 0 0 Mr WOOD —I also rise to speak on the Crimes Legislation Amendment (Serious and Organised Crime) Bill 2009. This bill aims to strengthen legislative controls to target organised criminal activity through the introduction of unexplained wealth provisions; enhancing police powers in relation to controlled operations, identity theft and witness protection; and increased access to telecommunications interception for criminal organisation offences. I believe the government is trying to do the right thing here and I congratulate the Attorney-General and his department. In particular, I want to focus on the unexplained wealth provisions. Early this year I travelled with other members of the Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission on a delegation overseas and we got to see first-hand, when we met with the Italian authorities, how they brought down serious and organised crime simply by following the money trail. If you can imagine it, it is like a pyramid, and the higher you get up the pyramid the less you actually have your hands on the drugs or stolen goods et cetera. One thing I am very concerned about is raising the threshold from ‘reasonable grounds to suspect’ to ‘reasonable grounds to believe’ before the DPP can actually bring the matter before a court. It is hard enough for police to get prosecutions against the most powerful organised crime figures in this country, and that is why I believe that the bar should not be lifted any higher for law enforcement agencies. As a former policeman and member of the organised crime squad obviously I have very strong feelings about this. I would hate to see people in this country go free who, as we heard previous speakers say, reap their profits from the deaths of young people who get involved with illegal drugs. The way to target serious and organised crime is simply to go after the money. That was the message we heard loud and clear on our trip. Again, as a former police officer I know the police associations across Australia really support this legislation. Similar laws in the Northern Territory and Western Australia have been very effective in dealing with serious and organised crime. Debate interrupted. 11154 Adjournment 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order! It being 8.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 11154 11154 20:30:00 Johnson, Michael, MP 00AMX Ryan LP 0 0 Mr JOHNSON —I have received a letter which says: Dear Michael Ryan Rocks Competition 2009 was fantastic! My son Matthew played rhythm guitar in the band Kreedhorse. It was the most valuable experience he could have for a 12 year old boy learning guitar. The judges were very impressive and certainly had a hard job. Thank you for the opportunity you have provided for young musicians to experience live performances and competitions. I feel it was a huge success and hope that it continues into the future. That was from a constituent of mine who I am very proud to say in the parliament was in her remarks very impressed with and very generous about the Ryan Rocks initiative which had its inaugural show last Friday, 23 October at St Peter Chanel Catholic Primary School in The Gap, which is in the Ryan electorate. I want to take this opportunity in the parliament to thank all those young musicians in the Ryan electorate who participated in Ryan Rocks 2009. Ryan Rocks is an initiative, as I said, that I came up with to try to bring young musicians from schools across the western suburbs in the Ryan electorate together and perform in a competitive yet still very friendly and fraternal atmosphere. It brought together primary school students as well as high school students. I can say very proudly that the performances of those young musicians were certainly inspiring. I want to acknowledge them, as well as the judges and sponsors, here in the House of Representatives as the federal member for Ryan and, indeed, as a very impressed member of the audience. First of all, I congratulate the overall winner, a group called WheeleR. They played a rock piece. I must confess I am not a connoisseur of rock music, but I certainly understand from the judges, as it was a unanimous decision, that it was a very impressive piece. These young students are brothers. Their parents were in the audience and they were very proud parents indeed. To the Wheeler brothers: thank you very much for being part of this Ryan Rocks initiative and congratulations on your success. Winning the classical section was Daniel Tagiev, winning the solo section was Stephanie Burgin and winning the covers section was JayCee Squared. The overall winner out of those four sections was WheeleR, who also won the band-originals section. A local competition such as this does not take place without the very generous support of community organisations and businesses and members of the community. First of all, let me thank Inspector Joe Joyce of the Queensland Police Service who is in charge of the northern suburbs, including The Gap, in the Ryan electorate. He very generously agreed to be MC, so I thank him very publicly for his contribution to the evening and for making sure it was a very successful evening. Sponsors were Kid Rock Productions, Forte School of Music, Billy Hyde Music and Sonnic Beat Sound Lighting and Productions. Thank you very much to all of them for their contributions. In particular, I thank the Forte School of Music, a local business that tries to reach out into the talents of the young people. I publicly and very generously thank the new Managing Director of the Forte School of Music, David Doherty, for his generous support. He very kindly offered a $200 gift voucher to each section winner. Daniel Tagiev, Stephanie Burgin, JayCee Squared and WheeleR each received a $200 gift voucher proudly donated by the Forte School of Music. To all the young people who participated: thank you very much again for your talents. I do not think that in our community, in our society and indeed in our world the power of music is fully appreciated. I still do not think that the power of music to connect people, to connect communities and to connect the disengaged is appreciated. I, for one, feel very remiss that I do not have a musical bone in my body. but my little three-year-old son Ryan, who is the light of my life, tinkers on our little second-hand piano at our home and I hope very much that he is blessed with the rewards and success of enjoying music. As I said, music has so much capacity to bring people and communities together. I hope that our society and our community—and, in my case, as the federal member for Ryan—can use music to bring people together, to bring schools together and to bring the young musicians of the Ryan electorate together. ((Time expired) 11155 11155 20:35:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I am very pleased to rise to raise an issue that is very important in my electorate and very important to small businesses in my electorate and that is the issue of broadband. I have raised this many times in the House and I want to raise it again because it is such a critical issue. We hear a lot from the opposition in this place about their being the champions of small business, but we have not heard them talk about broadband. In fact, the Southern Economic Development Board in my electorate that looks at economic development within the southern suburbs of Adelaide have put broadband access as the No. 1 issue that is stopping expansion of businesses in the southern suburbs. This is just how critical the issue of broadband is. So I was very pleased with the government and support wholeheartedly the government’s announcement about the National Broadband Network. I am continually disappointed with the opposition. I think the opposition is going to support something about the National Broadband Network and then they disappoint me. It keeps continuing, as it did last week when we saw them not supporting the encouragement of structural separation of Telstra. Broadband is very critical, but I want to not just talk about the negatives and the failures of the previous government on broadband but look at some of the things in the interim that are happening in my electorate while the National Broadband Network is being built. I draw the House’s attention to a very cooperative announcement made between the Commonwealth, the state government and Adam Internet. This organisation is looking to build what is called Adam WiMAX across the southern suburbs of Adelaide. Adam WiMAX is putting in a number of wireless services that will be rolled out by November 2010. This will mean that large parts of my electorate which have struggled—places like Hallett Cove, Sheidow Park and Aldinga—will now be able to receive broadband at metro equivalent prices and at real metro equivalent speeds. In fact, they will be receiving speeds of 12 megabytes, which is particularly important because they have not been able to receive that for so long. This is incredibly important for the local area. Once again, this is an initiative that has been supported by the Commonwealth government, the state government and by industry. In addition to that, I am very pleased that it is also being supported by the business enterprise centre. They will be running a special forum for small businesses to tell them exactly how they can access this. The business enterprise centre does a very good job in my local area. It is called the Southern Success Business Enterprise Centre. It connects small businesses with the advice that they need and with organisations that can help them. It is a conduit in my electorate, helping small businesses to succeed. This announcement, along with this forum, will go a long way to helping businesses succeed. So I would like to commend the business enterprise centre for doing this. I would also like to commend Adam Internet, the state government and the federal government for seeing such an area as being important. The Adam WiMax network will address more than 350 black spots across Adelaide and will be a huge improvement. Local businesses—such as wineries or even the gentleman I met who runs an architectural firm from home—have been constantly frustrated by not being able to work online nor to upload. One of the wineries has to regularly send order forms overseas. I have spoken about that winery on a regular basis. They have such difficulty, such frustration and such productivity issues when it comes to the internet, so I am very pleased that the state government will be contributing up to $3 million. The network will create 110 new jobs across South Australia as it is being constructed, and when it is connected it will support 74 permanent jobs for ongoing operations. Adam Internet is a good South Australian company. It employs a lot of people. Once again, it illustrates that when there is competition in the telecommunications field and when there is a level playing field, really good things can be achieved. (Time expired) 11157 11157 20:40:00 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 0 Mrs GASH —I hereby present a petition from the electorate of Gilmore regarding the changes to youth allowance announced in this year’s federal budget. The petition read as follows: To the Honourable The Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives The petition of certain electors of the Division of Gilmore draws to the attention of the House their wish to have changes to the eligibility criteria for Youth Allowance for students, introduced this year, revoked as these will impose unnecessary and unfair hardship on those young people from regional and rural areas who are studying. Your petitioners therefore request the House to call on the Government to revoke the retrospectivity of the Youth Allowance legislation immediately. from 458 citizens Petition received. AK6 Gash, Joanna, MP Mrs GASH —How sad I was to see the government refuse to accept the coalition’s amendments earlier this evening when the House divided on the issue. My community of young people in Gilmore can only hope that the government’s legislation will be defeated in the Senate. The government’s bill would require our students to work 30 consistent hours a week for 18 months over a two-year period in order to be eligible for the independent rate of youth allowance. This criterion is completely unreasonable and unrealistic for young people in rural and regional areas like Gilmore, where employment, transport and local study options are hard to come by. I held two local public forums in my area in response to the proposed changes, to inform people about the legislation and get their feedback. In the process I have collected 458 signatures from people who wish to formally voice their opposition to the changes. While the education minister, Julia Gillard, has acknowledged that she has made a grave mistake by bringing in these changes, and has rolled back a small part of them, her changes do not go far enough. The changes still catch many people midstream—people who, in good faith, made plans. They deferred their studies, picked up enough work to earn $19,000 in a year, juggled part-time jobs, took longer shifts during the busy periods and set themselves up to be independent next year only to find that the government had changed the rules of the game and they were suddenly back at square one. If they do not live more than 90 minutes from their chosen tertiary institute they come under the new rules, and this time they have to find themselves 30 hours of work every week for 18 months and forego their uni places altogether. Young people in Gilmore and across Australia have called on the government, time and time again, to address this. They have asked them to stamp out the retrospectivity of these laws altogether—not for a few but for everyone who is currently undertaking a gap year. They have called on this Labor government to offer more assistance, not less, for rural and regional youth. I wonder if Ms Gillard has ever been to a place like Nowra, where the train line stops at Bomaderry and unemployment sits at around nine per cent. I wonder if she is aware of the difficulty that young people in this area face in going on to further studies, or whether she makes her laws with only metropolitan areas in mind. The government claims that more people will be eligible for some sort of assistance under these changes and that reform had to happen, as people were exploiting the system. But why is it that young people in country areas will be the ones to pay the price as a result? And how many of their families will qualify under the income/asset test if one tractor on their struggling farm rules them out? This is not an even playing field and the government is arrogantly ignoring the error of their ways—pushing through what is essentially a budget-saving measure to help pay $1.8 billion off their $315 billion debt. Australians are all paying the price for Labor’s reckless spending, even struggling uni students who do not have a dollar to spare. I call on the government to adopt the coalition’s recommendations and offer scholarships for extra assistance to those in rural and regional areas, while wiping out the retrospectivity of their laws altogether. And on behalf of the young people in Gilmore, who are increasingly being forced to move out of our area in search of opportunities, I ask the government to act fast. Again, I express disappointment at the outcome of the division tonight, and the lack of understanding by this Labor government towards the students of Gilmore. 11158 11158 20:44:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —One of the most enduring memories I have as a child is of going on family picnics to Warragamba Dam. I looked forward to the day out, and getting to ride in the back of my father’s Oldsmobile was always a happy event. Like many other young families across Sydney, we chose to picnic at Warragamba. It was an enjoyable drive with good views, and it was a fun day for the family. It was an inexpensive day out, always a consideration for young families starting out. Sydney’s new dam was a destination for tourists from interstate and overseas, but it was also a destination for many Sydneysiders. The pressures on working families make such family days somewhat rarer these days. There are many distractions, inside the home and without, which occupy our time. Work, study or a social life often do not allow the time for a family get-together as often as we would like. In recent years the Warragamba Dam and surrounding areas have not been open for public access due to important construction works. The dam has been undergoing major upgrades, including the building of an auxiliary spillway, increasing the height of the dam wall and other works, all vital to the continued safe operation of this important piece of infrastructure serving Sydney’s water needs. However, the Sydney Catchment Authority advises that the dam grounds will shortly reopen, providing visitor facilities and views of the dam. A new visitor centre is scheduled for completion in early 2010. With the upgrade works due to be completed by 2011, further access to the dam itself may be reinstituted. The dam is an important part of Western Sydney and my electorate of Fowler. It lends its name to the town of Warragamba, which is closely linked to the building of the dam. The construction workers who built the dam lived there and many later settled in after the dam’s completion in 1960. In the lead-up to the 2007 election campaign, I doorknocked much of the Warragamba and Silverdale areas. I met many of the workers who actually worked on the construction of the dam and was told many wonderful stories about their experiences. Warragamba, along with the adjoining town of Silverdale, is a close, tight-knit community. The people work together very closely, supporting each other and lending assistance when required. But in a time of global financial crisis, the financial pressures on local business are profound and dramatic. Any closure of a local business, any loss of employment, any change in circumstance can have a long-lasting effect on local communities. Focused around the local workers club, businesses in Warragamba are dependent on the continued loyalty and support of locals and visitors to the area. Of course, the closure of the dam to public access has significantly reduced the number of visitors to the town of Warragamba and this has greatly impacted on local businesses. Many, many businesses have closed. That is why the imminent opening of visitor facilities with views to the dam and the opening of the new visitor centre next year will be good for the future of Warragamba. Tourism is one industry which can provide a significant boost to the local economy. When I recently looked up a reference for the Hoover Dam in the United States of America I was staggered to read that the dam enjoys some eight million-plus visitors a year. Equating to just over 2.5 per cent of the USA’s population of over 300 million, it remains a staggering figure by any measure. To put this in an Australian perspective, 2.5 per cent of our population of 25 million would equate to 625,000. If we succeed in encouraging only a fraction of that number of visits to Warragamba Dam it will prove to be a boon to jobs and the economies of Warragamba and Western Sydney. It remains for governments, state, federal and local, to pursue such an agenda, to take maximum benefits from such a world-class facility. Adding Warragamba Dam to the tourist itinerary will only add to the Sydney experience. Warragamba Dam has been a vital part of our history. It remains a vital part of our future. 11159 11159 20:49:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —It is a great honour to be able to stand in this parliament as an elected representative of the people of Cowan. It is great to be able to stand here and speak with the protection of parliamentary privilege to ensure that I am not restricted in saying what needs to be said. I can talk, and have done so, about the things that matter to my constituents without my right to freedom of speech being restricted. This is a cornerstone of the great democratic tradition. That being said, I do not use parliamentary privilege to tell lies; I use it to tell the truth. If we did not have parliamentary privilege then our ability to tell the truth and convey information would effectively be restricted. The other great advantage of parliamentary privilege is that we cannot be told what we can and cannot say. If we were, that would be censorship and the argument would very clearly be that such censorship would exist to deny us the ability to communicate alternative viewpoints for the benefit of our nation or to deny us the opportunity to be critical of the government in a constructive manner. Censorship does not exist in the parliament, but in conveying information about what happens here censorship does apply. When I convey information to my constituents, what I need to tell them is censored. The government’s appointed censors in the Department of Finance and Deregulation can tell me that I cannot print certain statements. They tell us that freedom of speech is not allowed. I cannot send my constituents copies of Hansard, the official recording of what is said in this place, if that Hansard record states or implies any words that are critical of the Labor government. The text of this speech, once in Hansard, would be predominantly blacked out by a thick black marker—a marker that serves to eliminate the ability of anyone to engage constructively in a critical debate about government policies and actions. If I were to say that the Prime Minister was very good at finalising the delivery of quality Howard government projects and programs, and taking credit for them, but hopeless in terms of his own policy performance, that would be censored. I cannot report that in writing. If I were to say that the Deputy Prime Minister’s bungled, over-budget, behind schedule, hopelessly mismanaged—and now under investigation by the Auditor-General—memorial school halls debacle was a fiasco, that would be censored as well. If I were to say that the Minister for Health and Ageing has failed to fix public hospitals by the promised mid-2009 deadline then that would be censored. If I were to talk about the failure by serial bungler the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy to achieve the original broadband tender at over $4 billion—he is now risking $43 billion of funds borrowed from taxpayers on a broadband plan that has no business plan, which is a very expensive plan without a plan to make sure that taxpayers’ money is spent properly—that would be censored. If I were to say that the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government claimed responsibility for infrastructure projects most of which were initiated by, and many of which were completed by, the previous coalition government then that would be censored. In fact, I do not think that you can even report anything about unauthorised boats arriving in Australian waters, as the mere mention of such an event would be critical of the government and that would be censored. All these comments would be blacked out. Criticism of the Labor government is not allowed in our letters and newsletters. Bringing the people’s attention to mistakes of the government is no longer allowed in this country. The outlawing of legitimate criticism is occurring now in the printed format by the design of the Labor government, but who knows what the future holds. I wonder what will be next. Perhaps we will have a list of unparliamentary words expanded so that we can no longer say—in reference to ministers, the Labor Party, State Labor governments, former members of the Labor Party, unions or any other association to do with the Labor Party—words such as ‘bad’, ‘mismanagement’, ‘bungled’, ‘incompetent’, ‘hasty’, ‘knee-jerk’, ‘putting Australia at risk’, or even ‘debt’ or ‘deficit’ et cetera . It is very hard to accurately describe the government without those words. Perhaps the next step will be that Hansard can be edited to take out any criticisms of the Labor government. Perhaps what is being planned is that standing orders can be modified so that questions or criticisms of the Labor government will, in the future, result in exclusion from the chamber. At least then the Labor government would be able to say that there has not been a bad word said about them in parliament. This censorship has resulted in the Labor government censors stopping criticism of the government by the opposition in letters or newsletters. The censors are not elected, just directed by the Labor government. These restrictions do not apply to the Prime Minister and ministers in the Labor government, who can continue to use ministerial budgets to criticise the opposition—double standards of the worst kind. This is, without doubt, censorship and an attack on the basic principle of democracy—freedom of speech. 11160 11160 20:53:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I would like to mention two things tonight, if I may—one local and one national. The local one is that I had the privilege last Saturday to go to the new Montello sports facility, the home of the Burnie United Football Club, the Emus. The federal government contributed $480,000, the local Burnie Council $370,000 and the state government $77,000, providing nigh on $800,000 for the new facility. Boy, is it a great facility—and well-deserved. I just missed the friendly match they played; I arrived too late, unfortunately. I do not know what happened with the time, but everyone was enjoying themselves and they were ‘bending it like Beckham’ in front of their new club rooms. I want to pay special mention to Sheryl de Bomford and her hard-working committee at the Burnie United Football Club for the work they have put in over the years to bring about this magnificent facility. I want to congratulate the club and also all those that will use the Montello sports facility itself, and I thank the state government for their $77,000 contribution for new lights at the Montello facility. If you are in Burnie, Madam Deputy Speaker, as I know you like to visit Tasmania, you will find Montello right at the top of Burnie, with magnificent views of Bass Strait and across the reinvigorated city of Burnie where, I am proud to say, the federal government has contributed—in two years—some $52 million. The people of Burnie are very grateful. It has been part of a record expenditure by the federal government in the electorate, so I am very pleased to be a part of that. Onto the more national scene, and this was mentioned today in question time by the Minister for Sport, all of us have received a copy of Mission Australia’s seventh annual National Survey of Young Australians. I spoke on their report this time last year. Over 45,000 young people aged between 11 and 24 respond, so it is a fair sized survey over all ages. It is interesting to see the issues of concern to young people. In all, there were something like 15 mentioned by them and some nine of them range from a 20 per cent response, in terms of it being of concern to them. Among the top three issues of concern was, first and foremost, body image and I think this replicates the results of last year’s survey—it certainly has been in it in the last few years. Some 26.3 per cent argued that this was of concern to them. It was particularly an issue for the young adult group, with one third of them concerned compared to one quarter of those aged from 11 to 14 years. One in five male respondents and one in four females indicated it was a significant issue for them. The online comments, I believe, reflected young people’s concerns about the media, and other representations of the ideal body and its effects on young people. While some respondents expressed a desire to change their own appearance or body shape, many of the comments regarding body image—and I found this very interesting—were related to their concern for their friends or others. Research suggests that internalising the ideal body, presented in a range of media, contributes to body dissatisfaction amongst adolescents as achieving that ideal is generally not possible. The online survey’s comments suggest that young people are keenly aware of the links between poor body image and diminished self-esteem. It really is an issue. Drugs were of concern to 26 per cent and, in the main, it was interesting that most were concerned about the effects of drugs on their friends and the community in general. Family conflict also registered highly at 25.9 per cent. But what really came out in the survey was young people’s appreciation of the importance of their family and family relationships, and how the family itself is so important to the development of their values and their own image and safety. They were also concerned with family conflict and violence. It is really worth looking at Mission Australia’s survey, Snapshot 2009. It is an eye-opener and something that we really need to do something about. (Time expired) 11162 11162 20:58:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise tonight to talk about a serious concern, and that concern is one of censorship and the denial of freedom of speech and expression in this House. Through regulation instituted by the Rudd Labor government, it means that I can no longer inform my constituents—and indeed others—about the proceedings of this House, where those proceedings in Hansard are critical of this Rudd Labor government. The one thing that our forefathers did in developing the Constitution, and the one thing the troops of this nation did when they went to war and gave their lives, was to make sure that we had freedom of expression and democracy in this country. This government—the Rudd Labor government—has sought to deny members of parliament, through regulation, the ability to inform the constituents of their concerns and to act as an opposition, putting forward suggestions of where this government has failed the people. To do that is in breach of the entitlements of the members of parliament in this House. And yet what is of great concern is there is nothing to stop members of the government benches putting forward their information, praising the efforts of this Rudd Labor government, but if we the opposition seek to explain why they have failed the people of Australia we are in breach. That is censorship; that is a restriction of the rights of members of parliament in this House to put forward the interests of their constituents. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.00 pm, the debate is interrupted. 11162 21:00:00 House adjourned at 9.00 pm 11162 Notices The following notices were given: JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a Bill for an Act to make various amendments of the statute law of the Commonwealth, to repeal certain obsolete Acts, and for related purposes. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a Bill for an Act to amend the Bankruptcy Act 1966, and for related purposes. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to present a bill for an act to establish a process for assisting victims of international terrorist attacks. 83S Burke, Anna, MP Ms Burke to move: That the House: notes that: the eastern region of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) continues to suffer from high levels of poverty, insecurity, and a culture of impunity, in which illegal armed groups and military forces continue to commit widespread human rights abuses; according to a study by the International Rescue Committee released in January 2008, conflict and related humanitarian crisis in the DRC have resulted in the deaths of an estimated 5,400,000 people since 1998 and continue to cause as many as 45,000 deaths each year; the mismanagement and illicit trade of extractive resources from the DRC support conflict between militias and armed domestic factions in neighbouring countries; and calls on the Government to promote peace and security in the eastern DRC by supporting efforts of the Government of the DRC and the international community to monitor and stop commercial activities involving natural resources that contribute to illegal armed groups and human rights violations. HVR Rea, Kerry, MP Ms Rea to move: That the House: applauds the Government’s increase of total health funding in the foreign aid budget and an increase in spending to maternal, newborn and child health, which is much needed when in our region, including South Asia, 200,000 mothers and 3.2 million children are dying every year from preventable causes; notes that: Australia still requires an increase in total health funding in the foreign aid budget to progress toward the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) 4 and 5 by 2015; Millennium Development Goal 4 to reduce child mortality by two‑thirds and MDG 5 to reduce maternal mortality by three‑quarters have made the slowest progress of all MDGs and are off‑track to being achieved by 2015; Millennium Development Goal 5 has made virtually no progress globally and has reversed in most of sub‑Saharan Africa in the last 20 years—it is the only MDG not making progress of any significance; the health MDGs are achievable but require increased effort and greater cooperation from all developing and developed countries; and evidence indicates that successful proven, cost effective strategies exist that can reduce child deaths by at least 60 per cent and maternal deaths by 75 per cent, which would save the lives of 240,000 children and 26,000 mothers in our immediate region each year; acknowledges the importance of the Australian Government increasing its support for health systems in the Asia Pacific region and in Africa (though coordinated mechanisms including the International Health Partnership) to ensure that adequate, coordinated, long term and predictable donor resources are available to support effective basic and reproductive health plans and systems in each developing country in our region; and recognises that: greater focus must be placed on training health professionals and midwives to ensure significant reductions in newborn, child and maternal mortality; system strengthening must also be ensured to provide incentives for staff to be retained in countries and areas of need; and an increase in Australian support for maternal and child health related spending is required to support the provision of basic health services and strengthened health systems; and that this will demonstrate Australia’s leadership and commitment to ending the preventable deaths of children and mothers globally. 00AMU Mirabella, Sophie, MP Mrs Mirabella to move: That the House: recognises that Wednesday 25 November 2009 is the International Day for the elimination of Violence against Women, the symbol of which has become the White Ribbon; applauds the work done by the White Ribbon Foundation of Australia to raise awareness amongst all Australians of the fact that many women and their children live with violence, or the threat of violence every day of their lives; notes that approximately 350,000 women will experience some form of physical violence and 125,000 women will experience sexual violence each year; encourages all Australians to speak out against all forms of violence and when necessary take action against violence that may be occurring within their community; notes that violence against women costs the Australian people $13.6 billion annually; notes that the Rudd Government has squandered $16.6 billion on the Julia Gillard Memorial School Hall program while committing less than one third of a per cent of that amount ($55.2 million) to address this insidious problem; and condemns the Government for failing to commit any new money in response to the Time for Action Report while rebadging initiatives which were funded under the previous Coalition Government’s Women’s Safety Agenda.