2009-11-23 42 1 6 REPS 0 0 2009-11-23 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 12.00 pm and read prayers. 12357 Miscellaneous 12357 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 41(e), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 18 November 2009, I present the Tax Laws Amendment (Improving the Producer Offset) Bill 2009, for which notice has been given by the member for Moncrieff. The bill will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 12357 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing orders 41(e) and 41(h), and the recommendations of the whips adopted by the House on 18 November 2009, I present copies of the terms of motions for which notice has been given by the members for Indi, Bonner, Lyne and Hindmarsh. These matters will be considered in the Main Committee later today. 12357 Bills R4187 12357 Debate resumed from 20 August, on motion by Mr Swan: That this bill be now read a second time. 12357 12:02:00 Hockey, Joe, MP DK6 North Sydney LP 0 0 Mr HOCKEY —Thank you for coming into the House to listen to my speech on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, Mr Speaker, and thank you to the vast number of Labor members who have come in to listen to my address. The good news for the government is that the coalition supports this bill. The bill explicitly requires foreign investors to notify the government where there is a possibility that the type of acquisition or investment arrangement being used will deliver influence or control over an Australian company, either currently or at some time in the future. HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr Hale interjecting— DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —And I wish the member for Solomon to listen carefully to this because financial arrangements and company structures have become increasingly complex in recent years, a bit like caucus, and this bill goes on to address those new developments by expanding the definition of ‘foreign control or influence’. The bill updates the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, which provides the basis for the Treasurer to examine proposed foreign investments in Australian businesses and assets to ensure they are not contrary to the national interest. The bill will incorporate a wider range of financing structures that may deliver effective control or influence of Australian companies to foreign interests. There are no changes to the national interest test or to the monitoring threshold for consideration by the government. The bill in fact strengthens those safeguards. It does not alter the role of government to finally determine the national interest or a foreign investment proposal. The Foreign Investment Review Board is a non-statutory body that was established by the Fraser Liberal government in 1976 to advise the Treasurer on the government’s foreign investment policy and its administration. Its role is to examine proposed investments and make considered recommendations to the Treasurer. The FIRB plays a critical role in the foreign investment process because it ensures that foreign investment decisions are thoroughly examined. This is demonstrated—I am slightly put off, Mr Speaker, by what I am seeing happen with your chair. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I apologise to the member for North Sydney. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —It is something about the Labor Party, isn’t it! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —You are doing a good job. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr HOCKEY —Thank you, Mr Speaker. This is demonstrated by the fact that, between 1999 and 2008, an average of 76.4 per cent of foreign investment proposals were changed to meet certain conditions in order to be approved. The most recent figures show that the FIRB approved 7,841 proposals in 2007-08, which was a 27 per cent increase on the previous year. Those approvals involved proposed investment of over $191 billion, a 23 per cent increase on the previous year. The mining sector led the charge, with $64.3 billion worth of projects approved in 2007-08, followed by $45.5 billion for real estate, $35.7 billion for services and $31.3 billion for manufacturing. The United States is the leading foreign investor in Australia—and was in 2007-08, with $49.5 billion worth of proposals approved. That is 26 per cent of the total amount in that year, which is a very important point. The United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore and Switzerland were also regarded as major investors in the 2007-08 year. There has been a steady increase in the value of foreign investment over the past decade. There were nearly 45,000 proposals for foreign investment in Australia worth $1 trillion between 1999 and 2007, so this illustrates the magnitude and significance of foreign investment in this country. As I said earlier, this bill contains no changes to the national interest test, and this is very important. As a matter of interest, in fact there is no specific definition of ‘the national interest’ in the act or in this bill. The government determines what is: ‘contrary to the national interest’ by having regard to the widely held community concerns of Australians. In practice, this usually refers to existing government policy and legislation, national security interest or economic development. For example, the Treasurer refused to approve the China Minmetals Corporation non-ferrous metals takeover of OZ Minerals in April until it removed the Prominent Hill mine from the deal. Prominent Hill is a prohibited area for the purposes of the ‘testing of war materials’ and contains places classified under the Aboriginal Heritage Act. It is located within the Woomera Prohibited Area, and the Treasurer said it would not be approved, on national security grounds. The coalition strongly believes foreign investment is overall in Australia’s national interest. We believe that foreign investment has a positive impact on Australia and always has. We support foreign investment but we are always mindful that there must be full and open transparency when it comes to foreign investment. One recent example of this was the amendment to the Guarantee of State And Territory Borrowing Appropriation Bill 2009 which I moved successfully on 18 June. The amendment recognised that government debt is a massive looming issue for this nation under the Labor Party. More than 65 per cent of government borrowings are in fact coming from overseas. So not only do we have a government that is engaging in the biggest borrowing program in modern Australian history but 65 per cent of the money they are borrowing is coming from overseas. The amendment that I moved to the act ensures that the government publishes the registered beneficial owners of Australian government bonds. Australians have a right to know who is lending us all this money. Ultimately, just as anyone who has a mortgage needs to know who they owe the money to, because inevitably the bank has some influence over the way we go about our daily lives, so too should Australians know who they owe money to. The government at first completely resisted this transparency. You did not have to worry about that under the coalition because we were not borrowing money on that scale. In fact, we left the Australian government with no net debt, so we did not have to worry who we borrowed money from, because we did not owe anything. We had more money than they were lending to us. But, hang on—along comes Labor and borrows record levels of money. And of course we want to know who is lending us that money. It is widely recognised that the biggest investor in the world at the moment is the Chinese government. Therefore, if the Chinese government invests in Australia the Australian people should know. As this act illustrates, if you have large-scale investment by a private sector organisation or a foreign government and they are buying into equities, real estate or Australian assets, the Australian people should know, and the Australian people should know who is lending us the money. It is quite an interesting challenge for the nation to have a massive investor going forward. As I pointed out, companies and individuals from the United States were the largest foreign investors in Australia in 2007-08. That may have shifted somewhat in the last 12 months; we will wait and see. But we want to know that there is a transparent process for identifying if someone is investing in equities or in real estate, and that is addressed under this act. Then the question is: who is investing in Australian government debt? That is addressed by the amendment that I moved to the Guarantee of State And Territory Borrowing Appropriation Bill 2009. I might add that that bill passed and was proclaimed earlier this year. So far we have seen no registry, so I am putting the government and the authorities on notice that they now have a legal obligation to publish the full registry of those people who are lending the Australian government so much money. I want them to deliver on that registry and if they do not then they will be in breach of the law that they helped to pass. This is a significant challenge for the nation, and just as we need to know if individuals or corporations are investing so too we need to know whether it is a foreign government that is investing. In order to protect our national interest, this bill broadens four key definitions in the act: substantial interest, aggregate substantial interest, voting power and potential voting power. ‘Substantial interest’ is currently defined as 15 per cent or more of the voting power or of the issued shares. This bill changes this definition to holding at least 15 per cent or one or more of voting power, potential voting power, issued shares or rights to issued shares. The current meaning of ‘aggregate substantial interest’ is 40 per cent or more of the voting power or the issued shares. This bill extends it in a similar vein to two or more persons taken together holding at least 40 per cent of the voting power, potential voting power, issued shares or rights to issued shares. ‘Voting power’ is currently defined as the maximum number of votes that can be cast at a general meeting. It has been clarified to explicitly include potential voting power. ‘Potential voting power’ refers to the number of votes that could be cast if it is assumed that a future right is exercised. Currently there is compulsory notification for proposals involving the acquisition of ‘substantial shareholding’. This bill will replace the word ‘shareholding’ with the word ‘interest’. As I said earlier, financial arrangements and company structures have become increasingly complex. People have sought to use more exotic mechanisms to try and avoid proper and full disclosure of not only their equitable interests in the company but also their voting interests and influence in the company. There are numerous examples. One example this bill will cover is debt-for-equity swaps. When a company needs to restructure its finances it can issue a debt-for-equity swap and debt is exchanged for a designated amount of stock. In effect, an investor buys the debt in return for a certain number of shares or capital in the company. Another example is derivative instruments. An option on a share would give an investor the right, but not the obligation, to purchase a share at some point in the future for a specified price. If that future potential share purchase were large enough to represent a substantial interest then it would need to be reported under the requirements of this bill. At the moment, the act does not properly cover these kinds of investments. That is why the coalition is supporting this bill. The bill broadens the definition of what has to be reported to the government and incorporates, as outlined earlier, potential control. The investor in a debt-for-equity swap could potentially gain a controlling share in the company if it later swaps the debt for equity. This bill clarifies Australia’s foreign investment regulations. It will apply retrospectively from 12 February 2009. A transitional period will apply from 12 February 2009 to the date of royal assent to ensure that foreign investors are not adversely affected by the start date. During the transitional period, there will be no criminal penalties, and retrospective criminal prosecution is expressly excluded. The transitional arrangements provide that foreign investors will have 30 days to notify the Treasurer if an investment is covered by this bill. Foreign investment, of course, is vital to Australia’s future growth and prosperity because it creates jobs and promotes healthy competition in our industries. This bill supports investment in this country while safeguarding our national interest. For the benefit of the people in the gallery, I would say that this is another example where the opposition and the government work together to deliver a bill in the national interest. Quite obviously, this is not going to make television news tonight. I find that hard to believe, Mr Speaker, notwithstanding your presence in the chamber—but this happens on numerous occasions and I am sorry that Australians are not aware of it. We can come to an agreement on something that is in the national interest. We often do. It is just not reported, and so often the coverage is restricted to a slightly frayed temper during question time or the humorous quip from the Speaker. On that note, I commend the bill to the House and reaffirm the commitment of the coalition to support this legislation. 12360 12:17:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —Mr Speaker, it is good to see you very comfortably there in your chair, given the earlier activities! Australia needs legislation to improve the integrity of its foreign investment screening regime. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, which I am speaking in support of today, clarifies the operation of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to ensure that the government has the capacity to examine all substantial investment proposals that could potentially raise national interest concerns. The government welcomes and encourages foreign direct investment because of the benefits that it provides to the Australian economy. Foreign investment creates new job opportunities for Australians, encourages innovation and skill development, introduces new technologies and promotes competition amongst our industries. Foreign investment has helped build the competitiveness of our economy and will continue to do so in the future. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 seeks to get the balance right between encouraging investment into Australia and ensuring that the government can review significant foreign investment proposals and intervene where these could undermine the national interest. The act provides the basis for the Treasurer to examine proposed foreign investments in Australian businesses and assets to ensure that they are not contrary to the national interest. The act requires foreign investors to notify the Treasurer of their transactions in certain circumstances and provides the Treasurer with the power to block or place certain conditions upon those proposals determined to be contrary to the national interest. The notion of ‘control’ is a fundamental component of the act. Overall, the current provisions of the act that deal with control have worked well. But the use of innovative and increasingly complex financing arrangements has been a growing feature of investment activity over recent years. These arrangements have highlighted some shortcomings with the act where ownership and control events may potentially arise, either now or in the future, in a variety of new ways other than through traditional shares or voting power. To preserve the original policy intent of the act, on 12 February 2009 the Treasurer announced that the government would amend the act to ‘clarify the operation of the foreign investment screening regime’ to ‘ensure that it applies equally to all foreign investments irrespective of the way they are structured’. The amendments are designed to capture all significant foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence or control over an Australian company, either now or in the future. The bill clarifies the operation of the act by explicitly requiring foreign investors to notify the Treasurer where there is a possibility that the type of investment arrangement being used will deliver influence or control over an Australian company valued above the relevant monetary threshold. This will be achieved by expanding the definition of ‘voting power’ so that it covers the number of votes that could be cast if it is assumed that a future right is exercised and by clarifying the section of the act dealing with interests in shares. The bill will also clarify where the act deals with interests in shares. The act currently provides that a person is deemed to hold an interest in a share if they have a right to acquire a share or to have a share transferred to them. The bill clarifies that a right can include a right under an instrument, agreement or arrangement, whether the right is exercisable presently or in the future and whether on the fulfilment of a condition or not. These amendments are not the result of any one investment proposal. They ensure that the foreign investment framework keeps pace with the changing nature of foreign investment proposals and with trends that were evident some time before this government was elected. The amendments in this bill apply from 12 February 2009—the date that the Treasurer announced the changes—to provide certainty around the act’s application. Let us clarify what these retrospective amendments mean. To ensure that investors are not unfairly affected by the retrospective start date, the bill includes transitional provisions that apply in relation to business proposals and transactions that occurred between 12 February and the date of royal assent. During this period, there will be no criminal penalties for noncompliance. Upon commencement, foreign investors will have 30 days to notify the Treasurer if, during the transitional period, they entered into a transaction of the type covered by these amendments and have not already provided notification to the Treasurer. The transitional provisions will ensure that no foreign investors are adversely affected by the start date of these amendments. It is not expected that there will be many investors in this situation. The Foreign Investment Review Board has noted that the proposed amendments were broadly anticipated by investors, many of whom voluntarily notified the board of their investments. Nothing in the transitional provisions would reduce the government’s ability to block or place conditions on proposals which are determined to be contrary to the national interest. The act focuses on situations where a foreign investor has obtained substantial influence or control. Overall, the current provisions in the act that deal with control have worked well, and its approach remains sound. However, since the act was drafted in the 1970s more complex investment instruments have evolved. The use of innovation financing arrangements have been a growing feature of investment activity over recent years. These arrangements have highlighted that ownership interests and control can be held in a variety of forms other than through traditional shares and voting power. While these types of investment arrangements have a solid commercial basis, they have raised questions about the act’s full application. It was for this reason that the government announced earlier this year that we would amend the act to safeguard its policy intention. We consider that these changes improve the integrity of the act and capture arrangements that may be deliberately structured to avoid foreign investment screening. These changes are consistent with Australia’s international obligations under our free trade agreements. The bill does not change the robust national interest framework that underpins our foreign investment policy or the screening examination arrangements of the Foreign Investment Review Board. These procedures are well established and familiar to foreign investors. The examination procedures and the decision to block or impose conditions on foreign investment proposals will continue to be based on whether the investment has altered or will alter the control of an Australian business or corporation and whether the investment is contrary to the national interest. The government is confident that this bill strengthens and modernises Australia’s foreign investment framework. As we build stronger foundations for Australian prosperity beyond the global recession, we are committed to a regulatory regime that gets the balance right: protecting the national interest while ensuring that Australia is a more competitive destination for foreign investment. The fact that the Australian economy has performed much better than the economies of the rest of the world during the global recession will help make this country an attractive market for investment, especially when the economy fully recovers. But, while we have fared better than most, we should not forget that there are now 670,000 Australians out of work, and we expect further rises in unemployment ahead. Cancelling fiscal stimulus in one hit rather than continuing with our gradual and careful phasing down would cost thousands more jobs, ruin many more small businesses and risk sending the economy backwards before the recovery in private activity has taken hold. The recent Westpac-Melbourne Institute survey of consumer sentiment found that consumer confidence fell by 2.5 per cent in November after five consecutive months of improvement. It is important to keep in mind that consumer confidence is still 44.3 per cent higher than it was in October 2008, prior to the announcement of the first fiscal stimulus package. That compares with a mere 3.9 per cent increase in consumer confidence for the OECD as a whole over the same period. But confidence is a fragile thing, and we need to be careful and make sure that the stimulus package is properly seen through. We also saw the results of the NAB monthly business survey for October. Business confidence continued its upward climb, consolidating the gains we saw in recent surveys. However, the most striking finding of the October survey, as pointed to by NAB Chief Economist, Alan Oster, was ‘the sharp acceleration in actual business outcomes.’ The International Monetary Fund released the report Recent Global Developments and Prospects last week to APEC finance ministers, ahead of the APEC leaders’ meeting that weekend. The IMF made it clear that the global recovery is not yet self-sustaining and is still dependent on policy support. The report says: The overarching risk is that the recovery stalls. This could occur because of a premature exit from accommodative monetary and fiscal policies—especially if the policy-induced recovery so far is mistaken for the beginning of a sustained and autonomous recovery in private demand. For these reasons the IMF again cautioned against the premature withdrawal of fiscal stimulus, stating that ‘policy support needs to be sustained until recovery is firmly established.’ Healthy foreign investment needs a strong economy, and this government has taken the decisive measures to help weather the unprecedented storms of the global recession. Again, we are confident we are getting the balance right: protecting the national interest while ensuring that Australia is a more competitive destination for foreign investment. I will sum up by looking at where we are with this bill and what the amendments actually mean for the foreign investment regime. These amendments simply modernise the act to preserve its original policy intent with respect to new investment instruments. They should not be viewed as the result of any single foreign investment proposal but as addressing new trends in investments that have been growing in recent years. The amendments are designed to capture all significant foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence or control over an Australian company, either now or in the future. They require foreign investors to notify FIRB where there is a possibility that the type of investment arrangement being used will deliver influence or control over an Australian company valued above the relevant monetary threshold. This will be achieved by expanding the definition of ‘voting power’ so that it covers the number of votes that could be cast if it is assumed that a future right is exercised and by clarifying the section of the act dealing with interests in shares. The act currently provides that a person is deemed to hold an interest in a share if they have a right to acquire a share or have a share transferred to them. This bill clarifies this provision so that it is clear that the rights include a right under an instrument, agreement or arrangement, whether that right is exercisable presently or in the future and whether it is exercisable on the fulfilment of a condition or not. The bill will not change FIRB’s screening and examination procedures. The examination procedures and the decision to block or impose conditions on foreign investment proposals will continue to be based on whether an investment has the potential to control an Australian business or corporation and whether the investment is contrary to the national interest. Through the bill the government will maintain the right balance between encouraging investment in Australia and ensuring that the government can intervene when necessary to protect the national interest. These changes strengthen the operation of the act by ensuring that it keeps pace with new types of investment instruments. Generally, Australia welcomes and encourages direct foreign investment because of the benefits it provides to the Australian economy. International capital opens new investment opportunities and helps to develop Australian industries. Foreign investment brings new job opportunities for Australians, new innovation and skills development, new technologies and promotion of competition amongst our industries. It is estimated that foreign investment supports around one in every four Australian workers in the mining industry. On 4 August the Treasurer announced reforms to the screening regime to reduce some of the compliance costs faced by foreign investors and to ensure that Australia remains a competitive and attractive destination for foreign capital. Specifically, the screening threshold for private foreign investment will be increased from $100 million to $219 million and indexed annually. New businesses in Australia valued above $10 million will no longer need to notify the Foreign Investment Review Board. The government has not rejected a single new business proposal for the past decade or more. New business proposals are subject to a range of other regulatory requirements. These amendments, combined with the 4 August announcement, better target the national interest test towards cases that could raise national interest impacts. This is part of the overall regulatory reform that the Rudd government has been engaged in since coming to office almost two years ago. It is an important piece of legislation. It is legislation that, thankfully, is supported by the opposition and it is legislation that this parliament should support. I commend the bill to the House. 12364 12:30:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I am pleased to have an opportunity to contribute to the debate on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009 today. There is little doubt as to the importance of foreign investment to Australia. It brings new jobs, innovation and competition, all improving Australian industries. While we need to make a continued effort to encourage investment in Australia, we also need to be aware that sometimes a foreign investment may actually come at a significant cost to the overall Australian economy and that it might not always be in the national interest to allow such an investment to go ahead. One of the cases that I was most closely involved with was the proposed takeover of Woodside by Shell. My colleague who is at the table, the member for Brand, was also at that time closely involved in that matter. There is no doubt that it was not in Australia’s best interests for that transaction to proceed. It certainly would have meant the loss of billions of dollars worth of investment in Australia, in Western Australia in particular. There would have been little benefit to the nation from that particular proposal proceeding. In 1976 the Foreign Investment Review Board, a non-statutory body, was established. That occurred so that the Treasurer might be advised on the government’s foreign investment policy and its administration. Since that time the Foreign Investment Review Board has played a critical role in the foreign investment process because it ensures that foreign investment decisions are thoroughly examined and that they proceed on the basis that they are in the national interest. I think the reason for this is pretty clear, because the level of foreign investment has been exceedingly high in recent times. We see that from 1999 to 2008 an average of 76.4 per cent of proposals were changed to meet certain conditions and that over the period from 1999 to 2007 there were 45,000 proposals valued at $1 trillion. It is a very substantial amount of investment, and there can be ramifications if it is not closely scrutinised. So we are very pleased that the Foreign Investment Review Board has been doing its job under the act, and these proposed amendments should give greater clarity to its carrying out of that work. As I said, a number of proposals had been received. I think that the 7,841 proposals received in the year 2007-08 represented a 27 per cent increase, so I do not think we are going to see a slowing down of interest in investing in Australia anytime soon. That particularly applies to the mining sector. One of the interesting arguments that was run during the Shell-Woodside debate was that if the government, and indeed the Foreign Investment Review Board, did not approve that deal we would see a flood of capital away from this country as people would not want to invest. I never believed that was a sound argument at all. I think that the investor is looking for a safe haven, for stability and for good projects, and that this country can offer that, so I never believed that, on the basis of one project being knocked back by the Foreign Investment Review Board, we would see foreign investment fleeing this nation. I think that the decision was made on the best possible grounds and that it was an important decision. In the legislation before us there are no changes to the national interest test, so that will remain, or indeed to the monetary threshold for consideration by government. But this bill certainly seeks to strengthen the current safeguards and, hopefully, it gives the Foreign Investment Review Board greater guidance in terms of what can and cannot be done. The balancing act between the benefits and the costs to our economy has been at the centre of the foreign investment review policy for the 35 years that it has been in operation. With the introduction of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975, certain transactions must be reported and the Foreign Investment Review Board must advise the Treasurer whether to approve an investment. Clearly, there have been significant changes to the mode of foreign investment since 1975, and it is important that the legislation is updated to reflect these changes. There was an article in the Australian Financial Review written by Jo Clarke which was quite illuminating to read. In that article there was this quote from a lawyer who had apparently had quite a bit to do with foreign investment: “This is likely to lead to more creative financing structures to get around FIRB, particularly now that FIRB has introduced further delays and complicated the approvals process,” … Well hopefully, through the passage of this legislation, we might be able to avoid some of the worst abuses of creative schemes designed to get around the proper processes that foreign investment should rightly have to adhere to when making investment in this country. As I said, we understand that it is a balancing act between benefits and costs to our economy, but that should not deter us from making sure that there is a robust process for approval. Section 18 of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act gives the Treasurer the power to prohibit proposed acquisitions that would result in a foreign investor having a controlling interest in an Australian company where it is decided that such a transaction would be ‘contrary to the national interest’. Section 26 stipulates that the Treasurer must be notified of any agreement to acquire a substantial shareholding in an Australian company. As of 22 September 2009, a notification must be made where the target company is worth $219 million or more and the acquisition will result in the foreign entity holding a substantial interest in the company. ‘A substantial interest’ is understood to mean a holding of 15 per cent or more of the voting power or the issued shares in a corporation. This definition of substantial interest will be expanded by the bill before us today to ensure that it applies to all the different models and structures that characterise modern foreign investment. It is no longer sensible to assume that foreign investment will be structured to relate only to voting power and issued shares. In considering whether the transaction will result in a substantial interest being held by the foreign entity, regard will now be had to not just voting power but also potential voting power and the right to an interest in the issued shares. This change will encompass the more sophisticated and complicated structures that are now common in foreign investments, ensuring that the obligation to inform the foreign investment review tribunal applies evenly to simple and more complicated transactions. Substantial investment proposals need to be fully examined for national interest concerns regardless of the way that they are structured. Essentially, where an investor has the future right to acquire votes or shares, they are deemed to have them at the time of the transaction. This potential exists even where the right may only be exercisable on the fulfilment of a future condition. This change for potential voting power is extremely relevant where instruments such as convertible notes are used, where an investor may gain control of a corporation through means other than the present acquisition of shares or voting power, or a convertible note is a debt instrument that allows for the conversion into equity in the future. Law firm Allens Arthur Robinson has described the impact of this bill as: … it is the grant, rather than the exercise, of the equity options inherent in convertible notes that will need to be the subject of the traditional ‘subject to FIRB approval’ clause … So if an investor is to acquire convertible notes or other options over unissued shares, they will need to report the transaction under the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, where the notional conversion would result in 15 per cent of the votes in the corporation being held by the foreign investor. I can only assume that where an instrument does not specify the exact amount of shares that an investor would have a future right to but, as is often the case, specifies the dollar value of the share entitlement, the calculation of whether this would amount to a substantial interest would need to be based on the value of the shares at the time of the transaction. Given that share prices are vulnerable to fluctuation, especially when foreign investment is in the pipeline, it is entirely foreseeable that some transactions will not be reported where it may be appropriate, and vice versa. For example, if the price of shares increases dramatically between the date of the transaction and the time that the investor converts the equity into shares, then they may acquire considerably less than the significant interest and yet the transaction would still be subject to considerable delay while it is being reviewed by the Foreign Investment Review Board. The issue of delays within the approval process has become serious since the influx of applications following the collapse of the Chinalco deal. On 16 September the Australian Financial Review noted that there is a ‘growing backlog’ causing delays to many transactions. The same article also said that the amendments proposed in this bill are: … likely to lead to more creative financing structures to get around FIRB, particularly now that FIRB has introduced further delays— which was the quote I read out earlier. Foreign investment is integral to Australia’s economic growth, and the need to find the balance in the review process is more important than ever. Clearly the review process should not become so arduous and time-consuming that investors are turned away, but at the same time it does need to be thorough enough to ensure that transactions that are not in the national interest do not get approved. I think there is considerable public disquiet, particularly when it comes to iconic Australian companies and when it comes to those corporations that are involved in either our mining or our energy sector. I can understand those concerns, often expressed by electors in the electorate of Pearce, that we should ensure, in so far as possible, that we remain in control over our resources and, in particular, those resources that have security interests such as energy. I understand always the tensions that we in this place are faced with in trying to balance the national interest with continuing robust foreign investment in Australia and the jobs that can offer and the growth and development that can offer, which might otherwise not take place. Australia does have a lot to offer foreign investors in this mutually beneficial relationship. The nature of foreign investments has changed dramatically since the introduction of our review process back in 1975 and no doubt many new structures and models will come about in the future. For now, though, it is important that all major foreign investments are reviewed, regardless of whether the investor acquires shares, voting power or some other interest or right exercisable in the future. If we get that balance right, then the Australian economy has everything to gain. In conclusion, I listened carefully to the contribution of the member for North Sydney, the shadow minister, in this debate. I support his call for an amendment which ensures that the government publishes the registered beneficial owners of Australian government bonds. Many would say it is perhaps, after all, another way of attracting foreign investment into this country. Given the sensitivities out there within communities, I think it is just part of open and accountable governance. It is a sensible suggestion. I hope that my colleague the member for Brand might particularly want to support that suggestion, knowing of his great interest in open and accountable governance and his experiences in the attempt by the great Dutch company Shell to take over Woodside some years ago. Currently, the Chinese government, as the member for North Sydney, the shadow minister, said, is the biggest investor in the world. If the Chinese government invests in Australia, the Australian people should know about it. Most people would be pleased to know that the biggest single foreign investor in Australia in 2007-08 was the United States, with a total investment of $49.5 billion, which is about 26 per cent of the total investment. After that, the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore and Switzerland are also major investors. Of course, we welcome the investment of our near neighbours, the Chinese government and the people of China. They are clearly playing an important part in the development of some of our resources and will continue to do so in the future. In the interests of, as I said, openness and accountability in government and the fact that the Australian government is raising a substantial amount of money through government bonds it would be appropriate for the Australian community to be kept appraised of those transactions, just as they want to be kept appraised of the transactions which are of interest to the Foreign Investment Review Board. In essence, I am very pleased to be able to support this legislation. If it means greater clarity and streamlining of the foreign investment process, then it has to be said that it will add immeasurably to the legislation that we have passed in this House in the past. 12368 12:48:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —I rise to speak in favour of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009 and, in so doing, I commend the speakers to date in this debate. The member for Pearce quite properly references the significant issues around the takeover proposal from the Shell oil company of Woodside in 2001. I should declare my personal interest in that matter, having been at the time and for a subsequent six-year period an employee of Woodside. On many occasions I appeared at the offices of the Foreign Investment Review Board to represent the interests of that company in the area of creating understanding and seeking approval for investments in Australia’s oil and gas sector. It is also important to note in the presentation of the member of Pearce references to the national interest. It was extremely important during 2001 to bear in mind that we were coming off the back of the Asian financial crisis and that there was an aggressive bid by one of the world’s largest oil companies, Shell, for one of the real growth assets of the Australian economy in this sector, Woodside, and to bear in mind the clear threats that were made by a range of corporate leaders—not just Australian but internationally recognised corporate leaders—that if the then Australian government did not acquiesce to the demands of an international company, then there would be dire consequences for the Australian economy. The dollar would crash, they said; investors would be disinclined to come to Australia, they said; they also said that to do anything other than wave through that application would have been grossly irresponsible of the then government. I am pleased to say that the then government, led by Prime Minister Howard, and the decision made by the then Treasurer Peter Costello to give an Australian company a chance was insightful—not saying we do not like foreign investment but saying that, given the nature of the investment, given the area of business in which the investment was being made and given the possible future for the LNG industry at that time, the transaction was not appropriate. I personally believe that at any other time, should that transaction have been considered by an Australian government of either persuasion, different parameters would have played in the minds of the Treasurer and the Prime Minister of the day. The national interest is something which we have to accept from time to time. We need to change, alter, amend and create an understanding that is completely appropriate to our economic circumstances. At the time, in 2001, it seemed to me that not only was our national interest preserved by preventing the takeover of that company but, moreover, it was also preserved by saying to large international companies and company directors—and Leigh Clifford’s name comes to mind here—‘No, we as the Australian economy will not be bullied by international investors. We are participants in the process of investment and we are thoughtful stewards of our economy and thoughtful managers of our future.’ That being the case, an appropriate decision was made that I do not believe would reflect on any future attempt by Shell to invest in Woodside or anyone else to invest in any other company. They are all decisions taken at the time and on their merits and do not reflect in any way on the participants in the decision. Royal Dutch Shell is an outstanding company. Its managers and its personnel are outstanding people. At the time a decision was made because at the time the Australian government’s view was, I think quite properly, that that was in the interests of the Australian nation and our future. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009 clarifies the operation of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act to ensure that the government has the capacity to examine all substantial investment proposals that could potentially raise national interest concerns. Australian governments of all persuasions have always welcomed and encouraged foreign direct investment due to the benefits that it provides to the Australian economy. From time to time politicians in this place do seek the low road. From time to time Senator Barnaby Joyce does seek to vilify foreign investment on the basis of political advantage rather than with calm, clear analytical skills that one would presume would better characterise a Senate leader. Foreign direct investment creates jobs for Australians. Foreign direct investment encourages Australian innovation and skills development. Foreign direct investment introduces new and innovative technologies. Foreign direct investment promotes competition amongst Australia’s industries—in agriculture, mining, services, banking, property, retail and the media. Foreign direct investment has helped build our nation and the competitiveness of our economy, and it will surely continue to do this into the future. In the Senate Economics References Committee recent inquiry into foreign investment by state owned entities, Professor Peter Drysdale of the ANU and Professor Christopher Findlay of Adelaide university noted Australia’s efficient mining sector—probably the most efficient in the world, they said. They said: This is importantly due to its openness to foreign investor competition and participation, because that brings with it, and fosters, the technology, management know-how and market links that are essential ingredients in the development of a world class, internationally competitive industry. Australia, therefore, has a long record, and a strong policy regime, characterised by openness towards foreign investment in its resource industries … The Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 set the framework for foreign investment in Australia. It was at the time an act required because of community interest and concern about the rapidly escalating levels of investment in the Australian economy by the growing Japanese economy—growing and seeking to identify resource partnerships and seeking to grow its resource stocks in the areas of iron ore, bauxite, oil and gas, and coal. In a crude way the act sought to get the balance right between encouraging investment while ensuring that our national interest was protected. Currently the act requires foreign investors to notify the government of their transactions in certain circumstances. Unfortunately, in the main, interaction with the Foreign Investment Review Board seems to be the province of lawyers and lobbyists. It does not appear to be principally the province of companies entering to talk their own book. Of course, what we often see in public commentary around the Foreign Investment Review Board are comments by lawyers and lobbyists seeking, in my view, to encourage their own business growth rather than to smooth the way, to create insight and to ensure that serious business propositions get serious consideration, serious elevation through the system, to ensure timely decision making. In short, frequently commercial opportunists clog the system. The FIRB act empowers the Treasurer to place conditions upon or block those proposals that could be contrary to the national interest. Under the Rudd government there have been two rejections, both on national security grounds: Minmetals’s bid for OZ Minerals and a joint venture between Wuhan Iron and Steel and Western Plains Resources. Both were rejected because they would have involved activities within the Woomera prohibited area. Minmetals, insightfully, gained approval on the condition that they left out the Prominent Hill copper and gold mine from their proposal. The act focuses on situations where a foreign investor obtains substantial influence or control. The current provisions in the act that deal with control have worked well. However, since the act was passed in the 1970s the nature of investments has grown increasingly complex. The use of occasionally opaque or ‘innovative’ financing arrangements has been a concern. Such innovative vehicles have highlighted that ownership interest and control can be held in a variety of forms other than through traditional shares and voting power. While these types of investment arrangements may have a solid commercial basis, they have raised questions around the act’s full application. To safeguard the act’s policy intention, the government announced that it would seek to amend the act. This amendment bill clarifies that under the act foreign investors must notify the government where the investment arrangement could deliver influence or control over an Australian company valued above the relevant monetary threshold. Importantly, the act will apply equally to all investments, irrespective of how they are structured. The amendments make specific provision for transactions involving instruments that eventually convert into shares. This will be achieved by first expanding the definition of ‘voting power’ so that it covers the number of votes that could be cast if it is assumed that a future right is exercised, and second by clarifying where the act deals with interests in shares. Currently the act provides that a person is deemed to hold an interest in a share if they have a right to acquire a share or to have a share transferred to them. The bill clarifies that a right can include a right under an instrument, agreement or arrangement, whether the right is exercisable presently or in the future and whether on fulfilment of a condition or not. The amendments are designed to capture all significant foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence or control over an Australian company. The amendments in this bill apply from 12 February 2009, the date that Treasurer Swan announced the changes, and provide certainty around the act’s application. To ensure that investors are not unfairly affected by the retrospective start date, the bill includes transitional provisions that apply in relation to business proposals and transactions that occurred between 12 February and the date of royal assent. These changes improve the integrity of the act and capture arrangements that may be deliberately structured to avoid foreign investment screening. The bill will strengthen the work of the Foreign Investment Review Board. Who are the Foreign Investment Review Board? They are people of substantial standing as Canberra policymakers and as Australian citizens. Mr John Phillips AO was appointed chairman of the board in 1997 and reappointed for a further five years in April 2007. He has extensive high-level experience in the public, finance and business sectors. Ms Lynn Wood has been a board member since April 1995 and was reappointed on 3 April 2005 for a further five years. These are substantial people with a deep background in Foreign Investment Review Board matters. Chris Miles was appointed to the board in June 1999 and reappointed for a further five years in 2004. Executive Officer Patrick Colmer made a visit to the Pilbara just a few weeks ago. He actually went out to look at iron ore mines and engaged with operators, workers and the government of Western Australia to better understand the operations of our substantial iron ore and oil and gas assets in the north of Western Australia. It is interesting to note the speakers list for this bill. Most speakers are either Western Australians, where these issues tend to bite more quickly, more deeply and more meaningfully, or from Northern Australia, where, again, the implications around foreign acquisitions tend to be more poignant because of their importance in driving business investment and the emotional significance of foreign investment. When contemplating foreign investment, it is difficult to make clear lines available for general understanding purely because of how companies are owned. It is difficult to understand all marketing arrangements, simply because of how marketing arrangements are structured. Dual listed entities make life even harder. Rio Tinto is an 84 per cent foreign owned company. BHP Billiton, a $130 billion company, is about three-quarters foreign owned. The major mining companies in Australia—BHP Billiton, Rio Tinto, Anglo and Xstrata—are all majority foreign owned. In 2006 foreign direct investment in mining in Australia was over 80 per cent of new private capital expenditure. Over 80 per cent of new investment in the mining sector in Australia in 2006 came from overseas sources. Foreign capital underpins the development of Australian resources. Australia’s experience in the 1970s and 1980s with Japan demonstrates this, with massive investments in iron ore, in liquefied natural gas, in bauxite and in thermal coal and coking coal—all investments made to serve the resource needs of the Japanese economy and, at the time, investments that raised considerable public interest and debate. That investment profile almost perfectly mirrors the Chinese investment in Australian resources today in iron ore, in LNG, in bauxite, in thermal coal and in coking coal. We should see that there is a clear link between that experience of Japan and the current experience of China. It is clear that there is a link between direct investment in our resource companies and export opportunities. And it is clear that getting the balance right on foreign investment is extremely important to maintain public confidence in our investment arrangements and also to encourage those investments to take place. I will speak briefly about Chinese investment in particular. According to the Senate economics committee report, as at 31 December 2008 the United Kingdom, at 24.8 per cent, was the largest investor country in Australia, followed by the United States at 24.3 per cent, Japan at 5.2 per cent, Hong Kong, under various arrangements, at about three per cent and Singapore at 2.5 per cent. The People’s Republic of China came in at fifteenth on a list of investor countries at 0.5 per cent, worth around $8 billion, in December 2008. The report pointed out that even Belgium and the British Virgin Islands were bigger investors in Australia than China. There has been significant growth in Chinese investment in the Australian resource sector in recent years, but it does come off a very low base. The first large-scale Chinese investments in Australia’s resource sector go back to 1986, with the Channar iron ore mine, developed through a joint venture between Sinosteel and Hamersley Iron, now Rio Tinto, in Western Australia. That was a great development producing a wonderful relationship between Rio Tinto and its Chinese customers and investors. Recently we have seen Ansteel invest in Gindalbie’s Karara project, Hunan Valin Iron and Steel invest in Fortescue Metals Group, Sinosteel’s purchase of the Midwest Corporation in 2008, Sichuan Hanlong Group’s investment in Moly Mines, Yanzhou Coal Mining’s $3.5 billion purchase of Felix Resources, and Baosteel’s investment in Aquila Resources. We also currently have decisions before the Foreign Investment Review Board such as China Railway Materials Commercial Corporation’s bid for the United Minerals Corporation and FerrAus. This debate is a constant backdrop to the economic development of the Australian resources sector. It is a constant debate because it must be. As a nation we will always require foreign investment. As a nation we will always play host to investor companies, investor countries and investor nations building deep commercial and political partnerships that underpin wealth generation in Australia—that underpin communities, jobs, careers and the lives that Australians enjoy in the wonderful commercial entities that are built in partnership with foreign investors. I commend this bill the House as an insightful addition to our regulatory approach to foreign investment. 12372 13:07:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I also rise to speak on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009. From my travels through my electorate, knocking on doors and meeting people, I suspect there is no greater industry in Western Australia than the commodities sector, from which people gain and benefit so much in our state. The downstream benefits are substantial. Yes, it is true that not everyone is involved in the commodity sector but the influence is substantial and, particularly in the new suburbs of Cowan, the number of people who remain in fly-in fly-out positions is substantial. As the parliamentary secretary just said, there is no doubt about the importance of foreign investment for our state of Western Australia. But there always remain some concerns, and I will deal with some of those concerns in my contribution today. What I would like to begin with is that I do not consider Australia to be the lucky country—I think Australia is a country that has always worked hard to achieve success. We have done well because Australian businesses and Australian people on the whole have been committed to that success and have not been afraid to work very hard, commit a lot of their time and effort, and their sweat—and tears, occasionally—to that success. I mentioned fly-in fly-out positions before, and there are a number of families that are affected by the fly-in fly-out situation. It is financially of benefit, though socially more challenging, but in any case those are the appropriate decisions that individual families have made, and, of course, we wish them all the best. What I would also say is that the success of this country has been achieved through collective and personal means. So it is not just that there are businesses that have been successful; individuals have been successful. We realise that there is nothing wrong with hard work to achieve greater benefit; we should certainly encourage that. If people want to work hard and achieve that benefit, that is good. It is the case that the ability of businesses in Australia to expand here is due in some way to their abilities to raise capital. However, at times, foreign acquisitions of businesses or increased shareholdings may occur, and sometimes that can be good and positive for Australia—in most cases I would think that is the case. It is also good for those who are employed here. But sometimes we are not quite sure how good or positive this can be. But I welcome this opportunity to speak on this bill. The bill will require foreign investors to notify the government where there is considered to be a possibility that proposed investment in, or acquisition of, business enterprises will deliver influence or control over an Australian company, now or in the future. It is a complex world these days. The location from which capital originates has changed, and the way in which it can be wielded has also changed. The influence of foreign-controlled funds and businesses are worthy of our careful examination. They are, without doubt, potent economic players. But we should be clear about this: some of these organisations are backed by foreign governments, and we must at least be wary of them. Before I speak specifically of the Chinese involvement in Australia, I would like to first speak of what is happening with Chevron Australia and the Gorgon project. About 50 kilometres south of Karratha and some 25 kilometres out to sea there is Barrow Island where Chevron has been operating for 40 years. Barrow Island will be the site of the Gorgon liquefied natural gas plant, a three-train, 15-million-tonnes-per-annum LNG plant. In subsea pipes, gas will be piped from the Jansz field, which is 140 kilometres from Barrow Island and some 1,300 metres below the surface. One hundred and eighty kilometres of mains pipelines and 180 kilometres of service pipelines will be required. The Gorgon field is some 70 kilometres from Barrow Island and 250 metres under the surface. It has been estimated that the Gorgon project will employ 3,000 personnel over at least 40 years. The partners of Chevron are ExxonMobil and Shell. It is also an interesting fact that, through the liquefaction process, the volume of the gas can be reduced by 600 per cent, thereby making it economic for storage and shipment, in this case from the 2.2 kilometre jetty that is planned. I received word that Chevron has recently passed the $7 billion mark in the awarding of contracts for Gorgon, and I would note that strong and successful Cowan local civil engineering firm Ertech Pty Ltd in Wangara has been awarded a contract for site development and the WAPET Landing on Barrow Island. An excellent local company, Ertech are going from strength to strength and I would like to congratulate Executive Chairman Jim Giumelli and Managing Director James Giumelli for their efforts. It is appropriate to spend a little time speaking about Ertech because the head office is in Cowan, located just off Ocean Reef Road and on Motivation Drive. From a distance, it looks very much like many of the businesses in Wangara. You might think when you were driving past that it was just another one of the many small but vibrant businesses in the local area. But when I visited I found it had around 250 employees, most of whom are not on the Wangara site but located on project sites around the state. The success of Ertech is demonstrated by the story they tell of their involvement at Port Hedland. As I understand it, in 1996 Ertech received an $80,000 contract from BHP to carry out works in the area. For two years, Ertech worked under the expanded requirements of BHP and in the end received additional works and earnings of $14 million for their efforts—a big difference from the $80,000 original contract—for the work they did over two years. Similarly, in 2004, Ertech commenced the site works contract at BHP Billiton’s Ravensthorpe site and that contract expanded to $270 million of work over the next 4½ years of the contract. With regard to Gorgon, involved on Barrow Island since 2001, Ertech has been awarded the large job 922, which requires preparing the construction camp, the construction of 300,000 square metres of sealed roads, the setting up a desalination plant to provide water for construction and the provision of a seawater intake tower for the desalination plant. It will also undertake works, including the reticulation of water and sewerage mains, the electric mains, navigation beacons, improvement of the landing craft offloading areas, the creation of a diesel fuel storage area and also the construction of a communications tower. Through ongoing business development and through these latest and future Gorgon opportunities I look forward to the continued expansion of Ertech. I look forward to their creating more employment for my constituents and I wish them every success in the future. I am very glad that they are in the electorate of Cowan. Before moving on, I would just like to mention the value of natural gas for a cleaner world. The influence of production and then use of Gorgon gas, if substituted for other energy fuel sources, has the capacity to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by about 45 million tonnes per year. As Chevron suggested, that would be equivalent to removing two-thirds of all vehicles from Australian roads. Natural gas, therefore, is the cleanest-burning fossil fuel, producing around 50 per cent of the carbon dioxide that coal produces. Clearly, as the population of the world grows and nations develop, the opportunities for economic returns for Australia grow, as does the opportunity for cleaner air, particularly in developing nations. Anyone who has been to China, India or even Thailand knows that the substitution of coal by natural gas will help reduce pollution in the air. It would of course be wrong of me not to mention Pluto, since I have just spoken of Gorgon. The Pluto project is being undertaken by Woodside, the nation’s largest publicly listed oil and gas exploration and production company. The gas field is 185 kilometres from Karratha. Woodside has set something of a record with finding the Pluto gas field in 2005 and it is estimated that the first gas will flow around the 5½ year mark. Given it is estimated that the global demand for gas will double by 2020, the future for this $12 billion project is looking very solid. Another advantage for Woodside is that the CO2 level in the gas is very low, thereby reducing processing and removal costs. I want to speak about some of the specifics of some of the acquisitions that have taken place in Australia in the last two years. But, before I do so, I would just like to say that there is a certain level of unease amongst my constituents who work in the commodity sector about the ability of Chinese companies to buy into mines and infrastructure in this country. Another concern of my constituents is that they know that cashed-up Chinese companies often contain sovereign funds. We know that Australian firms investing in Chinese businesses or assets do not have the same opportunity under anything like the conditions that we permit in this country. It is therefore very important that we exercise extreme care in considering foreign acquisitions. I have just spoken about Chevron, which, of course, is a foreign company. Given that, there obviously needs to be a degree of balance with that. Everyone in my area believes that foreign investment is necessary, but behind some of the concerns that people have expressed to me are the difference in the methods and experiences that people have had in their employment and their contacts with certain companies. It is worth noting that the figures for 2008 that I have seen certainly do not rate China right up there at all in terms of foreign direct investment. Certainly, when we look at the top end of the scale, the UK and the United States, the top two nations at around 20 per cent each, represent in excess of $50 billion. That demonstrates that the level of direct foreign investment is certainly coming from the Western world and not the Eastern world. After that comes Germany, Japan and also Hong Kong, which are putting billions of dollars into Australia. That said, I would like to look at some of China’s involvement in Australia. I note that, on 8 May 2009, the Treasurer approved an additional shareholding for Anshan Iron and Steel, also known as Ansteel, of up to 36.28 per cent of Gindalbie Metals Ltd. At that time, Ansteel was already a 50 per cent joint venture partner with Gindalbie in the greenfields $1.8 billion Karara iron ore project in the mid-west of Western Australia. While the Treasurer placed conditions on this acquisition, including the development of infrastructure, the essential point is that the Chinese stake in the Karara project is now substantial. If you look at the figures you will see that its involvement in the project certainly appears to be in excess of 50 per cent. Interestingly, Karara and Gindalbie are linked to the Oakajee Port and Rail Project and it is of concern, particularly to some in Western Australia, that the Chinese influence in the mid-west is too great. Some may say that Ansteel or, as it is also known, the Angang Steel Company is publicly listed; however, it is worth noting that that is supervised by the State Council of the People’s Republic of China. On 23 April 2009, the Treasurer also approved the application by China Minmetals Non-Ferrous Metals Co. Ltd to acquire some mining assets of OZ Minerals Ltd. Essentially, the conditions imposed on this acquisition were to operate the acquired mines as separate businesses and with commercial objectives; to operate the mines using companies incorporated, headquartered and managed in Australia, under a predominantly Australian management team; to maintain or increase production and employment at Century, Rosebery and Golden Grove mines; to pursue growth in Century and Rosebery mines; and to reopen the Avebury mine and develop the Dugald River mine, subject to economic conditions. The Minmetals revised proposal is for Golden Grove, Century, Rosebery, Avebury and Dugald River mining operations in Australia. These produce zinc, lead, copper and silver, which are priced with reference to the London Metal Exchange. What do we know about Minmetals? It is a state controlled corporation, engaged in both the production and the trading of minerals and metals, including copper, aluminium, tungsten, tin, lead, zinc and nickel. The list of Chinese companies or Chinese government related bodies involved in the commodity sector has been necessary to further investment and development of our commodities, but we must always be extremely vigilant. Certainly, the Chinalco acquisition, of up to 14.99 per cent of the shares of Rio Tinto’s London-listed arm, received the support of Colin Barnett, Premier of Western Australia. However, when Rio Tinto joined BHP to exclude the Chinese, that was opposed by the state Premier. As has been stated by most Australian leaders, these decisions are best taken with the strongest consideration of the national interest to either allow or reject the foreign acquisition. It is certainly the case that there will be occasions when foreign investment is necessary to achieve the strategic objectives and to ensure the capital exists to get the job done. In concluding, I appreciate the need for this bill. I would, however, say that we should be very careful about every increase in stockholding and control by foreign businesses, and particularly careful when sovereign funds are involved. We have seen not only the different ways various countries operate and deal with people in their direct foreign investments in this country, as I mentioned before, but also that so much of the investment that has come from the bigger investors in this country—the US, the UK, Germany and Japan—is very much from private enterprise. We should always be very careful when we have the involvement of sovereign funds, or when bodies, organisations or businesses are closely controlled or connected with governments of foreign nations; we should be very careful about looking at the detail of where they invest and how they invest. So I welcome this bill and I welcome the changes that may be required in the future, which will make sure that we are always protected and that the national interest is always protected. 12376 13:24:00 Bradbury, David, MP HVW Lindsay ALP 1 0 Mr BRADBURY —I rise in support of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, which seeks to make changes to the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act that has been in place since 1975 as amended. It is an important act because it seeks to achieve a balance between some competing concerns. First and foremost is the need to ensure that we attract foreign direct investment into our country, and there are important reasons why that is necessary, which I will come to shortly. The act is about balancing the need for foreign direct investment with the national interest; it is about providing a basis upon which the Treasurer, working with the Foreign Investment Review Board, can determine whether or not proposals, where they may affect control over a particular business or asset, are in the national interest. It is important to note that this particular bill seeks to close off one of those avenues that was previously left uncorrected: a potential loophole that certain individuals, businesses or corporations abroad may have been able to take advantage of with respect to particular financing arrangements, whether it be in the form of convertible notes or other instruments where ownership may not be transferred until some later point in time. In essence, the proposals contained within this amendment seek to ensure that the anticipated ultimate ownership reality that might pertain to those particular financing arrangements be taken into account up front when determining whether or not a particular proposal might trigger the interest of the Treasurer and the Foreign Investment Review Board when determining if a proposal is consistent with or potentially a threat to the national interest. These are important amendments. They are important because they go to the integrity of the regime that we have in place and it is important to maintain the integrity of that regime because it acknowledges the importance of foreign direct investment, but it also acknowledges that there need to be limits to the extent of that investment, and those limits are to be determined by the national interest. Foreign capital is important for our growth and for jobs in our country. I have many discussions with constituents in my community and there is often much apprehension when it comes to the issue of foreign investment. One of the things that is often not understood when it comes to the issue of foreign investment is that it is an essential requirement for our economy to continue to grow. There are some sectors in particular where we rely upon foreign investment to an even greater extent, and I will come to some of those shortly. But international capital opens up new investment opportunities and helps to develop Australian industries. Foreign direct investment brings new job opportunities for Australians, new innovation and skills development, new technologies and the promotion of competition amongst our industries. It is important to understand the impact of foreign direct investment in Australia. Foreign investment is particularly important because we are a capital hungry nation and because we do not have the capital available here onshore to invest in those areas that require that investment and that attention. Foreign investment creates jobs and boosts our productivity. One in four jobs in the mining industry, for example, rely on foreign investment. One in eight private sector jobs in Australia are in foreign owned businesses and, as of March 2009, total foreign investment has contributed more than $1,700 billion to our national economy. There are some misconceptions in the community as to where foreign direct investment into Australia is coming from. If we look at the figures provided by the Foreign Investment Review Board in its 2007-08 annual report, we see that, by a long distance, the biggest source country is the United States of America. US proposed inward investment of $49.5 billion represented, in that particular year, about 26 per cent of approved total investment. So a significant amount—about a quarter—of foreign capital coming into Australia is coming from the United States. The other key countries from which foreign investment is coming into Australia include the United Kingdom, Germany, Singapore and Switzerland. These countries accounted for a significant amount of foreign direct investment into Australia in 2007-08, with the UK accounting for 17 per cent, Germany, seven per cent; Singapore, six per cent; and Switzerland, five per cent. One sector where foreign direct investment is more important than most is in the mineral resources sector. Mineral exploration and development as a sector accounts for a significant proportion of the foreign direct investment that our country attracts. If we look we can see that, in 2007-08, foreign direct investment accounted for $64.3 billion in approvals. This is important because it is driving jobs in that sector. One in four Australian workers in the mining sector is employed as a result of foreign direct investment. This is an issue that some attention has been drawn to in recent times. I saw an editorial in the Australian last week which said, ‘Australia has always needed foreign investment to develop its potential as a resources exporter, and will need much more investment in the future.’ And that is true. In fact, that editorial was making reference to a speech that had been given, I think the night before, by Marius Kloppers, the chief executive of BHP Billiton. Mr Kloppers gave a speech which I intend to quote from at some length because I think his comments are relevant and important to this discussion. He said in a speech to the Lowy Institute on Wednesday, 18 November: Foreign direct investment, or FDI, in major national resources will always be a sensitive issue, and those sensitivities increase when investors have close connections with foreign governments. To my mind, the FDI debate in Australia often misses the critical investment issue. Capital sources to fund resource projects are limited, primarily due to a mismatch between the risk appetites of some funding sources and the inherent riskiness in the projects themselves. The Australian banks are hesitant to take the lead on syndicating loans for very large projects because they fear that the syndication market may leave them over-exposed, a genuine concern given recent conditions. Foreign banks have shown more willingness to lend … …            …            … The Australian bond market (another typical source of debt funding for companies) has always been stunted, forcing many companies to issue bonds on foreign markets, at a higher cost. Existing shareholders can be a source of equity, and have been tapped extensively by many companies, from all sectors, through this downturn. While this can be effective as a tactical source of funds, it is not a long-term solution. What we see from that speech that Mr Kloppers gave is recognition that the continued growth and development of our mineral resources sector, which is critical if we are to continue to meet demand and maintain market share in this sector internationally, and our competitiveness really does rely upon our having access to capital and that that access to capital, for the reasons that he outlines—and a number of reasons are outlined there in terms of the nature of our bond market and also the lack of risk appetite on the part of Australian banks—means that if companies seek to further exploit, explore and develop their mineral resource capabilities in this country they need to seek access to capital from offshore. In doing so, they are able to achieve greater growth and more jobs in Australia. Of course, there is a balancing act, and that is what the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act is all about: trying to ensure that there is a balance between the need for foreign investment and what is in the national interest. This particular set of amendments seeks only to tighten up, if you like, what factors are to be taken into account when determining whether there is a threat of the sort that should be assessed as to whether or not it is a threat to the national interest. I should make mention of the fact that, as a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Economics, I have been involved in an inquiry in productivity in the Australian economy. Last Friday, we received evidence from the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy as part of that inquiry. We heard from Michael Catchpole, the CEO, and Monika Sarder, the manager, in relation to some of the issues pertaining to productivity and its measurement in respect of the resources sector. I will quote from the submission that that organisation made to the inquiry. There is a reference to the ‘challenges of increasing remoteness, depth and depleting quality of ore reserves’ and the impact that has had on the overall measurement of productivity growth within that sector. I make the point that this really does underline some of the challenges that we do face in the resources sector—that is, owing to the depth, the remoteness and the depleting quality of our resources, more and more investment needs to be undertaken in order to extract the materials that we know are in demand internationally. That is why it is important that we ensure that companies trying to exploit those resources have the capacity to do so by having access to the capital they need. It is an important point to understand because we have all been beneficiaries of the minerals resource sector boom in this country. People employed in electorates such as Cowan—the member for Cowan has now left the chamber but spoke very passionately about the jobs in his electorate—and other parts of the country have been direct beneficiaries. In my electorate the same numbers of mining jobs are not available, but clearly overall living standards have improved and people have benefited greatly from the impact of the mining boom, whether through greater revenue collection for government, allowing it to pursue high priorities or bring forward priorities that might not otherwise have been delivered upon or, through the tax and transfer system, to deliver benefits or accommodation to taxpayers in other parts of the country. As Australians, we all recognise the importance of our resources sector and we understand that it is an important platform for future growth in this country. That is why it is important to ensure that we do not lose market share. Many people close to the sector are making the point that as a nation we must be careful not to take for granted the investment that we are receiving from this sector. If we do that it will be at our own peril. The consequences will be, ultimately, a loss of market share, and to lose market share is to begin to give away some of the comparative advantage that we have as a nation. So it is critical that we ensure a competitive and efficient resources sector. Central to ensuring that competitiveness and efficiency is access to capital, and if that capital cannot be sourced from within our shores then as a nation our aspirations and ambitions for growth require us to seek capital elsewhere. But when we do so it is important that we do so in a way that does not compromise the national interest. That is why these amendments, which seek to strengthen the provisions of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act, will ensure that as a nation we can continue to strike a balance between having a regime that attracts foreign direct investment and ensuring that the national interest continues to prevail. I commend the bill. 12379 13:40:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —I rise to speak on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, which is a subject very near and dear to my own heart. I live in a little town called Cloncurry, and we would have no sealed road connecting us to the coast if it were not for Mount Isa and the giant mineral deposits that were discovered about 100 kilometres west of Cloncurry. Cloncurry probably would not have even warranted a railway line. Most certainly, in our day and age you would never in a million years have had a railway line built by the government to a place like Cloncurry. It was built at the time by what we would today call a corrupt allocation of shares and it was rebuilt with an allocation of shares to the Queensland cabinet. So it was built and then rebuilt only because large parcels of shares were given to the various ministers in the government at the time. That mine languished for 30 years. There was no real production there in the first quarter of the century until the Americans came in. They brought three things—markets, somewhere to sell the product; technology and know-how, which, arguably, we did have in Australia at that time but were never applied to Mount Isa; and capital expenditure. Mount Isa did not have any of those three things when Julius Kruttschnitt arrived there. His technology and know-how were equal to that of BHP, but BHP were not interested in opening up a mine that far away and the Americans saw a possibility that no Australian saw. With it came huge employment for north-west Queensland. In fact I started my first job there. In those days we had an enlightened government and we paid virtually no tax. As an unskilled labourer I was on the equivalent of about $110,000 in today’s money. The miners were paid the equivalent of about $370,000 a year in today’s money. That was really a marvellous thing. Many young people were able to buy cattle stations, sugarcane farms or whatever captured their fancy. Many of them got into the tourism industry in Cairns in the early days with the money they had made working at Mount Isa for two, three or four years. If the government had seen fit to say, ‘We are not going to allow foreign investment or foreign companies into Australia,’ then large parts of Australia and our economy would simply not exist today. Senator Joyce went to my home town of Cloncurry and gave a speech there recently. I do not criticise Senator Joyce. He is one of the really good guys, in my opinion. But Senator Joyce is a great proponent of opposing Chinese investment. The Dugald River facility, north of Cloncurry, has been there now for close to 40 years. The Dugald River copper, silver, lead and zinc deposits were found some 40 years ago. They were found to be very extensive reserves. I quote from the annual report to shareholders by Conzinc Riotinto—or Rio Tinto, as it was at that stage. It says: ‘As always, the Dugald River resource remains one of our most important resources and one of the world’s most important resources.’ I think I am the only person in this parliament that has any experience in mining. I mined my own mines. I found, developed and produced from my own little mines and I also worked as a labourer, off and on, for mining companies, so I can speak with some considerable authority in this field. No matter how many times you drill it, you never really know whether the ore is in an ore body until you start mining it, so you have to commit yourself to $100 million worth of expenditure on the basis of a dozen or two dozen drill holes. Let me be very specific. At Century mine, which has the richest zinc deposits in world history—not the biggest but the richest in world history—they drilled the entire hill except for one section at the back where there was no mineralisation. The wet came early and they could not get the drilling rigs out, so they found no payable ore whatsoever and they had put out millions of dollars on the drilling program. But there was the little section at the back where there was no mineralisation. They said, ‘Well, we can’t get the drilling rigs out so we may as well use them instead of having them sitting there doing nothing,’ so they drilled that sector and they found the richest deposits of zinc in the world, which have been a great contributor to the economy of that area. We have got electricity into a corner of the world where we would never have got electricity, we have had upgraded roads that we would never have got upgraded and, for our first Australian population right up in the gulf country north-west sector, we have 70 jobs for people who would never have been able to get those jobs, so it has been a wonderful thing for us. Dugald River will be a wonderful thing for Cloncurry. But, outside the Chinese, I cannot see any other group—and I am a person who tenaciously believes, as I will go on in this speech to assert to the House, that there are decisions that a government has to take and they are not easy decisions. There are some times when I would be implacably opposed, and it is to the disgrace of the last government and, to some degree, the current government, even though they have only been there for two minutes, that they have allowed takeovers to occur. But clearly, in the case of Dugald River, you have had an ore body sitting there for 40 years and no-one has done anything about developing it. The state government had laws on the books put there by the great Ted Theodore: ‘Use it or lose it.’ You are not allowed to sit on an ore body and do nothing with it. But it is a hard decision for government to make because a company can say, quite rightly, that they are looking more closely at the ore body: ‘It’s a complicated ore body. We may not be able to process it as successfully as we would have hoped.’ Let me just give you a quick example. The Greenvale nickel mine went broke because the content of silicon had not been properly analysed. For those of you who are not familiar with silicon, after diamond it is the hardest rock known to man. When they put it into the crushers, they did not crush the nickel ore; the silicon in the nickel ore was crushing the crushers and destroying them. They found ways of overcoming this, but in the meantime the company went broke. Vam was the third biggest mining company in Australia at the time of the metals boom in the sixties. One of their major deposits was at Gunpowder. They drilled at a particular place and intersected a characteristic ore body at a depth of, let us say, 100 feet and then, a kilometre away, they put drill holes down again and again intersected the ore at exactly the same level they had intersected it in the other place. They extrapolated then that they had an ore body stretching for a kilometre, which was quite a reasonable conclusion for them to come to based upon the evidence they had. One would say it was an absolute conclusion: they could say conclusively that they had an ore body that was a kilometre long. When they started mining—they had a bit more money—they drilled in the centre and they got no ore body at all. In Charters Towers, you can clearly see where a block has moved. You have an ore body here and an ore body there, and they were a continuous ore body at some stage, but a block in between has simply moved downwards in what we know now as the Brilliant Deeps. Of its very nature, mining is a very, very risky business. The markets, of course, are a roller-coaster. We had a situation where the prices three years ago were double what the prices were five years ago. The metal price doubled. The metal price, you can say now, has halved, or gone down 50 per cent, but it has really gone back to what it was six or seven years ago. So you also have to ride the roller-coaster of the markets. In the case of Dugald River, I am a very strong and enthusiastic supporter of the Chinese coming in both there and at Century—the old zinc deposits now belong to them. We have virtually run out of ore body there, but we have very extensive phosphate deposits there. For an Australian company trying to break into the world markets with that phosphate it would be very, very difficult indeed. But if you have a deal with the Indians, such as Joe Gutnick has with Legend’s phosphate in that area, then you have connected into the world’s biggest consumer group except for China. Similarly, at Century, I am very, very optimistic that what has been the richest zinc mine in the world will become one of the premier phosphate deposits in the world, but I dare say that nobody in Australia is going to develop those. We have four of the 24 world phosphate deposits in north-west Queensland. Only one was ever developed and that was the Duchess phosphate deposit, developed by Western Mining Corporation—and even that involved 20 years of painful leaning on them by the Queensland government: ‘Use it or lose it.’ I was the minister leaning upon WMC to proceed with that. There would be no Mt Isa and no Century if, the case for foreign investment having been put, the government had then said, ‘You can’t come in.’ Foreign corporations developed these mines. Australians had 40 years in which to do it, and we never did it. These are clear-cut cases. For the coalmining industry, if the government had said, ‘No, you are a foreign corporation, you can’t come in, Mr Japan,’ then we would have had no mining industry in Australia. The man responsible for the Australian export coal industry was Sir Leslie Thiess, who at all times had the closest of close relationships with the Japanese. When he started mining, it was through a combined company with the Japanese. We were vilified as a government at the time for allowing the Japanese—and we are going back to a period not that long after the Second World War—to get involved The people who were running Australia were men who had fought in that war. My father was in this place; he was a captain in the Army in the Second World War. My uncle fought at Milne Bay in the Second World War. These were people who had great sensitivities—and the Australian population had great sensitivities—towards the Japanese. Bjelke-Petersen showed very great strength of character in standing his ground. He was of Germanic background—Danish, technically, but of a Germanic background. He showed an awful lot of courage. Of course, the famous Jack McEwen was the person who really spearheaded the Japanese involvement. Without the Japanese we would have had no markets for our coal. There was no-one in the world to sell it to. America was awash with coal; they did not need it. God has been good to Europe as far as coal goes. We had no technology, either, and we needed to bring the Americans in for that as well. Finally, we needed the capital, and we could not get any Australians to invest after the crash of the mining boom in the sixties. Everyone was terrified to touch mining, so these men could raise no money. These people built most of the Snowy and half of the great developments that you see as Australia today, including the giant highway from Geelong to Melbourne and the casino in Townsville. But even this Thiess family—this company—as big as they were, were run to their last cent in developing those coal resources. If they had not got the Japanese to come in on time and did not have a government that was positive towards the Japanese coming in, then it would have been a very sad day indeed for Thiess. I will now switch to the other side of the coin. And I am criticising the last government very stridently here. I fought like a tiger and took belated action to try to stop the takeover of Mt Isa Mines by Xstrata. The government remained totally unconvinced. During that period the six great mining companies in Australia all became foreign owned. The government sat on its hands while the six great mining companies of Australia were all taken over by foreign investors. The price of metals went up by nearly 300 per cent. A town like Mt Isa was costing $2,000 million a year to run—around about that figure—and they were just breaking even. When the price went to $6,000 million, there should have been $4,000 million profit for Australians. But there was not. For those who, like me, like looking at statistics, it is very curious that Australia is making profits at long last, as a trading nation, on what we buy and sell and yet, when the current account comes in, we are in a dreadful, desperate state. And that is because we are selling the product overseas; we get the money to come in and then we just write out a cheque to the owners of the company, who live in London or Geneva or New York or somewhere like that. Those cheques would have gone to Australia. Australia was cheated out of hundreds of thousands of millions of dollars because the last government allowed those six companies to go. In summary, these are not easy questions, and I think the government is probably setting it right here in admitting that they are not easy questions to answer. But to sit on your hands and idly say that every single foreigner who wants to come in here and buy shares can do so, because it will boost the share market price in Australia and people living in the big cities will make a big quid for themselves, is not an enlightened government position. We are moving to a slightly more enlightened position today, and we thank the government for that contribution. 12382 13:58:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I welcome the opportunity to speak on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009, albeit that I have less than 60 seconds before question time. It is good to see some of the members of the opposition coming in here today. Hopefully they might be able to come in with some good news that they have reached agreement on the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme amendments that we have been negotiating with them in good faith, because it is so important for our nation to get on with the implementation of that legislation. I do welcome the opportunity to speak on the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill because this bill, too, is in Australia’s national interest. The purpose of the bill is to improve the integrity of Australia’s foreign investment screening regime by ensuring that the government has the capacity to examine all investment proposals that could potentially be against Australia’s national interest. The amendments are designed to capture foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour and the member for Makin will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 12383 Ministerial Arrangements 12383 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Foreign Affairs will be absent from question time today as he is attending the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Trinidad and Tobago. The Minister for Trade will answer questions on his behalf. The Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services will be absent from question time this week as he is meeting with international funds and asset managers, as well as representatives from the UK government and the Financial Services Authority, in New York and London. The Treasurer will answer questions in relation to financial services, superannuation and corporate law, while the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs will answer questions in relation to human services on his behalf. 12383 14:01:00 Questions Without Notice 12383 14:01:00 12383 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House as to the nature and status of the injuries sustained by both Australian personnel and asylum seekers in the recent riot at the Christmas Island detention centre? 12383 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. I am advised that at approximately 6.30 pm on Saturday, Christmas Island time, a disturbance took place among a group of detainees at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre. The disturbance was brought under control within about 30 minutes, with the assistance of the Australian Federal Police. I am further advised that, following containment of the incident, the centre is calm and all the detainees have been briefed by departmental officers. Departmental officials are currently investigating the circumstances of the disturbance. The Australian Federal Police is also conducting an investigation. If a detainee on Christmas Island has committed a serious offence, this will be taken into consideration as part of the assessment as to whether or not they are granted a visa. There were a number of injuries sustained, with 43 individuals receiving medical treatment. I am advised that five of the detention provider staff sustained minor injuries. On the matter of mandatory detention on Christmas Island, the opposition and the House will be aware that the government’s policy on mandatory detention and offshore processing has been constant since the government was elected to office. That will continue to be our policy into the future. 12383 12383 14:03:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the progress of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as the centrepiece of Australia’s efforts to tackle climate change? 12383 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question, as I am sure all members and those listening to the debate today are concerned about the future of action on climate change. This week in the Australian parliament we are down to the business end of deciding what our future national action will be on climate change. For the parliament there can no longer be any delay. Let us face the basic environmental and economic fact that we are the hottest and driest continent on earth—or one of them—and that the impacts will be felt here first and hardest of all continents on earth. Therefore, it is in our national interest that we act locally on climate change. It is in our national interest that we also act globally on climate change. It is in the planet’s interest that we do so as well. The alternative is simply unsustainable. To ignore the science also means to fail in our fiduciary duties as a nation and fail in our fiduciary duties as international leaders towards the international community and its future. It is simply unsustainable for us to turn and look our kids and grandkids in the eye and say, ‘We didn’t step up to the plate when we had a historic opportunity to do so.’ The time to act globally on climate change has come. Let us put all this into some context. It is now more than 30 years since the first World Climate Conference was called and governments were called on to act to guard against the consequences of dangerous climate change. It is 20 years since the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was formed and produced its first report. It is 17 years since the international community acknowledged the importance of tackling climate change at the Rio Earth Summit and created the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. That is where the global consensus has been emerging over the last 20 to 30 years. It has also been a long time since we first began the debate here about implementing an emissions trading scheme within Australia. Again, putting this into its general context, around the world a very large number of countries have brought in emissions trading schemes. Twenty-eight countries are already operating emissions trading schemes. There are six major economies moving towards emissions trading schemes and some 27 states in Canada and the United States are also moving towards emissions trading schemes. Here in Australia, former Senator Hill, the former Minister for the Environment, said in July this year: Well, I started work on a potential cap and trade for Australia almost a decade ago; the political time wasn’t right then. Perhaps it’s getting closer … But basically, as with most Western nations, I think a cap and trade is the way to go. If you look at the rest of the action that has been undertaken since then, again, it puts into historical context that the time to act on this has come and the time for further delay has, frankly, well and truly gone. In 1999 the Australian Greenhouse Office released six discussion papers on climate change and emissions trading. In 2000 and 2002 two further discussion papers were released on how we could bring about an emissions trading scheme. In 2007, the then secretary of the Prime Minister’s department, Dr Shergold, provided the Prime Ministerial Task Group on Emissions Trading’s Shergold report. And, of course, at the last election, the previous government also committed itself to introducing an emissions trading scheme. These are the facts. Since the election of this government, we have sought to bring this legislation to fruition. We began in June 2008, when the CPRS green paper was released. There was the Garnaut review in September 2008 and the CPRS white paper, released in December 2008. Then in March this year, nearly nine months ago, we produced draft legislation for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. We have also introduced the renewable energy target legislation, boosting to 20 per cent the amount of electricity to be produced by renewable sources by 2020. We have had countless inquiries over a long, long time, we have had countless Senate investigations, we have had countless industry consultations, and the time for action has well and truly come. That is why we must rise to the occasion and rise to the challenge and get this deal done this week in this parliament. This week the Australian parliament reaches the culmination of 30 years worth of science, some 10 years of development of a cap-and-trade scheme for Australia and some two years of specific work on the design character of a carbon pollution reduction scheme. This week Minister Wong will bring the proposed deal to the cabinet of Australia for its consideration. Following cabinet endorsement, the deal will be put to our—that is, the Australian Labor Party—party room so that it has whole-of-government support. Tomorrow morning, the government’s endorsed package and the draft amendments will be provided to the opposition for their final consideration. The deal that we put to the opposition is a deal for this week. The government is focused on passing the legislation this week. The reason for that is that the clock is ticking for us all. I say to those opposite: the government is willing to extend the time available for parliamentary sittings should it be necessary to bring about a vote on the scheme this week. There are times in our national politics when all Australians require us to reach beyond the normal partisan divide and to frame an agreement in the national interest. I believe we have reached such a time in Australia. We have reached such a time in Australia this week. I believe that climate change represents a challenge of our times to which we in the parliament must rise. So I appeal to all those on opposition benches who are people of goodwill who wish to see the passage of climate change legislation to look beyond our normal partisan divide and join with the government to see the passage of this Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for the future. It is necessary for Australia, it is necessary for our national action, it is necessary to underpin our global action. I believe the eyes of the nation are on all of us in this House, government and opposition benches alike, this week. 12385 12385 14:10:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 Ms LEY —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House: what is the capacity of the Christmas Island detention centre and how many asylum seekers are currently in the detention centre? Will the Prime Minister also inform the House when he expects the Australian government will have to start processing asylum seekers on the mainland, at Darwin? 12385 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. First of all, my advice is that we have 1,188 people accommodated there. Second, the capacity of the centre as it currently stands is 1,400. I am further advised that the department of immigration has recently sourced some 70 demountables to increase capacity further—I understand, by some 200 beds—by the end of December. I also understand that the department is exploring additional measures to increase capacity should that be required in the future. I also say to the honourable member in response to her question that, on the 10-hectare site available, the advice of the department is that there is room for that to occur. The second part of the honourable member’s question goes to the processing of individuals on the mainland. I say to the honourable member that our policy is first and foremost mandatory detention; and, secondly, when it comes to the interdiction of vessels offshore, that we will seek to process those through mandatory detention on Christmas Island. As I have said already in answer to questions in this place, the immigration minister has already put on the record other contingency arrangements that have been put in place. So far, in the time of this government, I am advised that one vessel has reached the Australian mainland. All others have so far been interdicted offshore. That is why they have all been processed on Christmas Island. In the period of the previous government, I am advised about 15 per cent of vessels in fact made it to the Australian mainland and brought about a different set of circumstances for the processing of vessels at that time. 12386 12386 14:12:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 Ms NEAL —My question is to the Treasurer. Why is the introduction of a carbon pollution reduction scheme such a vital economic reform for Australia’s future? 12386 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Robertson for her question. The rationale for the CPRS is very simple and it is very clear. By taking action now, we avoid larger costs for future generations, something everyone in this House should be concerned about, because climate change is a very serious economic challenge to future prosperity. It would be wonderful to think that it does not exist, but it does, and hard-headed governments must deal with it—and hard-headed governments around the world are dealing with it. They are dealing with it because it is an economic threat, not just an environmental threat. Australia has more to lose that just about every other developed nation, so there is an urgency in this country to deal with it, and we must, because every tonne of carbon that is pumped into the atmosphere imposes a cost on our community. It is a cost that is felt right across the community and right across the economy: hotter days, water restrictions, bushfires and drought. Of course, that is denied by so many opposite. But we are now experiencing only a fraction of the costs that will be left for future generations if we do not act, and that is why we must act. We now have and have had for some time the modelling from the Garnaut review. I would like to go through some of those conclusions because I think they are worth reviewing as we go into this debate through the next 24 hours. Increased temperature and reduced rainfall will cause substantial reductions in agricultural output. That should be obvious to just about anybody. The modelling forecasts a 92 per cent decline in irrigated agricultural production in the Murray-Darling Basin by the end of the century. Unmitigated climate change would disproportionately affect the price of food. Relative to other goods, Garnaut found that the cost of food could increase by more than 10 per cent. There are fundamental bread-and-butter impacts from climate change and long-term damage to the economy that many opposite simply will not face up to. They just want to put their head in the sand and wish it was not happening. But governments committed to hard-headed reforms, which protect our prosperity, know that in these circumstances we must act. Nobody else can act. We cannot leave it up to voluntary groups, welfare groups or volunteers. There is only one group in a society that can act in these circumstances and, of course, that is government. That is what members of this House are elected to do, to represent the community and protect the national economic interest. There is so much of this debate that reminds me of debates of earlier times about the hard-headed decisions that were taken, which were not necessarily popular at the time but which have ensured our prosperity. I well remember the debate about the introduction of national superannuation and how many on that side of the House went around and said, ‘We cannot do this, it is a tax and it is a cost to business.’ But it was right for the nation. As we go forward we have discovered just how important that long-term reform was to our economic prosperity. It has been demonstrated, particularly in the past 12 months, because that pool of superannuation savings has been absolutely critical in ensuring finance in this economy as we go forward. But there were plenty of people who were not prepared to take the hard decision back when that long-term reform was introduced and many of them were on that side of the House. What we have got to do is put aside the short-term scaremongering. What we have got to do is put in place policies for the long-term national interest that will look after future generations and of course do the right thing by our economy. Those opposite have got 24 hours to make up their minds. I hope they think long and hard about their position. I hope they don’t do what they did with the economic stimulus, which was a short-term populist thing to oppose it in this House. I hope they don’t do that. I hope they don’t do what they did over the years when they did not invest in infrastructure. I hope they face up to the long-term responsibility and acknowledge that action is required. I hope they don’t do what they have been doing recently by opposing in this House essential savings measures. Those opposite always take the easy decisions. What I hope is that there are enough in the party room that acknowledge the national interest and get behind this important long-term reform for our children and for the future prosperity of our national economy. 12387 12387 14:17:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr STONE —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister tell the House if the asylum seekers medivaced following the riot on Christmas Island will now be offered a special deal like the Oceanic Viking asylum seekers? 12387 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Once the individuals have been appropriately treated, I am sure they will then be processed consistent with those procedures which apply to Christmas Island. That is the first point. The second point I would make in response to the honourable member’s question is her interesting interview this morning about where in fact these individuals should be processed. It is a little bit confusing but, when asked about it this morning by Jon Faine on the radio, on the one hand you said that the opposition is saying that ‘we should continue some sort of processing without allowing people to land in Australia,’ now you are also, at the same time, saying that we ‘should use facilities that are on the mainland’. Then the member for Murray goes on in her answer: There comes a time when a small place like Christmas Island simply cannot continue to have thousands upon thousands stacked up, even at the big facility that Christmas Island was when it was built. If you do not take them to Christmas Island, I suggest that the only alternative being advocated by the member for Murray is to bring them to the Australian mainland. Our policy is very simple: it is mandatory detention and it is based on processing offshore on Christmas Island consistent with the arrangements we have put in place for some time. 12387 12387 14:19:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, and the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change. Will the minister outline the significant scientific consensus that has developed around climate change? What has the government done in response to the science and what is preventing further action based on the scientific evidence? HWT Robert, Stuart, MP Mr Robert —We have your names, Greg. 12387 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr COMBET —I have not hidden my identity. I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question. He has taken a very keen interest in this issue given the vulnerability of Far North Queensland to climate change. This is, in any view, a momentous week potentially for those in Australia who support taking action on climate change. As the Prime Minister was saying a short while ago, if agreement can be finalised with the opposition then we can achieve as a nation a historic economic and environmental reform. It is important to remind ourselves why the government is so committed to acting on climate change. It is because the scientific case for action on climate change is very clear. The climate is warming and we need to act respond to it. In 1988, governments formed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to analyse the peer reviewed scientific work of global scientists to inform policy making decisions. The IPCC has released four assessment reports that have confirmed the science and informed the international efforts to take action. The most recent such assessment report, released in 2007, has of course been informing the Copenhagen process. That report, the fourth assessment report, found that the observed warming of the climate is unequivocal, that the observed warming is very likely to be due to human activity and that projected warming of between 1.1 to 6.4 degrees centigrade can be expected by 2100. These findings have been both confirmed and strengthened by subsequent world leading scientific societies. Labor accepts the science and that is why the government has a strong record of action in dealing with climate change. We have ratified the Kyoto protocol. We have committed to international negotiations. We have commissioned the Garnaut climate change review. We have produced green and white papers. We have had extensive consultations with industry and environmental groups. We have set strong targets for emissions reductions. We have passed the renewable energy legislation. We have commenced the largest ever investment in energy efficiency. We have committed significant resources to explore carbon capture and storage and solar technology. We have committed to implement the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, and we need the CPRS so that we can begin the difficult work of reducing our greenhouse emissions. To that end, we need those opposite to support action on climate change. The government has been working hard to achieve agreement. But the opposition remains split into two camps and divided on the science. The member for Warringah has attracted a bit of attention in recent days. He has chopped and changed camps on the Liberal side of politics and he has got an unusual take on the science. The member for Warringah had this to say on Lateline last week in relation to the science: If you look at Roman times, grapes grew up against Hadrian’s Wall. In Medieval times they grew crops in Greenland and in the 1700s they had ice fairs on the Thames. I do not think I can explain it to the House, Mr Speaker. We would have to have some peer review of the source material to work that out. The member for Warringah also had this to say back in October in no lesser material than Pyrenees Advocate. He said: The argument on climate change is absolute crap. However the politics of this are tough for us. Eighty per cent of people believe climate change is a real and present danger. So it is a political problem from the member for Warringah’s point of view. The climate science, as he said, is ‘absolute crap’ in his opinion. But in Australian on 19 October when the member for Warringah was in the other camp—that is, the camp supporting the Leader of the Opposition and attempts to negotiate an agreement—this is what he had to say: It could indeed help the outcome of the Copenhagen climate change talks if Australia agreed in advance not only to a carbon emission target but also a mechanism to deliver it. That was a sound observation of course but it has been contradicted by a number of other statements. That is, as I have said, when the member for Warringah was in the Turnbull camp, wanting to negotiate. But now he seem to be in the Minchin camp, which is where in fairness he is probably most comfortable, fighting that international communist conspiracy out there. He has been attracted to that. I would leave the observations about the member for Warringah with no lesser authority than the Leader of the Opposition, who said this on 20 November, a few days ago, on the doors: Tony’s expressed a number of views, each of which was at odds with the views he’s expressed before. Say no more. Mr Speaker, as we approach this important and momentous moment when potentially the parliament is able to pass an emissions trading scheme and begin the hard work of emission reductions, all of those on that side of politics need to take responsibility, stand up for what is right in the national interest and work with the government to reduce emissions. 12389 12389 14:27:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House whether he has approached directly any other countries, asking them to resettle any of the 78 asylum seekers from the Oceanic Viking? Which countries have been approached and what has been their response? 12389 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Curtin for her question. The answer to the honourable member’s question is, no, I have made no such approach. Furthermore, I say to the honourable member for Curtin, consistent with government arrangements, which were long in place when she was a minister in the previous Howard government, that what normally occurs through the UNHCR and relevant governments around the world is that when it comes to the resettlement of individual applicants for refugee status either in places like Indonesia or elsewhere, individual countries are approached through the UNHCR for assistance. I imagine that is what will occur in this case. I imagine that is what will occur in future cases as well. In answer to the honourable member’s question, though, I have made no such approach myself. I also say that, having reflected on— Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —That was the question I was asked. I simply respond to the question as I was asked. I say to the member for Murray, the member for Farrer and the member for Curtin, the reason for them asking this question goes back of course to the Ronaldson doctrine on the following. Remember what the Ronaldson doctrine is; you don’t get news stories by trying to change perceptions— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —I rise on a point of order, Mr Speaker. The Prime Minister is straying into areas that have nothing to do with the question and so therefore the point of order is relevance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, the question went to the handling of asylum seekers. It went to the resettlement of asylum seekers. It went to a range of questions that I have been asked this morning and I am sure the deliberations between the member for Curtin and Senator Ronaldson have been of interest to many members here. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Prime Minister will resume his seat. The deputy leader can only have a point of order on relevance. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, it was a very specific question about approaches from the Prime Minister to— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her place. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. I will listen carefully to his answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. If in fact there was a genuine debate being marshalled by those opposite about the normal resettlement procedures available under the refugees convention, then of course we would be seized to engage every element of that debate. But we know that it is not. It is all about what the Ronaldson doctrine is about, which is: you don’t get news stories by trying to change perceptions; you get them by reinforcing stereotypes. That is what is going on here. 12390 12390 14:29:00 Adams, Dick, MP BV5 Lyons ALP 1 Mr ADAMS —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. How has the government been engaging internationally on the connections between climate change and food security? 12390 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Lyons for the question. Last week representatives of governments from around the world gathered for the Global Food Summit, where we dealt with projections that by 2050 the global food supply will have to be in the order of 70 per cent higher than it is now. There are many challenges to food security around the world, including investing in agricultural development; increasing demand as a result of increasing global population; changes in land use; the need for improved market access; and, of course, climate change. While certainly not the only issue for global food security, climate change is one of the issues with which the nations of the world is wrestling. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon put it best when he said ‘there can be no food security without climate security’. As you go through the different continents of the world the challenges are different, whether it be drought, like our farmers in Australia are dealing with; the increase in the number of major weather events; or rising sea levels and the various pressures that occur there. In Asia, for example, a reduction of between 2.5 per cent and 10 per cent in crops is expected by 2020. Most recently, the Philippines has been experiencing some of the challenges that come with an increase in major weather events—the recent floods caused by typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng and the impact they have had on the rice crop. Can we say that those individual typhoons were climate change ones? No. But what we can say is that it is consistent with projections of an increased number of major weather events occurring throughout the world. At that event I was fortunate to co-chair with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh a roundtable on the connections between climate change and food security. In Bangladesh they are dealing with increased floods and rising sea levels—and what is often forgotten is that rising sea levels mean not merely a loss of agricultural land but also an increase in salinity levels as you go further upstream on river systems. The challenges of food security are many, and climate change is one of them. But it is one of the areas where the nations of the world need to act, and Australia needs to be among them. 12391 12391 14:32:00 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP 885 Wentworth LP 0 Mr TURNBULL —My question is to the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he regards the recent surge in people smuggling as a serious problem? There have been 54 boats since he weakened our border protection policies in August 2008. If so, what is his plan to stop the people smugglers, or has his election promise to turn back the boats now become telling Australians to just get used to it? 12391 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —It is good to see that the Ronaldson doctrine has now been elevated to the Leader of the Opposition—which is in the great Australian newspaper published email entitled ‘Digging dirt’ and says, ‘You don’t get news stories by trying to change perceptions, you get them by reinforcing stereotypes.’ That is what they are on about here. The Leader of the Opposition’s question goes to numbers. I would draw his attention to the following numbers. When it comes to the decrease in numbers worldwide from countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Sri Lanka in the early 2000s, they were as follows: between 2001 and 2003 the number of Iraqis claiming asylum globally dropped by 50 per cent, from 52,000 down to 27,000; the number from Afghanistan dropped by 73 per cent; and the number from Sri Lanka dropped by 61 per cent. This is the period in which those opposite say that, uniquely as a consequence of their particular approaches to the Pacific solution—temporary protection visas and the like—there was some ‘unique success’ in this country. They must have been uniquely successful in multiple countries around the world, because those figures are global numbers coming out of each of those countries. All of these global factors were at work and the numbers out of all three countries were coming down. The opposition then latch on to it and say, ‘It’s all because of us.’ And then of course we go to volume 2, which is what has been happening between 2005 and 2008. Guess what? The reverse occurs. The global increase in the number of Iraqis seeking asylum has gone up by 193 per cent. Secondly, the number of Afghans claiming asylum globally has gone up by 139 per cent. Furthermore, the number of Sri Lankans has gone up in that same period of time by 72 per cent—and the reason why that is occurring worldwide is because of security factors alive within those countries. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, the question was about numbers. I believe I am answering that question. 885 Turnbull, Malcolm, MP Mr Turnbull —Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance: the question was about whether the Prime Minister has a plan to stop the people smuggling, and he clearly has none. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The question went to two or three parts, and the Prime Minister is responding to the question. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on the point of order: on every question so far today from the opposition, they have stood up and, in the guise of moving a point of order, have just repeated the question. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, the figures are as I have just described them. They are discomforting for those opposite because they actually go to what has happened globally, both in the early 2000s and recently. Of course, the Leader of the Opposition knows that he is engaging in an exercise which, on the facts, is simply unsustainable. Then we go to the question of policy responses. Here we have the policy responses announced by those opposite in their four-point plan on border protection which came out a week or so ago: 1.We will once again secure our borders. Look for the detail—‘We will once again secure our borders.’ This is the same policy which in times past saw nearly 250 boats arrive in Australia carrying nearly 15,000 people—and they say, ‘We will once again secure our borders.’ 2. All processing offshore. Someone should remind the member for Murray that that is their policy because on two occasions, one last week and one this week, we have had a bit of a ‘blippo’—haven’t we, Member for Murray?—as she could not quite remember the script. Then, three—here is one to hold the phone. Listen to this one; it is consistent with what we have heard this morning: A compassionate and fair refugee and humanitarian program. Compassionate and fair. Well, hold the phone! That one is really worthy of gaining the newspaper headlines. Then, policy no. 4: A non-permanent visa for unauthorised arrivals. The temporary protection visa by another name; that which they have been speaking about for some weeks. This is their recommendation by way of a border protection policy. The temporary protection visa; what is its track record? After they brought it in we saw nearly 10,000 people arrive in this country. Subsequently, we saw 90 per cent of those granted TPVs being provided with permanent residence in Australia. That is the great magic being offered by temporary protection visas. Our approach is based on mandatory detention. Our approach is based on offshore processing on Christmas Island for vessels that we interdict on the high seas. Our policy is based on stringent ASIO assessment of the security profile of individuals. Our policy is based on stringent health assessment of the health profile of individuals. Our policy is based on those who are not deemed to have bona fide refugee status being sent back home as they have been already, to Sri Lanka and elsewhere. Our processes are also to apply the norms consistent with the UNHCR convention to which we are proud signatories. And we will not put kids behind razor wire. 12392 12392 14:39:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 Mr SYMON —My question is to the Minister for Education, Employment and Workplace Relations and Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the latest measures the government is taking to ensure Australia has the skills needed to transition to a low carbon economy? 12392 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 Deakin for his question. I know that he, like me and members of the government, is concerned that this nation is ready for the challenges of the future, including of course the profound challenge of climate change. The science is in. The action that needs to be taken by this parliament this week is to pass the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Of course this measure is fundamental to this nation’s cutting its carbon emissions and getting ready to meet the challenge of future climate change. Work is already under way on ensuring that skills and training are ready to meet the challenge of the future—the challenge of climate change. We of course know that adapting to a low carbon economy is going to change the way that we work and the way that we live. Consequently, the government is already moving to change skills and training so workers can have the skills they will need for this low-carbon future. I am very pleased to report that on Friday, when I met with tertiary education and employment ministers from around nation, we were able to agree on our National Green Skills Agreement to ensure that training around the country has embedded in it the new skills that workers will need for a carbon constrained economy. This is an important agreement to changing the content of training packages for some of our most traditional trades. Obviously, some of our most traditional trades will need new green skills, whether it is motor mechanics learning to work on hybrid vehicles, whether it is plumbers learning to deal with the way in which people want to use waste water now, and whether it is electricians who are getting ready to deliver the newly designed buildings that will use less energy and less electricity, we want to embed these new green skills in training packages. This agreement ensures that for trade apprentices who commence training after 1 January next year these new green skills will be embedded in what they study so they are ready to take their place in a low carbon economy. This of course builds on work that the government has already done with an investment of $94 million to provide 50,000 young Australians with job and training opportunities in new green skills. Then of course it builds on the $200 million investment that we are making to upgrade TAFE institutes so they too are ready to teach the green skills that we will need in the future. The time for denying climate change has passed. The time for inaction has passed. We, as a nation, need to move forward. We need to make sure that working people in this nation have the skills they need for a low carbon economy. We need to make sure this nation has in place a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that is the task before this parliament this week. 12393 12393 14:42:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. With the target now set for population increases in Australia, with the well-known ageing population challenges we have right now, with debt at both the Commonwealth and state levels meaning tighter fiscal settings for forward budgets and with state governments consistently and frustratingly not following their own funding formulas within their own health departments—and, Prime Minister, this is at least as important as asylum seekers and at least as important as climate change—when can we expect real structural reform in health and hospital services in Australia for a network of services already struggling despite the obvious pressures on the near horizon. 12393 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Lyne for his question. I recall very clearly my visit to Port Macquarie and the time I spent with him and others speaking to the staff at Port Macquarie Base Hospital about their particular needs. The fact is that in Port Macquarie, as I was advised, you have a hospital which was essentially designed around what was estimated to be the needs for that region in the early nineties, and here we are at the end of the first decade of this century and its physical capacity has not been substantially increased. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey —It should’ve stayed a private hospital. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The interjection from the member for North Sydney is ‘It should’ve remained a private hospital.’ I will not go into the details of the evolution of this one but can I say to the member for North Sydney, who has suddenly become an expert on these matters, and to the member for Lyne, who legitimately represents the interests of his constituents, that the entire saga which has gone before with this hospital, namely the evolution between private ownership and state ownership, has not been a happy one for the local constituents. That is what should drive all our concerns here. The member for Lyne raises a concern about when we will take structural action in relation to the reform of the health and hospital system and whether it will be substantial action—if I got his question correctly. As I said prior to the last election, the Australian people are sick and tired of a blame game between the Australian government and state governments on the future reform of the health and hospital system. Some basic facts need to be put before the parliament, the first of which is the ageing of our population. Secondly, there is the growth of our population. You have seen the projections referred to by the member for Lyne in his question: up to some 35 million people by mid-century. Thirdly, there is the exponential increase in the cost of pharmaceuticals for treating those within our health and hospital system. Fourthly, there is the woeful job that has been done in times past in properly planning for our health workforce requirements—our doctors, our nurses and our allied health professionals. All these things are bearing down on a health and hospital system which, in the advice of Christine Bennett, who delivered the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report not long ago, is a system now at tipping point. There are 750 public hospitals across the country. The figures when it comes to elective surgery and to treatment within clinically acceptable waiting times at accident and emergency have not seen any significant improvement over a long period of time. These are the facts. The question is: what proposals do we have before us and how can we change that for the future? What we have got before the Australian people and of course before the health and hospital community at the moment is two sets of strategic options. One, of course, involves a partial takeover of the system by the Australian government. The second is a two-stage full Australian government takeover of the entire system. They are the strategic options we are presented with. Each of the elements of primary healthcare reform—GPs, acute hospital care, post-acute care, aged care, dental care and mental health needs—are canvassed exhaustively within that report. Our process for making these decisions is as follows. We are going to have a meeting with the Council of Australian Governments next month and we will then, with the states and territories, discuss in detail the options that we have been presented with through that report and seek their direct response to what is canvassed in that report in addition to their statement of the strengths and weaknesses within their own systems. Secondly, we have also indicated that in the first part of 2010 we will then convene a further meeting of the Council of Australian Governments in order to bring forward our recommendations for future long-term policy reform. My view very simply—and I put this to the member for Lyne in terms of his question—is that the days for simply frittering around the edges on this debate have gone. What we actually need is a government prepared to step up to the plate with the states and territories and embark upon a long-term policy reform. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —When are you going to do it? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Right on cue, the member for Pyne interjects: when are we going to act! 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —Member for Pyne? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Member for Pyne, member for Sturt, the pining member for Pyne, the pining member for Sturt. For 12 years—I asked this question the other day—where was their healthcare reform plan? Where was their hospital reform plan? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Well, what are you doing about your promise? 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Was he the minister for health at some stage? R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —No. He never made it that far. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —He never made it that far? I lost count of what he was responsible for, but can I say: for 12 years they did two things. Firstly, they pulled out a billion dollars from the public hospital system in Australia and, secondly, they put forward no reform plan at all for the future of our hospitals, for the future of Australia—not one. All they did was play the old game: blame the states, make sure that you can whip it up into a frenzy prior to an election, get through, make sure that you did not cop any responsibility yourself and get home free. That was their approach. Ours is different. You have seen it in the Bennett commission report. That is the blueprint we have put out there. We are consulting with hospitals around the country at the moment and we will adhere to the timetable that we have foreshadowed, which is in close consultation with the states and territories, because the nation wants long-term hospital reform. We intend to deliver that in partnership with the states and territories. 12395 12395 14:48:00 Gibbons, Steve, MP 83X Bendigo ALP 1 Mr GIBBONS —My question is to the Attorney-General. Is it the case that climate change is projected to lead to more severe heatwaves, intense cyclones and floods, severe storms, more extreme bushfires and sea level rises? What is the government doing to ensure that the emergency management sector is better able to prepare and respond to these more frequent and intense natural disasters? 12395 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —I thank the honourable member for Bendigo for his question and I congratulate him and indeed other members of this House who have been such passionate and determined advocates for their electorates who have suffered the consequences of natural disasters. The people of his electorate, like indeed all Australians, are unquestionably concerned about the likelihood of more severe and frequent natural disasters. The facts are that climate change is real and, as the honourable member said, it is projected to lead to more intense cyclones, floods and storms, more heatwaves and droughts and indeed, unfortunately, to even greater bushfire risks. For instance, by 2030 it is estimated that we will face up to 20 per cent more months of drought and up to 25 per cent more days of very high or greater fire danger. The increased risk to human beings, to property, to infrastructure and to our natural environment is obvious. Last week we saw extensive fires throughout Australia but very intense fires in South Australia. Over the weekend we saw temperatures of over 40 degrees in New South Wales, with winds gusting up to 70 kilometres an hour. This resulted in some 141 different fires around that state alone. They were fought by 1,000 firefighters, including two teams from the ACT, and we are grateful, of course, for that. There were 75 aircraft involved and 550 fire trucks. The Commonwealth government was pleased to make the Richmond Air Force base available to assist the aerial firefighting effort. We of course are very grateful to all those who risked their personal safety both over the weekend and last week, but it shows the tremendous cost to the community, not only in terms of fighting fires but in terms of responding. In the past year, for instance, the Commonwealth has paid nearly $300 million in natural disaster relief and recovery payments, and this amount will substantially increase in response to the more intense and more frequent natural disasters. Given that that money matches contributions from state governments, it shows that the burden on Australian taxpayers from natural disasters is intense and will likely increase. Last Friday I chaired the Ministerial Council for Police and Emergency Management. It was highly productive and I certainly thank my state and territory counterparts for their very constructive contributions. We endorsed a number of initiatives including a National Catastrophic Natural Disaster Plan, we developed a national work plan to reduce bushfire arson, and significantly the meeting also endorsed a National Climate Change Adaption Plan. The plan, essentially, will ensure that climate change adaption strategies are integral to emergency management, planning, response and recovery. This bushfire season unquestionably poses great risks. On 20 October I made a comprehensive statement to the House about our preparations for this season. Of course, the Commonwealth stands ready to assist states and territories, in whatever way we can, to confront the challenge that faces all Australians, particularly those in rural and regional Australia and those on the urban fringe. I remind all Australians, particularly those in high-risk areas, to do everything they can to be prepared for bushfires, to be vigilant and to follow the instructions of emergency personnel. Again, and I should emphasise this, if we are serious in doing all we can to protect our local communities from natural disasters—and I know that all members from both sides of this House are—then we cannot ignore the reality, we cannot ignore the evidence, we cannot ignore the facts. We have an obligation to do whatever we reasonably can do to mitigate the effects of climate change. 12396 12396 14:53:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his announcement last Saturday that the National Schools Chaplaincy Program has been given an 18-month stay of execution with funding of $44 million. Why won’t the Prime Minister support school chaplains into the future, as the opposition did on Friday when it proposed a $165 million funding package over three years, rather than the government’s bandaid measure to get it through the next election? Honourable members interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, perhaps I should repeat the second part of that question. Why won’t the Prime Minister support school chaplains into the future, as the opposition did on Friday when it proposed a $165 million funding package over three years, rather than the government’s bandaid measure to get it through the next election? 12396 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The good news is that it was 26 days since we had the last question on education, 33 days, by the way, since we last had a question on the economy and 101 days since we had our last question on jobs. We should all say to give Joe a job, let him have a go, let’s get some questions rolling. But I go back to the question which was asked by our personal House favourite, the member for Sturt. He asked about school chaplaincy. How does all this resonate with some of the debates we have been hearing in recent times, because I sense the build-up of an attempt at a little bit of a fear campaign in the lead-up to the next election—a fear that, somehow, the government will not be committed long term to school chaplaincies. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —He says, ‘They are not.’ Can I say to the member for Sturt, as he constantly interjects, that so deep and profound were the previous government’s commitments to this that they put it into the forward estimates for only three years. When challenged about whether it was to be a permanent feature of long-term allocation under the previous Howard government, they ran for cover. It was not entrenched in the forward estimates, there was no forward budget for it, it was not brought into the future operations of the budget. It was treated as a one-off for three years and then dropped dead. That was how it was funded. It might be uncomfortable for those opposite, including the member for Sturt, to admit the reality as to what the budget papers actually said, but they simply dropped dead—three years! I am so sorry that the member for Sturt now will not be able to whip up his fear campaign in the next 12 months or so. I am always delighted when the member for Sturt says that somebody squibbed it. Can I say to the member for Sturt that what I have done, what the government have done and what the education minister and Deputy Prime Minister has done is to say to the schools chaplaincy organisation for Australia, ‘Here is certainty of funding through 2010-11.’ During the course of 2010 we are going to work with the sector on this. How do we provide more chaplaincies in the future for people in rural Australia who are not getting a fair shake at the moment? How are we going to provide more chaplaincies in the future for those from the most disadvantaged areas of Australia? Because at present, of the 2,700 chaplains who are funded by this program nationwide, there is an underrepresentation of those from rural areas; there is an underrepresentation from some of the most disadvantaged parts of Australia. We actually would like to see this program extended to other parts of the country. That is why we are going to take time working our way through this with the sector during the course of 2010. That is why we have responded to the request from the sector to provide certainty for the year ahead and the year following. That is why the sector have welcomed the statement made by the government over the weekend. That is why honourable members from all around Australia, in Queensland, Western Australia, South Australia and other states, in response to their school communities have been receiving phone call after phone call over the last several days saying that this is fantastic news and that we have certainty for the next two years ahead. Can I say to those opposite, the only one who seems to be disappointed by this outcome is the member for Sturt, because the member for Sturt has had his own little attempt to whip up a fear campaign on behalf of his marginal seat members collapse from underneath him. We support school chaplaincies, that is why we are funding them to the tune of an additional $42 million on top of that which was provided by the previous government. We provided certainty for the future and we will get on with the job. 12397 12397 14:58:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 Ms LIVERMORE —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister outline to the House the importance of the government’s student income support reforms and the impact of today’s vote on students? 12397 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 Capricornia for her question and know that, as a member of this parliament representing a regional electorate, she cares about support for country children going to university. Unfortunately the Liberal and National parties do not. They continue their war against students; the war against students they started in government when they sat there as a government and watched the participation rates of kids from country backgrounds go down—something that they should be ashamed of, watching the participation rates of country students go down. This is a government that is committed to supporting access to education and particularly access for disadvantaged groups including country students. That is why we have before the Senate a new and improved student financing arrangement which better targets money to those households and those students that need it the most. Who supports this new set of arrangements? Well, people who care about education do. Australia’s universities do. Last week I was joined by representatives of every university system in the country, standing shoulder to shoulder with me, calling on the Liberal and National parties to get out the way and pass this bill. Since that time the Group of Eight vice chancellors—the vice chancellors of our oldest and most prestigious universities—have issued a press release directed at the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal and National parties. It is entitled Student income support is not a political plaything, and that is absolutely true. The Group of Eight has said in this press release: The Group of Eight supports these changes because they target finite resources to the students most in need, including those in rural and regional areas. All universities support this bill. Student organisations support this bill. So there are the Liberal and National parties, in their arrogance and in their war against students, having presided as a government over declining participation rates by country children, now setting their face against expert advice from universities around this country. There was a time when the Liberal Party had the decency to acknowledge that its student financing system was inequitable. Those days of decency were when the member for Casey was shadow minister for education and he slammed the old Liberal system—as he rightly should— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Another shambles. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt is warned. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —because the participation rate of country children was going down. That is the shambles, the management of the Liberal and National parties that saw that happen to country kids. Yes, the member for Sturt is right. Their administration was a shambles. And the member for Casey was right when he said: … it has become too easy for students from affluent backgrounds to qualify and too difficult for students from modest backgrounds … He was right when he went on, saying that the current system: … particularly disadvantages many students—particularly those from the country—who have to leave home to study … The member for Casey was right about that, but that sentiment is not reflected in the current actions of the Liberal and National parties, who are determined to stop a bill and are determined to rip money out of the hands of country kids at the start of next year. We know that universities are opposed to the strategy of the Liberal and National parties. Students are opposed to the strategy of the Liberal and National parties. All universities are opposed. The member for Murray, ring your local vice chancellor and see if your local vice chancellor supports the strategy you are on, to rip out of the hands of country kids—773 of them in your electorate—scholarship money for next year. Vice chancellors do not support the Liberal and National parties. Students do not support the attitude of the Liberal and National parties. The former education spokesperson does not support the current attitude of the Liberal and National parties. When you want a guide to what the backbench of the Liberal Party is actually thinking it always pays to consult that great journal of record, the Daily Liberal. From the Daily Liberal last week we learned that, despite the pontificating of the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow minister for education, the Liberal backbench actually likes that trade training centres program. From the Daily Liberal we now learn, in the words of the member for Parkes, that they are hoping that this student financing matter is resolved. The member for Parkes in the Daily Liberal says he hopes agreement will be achieved so that rural and remote families know where they are heading. He goes on to say: It’s not fair for students, parents and schools to be left dangling without clear guidelines on Youth Allowance. The member for Parkes is right. What he needs to do is take the short walk and say to his shadow minister, ‘Stop trying to rip off country kids because no one supports you doing it.’ 12399 12399 15:04:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 Mr HAWKE —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, Minister for Education and Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to reports that Berwick Lodge Primary School’s school stimulus project manager has estimated that a proposed relocation of sewerage pipes would cost $203,000, whereas the principal has obtained an independent quote for just $63,000. How does the minister justify this staggering inflation of 300 per cent while ignoring the pleas of St Lucy’s special school for blind and disabled children in Wahroonga who are facing a cut of $80,000 to their funding as a result of Australian government policy? 12399 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question because it enables me to explain some facts—things that the Liberal Party does not like when it comes to education. The facts stand about their track record in government where they discriminated against country kids; where this nation came back of the OECD class for investment in early childhood; where the standards of schools in this country against the standards of the world went down; and where the man who sits next to the member who asked the question sat there saying, ‘We knew a skills shortage was coming; we just did not bother doing anything about it.’ Their track record in government is one that bears repeating when it comes to the facts. On these schools that he has asked me about let me explain the situation to him very clearly. There are water pipes under an area of the Berwick Lodge school that was first identified for construction. The local water authority has ruled out constructing on that spot because of the nature of the pipes and other work that runs under it and consequently an alternative position for the construction will be identified. This is the kind of problem that anybody with a modicum of common sense knows happens when you are dealing with construction. On the question of lack of common sense, here it comes— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —A point of order on relevance, Mr Speaker: the question was about the 300 per cent inflation rate, not about the relocation of pipes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much. I was asked about a building at a particular school, and I am answering about that building at that school. On the comparison that the member has drawn with St Lucy’s, let me just explain to the member that, of course, the amount of funding that this government has allocated to students with disabilities has in fact gone up. We allocate that to school systems. We allocate it in particular to the Catholic school system. The Catholic school system, as it did when the Liberal Party was in government, makes determinations about allocations for the school within its system. Consequently, there is more money available to the system overall and it has made its determinations, including the determination for St Lucy’s School. If the member wants to take that up with the Catholic Education Office then he should, but he should not be drawing an inappropriate, inaccurate comparison in this House in the attempt to confuse or mislead people, because that is completely wrong. Can I say to the member opposite: this is a government that has almost doubled allocations of funding to schools over a four-year period. We are doing that to drive a fundamental reform agenda, including transparency, which you were too incompetent in government to do; including a national curriculum, which the Liberal and National parties were too incompetent to do; including directing more money to disadvantaged schools, which is something the Liberals and Nationals in government could not have cared less about; including money for teacher quality reforms, such as Teach for Australia which provides more money for the best teachers in the country to go to the classrooms that need them the most—a reform you would never have dreamed of and could not have delivered even if you tried. There is the Digital Education Revolution, the Building the Education Revolution, trade training centres in schools— Opposition members interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Yes, it is embarrassing for you, isn’t it? Yes, it is. HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr Hawke —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The question was in relation to waste in the school stimulus program. The minister is now deviating from that topic. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Prime Minister is responding to the question. I call the Deputy Prime Minister. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. In conclusion: the waste was almost 12 long years when education in this country went backwards. We are delivering an education revolution because we believe Australian students deserve better. The real tragedy is that we will never get those almost 12 long years back and kids only get one go at school. So what the member should be reflecting on is the thousands of school children that the Liberal and National parties let down with their track record of insufficient resources and insufficient reforms. That is the real waste that this House should be directing its attention to. 12400 12400 15:10:00 Murphy, John, MP 83D Lowe ALP 1 Mr MURPHY —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Minister, will you update the House on government initiatives to tackle cancer in our community? 12400 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Lowe for his question. I know that, along with all members of this House, people understand the great challenge we have in fighting cancer in our community. It remains the No. 1 burden of disease in Australia. Unfortunately, one in three men and one in four women will be diagnosed with cancer before the age of 75. This year, cancer will claim the lives of approximately 40,000 Australians. Although we know that Australia has relatively good survival rates compared to international results, outcomes are not as good for the 30 per cent of Australians who live in rural and regional Australia. I know that is why many members on this side of the House, and I dare say some on the other side of the House, were pleased last week when the Deputy Prime Minister and I announced the next phase of our plans to help improve cancer services and outcomes for regional Australia. Applications are now open for the $560 million available for the Regional Cancer Centres Initiative. We are now calling for innovative applications from public and private sectors to establish a network of around 10 cancer centres which will help improve access to services in regional Australia and help close that gap in cancer outcomes between the city and the country. Applications for the Regional Cancer Centres Initiative are open until Friday, 8 January. They are a key part of our historic $2 billion investment in cancer care, which was announced in this year’s budget. Our commitment also includes $526 million for two integrated cancer centres—one at the Peter MacCallum Cancer Institute in Melbourne and another at the Lifehouse Chris O’Brien Cancer Centre in Sydney. The Prime Minister was at the RPA last week for the Chris O’Brien dinner. We look forward to turning the first sod soon. These flagship centres will become one-stop shops for patients, with state-of-the-art treatment, support services and research all under the one roof. We are also continuing to roll out more cancer research and services. At the Bathurst community cabinet, for example, where the Prime Minister and I held a health consultation earlier this month with the member for Macquarie, the Prime Minister and I were pleased to meet two of the McGrath Foundation breast cancer nurses and were able on that occasion to announce that all 44 nurses have now been recruited and are at work in those 44 communities, providing additional services to breast cancer patients. Last Sunday, I also announced that the government is providing another $2½ million to continue the National Skin Cancer Awareness Campaign this summer to help educate and inform Australians, particularly young Australians, about the dangers of sun exposure. Unfortunately, Australia is No. 1 when you look internationally at skin cancer incidence in the world. This is not one of the instances where we wish to be No. 1 and is something we are determined to address. Last Thursday I was pleased to join the chief executives of Cancer Australia and the NHMRC and some of our key peak cancer stakeholders in announcing funding of $12½ million to fund 42 innovative cancer research projects. These grants are going to help keep us at the cutting edge of cancer research. Consider these investments helping us tackle cancer by investing in research, cancer services infrastructure and cancer prevention. The Rudd government is working hard to tackle cancer on all of these fronts. We know, of course, that there is much more to be done to beat this dreadful disease but we intend to keep working with researchers, clinicians, stakeholders and patients to build a world-class cancer centre and service system for all Australians. 12401 12401 15:14:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. Is the Prime Minister aware of a bill to assist the more than 300 Australian victims of overseas terrorism on which the members for Paterson and Newcastle will be speaking tonight? Does the Prime Minister think that it is especially important to acknowledge the civilian casualties of the bipartisan campaign against international terrorism? Will the Prime Minister undertake to make time available for this bill or another bill which achieves a similar result to be debated and voted upon? I ask this question not just for me but also on behalf of Paul Anicich and Tony Purkiss, two survivors of the 2005 Bali bombing, who are in the gallery today and who will be paying close attention to the Prime Minister’s answer. 12402 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. I think, like all members of the House, we share deep concerns, as government and as opposition, for those who have become the civilian victims of terrorist attacks anywhere in the world. In the case of Australians, we are, regrettably in this chamber, all too familiar with the impact that has had on Australian lives. All of us who were in this chamber at the time remember the extraordinary impact of the Bali bombing and of course what happened subsequent to that with further terrorist attacks. And Australians have been involved in and affected by other terrorist attacks around the world. On the question of the legislation which the honourable member refers to, I presume it is a private member’s bill. I am not familiar with the contents of his bill. I assume it has been advanced into the chamber in good spirit and good heart. Therefore, in deference to the honourable member’s motivation, we will subject it to examination. Consistent with the objects concerning the bill, as described by the honourable member in putting forward his private member’s bill, let us examine it and see what practical things can be done to assist Australians in these circumstances. As I think all of us would know here, it being now some years since the Bali bombing where we had 80 or 90 Australians who were directly affected in lives being lost, there were many others who were injured by that as well. Then there are the rolling consequences which extend years and years into the future. In the spirit with which the question was asked, we will submit this to examination and in due course come back to the honourable member. 12402 12402 15:17:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 Ms KING 12402 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 Ballarat for her question. I know that she shares this government’s vision for a childcare sector in Australia that is accessible, affordable and of high quality—we have been delivering on all three of these areas. In terms of accessibility, we are investing $970 million to ensure that all children have access to preschool in the year prior to school. We are also delivering $114.5 million for the establishment of 38 new centres across Australia and we have been investing $12.8 billion to improve affordability for parents. We have delivered on our election commitment to increase the childcare rebate from 30 per cent to 50 per cent. We know that this has dramatically improved affordability, with ABS statistics now showing that childcare costs to parents actually fell by over 20 per cent as a result. In total, we are investing some $16 billion in child care over four years, which is $1 billion more each and every year than the previous government did. We do this because we know that early childhood is a critical time, a time which shapes children’s development, their learning and their wellbeing outcomes. That is why we are now turning our attention to the quality reform agenda when it comes to Australian child care. We know that the one million families who have children in child care deserve to know, when they drop their children off in the mornings, that they will get the best care possible throughout the day. We have all seen too many reports about children being injured at child care or wandering off due to inadequate supervision and we know that this is not acceptable. Recent reports found that in Queensland alone more than 2,000 services were issued with compliance letters regarding issues with quality. I can inform the House that national regulatory data show that these safety issues are not isolated. The data show that over one-quarter of long day care services were found to be unsatisfactory in ensuring that potentially dangerous products, plants and objects were inaccessible to children. They show that 20 per cent of services were found to be unsatisfactory in making sure that the building and equipment used by children were safe, that almost a quarter of services were found to be unsatisfactory in supporting each child’s need for comfort, sleep and rest, and that almost a quarter were unsatisfactory in toileting and nappy changing procedures. We on this side of the House find this entirely unacceptable. Whilst we know that the dedicated staff out there in the sector are doing their best each and every day, there are clearly some issues that they and we as a government want to address and want to see improved. We want to improve staff-to-child ratios so that each staff member has fewer children in their care, which means that each child gets greater individual time and attention, something we know they need. We also want to raise staff qualifications so that staff are fully aware of the practices necessary to ensure safe environments for children, so that they can lead play activities and inspire youngsters to help them learn. We need to do better for our children. Those opposite and the shadow spokesperson have accused us of being obsessed with a quality agenda. To this I absolutely plead guilty as charged. We make no apology whatsoever for prioritising safety and quality for our children and we will continue to work to ensure that Australian child care is accessible, affordable and of the highest possible quality. 12403 12403 15:21:00 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 Mrs MARKUS —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his election promise as stated in this letter of 26 September 2007: Labor has no plans to alter the status of RAAF base Richmond, and should we be elected to government later this year, Richmond will continue as a permanent operation facility. Will the Prime Minister rule out the Richmond RAAF base in my electorate being used as a second airport for Sydney following pressure from the New South Wales government to find an alternative to Williamtown? 12403 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. Can I simply say that no decisions have been made whatsoever in terms of the future location of further airport facilities in Sydney. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Off they go, again, with another fear campaign—a fear campaign on school chaplaincies, a fear campaign on airports, a fear campaign on asylum seekers, a fear campaign on debt and deficit. What have I left out? A fear campaign on climate change as well. That is the stock-and-standard approach. I simply say to those opposite that the national interest dictates that Sydney will need new airport capacity. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Let us just say to those opposite that this is called planning for long-term infrastructure needs. That is why we have invited the New South Wales government to participate in a joint study to assess options, identify potential sites and evaluate investment strategies for delivering additional airport capacity. The joint study will also look at ways of providing integrated transport solutions for the existing airport as well as any second airport. It will also consider the future of the Badgerys Creek site, given that the government has ruled it out as an option for a second airport. The study’s final terms of reference will be outlined in the aviation white paper, which is expected to be released shortly. That is the proper framework within which we will examine these matters. The aviation white paper is scheduled to be released by the end of the year and our commitment to the Australian people is to develop, for the first time, a national aviation policy—something which the previous government did not have. The white paper will set out an aviation strategy for the next generation and the white paper will focus on improving aviation safety and security, making sure we have an economically efficient sector that creates jobs in the short and long term. The government has consulted widely for its white paper through last December’s green paper. That is the proper way in which you consider these things. That is the approach which has been supported by the minister responsible and that is the approach that we will be adopting, as a responsible government, on this nation’s long-term infrastructure needs. I make a general point about infrastructure. For years and years and years the nation was crying out for a national infrastructure plan. How are we going to lay out our transport infrastructure in the future? What about our major ports for the future? What about our major freight rail links for the future? What about our national highway network for the future? What about the huge challenges of urban transport and urban public transport? We are in the business of advancing a national infrastructure plan and we intend to get on with it. 12404 12404 15:25:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 Ms SAFFIN —My question is to the Minister for Ageing. What assistance is the government providing to help older Australians retain their independence and continue to live in their own homes and communities? 12404 Elliot, Justine, MP DZW Richmond ALP Minister for Ageing 1 Mrs ELLIOT —I thank the member for Page for her question and for her ongoing interest and commitment when it comes to providing care for our older Australians. Australians are living longer and healthier lives, which of course is great news—in fact, we have one of the longest life expectancies in the world. Our older Australians have a very strong desire to retain their independence and to remain in their homes close to family, friends and community for as long as they can. The government recognises this and, indeed, governments throughout the country recognise this through our Home and Community Care program. We do that to provide funding for services to make sure this can happen so that people can remain in their own homes. Home and Community Care is a joint Australian, state and territory government program. It delivers affordable and accessible care to help meet the needs of older people and their carers. In fact, last year the Rudd government provided $1.1 billion of the nearly $1.8 billion in funding provided for these HACC services. HACC offers services such as household chores, home maintenance and modification, transport, meals, personal care, allied health and nursing care. These are all practical and common-sense services provided to older Australians so that they can remain in their homes for longer. As the 2007-08 HACC annual report detailed, HACC provided services to 600,000 older Australians. This is the first time there has been an annual report in relation to HACC services. What that report also showed is that eight million hours of domestic assistance—practical and common-sense assistance—has been provided. I have had the opportunity to see firsthand the benefits that HACC services bring to older Australians. I have seen the benefit of those services right across Australia. In fact, I was very pleased recently to visit a Canberra couple, Mr and Mrs Eckholt, who told me how these HACC services made a real difference to their lives and meant they were able to stay in their own home for longer. In addition to this HACC funding, the Commonwealth government provided $730 million in the last financial year for Commonwealth community care services, and there are now more than 59,000 older Australians who receive assistance through these packages to make sure that they can remain in their homes longer. There is also our commitment to transition care as well—keeping people out of hospital, getting them out of hospital quicker and making sure they get home much quicker. The Rudd government understands that older Australians want to remain in their homes and in their communities, the communities that they help build. We are doing that. We are supporting our older Australians by providing more services and more funding than ever before. 12405 12405 15:28:00 Coulton, Mark, MP HWN Parkes NATS 0 Mr COULTON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer to the Prime Minister’s broken promise to fix public hospitals by 30 June 2009. Will the Prime Minister identify one of Australia’s 762 public hospitals that has been fixed? 12405 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Parkes for his question. I would draw his attention to one core fact and that is that, under the Australian Health Care agreement signed by the Minister for Health and Ageing at the end of last year, we increased the allocation for health and hospitals by 50 per cent, against that which we inherited from the previous government. Secondly, I say in response to the honourable member’s question that it stands in stark contrast to the $1 billion that he and his government pulled out of the public hospital system of Australia. To put that into context, what we inherited in an Australian healthcare agreement was $42 billion— 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Prime Minister was asked to name one hospital that has been fixed—just one, Prime Minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dickson will resume his seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —That was the missing member for—what seat was he going for on the Gold Coast?—McPherson. He is still in search of a political home, our good friend the member for Dickson. I am sure the locals hold him in fond regard as he goes quietly slinking back to Brisbane’s north side, having been rejected on the south side. We always welcome his contributions to the debate. In public hospitals in various parts of the country, for the first time what we have done is provided a direct investment in elective surgery. We have provided, for the first time, a direct investment in bringing down the waiting times for people in accident and emergency. For the first time, we have provided a direct investment in post-acute services. These are the investments that we have made, and the overall healthcare agreement increased from some $40 billion to something like $64 billion for the five years ahead. They take a billion dollars out; we put $20 billion-plus back in over that period. And they stand up and say, ‘Where is your plan?’ That is what we have done so far. Phase 2 of our reform is for the long-term, the next 25 years. Our program for implementing it is getting on. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Oh, Joe, you’re back! I thank the honourable member for his question. 12406 12406 15:31:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 Ms COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for Home Affairs. Will the minister update the House on the government’s proposed reforms to child sexual exploitation laws? 12406 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I thank the member for Franklin for her question and her concern for such a serious and important matter. It is the duty of all governments to protect their nation’s children and, wherever possible, it is the duty of all to protect children around the world. That is why the government is proposing to comprehensively reform Commonwealth criminal offences relating to all forms of child exploitation. These reforms will ensure that all behaviour constituting a sexual offence when committed against Australian children is also criminalised when committed by Australians overseas. These reforms will strengthen child sex tourism laws. There will be new offences for the grooming and procuring of children for sex overseas and an offence of preparing to commit a child sex tourism offence. These offences will ensure that police do not have to wait until the offender leaves Australia, endangering children in a destination country, in order to prosecute them. New aggravated offences will also be introduced, increasing penalties for offenders who exploit a position of trust or a child victim who has a cognitive impairment. Offenders will be able to be prosecuted for persistent sexual abuse of a child overseas, in recognition that the majority of violent acts against children are perpetrated by people who are part of their lives—in their family, in their schools or in care and justice systems—and are perpetrated on a regular basis for an extended period of time. The proposed reforms will also ensure that child sexual exploitation is prevented, investigated and prosecuted, whether it is committed online, through the post or using mobile phones. Child pornography hurts children over and over again. The production of images involves the initial abuse of child victims. The subsequent distribution of the pornography amplifies the original harm. So we are increasing the maximum penalties for online child pornography from 10 to 15 years imprisonment. Child pornography is also increasingly a transnational crime, with networks facilitated by the anonymity of the internet. This was demonstrated in a horrific way by the global child pornography ring identified during Operation Achilles, an Australian led international operation. This is why we are introducing new offences relating to child pornography networks that carry a maximum penalty of 25 years imprisonment. These new offences take into account the operational experience of the Australian Federal Police, changes to the way in which technology is being used to sexually exploit children and best practice domestically and internationally. I can say that there has been consultation on these reforms. That consultation process has now ended. A number of submissions were received, including from state and territory governments, Child Wise and Save the Children. Child Wise was instrumental in lobbying the federal government to enact the first child sex tourism laws in 1994. In their submission, Bernadette McMenamin, CEO of Child Wise, states that she ‘applauds the federal government for producing such an innovative approach to the law enforcement and prosecution of child sex tourism offences’. Existing child sex tourism offences were introduced over 14 years ago. The regime needs to be updated to ensure that we protect our children here and overseas. These laws will respond to this very important challenge. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 12407 Questions Without Notice: Additional Answers 12407 12407 15:36:00 Mr RUDD,MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, I seek the indulgence of the chair to add to an answer. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister may proceed. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Earlier in question time today the member for Parkes asked me about hospital and health reforms and their impact and localities. I neglected, in my answer, to add the following, as it concerns health and hospital facilities in his own electorate. I draw his attention to the following quote: What I find exciting about this is that it’s not only going to deliver primary health care to the people of Gunnedah; it’s going to be a great facility for education not only for doctors but for ancillary health professionals. I think that, you know, it’s an exciting model. It’s collocated near the hospital. It will make the doctors much more efficient. They’ll be able just to walk from the hospital back to the medical centre. It’ll be great for students. It’ll also help attract medical professionals when it comes to the great people of Gunnedah. That is a quote from the member for Parkes, October 2007. 12407 Personal Explanations 12407 15:37:00 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 0 Dr STONE —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —Most grievously. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —I have to say it is becoming regular, but the Prime Minister today misquoted me in an interview which was on the Jon Faine program on 774 ABC radio in Victoria this morning. He extracted a very small part of a much longer sentence. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member must— EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —I will now read that— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Just before the member for Murray continues, she should show where she has been misrepresented. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —Yes. I will now read the full quote. The fact is— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —No. The member must show where in the statement to the House she was misrepresented. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr Melham interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Banks! EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —Okay. I will now indicate that, Mr Speaker. What the Prime Minister did was extract a part which just read: ‘There comes a time when a small place like Christmas Island simply cannot— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. I am listening to the member for Murray. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —continue to have thousands upon thousands stacked up.’ I would like to read the preamble, the few sentences before, and the few sentences after which will make that quote quite clear and in fact quite different to what the Prime Minister implied. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: the member has been going for some time. She must go directly to where she has been misrepresented. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the House will resume his seat. That is what I instructed the member for Murray to do. I was not assisted by the member for Banks. The member for Murray must now go to where she was misrepresented and correct the record, not debate. The member for Murray. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —I said: But, if you are not in any way breaking down the pull factors, if you have still got this flotilla coming on down daily and big numbers continuing to descend upon you, there comes a time when a small place like Christmas Island simply cannot continue to have thousands upon thousands stacked up— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member has now explained, and that is it. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —Well, it goes on to make it clearer. I will refer people to the transcript. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Murray will resume her seat. EM6 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP Dr STONE —I seek leave to table the transcript. Leave not granted. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I would just hope that people would leave the chamber and have a look at standing order 65(b) and at some stage apply that standing order. Regrettably, people think that they can, by sitting in the chamber, just speak and prattle on. There is a limit. The Manager for Opposition Business is seeking the call, and I am giving it to him, as a risk taker! 12408 Questions to the Speaker 12408 12408 15:40:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 Mr PYNE —Mr Speaker, I would ask you to review the last few dozen points of order that have been taken by the opposition. It has been noticed on this side of the House that there is a pause before you give members on this side of the House the call, allowing— 12408 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The Manager for Opposition Business will resume his seat. If he has a problem, he can raise it at the time. That is not something that I will be reviewing. If he has a problem and wants to enter into a debate about it, he should do so at the time. But I can assure you, on balance, it gets the proceedings continuing. It gets the proceedings continuing. And if people wanted to use points of order to make points of order rather than just points then we might see a bit of tightening-up, if that is what you are looking for. 12408 Miscellaneous 12408 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I inform the House that I have received from the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of the Australian Capital Territory a letter containing a resolution adopted by the Legislative Assembly on 17 November 2009, welcoming the Prime Minister’s apology to the forgotten Australians and former child migrants. The letter containing the resolution will form part of the records of the House. Copies are being circulated to members in the chamber. 12408 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government) 15:41:00 —Documents are presented as listed in the schedule circulated to honourable members. Details of the documents will be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings and I move: That the House take note of the following documents: Australian Prudential Regulation Authority—Report for 2008-09. Australian Rail Track Corporation Ltd—Report for 2008-09. Murray-Darling Basin Authority—Report for 2008-09. Pharmaceutical Benefits Pricing Authority—Report for 2008-09. Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2008-09. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 12409 Bills R4187 12409 Debate resumed. 12409 15:42:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I continue my remarks in respect of the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Amendment Bill 2009. At the time the debate was interrupted earlier, I was referring to the fact that the amendments are designed to capture foreign investments that have the potential to provide substantial influence or control over an Australian company either now or into the future. The bill clarifies the operation of the act by explicitly requiring foreign investors to notify the Treasurer where there is a possibility that the type of investment arrangement being used will deliver influence or control over an Australian company. The Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act 1975 provides the basis for the Treasurer to examine proposed foreign investments in Australian businesses and assets to ensure they are not contrary to the national interest. This bill amends the act to reflect the growing use of more complex investment structures, particularly instruments such as convertible notes, which will now be treated as equity for the purposes of the act. The bill will clarify the operation of the foreign investment screening regime and will ensure the act applies equally to all foreign investments, irrespective of how they are structured. The changes to the act under this bill will apply retrospectively from the date of the Treasurer’s announcement on 12 February 2009. Although this bill clarifies the operation of the act, it does not pre-empt any final decision by the Treasurer on any current or future investment proposals. Applications to the Foreign Investment Review Board will continue to be examined on a case-by-case basis against the national interest. Foreign ownership of resources, industry and commercial operations in Australia continues to be a polarising subject amongst the Australian people. On one hand, foreign investment has over the years enabled Australia to expand its economic base and in turn create jobs and boost productivity and export income. The counter view is that foreign ownership of Australian assets places Australia at the mercy of overseas countries and overseas boardrooms, who have little empathy for the local community or Australia’s national interest but are instead driven solely by their profit and loss statements. This becomes even more of a concern when the foreign investment results in a monopoly or unfair market power over the sector, leaving Australian consumers vulnerable. It therefore becomes a balance between ensuring foreign investment that benefits the nation is encouraged, ensuring that Australia’s national interest is preserved and ensuring that Australia’s international investment and trade obligations are met. The recent global economic recession has highlighted the risks Australia can be exposed to when we are too reliant on the global economy and on foreign investment. In South Australia these risks were clearly exposed with the global downturn in the auto industry and the impacts that downturn had on GMH operations at Elizabeth and the Bridgestone tyre manufacturing plant at Salisbury. Whilst the GMH operations at Elizabeth have survived the rationalisation of GM’s global operations, the Salisbury Bridgestone plant did not survive. The plant is set to close sometime in April of 2010 with the loss of around 600 jobs. Further job losses are likely to occur at other local businesses that have been highly dependent on the Bridgestone plant for the past 45 years. I understand that another 275 jobs will be lost in Christchurch in New Zealand with the closure of that plant by the end of this year. Salisbury is one of Bridgestone’s many plants around the world. Bridgestone was founded in 1931 and today operates 190 manufacturing plants worldwide in some 26 countries. Of those plants, 76 are tyre related. Production at the Salisbury plant commenced in 1964 under the Uniroyal brand. In 1980 Uniroyal was bought out by Bridgestone and the Salisbury plant became the Bridgestone plant. Bridgestone’s retail operations will continue in Australia, with all tyres sold in future being manufactured in one of their overseas plants and imported into Australia. There has been no evidence that the Australian Salisbury plant was not independently viable or that it could not have survived the global recession. The reality is that decisions about its future were made by a boardroom in Tokyo with the decision most likely based on Bridgestone’s corporate international best interests and not because of Australia’s best interests. I note that the Bridgestone Corporation recently announced the building of a new retread material plant in Thailand and an increase in production of a tyre production plant in China. On the one hand we have the Salisbury plant being closed and on the other hand we have an expansion of operations in Thailand and China. The closure of the Bridgestone plant also raises another concern. I understand that with the closure of South Pacific Tyres, who were the manufacturers of Dunlop and Goodyear tyres in Australia, we no longer in this country have a major tyre manufacturing operation of any kind. About three weeks ago the member for Wakefield, who I notice is in the chamber here today and whose electorate the Bridgestone plant is within, the member for Port Adelaide and I had meetings at the Bridgestone tyre factory at Salisbury. Along with the Minister for Employment Participation, Senator the Hon. Mark Arbib, we had discussions with the management of Bridgestone to secure the ongoing rights and entitlements of the workers. I am pleased to see that the management is working with the South Australian government, with the federal government and with union representatives to ensure that the rightful termination payments and the necessary support are given to the 600 employees of that plant as they transition to new employment. HW9 Champion, Nick, MP Mr Champion —They are not working nearly hard enough. HWB Zappia, Tony, MP Mr ZAPPIA —I note the member for Wakefield saying that they are not working hard enough. In this respect I particularly acknowledge the work of David Di Troia, the state secretary of the Liquor, Hospitality and Miscellaneous Union, and the role he has played in supporting Bridgestone employees, most of whom are LHMU members. I am sure that the member for Wakefield and I will be watching this very closely because the last thing we want to see is those workers being given a raw deal of any type, given that many of them have been working at that plant for so long. I know that from speaking to a number of the employees, on the day that we were there, there were people who had been working at that plant for 25 to 30 years, in fact most of their lifetime. For them, I am well aware that it would be difficult to transition to any other form of employment after having spent all of their lives effectively doing one particular job. I was also pleased to read an announcement only recently, on 16 November, that the GM operations here in Australia, which did survive the global rationalisation and restructuring, are stepping up production. At the Holden plant at Elizabeth they will be increasing the production of their motor vehicles from 310 to 340 cars per day and the global V6 engine facility in Port Melbourne is increasing its engine production from between 240 and 320 engines produced per day now to something like 440 engines per day. It is great to see that because the GM operations here in Australia have always endeavoured to be self-sustainable regardless of their connection to the global operations of the rest of the GM organisation. GMH in Australia has always made sure that they were sustainable in their own right. That has only been because of the terrific working arrangement that has been established between the workforce of GM, particularly at Elizabeth—where I can speak from experience, having gone out there on many occasions—and the company itself. There is another brief example I want to give which highlights the volatility of foreign ownership. I refer to the video games industry and the company Ratbag Games. Ratbag was quite rightly celebrated as a South Australian success story. Founded in 1993, it became a world leading developer and producer of video games and had titles published worldwide across a range of platforms. The company employed over 50 South Australians in this emerging industry, an industry for which many young people have a passion and aspire to work within as a career. It made the front page of South Australia’s daily newspaper the Advertiser when Ratbag was taken over by Midway Games in August 2005. Midway Games is one of the largest and most established video games companies worldwide. This takeover was celebrated, with a local company started by a group of friends now becoming part of one of the largest international companies in the industry. In December 2005, just four months after the takeover, Midway closed some of its international operations to cut costs as a result of its financial difficulties. This included the Adelaide studio that had previously been Ratbag, with the loss of over 50 jobs. I understand that many of the former Ratbag employees found employment with other companies in the industry, but we see the same situation where a successful local business through no fault of their own has been closed down. The parent company’s financial difficulties have meant that the decision to close the operation in Adelaide is again made by a far-off boardroom. I just want to close with a few other issues that are related to foreign investment in this country. One can only speculate as to how often foreign acquisitions are made with the sole purpose of either closing down a competitor or of ultimately transferring operations to an existing offshore facility. It is something that we need to watch, because ultimately it will be the people of Australia that are affected when that happens. The last matter I raise with respect to foreign investment is the alleged practice by overseas parent companies of structuring global operations so that profits are declared in low-tax countries. This is a practice that is extremely difficult to prove particularly when overseas operations of the same company are charging the Australian operations inflated prices for raw materials, products or services, the clear intent being for the sole purpose of tax minimisation, with Australia again missing out on this legitimate tax revenue. These are clearly issues that I am sure that the Treasurer is concerned with and matters that have to be taken into account when we consider foreign investments into this country. I know that this bill goes a step further in ensuring that decisions are made in the national interest, and for that reason I commend the bill to the House. 12411 15:54:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —in reply—I want to thank all those members who have contributed to this debate on the bill. This bill is a straightforward but important reform to improve the integrity of Australia’s foreign investment screening regime. The bill implements my announcement in February 2009 that the Foreign Acquisitions and Takeovers Act would be updated to reflect the more frequent use of complex investment instruments such as convertible notes and warrants. These types of arrangements have a solid commercial basis but were not envisaged when the act was originally drafted. The bill clarifies that under the act the government can examine in the national interest any investment proposal that could deliver substantial influence or control now or in the future of an Australian company valued over the threshold. The bill applies from the date of announcement, 12 February 2009, to provide maximum certainty around the act’s application while providing flexible and sensible transition provisions. The bill is consistent with Australia’s international obligations by keeping to the act’s original policy intention. The Australian foreign investment regime has helped to deliver significant benefits to the Australian economy. Foreign investment has spurred growth, competitiveness and jobs in the Australian economy. Access Economics has estimated that 14 per cent of all Australian jobs are attributable to foreign direct investment. Foreign investment drives innovation, skills development, technology and healthy competition. The government is committed to a regulatory regime that gets the balance right, protecting the national interest while ensuring that Australia is a competitive destination for foreign investment. I have in recent months announced additional changes that go to this question of balance, which are not dealt in this bill. The foreign investment framework must keep pace with changes and trends if it is to remain effective. This bill clarifies that the government can screen investments that involve complex financing arrangements in the same way as traditional shares or voting power. Supporting this bill will improve and safeguard the integrity of foreign screening. This is one important part of an effective foreign investment approach that is well-established and familiar to international investors. This is good for Australia and so important as we prepare the Australian economy for the growth beyond the global recession. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 12412 Bill—by leave—taken as a whole. 12412 15:58:00 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 0 Mr SWAN —by leave—I present a supplementary explanatory memorandum and move government amendments (1) to (11): (1)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (line 10), omit “subsection 14(2)”, substitute “section 14”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 8, page 4 (after line 26), after subsection 9(1A), insert:        (1B)    For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(c) and (1A)(c), in determining the percentage of the interests in the issued shares in a corporation that a person holds at a particular time, if:               (a)    the person has a right that, if exercised, might result in the person holding an interest in an issued share in the corporation; and               (b)    it cannot be determined at that time (whether from the right itself or from the circumstances existing at that time) whether the exercise of the right would have that result; assume that the right were exercised at that time.        (1C)    For the purposes of paragraphs (1)(d) and (1A)(d), in determining the percentage of the interests in the issued shares in a corporation that a person would hold at a particular time if shares were issued as mentioned in those paragraphs, if:               (a)    the person has a right that, if exercised, might result in the person holding an interest in an issued share in the corporation; and               (b)    it cannot be determined at that time (whether from the right itself or from the circumstances existing at that time) whether the exercise of the right would have that result; assume that the right were exercised at that time. (3)    Schedule 1, page 4 (after line 33), after item 9, insert: 9A After subsection 11(5) Insert:       (5A)    For the purposes of a prescribed provision of this Act, disregard an interest in a share if the interest is of a kind prescribed in respect of that provision. (4)    Schedule 1, page 4, after proposed item 9A, insert: 9B Subparagraph 12C(b)(i) After “voting power”, insert “or potential voting power”. 9C Subparagraph 12C(b)(i) Omit “issued shares”, substitute “shares”. 9D Paragraph 12C(c) After “voting power”, insert “or potential voting power”. 9E Paragraph 12C(c) Omit “issued shares”, substitute “shares”. (5)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (after line 16), after subsection 14(2), insert:          (3)    In determining how much of the potential voting power in a corporation a person is in a position to control at a particular time, if:               (a)    a right exists that, if exercised, might result in the person being in a position to control more of the potential voting power in the corporation than the person would be in a position to control if the right were not exercised; and               (b)    it cannot be determined at that time (whether from the right itself or from the circumstances existing at that time) whether the exercise of the right would have that result; assume that the right were exercised at that time. (6)    Schedule 1, page 6 (after line 2), after item 15, insert: 15A Subsection 25(4) Omit “an option”, substitute “a right (including a right under an option)”. (7)    Schedule 1, page 7 (after line 11), at the end of the Schedule, add: 22 Section 28 Omit “an option”, substitute “a right (including a right under an option)”. Note:                The heading to section 28 is altered by omitting “options” and substituting “rights”. 23 Section 28 Omit “that option”, substitute “that right”. (8)    Schedule 2, item 1, page 8 (line 11), after “26(2)”, insert “or 26A(2)”. (9)    Schedule 2, item 1, page 8 (line 15), after “26(2)”, insert “or 26A(2)”. (10)  Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 4), after “26(2)”, insert “or 26A(2)”. (11)  Schedule 2, item 2, page 9 (line 8), after “26(2)”, insert “or 26A(2)”. Since the introduction of the bill some issues were identified that require clarification. These technical amendments do not alter the policy intent of the bill. They are designed to improve the operation of the bill and reduce potential complexity. In relation to the expanded definition of ‘substantial interest’, the bill captures new forms of foreign investment transactions that configure future rights and interest to a foreign investor. Some rights are structured so the actual number of shares or potential voting power cannot be determined until these rights are exercised. For example, where a convertible note relates to shares equivalent to a specified monetary amount the number of shares and voting power attached to that instrument would normally depend on the value of the shares at the time of the conversion. The amendments clarify that all rights over shares will be treated as having been exercised at a particular point in time—for example, when the agreement is entered into—or at the time a decision is made under the act. The act currently provides for regulations to be made to disregard certain prescribed types of interests in shares. We will shortly introduce regulations to ensure only currently held shares and voting power are counted when determining if an investor is a foreign person or foreign business and must notify under the act. This means investors can more easily monitor their foreign shareholdings to know when to notify their acquisitions under the act. Companies may not be able to determine the ownership, foreign or otherwise, of all rights to the future shares and potential voting power given the characteristics of derivative instruments and the way they may be traded off market. The amendments ensure regulations may be made with respect to prescribed provisions of the act such as the compulsory notification provisions. The act provides tracing provisions to enable substantial interests to be traced through the ownership of structures of relevant entities. The amendments ensure these provisions are applied consistently. The act also requires acquisitions or options to be notified only once—that is, at the time of the acquisition. The amendments provide that this also applies to other types of rights over shares or assets to make clear that a second notification is not required at the time the rights are exercised. Since the bill applies retrospectively, from 12 February 2009, transitional provisions are included so that foreign persons will not have committed an offence for failing to notify acquisitions of substantial interests in Australian corporations which would have been subject to compulsory notification by virtue of the bill. The amendments ensure that acquisitions of urban land will also be covered by the transitional arrangements. Full detail on the amendments is in the supplementary explanatory memorandum. The amendments do not change the national interest framework nor the screening arrangements of the Foreign Investment Review Board. I am confident the amendments help to modernise Australia’s foreign investment framework while providing certainty for prospective investors. Question agreed to. Bill, as amended, agreed to. 12414 Mr SWAN (Lilley —Treasurer) 16:02:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 12414 Bills R4175 12414 Message from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bill. 12414 Bills R4180 12414 Consideration resumed from 27 October. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 5, page 9 (after line 11), after the definition of initial National Credit Act, insert: initial National Credit Code: see subsection 20(2). (2)    Clause 5, page 12 (after line 4), after the definition of record, insert: referred credit matter: see subsection 20(1). (3)    Clause 5, page 12 (line 5), omit the definition of referred credit matters. (4)    Clause 6, page 16 (table item 1), omit “for or”. (5)    Clause 6, page 16 (table item 3), omit “for or”. (6)    Clause 6, page 16 (table item 4), omit “for or”. (7)    Clause 6, page 17 (table item 5), omit “for or”. (8)    Clause 8, page 18 (line 11), omit “for or”. (9)    Clause 9, page 18 (line 26), omit “for or”. (10)  Clause 19, page 27 (line 8), omit “making laws”, substitute “the making of laws”. (11)  Clause 19, page 27 (lines 11 to 16), omit subclause (4), substitute: Reference covering amendments of this Act or the Transitional Act          (4)    This subsection covers the referred credit matters (see section 20) to the extent of the making of laws with respect to those matters by making express amendments of this Act or the Transitional Act. (12)  Clause 19, page 28 (lines 6 to 14), omit the definition of express amendment, substitute: express amendment of this Act or the Transitional Act means the direct amendment of the text of this Act or the Transitional Act (whether by the insertion, omission, repeal, substitution or relocation of words or matter) by another Commonwealth Act or by an instrument under a Commonwealth Act, but does not include the enactment by a Commonwealth Act of a provision that has, or will have, substantive effect otherwise than as part of the text of this Act or the Transitional Act. (13)  Clause 19, page 28 (line 23), omit the definition of Trade Practices Act. (14)  Clause 20, page 28 (line 24) to page 32 (line 3), omit the clause, substitute: 20 Meaning of referred credit matter          (1)    Referred credit matter means a matter relating to either of the following:               (a)    credit, being credit the provision of which would be covered by the expression “provision of credit to which this Code applies” in the initial National Credit Code;               (b)    consumer leases, being consumer leases each of which would be covered by the expression “consumer lease to which Part 11 applies” in the initial National Credit Code.          (2)    Initial National Credit Code means Schedule 1 to the initial National Credit Act. (15)  Clause 22, page 33 (lines 9 to 13), omit the clause, substitute: 22 When Acts bind Crown          (1)    This Act (other than the National Credit Code) and the Transitional Act do not bind the Crown in any of its capacities.          (2)    Despite subsection (1), the regulations may provide that this Act (other than the National Credit Code) and the Transitional Act, or specified provisions of this Act (other than the National Credit Code) or the Transitional Act, bind either or both of the following in circumstances (if any) prescribed by the regulations:               (a)    the Crown in right of the Commonwealth;               (b)    the Crown in all of its other capacities.          (3)    The National Credit Code binds the Crown in each of its capacities.          (4)    This Act and the Transitional Act do not make the Crown liable to be prosecuted for an offence or to any pecuniary penalty. (16)  Heading to subclause 29(3), page 40 (line 19), omit the heading, substitute: Defences (17)  Clause 29, page 41 (after line 5), at the end of the clause, add:          (4)    For the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), it is a defence if:               (a)    the person engages in the credit activity on behalf of another person (the principal); and               (b)    the person is a representative of the principal; and               (c)    the person’s conduct in engaging in the credit activity is within the authority of the principal; and               (d)    the principal is exempted from subsections (1) and (2) under paragraph 109(1)(a), 109(3)(a) or 110(a). Note:   For the purposes of subsection (2), a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subsection (4) (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code). (18)  Clause 36, page 47 (line 4), omit “January”, substitute “July”. (19)  Clause 54, page 64 (line 8), omit “ceases to engage in credit activities”, substitute “does not engage, or ceases to engage, in credit activities”. (20)  Clause 97, page 97 (line 8), omit “for or”. (21)  Clause 99, page 98 (line 4), omit “for or”. (22)  Clause 109, page 107 (lines 12 and 13), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:               (a)    exempt:                     (i)    a person; or                    (ii)    a person and all of the person’s credit representatives;                        from all or specified provisions to which this Part applies; or (23)  Clause 130, page 134 (lines 15 to 28), omit subclause (3). (24)  Clause 153, page 164 (lines 11 to 22), omit subclause (3). (25)  Clause 163, page 178 (lines 11 and 12), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:               (a)    exempt:                     (i)    a person; or                    (ii)    a person and all of the person’s credit representatives;                        from all or specified provisions to which this Part applies; or (26)  Clause 178, page 188 (after line 34), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note:   An order may be made under this subsection whether or not a declaration of contravention has been made under section 166. (27)  Clause 179, page 189 (after line 30), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note:   An order may be made under this subsection whether or not a declaration of contravention has been made under section 166. (28)  Clause 180, page 191 (after line 21), at the end of subclause (1), add: Note:   An order may be made under this subsection whether or not a declaration of contravention has been made under section 166. (29)  Clause 253, page 249 (lines 6 and 7), omit “in the approved form given to the person”, substitute “given to the person in the form prescribed by the regulations”. (30)  Clause 274, page 264 (line 28), omit “section 63”, substitute “section 290”. (31)  Clause 274, page 264 (line 29), omit “subsection 63(3)”, substitute “subsection 290(2)”. (32)  Clause 284, page 270 (lines 6 and 7), omit “in the approved form given to a person”, substitute “given to a person in the form prescribed by the regulations”. (33)  Clause 327, page 301 (lines 8 to 10), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    a decision of ASIC under subsection 109(3) (which deals with certain exemptions from, and modifications of, Chapter 2); or               (b)    a decision of ASIC under subsection 163(3) (which deals with certain exemptions from, and modifications of, Chapter 3); or               (c)    a decision of ASIC under section 241 (which deals with approved codes of conduct); or               (d)    a decision of ASIC under Chapter 6 (which deals with compliance and enforcement), except for a decision of ASIC:                     (i)    to make an order under subsection 300(1) (which deals with orders relating to credit contracts, mortgages, guarantees or consumer leases); or                    (ii)    to make, or refuse to make, an order under subsection 301(1) (which deals with orders varying or revoking orders made under section 300); or               (e)    a decision of ASIC to make a determination under subsection 328(3) (which deals with determinations in relation to notice of reviewable decisions etc.); or                (f)    a decision of ASIC under subsection 6(17) of the National Credit Code (which deals with the exclusion of provisions of credit from the application of the National Credit Code); or               (g)    a decision of ASIC under subsection 171(6) of the National Credit Code (which deals with the exclusion of consumer leases from the application of the National Credit Code); or               (h)    a decision of ASIC under subsection 203A(3) of the National Credit Code (which deals with certain exemptions from the National Credit Code); or                (i)    a decision of ASIC under the regulations, unless the regulations specify that an application may be made to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the decision. (34)  Schedule 1, page 312 (lines 9 and 10), omit “all or any provisions of”. (35)  Schedule 1, page 312 (line 17), omit “all or any provisions of”. (36)  Schedule 1, page 312 (line 26), omit “all or any provisions of”. (37)  Schedule 1, page 313 (after line 2), insert: Definitions (38)  Schedule 1, page 331 (after line 9), at the end of Division 2, add: 26A Regulations about residential investment property                   The regulations may provide that section 25 or 26 applies in relation to a provision of credit covered by subparagraph 5(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) as if specified provisions were omitted, modified or varied as specified in the regulations. (39)  Schedule 1, page 333 (after line 31), at the end of Division 3, add: 30A Regulations about residential investment property                   The regulations may provide that this Division applies in relation to a provision of credit covered by subparagraph 5(1)(b)(ii) or (iii) as if specified provisions were omitted, modified or varied as specified in the regulations. (40)  Schedule 1, page 365 (line 3), omit “.”, substitute “; and”. (41)  Schedule 1, page 365 (after line 3), at the end of paragraph (3)(b), add:                   (iii)    the reasons for not agreeing to the change. (42)  Schedule 1, page 386 (line 19), omit “.”, substitute “; and”. (43)  Schedule 1, page 386 (after line 19), at the end of paragraph (2)(b), add:                   (iii)    the reasons for not agreeing to negotiate. (44)  Schedule 1, page 398 (lines 1 and 2), omit the heading to Part 6, substitute: Part 6 — Penalties for defaults of credit providers (45)  Schedule 1, page 398 (lines 3 and 4), omit the heading to Division 1, substitute: Division 1 — Penalties for breach of key disclosure and other requirements (46)  Schedule 1, page 399 (lines 15 and 16), omit the heading to clause 113, substitute: 113 Penalty may be imposed for contravention of key requirement (47)  Schedule 1, page 405 (line 1), omit the heading to Division 2, substitute: Division 2 — Other penalties (48)  Schedule 1, page 438 (lines 20 and 21), omit “all or any provisions of”. (49)  Schedule 1, page 438 (line 24), omit “all or any provisions of”. (50)  Schedule 1, page 438 (line 28), omit “all or any provisions of”. (51)  Schedule 1, page 459 (after line 29), at the end of Part 12, add: Division 5 — Exemptions from this Code 203A Exemptions by ASIC Exemptions          (1)    ASIC may exempt a person, contract, mortgage, guarantee or consumer lease from all or specified provisions of this Code.          (2)    An exemption under subsection (1) is not a legislative instrument.          (3)    ASIC may, by legislative instrument, exempt a class of persons, contracts, mortgages, guarantees or consumer leases from all or specified provisions of this Code. Conditions on exemptions          (4)    An exemption may apply unconditionally or subject to specified conditions. A person to whom a condition specified in an exemption applies must comply with the condition. The court may order the person to comply with the condition in a specified way. Only ASIC may apply to the court for the order. Publication of exemptions under subsection (1)          (5)    An exemption under subsection (1) must be in writing and ASIC must publish notice of it on its website. 203B Exemptions by the regulations                   The regulations may:               (a)    exempt a person, contract, mortgage, guarantee or consumer lease from all or specified provisions of this Code; or               (b)    exempt a class of persons, contracts, mortgages, guarantees or consumer leases from all or specified provisions of this Code. (52)  Schedule 1, page 466 (line 26), after “affixed”, insert “predominantly”. (53)  Schedule 1, page 466 (line 28), after “affixed”, insert “predominantly”. (54)  Schedule 1, page 466 (line 34), after “affixed”, insert “predominantly”. (55)  Schedule 1, page 467 (line 6), after “affixed”, insert “predominantly”. (56)  Schedule 1, page 467 (line 13), after “affixed”, insert “predominantly”. 12418 16:03:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 and related bills deliver on the Council of Australian Governments agreement that the Australian government assume responsibility for the regulation of consumer credit. This package of reforms will create a single, nationally consistent regime for consumer credit regulation. The Senate has moved a number of enhancements to the bills to incorporate the recommendations arising from the Senate Economics Legislation Committee’s inquiry into the bills. In addition, other amendments have been made to ensure the efficient delivery of this package of reforms. Amendments that directly address the recommendations of the Senate committee include the deferral of the commencement of the reforms by six months to 1 July 2010 to give industry more time to make the changes they need to move to the new regime. These amendments also clarify that consumers have access to remedies without there needing to be a formal finding by a court in relation to civil penalty and that lenders are required to provide consumers with reasons for rejecting applications for hardship variations and stays of enforcement. The Senate committee also recommended the removal of subsection 130(3) of the main bill so that credit providers will have to verify information provided in a preliminary assessment. Amendments have also been moved to clarify provisions in the bills so that the regime operates effectively. The amendments modify the definition of ‘residential property’ so that it excludes properties which are not predominantly used for residential purposes. A number of the amendments clarify the role of the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission. They clarify that ASIC decisions, particularly those regarding enforcement action, are excluded from Administrative Appeals Tribunal review. They also ensure ASIC has the applicability to grant exemptions to some parts of the National Credit Code, subject to conditions, and allow ASIC to exempt a person and all their credit representatives in a single determination. These amendments also allow for the transfer of information, documents, assets or liabilities from a state or territory to ASIC prior to the commencement of the National Credit Code and enable ASIC to issue certain documents in a form prescribed by regulations. Finally, a number of errors have been removed and provisions regarding binding the Crown under the code have been drafted. These changes support and enhance the new national consumer credit regulatory regime. On behalf of the government I thank the Senate for its work on these bills. I also table further explanatory memoranda relating to amendments to the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009 which incorporate all the proposed amendments that have been moved by the Senate. The government fully supports the amendments moved by the Senate on this bill. I commend these amendments to the House. Question agreed to. 12419 Bills R4183 12419 Consideration resumed from 27 October. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: 2. Schedule 1, items 1 to 21 At the same time as section 3 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 commences. 2A. Schedule 1, item 22 The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2B. Schedule 1, item 23 At the same time as section 3 of the National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 commences. (2)    Clause 4, page 4 (after line 7), after the definition of appeal or review proceedings, insert: carried over instrument means a contract or other instrument that:               (a)    was made before commencement; and               (b)    was in force immediately before commencement; and               (c)    the old Credit Code of a referring State or a Territory applied to immediately before commencement. (3)    Clause 4, page 4 (after line 12), after the definition of carried over provision, insert: Chapter 3 start day: see subitem 19(1) of Schedule 1 to this Act. (4)    Clause 4, page 4 (lines 20 and 21), omit the definition of commencement, substitute: commencement means the start of 1 July 2010, or a later day prescribed by the regulations. (5)    Clause 4, page 7 (after line 14), after the definition of registered to engage in a credit activity, insert: registrable corporation has the same meaning as in section 7 of the Financial Sector (Collection of Data) Act 2001. (6)    Clause 4, page 8 (after line 3), after the definition of this Act, insert: transition end day means 30 June 2011, or a later day prescribed by the regulations. (7)    Schedule 1, page 13 (after line 23), after Division 1, insert: Division 1A—Application of the new Credit Code 2A Application of the new Credit Code (1)    The new Credit Code applies from commencement.          Note:       The new Credit Code does not apply before commencement. It also does not apply in relation to contracts or other instruments that were made before commencement, unless they are carried over instruments (see item 3). (2)    Subitem (1) is subject to subitem 3(2). (8)    Schedule 1, Division 2, page 13 (line 24) to page 15 (line 3), omit the Division, substitute: Division 2—Treatment of contracts or other instruments made before commencement 3 Application of the new Credit Code to contracts or other instruments made before commencement (1)    The new Credit Code does not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before commencement. (2)    Despite subitem (1), the new Credit Code applies in relation to a carried over instrument. (3)    Despite subitem (2), sections 5, 13 and 172 of the new Credit Code do not apply in relation to a carried over instrument. Instead, sections 6, 11 and 150 of the old Credit Code of a referring State or a Territory, as in force immediately before commencement, apply from commencement in relation to a carried over instrument as if those provisions respectively were sections 5, 13 and 172 of the new Credit Code. (4)    Despite subitem (2), subsections 6(2) and 50(2), (3), (4), (5) and (8) of the new Credit Code do not apply in relation to a carried over instrument. (5)    Despite subitem (2), subsection 72(5) of the new Credit Code does not apply in relation to a carried over instrument. Instead, the following provision applies from commencement in relation to a carried over instrument as if the provision were subsection 72(5) of the new Credit Code: Application          (5)    This section and sections 73 to 75 do not apply to a credit contract under which the maximum amount of credit that is or may be provided is more than an amount equal to 110% of the amount of the average loan size for the purchase of new dwellings in New South Wales as set out in the Table of Housing Finance Commitments in the most recent publication entitled Housing Finance, Australia, as published from time to time by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (6)    Despite subitem (2), subsection 94(4) of the new Credit Code does not apply in relation to a carried over instrument. Instead, the following provision applies from commencement in relation to a carried over instrument as if the provision were subsection 94(4) of the new Credit Code:          (4)    This Division does not apply to a credit contract in respect of which the maximum amount of credit that is or may be provided is more than an amount equal to 110% of the amount of the average loan size for the purchase of new dwellings in New South Wales as set out in the Table of Housing Finance Commitments in the most recent publication entitled Housing Finance, Australia, as published from time to time by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. (9)    Schedule 1, item 4, page 15 (line 11), after “commencement”, insert “in relation to a carried over instrument”. (10)  Schedule 1, item 5, page 17 (line 9), after “commencement”, insert “, in relation to a carried over instrument,”. (11)  Schedule 1, item 5, page 17 (line 15), after “commencement”, insert “, in relation to a carried over instrument,”. (12)  Schedule 1, item 8, page 19 (before line 8), before paragraph (2)(a), insert:             (aa)    a contract or other instrument that is not a carried over instrument; or (13)  Schedule 1, item 10, page 20 (line 10), omit “that”. (14)  Schedule 1, Part 3, page 27 (line 1) to page 28 (line 25), omit the Part, substitute: Part 3 — Application of the National Credit Act (other than the new Credit Code) and Schedule 2 to this Act Division 1—Application of the National Credit Act (other than Chapter 3 and the new Credit Code) 17A Application of the National Credit Act (other than Chapter 3 and the new Credit Code) (1)    The National Credit Act (other than Chapter 3 and the new Credit Code) applies from commencement.          Note 1:    The National Credit Act does not apply before commencement. However, see subitem (2), which provides that regulations made under section 329 of the National Credit Act may apply before commencement.          Note 2:    See item 19 for the application of Chapter 3 (which deals with responsible lending conduct) of the National Credit Act.          Note 3:    See items 2A and 3 for the application of the new Credit Code.          Note 4:    Generally, the National Credit Act (other than the new Credit Code) does not apply to contracts or other instruments made before commencement. However, see item 18 for exceptions to this. (2)    Despite subitem (1), regulations made under section 329 of the National Credit Act may apply on and after the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences. 18 Treatment of contracts or other instruments made before commencement (1)    The National Credit Act (other than Chapter 3 and the new Credit Code) does not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before commencement.          Note 1:    See item 19 for the application of Chapter 3 (which deals with responsible lending conduct) of the National Credit Act.          Note 2:    See items 2A and 3 for the application of the new Credit Code. (2)    Despite subitem (1), the regulations may provide for the application of all or specified provisions of the National Credit Act to a person (including the licensing of that person) in relation to credit activities engaged in on or after commencement in relation to a carried over instrument. (3)    Despite subitem (1), Part 4‑3 of the National Credit Act (which deals with the jurisdiction and procedure of courts) applies to proceedings brought under the new Credit Code after commencement in relation to a carried over instrument. (4)    Despite subitem (1), regulations made under section 329 of the National Credit Act for the purposes of section 330 of that Act or the new Credit Code may make provision in relation to proceedings brought after commencement in relation to a carried over instrument. Division 2—Application of Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act 19 Application of Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act When all of Chapter 3 (responsible lending conduct) applies to all licensees (1)    Chapter 3 (which deals with responsible lending conduct) of the National Credit Act applies on and after the day (the Chapter 3 start day) that is 1 January 2011, or a later day prescribed by the regulations.          Note:       Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act does not apply before the Chapter 3 start day. However, under subitem (2), certain provisions of Chapter 3 apply before then to some licensees (and registered persons because of item 36 of Schedule 2 to this Act). When certain provisions of Chapter 3 apply earlier for some licensees (2)    Despite subitem (1), sections 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 162, 163 and 164 (which deal with the main responsible lending conduct rules) of the National Credit Act apply in relation to conduct engaged in by a licensee in the period that:               (a)    starts on commencement; and               (b)    ends immediately before the Chapter 3 start day; if:               (c)    the licensee is neither an ADI nor a registrable corporation; and               (d)    the conduct is engaged in in relation to a contract or other instrument made on or after commencement. Application of Chapter 3 in relation to contracts or other instruments (3)    Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act does not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before commencement.          Note:       Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act applies in relation to contracts or other instruments made on or after commencement, but see subitem (4) for exceptions to this. (4)    Despite subitem (3), sections 120, 132, 143 and 155 of the National Credit Act do not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before the Chapter 3 start day. (5)    This item is subject to subitem 18(2) (which deals with regulations that provide for the application to a person of the National Credit Act). Division 3—Application of Schedule 2 to this Act 20 Application of Schedule 2 to this Act in relation to contracts or other instruments (1)    Schedule 2 to this Act (which deals with registration) does not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before commencement.          Note 1:    Schedule 2 applies in relation to contracts or other instruments made on or after commencement.          Note 2:    Schedule 2 applies from the time it commences (see item 3 of the commencement table in section 2). However, some provisions of Schedule 2 expressly provide that parts of Schedule 2 apply from a later time. (2)    Despite subitem (1), the regulations may provide for the application of all or specified provisions of Schedule 2 to a person (including the registration of that person) in relation to credit activities engaged in on or after commencement in relation to a carried over instrument. (15)  Schedule 1, item 21, page 29 (lines 2 to 7), omit the item, substitute: 21 Regulations about ASIC’s approach during the transitional period The regulations may provide for the approach ASIC must take in the administration of this Act or the National Credit Act during the period that:               (a)    starts on the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences; and               (b)    ends on 30 June 2011, or a later day prescribed by the regulations. (16)  Schedule 2, heading to Division 1, page 33 (lines 3 to 5), omit the heading, substitute: Division 1—Prohibition that applies only from commencement to 31 December 2010, or later prescribed day (17)  Schedule 2, item 3, page 33 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    starts on commencement; and               (b)    ends on 31 December 2010, or a later day prescribed by the regulations. (18)  Schedule 2, heading to subitem 4(3), page 33 (line 28), omit the heading, substitute: Defences (19)  Schedule 2, item 4, page 34 (after line 13), at the end of the item, add: (4)    For the purposes of subitems (1) and (2), it is a defence if:               (a)    the person engages in the credit activity on behalf of another person (the principal); and               (b)    the person is a representative of the principal; and               (c)    the person’s conduct in engaging in the credit activity is within the authority of the principal; and               (d)    the principal is exempted from subitems (1) and (2) under paragraph 41(1)(a), 41(3)(a) or 42(a).          Note:       For the purposes of subitem (2), a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subitem (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. (20)  Schedule 2, heading to Division 2, page 34 (lines 14 to 16), omit the heading, substitute: Division 2—Prohibition that applies only from 1 January 2011, or later prescribed day, to the transition end day (21)  Schedule 2, item 5, page 34 (lines 19 to 22), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    starts immediately after the end of the period referred to in item 3; and               (b)    ends on the transition end day. (22)  Schedule 2, heading to subitem 6(3), page 35 (line 9), omit the heading, substitute: Defences (23)  Schedule 2, item 6, page 35 (line 11), omit “for or”. (24)  Schedule 2, item 6, page 35 (after line 27), at the end of the item, add: (4)    For the purposes of subitems (1) and (2), it is a defence if:               (a)    the person engages in the credit activity on behalf of another person (the principal); and               (b)    the person is a representative of the principal; and               (c)    the person’s conduct in engaging in the credit activity is within the authority of the principal; and               (d)    the principal is exempted from subitems (1) and (2) under paragraph 41(1)(a), 41(3)(a) or 42(a).          Note:       For the purposes of subitem (2), a defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in subitem (4): see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code. (25)  Schedule 2, item 7, page 36 (lines 1 and 2), omit paragraph (b), substitute:               (b)    ends on the transition end day. (26)  Schedule 2, item 11, page 38 (lines 8 to 11), omit paragraphs (a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    starts on 1 April 2010, or a later day prescribed by the regulations; and               (b)    ends on 30 June 2010, or a later day prescribed by the regulations. (27)  Schedule 2, item 12, page 39 (after line 29), after subitem (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), a reference to a credit activity in the definitions of banned from engaging in a credit activity under a law of a State or Territory and State or Territory credit licence in subsection 5(1) of the National Credit Act (as those definitions apply for the purposes of this Act because of subsection 4(2) of this Act) includes a reference to an activity that would be a credit activity if the new Credit Code had applied from the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences. (28)  Schedule 2, page 43 (before line 13), before item 16, insert: 15A Application of this Division This Division (other than subitem 16(1)) applies during the period that:               (a)    starts on commencement; and               (b)    ends on the transition end day. (29)  Schedule 2, item 16, page 43 (lines 17 to 20), omit paragraphs (1)(a) and (b), substitute:               (a)    starts at the same time as the start of the period referred to in subitem 11(2); and               (b)    ends on the transition end day; (30)  Schedule 2, item 16, page 43 (lines 24 to 28), omit subitem (2) (not including the heading). (31)  Schedule 2, item 21, page 47 (lines 26 to 29), omit the item, substitute: 21 Cancellation of all registrations on transition end day The registration of every registered person is cancelled at the end of the transition end day. (32)  Schedule 2, item 23, page 48 (line 15), omit “ceases to engage in credit activities”, substitute “does not engage, or ceases to engage, in credit activities”. (33)  Schedule 2, item 23, page 49 (after line 16), after subitem (1), insert: (1A) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(e), a reference to a credit activity in the definitions of banned from engaging in a credit activity under a law of a State or Territory and State or Territory credit licence in subsection 5(1) of the National Credit Act (as those definitions apply for the purposes of this Act because of subsection 4(2) of this Act) includes a reference to an activity that would be a credit activity if the new Credit Code had applied from the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences. (34)  Schedule 2, item 24, page 50 (after line 26), after subitem (2), insert: (2A) For the purposes of paragraph (2)(c), a reference to a credit activity in the definitions of banned from engaging in a credit activity under a law of a State or Territory and State or Territory credit licence in subsection 5(1) of the National Credit Act (as those definitions apply for the purposes of this Act because of subsection 4(2) of this Act) includes a reference to an activity that would be a credit activity if the new Credit Code had applied from the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences. (35)  Schedule 2, item 32, page 54 (line 5), omit “(other than item 36)”, substitute “(other than items 32A, 36 and 39)”. (36)  Schedule 2, item 32, page 54 (lines 7 and 8), omit paragraph (b), substitute:               (b)    ends on the transition end day. (37)  Schedule 2, page 54 (after line 8), after item 32, insert: 32A Application of sections 64 and 65 of the National Credit Act before commencement (1)    This item applies during the period that:               (a)    starts at the same time as the start of the period referred to in subitem 11(2); and               (b)    ends immediately before commencement. (2)    Sections 64 and 65 (which deal with the authorisation of credit representatives) of the National Credit Act apply during the period as if:               (a)    all references to a licensee were references to a registered person; and               (b)    all references to a licensee’s licence were references to a registered person’s registration. (3)    An authorisation of a credit representative that is given under section 64 or 65 of the National Credit Act (as those sections apply because of subitem (2)) during the period is taken not to be given until commencement. (4)    Despite subitem (3), a body corporate that has been authorised as a credit representative under subsection 64(1) of the National Credit Act (as it applies because of subitem (2)) during the period may authorise natural persons as credit representatives under subsection 65(1) of the National Credit Act (as it applies because of subitem (2)) during the period. (38)  Schedule 2, item 33, page 54 (line 30), after “subitem (1)”, insert “or item 32A”. (39)  Schedule 2, item 33, page 55 (line 3), after “subitem (1)”, insert “or item 32A”. (40)  Schedule 2, item 33, page 55 (line 6), after “subitem (1)”, insert “or item 32A”. (41)  Schedule 2, item 36, page 56 (lines 3 to 22), omit the item, substitute: 36 Application of Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act When all of Chapter 3 (responsible lending conduct) applies to all registered persons (1)    Chapter 3 (which deals with responsible lending conduct) of the National Credit Act applies during the period that:               (a)    starts on the Chapter 3 start day; and               (b)    ends on the transition end day; as if:               (c)    all references to a licensee were references to a registered person or licensee; and               (d)    all references to licensees were references to registered persons or licensees.          Note:       The Chapter 3 start day is 1 January 2011 (or later prescribed day). That day is when Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act starts to apply. However, under subitem (2) of this item, certain provisions of Chapter 3 apply before then to some registered persons. When certain provisions of Chapter 3 apply earlier for some registered persons (2)    Despite subitem (1), sections 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 122, 123, 124, 128, 129, 130, 131, 133, 135, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 145, 146, 147, 151, 152, 153, 154, 156, 162, 163 and 164 (which deal with the main responsible lending conduct rules) of the National Credit Act apply, in relation to a registered person who is neither an ADI nor a registrable corporation, during the period referred to in subitem 19(2) of Schedule 1 as if:               (a)    all references to a licensee were references to a registered person or licensee; and               (b)    all references to licensees were references to registered persons or licensees.          Note:       The period referred to in subitem 19(2) of Schedule 1 starts on commencement and ends immediately before the Chapter 3 start day. Some provisions of Chapter 3 never apply to registered persons (3)    Despite subitem (1), the following provisions of Chapter 3 of the National Credit Act do not apply in relation to registered persons:               (a)    paragraphs 113(2)(d), 126(2)(d), 127(2)(d), 136(2)(d), 149(2)(d), 150(2)(d) and 160(3)(d) (which deal with including Australian credit licence numbers in credit guides);               (b)    subparagraphs 113(2)(h)(i), 126(2)(e)(i), 127(2)(e)(i), 136(2)(h)(i), 149(2)(e)(i), 150(2)(e)(i) and 160(3)(f)(i) (which deal with including information about internal dispute resolution procedures in credit guides). Application of Chapter 3 in relation to contracts or other instruments (4)    Despite subitem 20(1) of Schedule 1, sections 120, 132, 143 and 155 of the National Credit Act do not apply in relation to a contract or other instrument that was made before the Chapter 3 start day.          Note:       Subitem 20(1) of Schedule 1 provides that this Schedule applies in relation to contracts or other instruments made after commencement. However, sections 120, 132, 143 and 155 of the National Credit Act, which apply in relation to registered persons because of subitem (1) of this item, do not apply in relation to contracts or other instruments made before the Chapter 3 start day. (5)    This item is subject to subitem 20(2) of Schedule 1 (which deals with regulations that provide for the application of this Schedule in relation to contracts or other instruments made before commencement). (42)  Schedule 2, item 39, page 57 (lines 12 to 16), omit the item, substitute: 39 Application of Chapter 7 of the National Credit Act (1)    Chapter 7 (which deals with miscellaneous matters) of the National Credit Act, other than sections 327, 329 and 331, applies during the period that:               (a)    starts on the day section 3 of the National Credit Act commences; and               (b)    ends on the transition end day; as if all references to “this Act” were references to “this Act and Schedule 2 to the Transitional Act”. (2)    Section 327 of the National Credit Act applies to a decision made by ASIC under this Schedule (other than subitem 41(3)) that is made during the period referred to in subitem (1) of this item in the same way as it applies to a decision made by ASIC under the National Credit Act on or after commencement. (43)  Schedule 2, item 41, page 58 (lines 17 and 18), omit paragraph (1)(a), substitute:               (a)    exempt:                     (i)    a person; or                    (ii)    a person and all of the person’s credit representatives;                        from all or specified provisions to which this Part applies; or 12426 16:06:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The amendments to the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 also reflect enhancements to ensure the efficient delivery of this package of reforms. I discussed these issues in relation to the amendments to the National Consumer Credit Protection Bill 2009. I also table further explanatory memoranda relating to amendments to the National Consumer Credit Protection (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2009 which incorporate all the proposed amendments that have been moved by the Senate. The government fully supports the amendments moved by the Senate on this bill. I commend these amendments to the House. Question agreed to. 12427 Bills R4226 12427 Debate resumed from 19 November, on motion by Mr Brendan O’Connor: That this bill be now read a second time. 12427 16:07:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —The coalition supports the purpose of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2009, which is to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to incorporate alterations that were considered in customs tariff proposals tabled in the House of Representatives during 2009. There have been three such customs tariff proposals: Customs Tariff Proposal (No.1) 2009, to create a new concessional item 41H in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff; Customs Tariff Proposal (No.2) 2009, to amend rates of customs duty for certain alcohol and tobacco products in schedule 7 of the Customs Tariff (Chilean originating goods); and Customs Tariff Proposal (No.4) 2009, to amend rates of customs duty for certain beer and grape wine products. Schedule 1 of the bill creates a new concessional item 41H in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. Item 41H provides duty-free entry into Australia for goods for use in the testing, quality control, manufacturing evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia but not necessarily manufactured in Australia. The new item will encourage automotive manufacturers to undertake design and engineering work for the international automotive market, and will reduce administrative costs in importing such equipment. Schedule 2 of the bill amends rates of duty for certain alcohol and tobacco products that are imported under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. The legislation that gave effect to Australia’s tariff commitments under that agreement did not include subsequent increases in the excise equivalent component of customs duty for these goods. Schedule 2 of the bill applies the increased rates of duty for these goods where required from the commencement of the free trade agreement on 6 March 2009. This ensures that customs duty imposed on alcohol and tobacco products imported under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement is the same as the duty imposed on these goods when imported from other countries and is also the same as duties of excise imposed on these goods when manufactured in Australia. Schedule 3 of the bill amends rates of duty for certain beer and grape wine products. The Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No.1) Act 2009 provided revised definitions for beer and grape wine products in the Customs Tariff Act. Schedule 3 of the bill applies the increased rates of duty as required to beer and grape wine products from the dates of commencement of the legislation on 28 August 2009. This ensures that customs duty imposed on these beer and grape wine products is consistent with duty imposed on other alcohol products and with the excise duty imposed when these products are manufactured in Australia. The coalition supports the passage of this bill. 12428 16:11:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2009 will amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995, thus incorporating measures that were contained in the three customs tariff proposals tabled earlier this year. They are Customs Tariff Proposals (No. 1) 2009, (No. 2) 2009 and (No. 4) 2009. These amendments give effect to Australia’s international obligations regarding the duty-free entry into Australia of certain goods and to appropriate increases of customs duty. The way the system works, as I deduced from my reading of the bill, the explanatory memorandum and the Minister for Home Affairs’ second reading speech, is that the customs tariff regime of proposals, duties and other measures arising is first tabled in the House and given immediate applicability; that is, it is given the protection that the legislation which follows later has. It gives effect but within a certain time frame the legislation has to be introduced—it appears to be 12 months. A specific amending bill needs to be passed to complete all legislative requirements. This of course can, prima facie, raise the issue of giving effect retrospectively but it is not retrospective in the sense that this is more by way of a procedural operation because of the overall system and not a matter of substance, and it thereby does not vitiate the rule of law that prohibits retrospectivity. Such a scheme enables the customs tariff regime to be responsive to policy changes and calibrations and does so in this very practical way. Those officers who implement the scheme are given the necessary protections while the proposals are operative, which is essential. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 1) was tabled in the House on 11 February 2009 and created a new concessional item 41H. This item provides duty-free entry into Australia for goods for use in the testing, quality control, manufacturing evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia but not necessarily manufactured in Australia. The item will encourage automotive manufacturers to undertake design and engineering work for the international automotive market and will reduce administrative costs in importing such equipment. Anything that can help to reduce administrative costs has to be a good thing for business and a good thing for research and development. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) 2009 was tabled in the House of Representatives on 25 February 2009. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) increased rates of customs duty for certain alcohol and tobacco products applicable to goods imported under the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement Implementation) Act 2008 gave effect to the Australia-Chile Free Trade Agreement but did not take into account the subsequent alterations to the customs tariff as a result of the February 2009 CPI increases and increased duty for certain spirit based alcoholic beverages known as alcopops—a matter we have debated at length in this place. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) 2009 was tabled in the House of Representatives on 16 September 2009. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) increased rates of customs duty for certain beer and grape wine products as a consequence of the August 2009 CPI increases. We needed Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) so that there would not be loss of government revenue and discrepancies between imported and domestically manufactured alcohol and tobacco products. In closing, I can say that the successful passage of this bill would enable the amended duty rates to be incorporated into the customs tariff prior to February 2010 and provide the certainty that is required for importers. That is an important thing. We have to have that certainty. It is an exacting business, importing and exporting, and all the importers and exporters that I talk to always mention certainty. A lot of them also talk about having a single window. If you have a look, Madam Deputy Speaker, at what has to be navigated in the whole area of import and export, you will see that it is quite an exacting business, with all the things that have to be done. Through my work as Chair of the Trade Subcommittee of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade, I get to meet a lot of exporters and importers—all the various groups—so I have had extensive conversations with people who are doing this. Anything that we can do to bring further certainty to that area is welcome. I welcome this amending bill for the reasons that I have outlined—that it brings certainty, it gives legislative effect to the proposals that were tabled in the House earlier this year and it makes sure that the customs officers who implement those proposals are given the legislative certainty that is required within that particular time frame. With those comments, I commend the bill to the House. 12429 16:18:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —in reply—I understand that the member for Kennedy was hoping to speak. That would have been preferable, but unfortunately he is not in a position to do so right now. I thank those members who have contributed to this debate, including the shadow minister, who spoke some time ago, and the member for Page. The Customs Tariff Amendment (Incorporation of Proposals) Bill 2009 contains several amendments to the Customs Tariff Act 1995 that were included in three customs tariff proposals that were tabled in the House of Representatives during this year. The successful passage of this bill through the parliament will enable the formal incorporation of the alterations contained in these proposals in the customs tariff. New item 41H provides duty-free entry for goods for use in testing, quality control, manufacturing evaluation or engineering development of motor vehicles designed or engineered in Australia but not necessarily manufactured in Australia. This new item benefits the automotive manufacturing industry. Recent legislation passed by the parliament to amend the customs tariff did not include subsequent increases in duty rates for certain alcohol and tobacco products. Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 2) and Customs Tariff Proposal (No. 4) were tabled in the House of Representatives to apply rates of duty to these goods to reflect these increased rates. Without this action, there would have been a loss of government revenue and discrepancies between imported and domestically manufactured alcohol and tobacco products. I conclude by thanking those who have contributed to the debate. I understand the opposition is supportive of the bill. I commend it to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 12429 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR (Gorton —Minister for Home Affairs) 16:21:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 12430 Business 12430 Mr McMULLAN (Fraser —Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) 16:21:00 —I move: That order of the day No. 5, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 12430 Bills R4067 12430 Consideration resumed from 29 October. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Schedule 1, item 1, page 3 (line 8), omit “AusCheck scheme”. (2)    Schedule 1, item 2, page 3 (lines 14 to 16), omit “performed in relation to the individual for a purpose referred to in subparagraph 8(c)(i), (ii), (iii), (iv), (v) or (vi)”, substitute “conducted in relation to the individual under an Act or legislative instrument referred to in subparagraph 8(1)(b)(i) or (ii) for a purpose referred to in paragraph 8(2)(a), (b), (c), or (d)”. (3)    Schedule 1, items 6 and 7, page 3 (line 27) to page 4 (line 10), omit the items, substitute: 6 Section 8 Repeal the section, substitute: 8 Establishment of AusCheck scheme          (1)    The regulations may provide for the establishment of a scheme (the AusCheck scheme) relating to the conduct and coordination of background checks of individuals if:               (a)    any of the following laws requires or permits a background check to be conducted of an individual for specified purposes:                     (i)    the Aviation Transport Security Act 2004 or regulations under that Act;                    (ii)    the Maritime Transport and Offshore Facilities Security Act 2003 or regulations under that Act; or               (b)    any other Act (other than this Act) expressly:                     (i)    requires or permits a background check of an individual to be conducted under the AusCheck scheme for purposes specified in the Act; or                    (ii)    provides for the making of a legislative instrument requiring or permitting a background check of an individual to be conducted under the AusCheck scheme for purposes specified in the Act.          (2)    If paragraph (1)(b) applies, the background check must be conducted for purposes related to:               (a)    Australia’s national security; or               (b)    the defence of Australia; or               (c)    a national emergency; or               (d)    the prevention of conduct to which Part 5.3 of Chapter 5 of the Criminal Code (which deals with terrorism) applies. 7 Saving of regulations Despite the amendment made by item 6, regulations in force for the purposes of section 8 of the AusCheck Act 2007 immediately before the commencement of this item continue in effect, after that commencement, as if they had been made for the purposes of that section, as in force after that commencement. (4)    Schedule 1, page 5 (after line 2), after item 10, insert: 10A Division 1 of Part 3 (heading) Repeal the heading, substitute: Division 1 — Collection, retention, use and disclosure of information (5)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 9), after “conducted”, insert “under the AusCheck scheme”. (6)    Schedule 1, item 12, page 5 (line 13), after “conducted”, insert “under the AusCheck scheme”. (7)    Schedule 1, item 14, page 5 (line 28) to page 6 (line 16), omit the item, substitute: 14 Subsection 14(1) Omit “, including AusCheck scheme personal information,”, substitute “(other than identity verification information)”.          Note 1:   The heading to section 14 is altered by inserting “and disclosure” after “use”.          Note 2:   The following heading to subsection 14(1) is inserted “Establishment of AusCheck database”. 14A Subsection 14(2) After “individual” (first occurring), insert “(other than identity verification information)”.          Note:      The following heading to subsection 14(2) is inserted “Use and disclosure of AusCheck personal information other than identity verification information”. (8)    Schedule 1, item 17, page 6 (line 33), omit “Identity verification information about an individual”, substitute “AusCheck scheme personal information about an individual that is identity verification information”. (9)    Schedule 1, item 19, page 7 (lines 5 and 6), omit the item, substitute: 19 After section 14 Insert: 14A Special rule relating to collection, retention, use and disclosure of identity verification information by AusCheck staff members                   Despite sections 13 and 14, those sections only authorise the collection, retention, use and disclosure by the Secretary or an AusCheck staff member of identity verification information about an individual in relation to whom a background check is being or has been conducted, if the collection, retention, use or disclosure is directly necessary for the purpose of:               (a)    passing the information to a Commonwealth, State or Territory body, agency or organisation that is responsible for, or deals with, law enforcement, criminal intelligence, criminal investigation, fraud or security intelligence in, or in a part of, Australia for the purpose of that body, agency or organisation verifying the identity of the individual for the purposes of the background check; or               (b)    providing the information to the individual. 20 After subsection 15(1) Insert:       (1A)    A person commits an offence if:               (a)    the person obtains information; and               (b)    the information is AusCheck scheme personal information; and               (c)    the person discloses the information to someone else. Penalty:  Imprisonment for 2 years. 21 Subsection 15(2) After “(1)”, insert “or (1A)”. 22 After paragraph 15(2)(c) Insert:             (ca)    if the information is AusCheck scheme personal information—a disclosure that is:                     (i)    taken to be authorised under section 13; or                    (ii)    authorised under section 14; or                   (iii)    required or authorised by or under another law; 12431 16:22:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. In explaining those amendments can I say that, under the AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009, as it currently stands, background checks can only be undertaken in relation to Aviation and Maritime Security Identification Card schemes. The main purpose of this bill is to amend the AusCheck Act to provide a capacity for the Attorney-General’s Department to conduct background checks for national security purposes. The bill does not impose any requirement for any person to have a national security background check. Rather, it would give the Attorney-General’s Department the capacity to conduct such checks in line with any future government decisions. The government amendments to the bill respond to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I thank the committee for their deliberations. The amendments respond to four of the six recommendations made by the Senate committee and address privacy concerns raised by the Law Council of Australia and the Australian Privacy Foundation during the Senate committee inquiry. The amendments clarify that new national security background checking regimes must be authorised by an act of parliament, other than the AusCheck Act. The bill is another important step forward in the government’s commitment to improving national security, within a transparent framework that respects rights and the rule of law. Question agreed to. 12432 Bills R4028 12432 Consideration resumed from 27 October. Senate’s amendments— (1)    Clause 2, page 2 (table items 3 to 5), omit the table items, substitute: 3. Schedule 5 The 28th day after this Act receives the Royal Assent. (2)    Schedule 2, item 2, page 6 (line 12), omit “had been made by”, substitute “were a judgment or order of”. (3)    Schedule 2, item 4, page 6 (lines 22 and 23), omit “had been made by”, substitute “were a judgment or order of”. (4)    Schedule 5, page 12 (after line 11), after item 1, insert: 1A Subsection 90G(1) Omit “A”, substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), a”. (5)    Schedule 5, item 2, page 12 (lines 14 to 22), omit paragraph 90G(1)(b), substitute:               (b)    before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party and about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to that party of making the agreement; and               (c)    either before or after signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that the advice referred to in paragraph (b) was provided to that party (whether or not the statement is annexed to the agreement); and             (ca)    a copy of the statement referred to in paragraph (c) that was provided to a spouse party is given to the other spouse party or to a legal practitioner for the other spouse party; and (6)    Schedule 5, page 12 (after line 26), after item 4, insert: 4A After subsection 90G(1) Insert:       (1A)    A financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement if:               (a)    the agreement is signed by all parties; and               (b)    one or more of paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (ca) are not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and               (c)    a court is satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not binding on the spouse parties to the agreement (disregarding any changes in circumstances from the time the agreement was made); and               (d)    the court makes an order under subsection (1B) declaring that the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement; and               (e)    the agreement has not been terminated and has not been set aside by a court.        (1B)    For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(d), a court may make an order declaring that a financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement, upon application (the enforcement application) by a spouse party seeking to enforce the agreement.        (1C)    To avoid doubt, section 90KA applies in relation to the enforcement application. 4B Subsection 90J(2) Omit “A”, substitute “Subject to subsection (2A), a”. (7)    Schedule 5, item 5, page 12 (line 29) to page 13 (line 5), omit paragraph 90J(2)(b), substitute:               (b)    before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party and about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to that party of making the agreement; and               (c)    either before or after signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that the advice referred to in paragraph (b) was provided to that party (whether or not the statement is annexed to the agreement); and             (ca)    a copy of the statement referred to in paragraph (c) that was provided to a spouse party is given to the other spouse party or to a legal practitioner for the other spouse party; and (8)    Schedule 5, page 13 (after line 9), after item 7, insert: 7A After subsection 90J(2) Insert:       (2A)    A termination agreement is binding on the parties if:               (a)    the agreement is signed by all parties to the agreement; and               (b)    one or more of paragraphs (2)(b), (c) and (ca) are not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and               (c)    a court is satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not binding on the spouse parties to the agreement (disregarding any changes in circumstances from the time the agreement was made); and               (d)    the court makes an order under subsection (2B) declaring that the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement; and               (e)    the agreement has not been set aside by a court.        (2B)    For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(d), a court may make an order declaring that a termination agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement, upon application (the enforcement application) by a spouse party seeking to enforce the agreement.        (2C)    To avoid doubt, section 90KA applies in relation to the enforcement application. (9)    Schedule 5, item 8, page 13 (line 11), omit “2 to 7”, substitute “1A to 7A”. (10)  Schedule 5, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of item 8, add: (3)    If, before the commencement of this item, a court has made an order under section 79 or 83 of the Family Law Act 1975 on the basis that an agreement did not bind the spouses, then, after the commencement of this item, the agreement is taken not to bind them. (4)    For a financial agreement made before 14 January 2004, paragraph 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 2 of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90G(1)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about:                     (i)    the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; and                    (ii)    whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; and                   (iii)    whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; and                   (iv)    whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable; and (5)    For a termination agreement made before 14 January 2004, paragraph 90J(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 5 of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90J(2)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about:                     (i)    the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; and                    (ii)    whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; and                   (iii)    whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; and                   (iv)    whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable; and (6)    For a financial agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraphs 90G(1)(c) and (ca) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 2 of this Schedule, do not apply. (7)    For a financial agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraph 90G(1A)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 4A of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90G(1A)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    paragraph (1)(b) is not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and (8)    For a termination agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraphs 90J(2)(c) and (ca) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 5 of this Schedule, do not apply. (9)    For a termination agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraph 90J(2A)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 7A of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90J(2A)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    paragraph (2)(b) is not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and (11)  Schedule 5, Part 1, page 13 (after line 16), at the end of the Part, add: 8A Transitional—agreements made on or after 14 January 2004 and before commencement (1)    Subitems (2) and (3) apply in relation to a financial agreement made on or after 14 January 2004 and before the commencement of this item. (2)    Paragraph 90G(1)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as in force during that period, is also taken to be satisfied in relation to a spouse in relation to the agreement if, before signing the agreement, the spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about:               (a)    the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; and               (b)    whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; and               (c)    whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; and               (d)    whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable. (3)    Paragraph 90G(1)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by this Act, applies in relation to the agreement as if the reference in that paragraph to the advice referred to in paragraph (b) included a reference to the advice referred to in subitem (2) of this item. (4)    Subitems (5) and (6) apply in relation to a termination agreement made on or after 14 January 2004 and before the commencement of this item. (5)    Paragraph 90J(2)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as in force during that period, is also taken to be satisfied in relation to a spouse in relation to the agreement if, before signing the agreement, the spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about:               (a)    the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party; and               (b)    whether or not, at the time when the advice was provided, it was to the advantage, financially or otherwise, of that party to make the agreement; and               (c)    whether or not, at that time, it was prudent for that party to make the agreement; and               (d)    whether or not, at that time and in the light of such circumstances as were, at that time, reasonably foreseeable, the provisions of the agreement were fair and reasonable. (6)    Paragraph 90J(2)(c) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by this Act, applies in relation to the agreement as if the reference in that paragraph to the advice referred to in paragraph (b) included a reference to the advice referred to in subitem (5) of this item. (7)    This item does not apply in relation to an agreement if, before the commencement of this item, a court has made an order setting aside the agreement. (12)  Schedule 5, page 14 (after line 10), after item 9, insert: 9A Subsection 90UJ(1) Omit “A”, substitute “Subject to subsection (1A), a”. (13)  Schedule 5, item 10, page 14 (lines 13 to 21), omit paragraph 90UJ(1)(b), substitute:               (b)    before signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the effect of the agreement on the rights of that party and about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to that party of making the agreement; and               (c)    either before or after signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that the advice referred to in paragraph (b) was provided to that party (whether or not the statement is annexed to the agreement); and             (ca)    a copy of the statement referred to in paragraph (c) that was provided to a spouse party is given to the other spouse party or to a legal practitioner for the other spouse party; and (14)  Schedule 5, page 14 (after line 25), after item 12, insert: 12A After subsection 90UJ(1) Insert:       (1A)    A Part VIIIAB financial agreement (other than an agreement covered by section 90UE) is binding on the parties to the agreement if:               (a)    the agreement is signed by all parties; and               (b)    one or more of paragraphs (1)(b), (c) and (ca) are not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and               (c)    a court is satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the agreement were not binding on the spouse parties to the agreement (disregarding any changes in circumstances from the time the agreement was made); and               (d)    the court makes an order under subsection (1B) declaring that the agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement; and               (e)    the agreement has not been terminated and has not been set aside by a court.        (1B)    For the purposes of paragraph (1A)(d), a court may make an order declaring that a Part VIIIAB financial agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement, upon application (the enforcement application) by a spouse party seeking to enforce the agreement.        (1C)    To avoid doubt, section 90UN applies in relation to the enforcement application. 12B Subsection 90UL(2) Omit “A”, substitute “Subject to subsection (2A), a”. (15)  Schedule 5, item 13, page 14 (line 28) to page 15 (line 4), omit paragraph 90UL(2)(b), substitute:               (b)    before signing the termination agreement, each spouse party was provided with independent legal advice from a legal practitioner about the effect of the termination agreement on the rights of that party and about the advantages and disadvantages, at the time that the advice was provided, to that party of making the termination agreement; and               (c)    either before or after signing the agreement, each spouse party was provided with a signed statement by the legal practitioner stating that the advice referred to in paragraph (b) was provided to that party (whether or not the statement is annexed to the termination agreement); and             (ca)    a copy of the statement referred to in paragraph (c) that was provided to a spouse party is given to the other spouse party or to a legal practitioner for the other spouse party; and (16)  Schedule 5, page 15 (after line 8), after item 15, insert: 15A After subsection 90UL(2) Insert:       (2A)    A Part VIIIAB termination agreement is binding on the parties if:               (a)    the termination agreement is signed by all parties to the Part VIIIAB financial agreement; and               (b)    one or more of paragraphs (2)(b), (c) and (ca) are not satisfied in relation to the termination agreement; and               (c)    a court is satisfied that it would be unjust and inequitable if the termination agreement were not binding on the spouse parties to the agreement (disregarding any changes in circumstances from the time the agreement was made); and               (d)    the court makes an order under subsection (2B) declaring that the termination agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement; and               (e)    the termination agreement has not been set aside by a court.        (2B)    For the purposes of paragraph (2A)(d), a court may make an order declaring that a Part VIIIAB termination agreement is binding on the parties to the agreement, upon application (the enforcement application) by a spouse party seeking to enforce the agreement.        (2C)    To avoid doubt, section 90UN applies in relation to the enforcement application. (17)  Schedule 5, item 17, page 15 (line 26), omit “10 to 15”, substitute “9A to 15A”. (18)  Schedule 5, page 15 (after line 34), at the end of item 17, add: (3)    If, before the commencement of this item, a court has made an order under section 90SI or 90SM of the Family Law Act 1975 on the basis that an agreement did not bind the spouse parties, then, after the commencement of this item, the agreement is taken not to bind them. (4)    For an agreement made under section 90UB, 90UC or 90UD of the Family Law Act 1975 before the commencement of this item, paragraphs 90UJ(1)(c) and (ca) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 10 of this Schedule, do not apply. (5)    For an agreement made under section 90UB, 90UC or 90UD of the Family Law Act 1975 before the commencement of this item, paragraph 90UJ(1A)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 12A of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90UJ(1A)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    paragraph (1)(b) is not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and (6)    For a Part VIIIAB termination agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraphs 90UL(2)(c) and (ca) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 13 of this Schedule, do not apply. (7)    For a Part VIIIAB termination agreement made before the commencement of this item, paragraph 90UL(2A)(b) of the Family Law Act 1975, as inserted by item 15A of this Schedule, does not apply and the following paragraph 90UL(2A)(b) of that Act is taken to have been inserted by that item and to apply instead:               (b)    paragraph (2)(b) is not satisfied in relation to the agreement; and 12437 16:25:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —Federal Justice System Amendment (Efficiency Measures) Bill (No. 1) 2008 contains a number of measures to improve the efficient operation of federal courts. It demonstrates the Government’s commitment to making the federal courts more flexible, minimising the costs of litigation and improving access to the civil justice system for all Australians.  The bill will give the Federal Court power to refer proceedings, or a question in a proceeding to a referee for report will enable the court to more effectively manage large litigation. This procedural flexibility, combined with the referee’s specialist expertise, will allow the referee to quickly get to the core of the technical issues and reduce cost and delay for litigants, the courts and ultimately the taxpaying community. This measure unquestionably will assist in resolving a number of disputes, but in particular substantial commercial disputes will be resolved more quickly and efficiently. The bill will also give the Federal Court jurisdiction concurrent with the state and territory supreme Courts under the International Arbitration Act 1974, which will assist in ensuring that the Federal Court is well placed to operate as a regional hub for commercial arbitration. Government amendments correct a minor technical point to clarify that awards will be enforceable in the federal courts as if they were a judgment or order of the Federal Court. The bill also responds to concerns about the validity of binding financial agreements, commonly known as pre nuptial agreements, following the decision of the full Family Court in the case of Black and Black. Government amendments provide greater certainty in relation to this issue. In conclusion, the amendments in this bill reflect the government’s strong commitment to ensuring that the federal civil justice system is operating as efficiently and effectively as possible and is responsive to the needs of litigants, the courts and the community. That the amendments be agreed to. Question agreed to. 12438 Bills R4195 12438 Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Mr Marles: That this bill be now read a second time. 12438 16:25:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —As the shadow minister for, amongst other things, youth I rise for a second time in this place to outline in the strongest possible terms the coalition’s objections to this legislation and to detail the reasons behind our opposition to the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. Firstly, let me make one point very clear: that the introduction of this bill and the provisions within it represent a clear and unequivocal breaking of a very clear commitment by the Labor Party. At a doorstop in May 2007 the then shadow minister for education said: ‘I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee.’ That was May 2007, just five months before the last election was called, and Labor categorically said it was not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. But, like so many other election promises, that has fallen by the wayside. In February 2008, just a few months after they were elected, Labor set up their review into the impact of voluntary student unionism, which obviously as we know with these sorts of reviews was designed to give them an excuse, an opportunity, to do what they really wanted to do all along, and what we knew and what so many students knew was the real agenda of the Labor Party: to reintroduce a compulsory fee. It is one of a long list of promises made; made because the Labor Party would say and do anything after so many years in opposition to win; made to be broken. I have come across a whole raft of these policies in my other portfolio areas of responsibility of early childhood education, child care and women, but also we see them right across the spectrum of government responsibility. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 should be relabelled more accurately the ‘Slug all students so as to prop up failing student unions bill’ because that is exactly what this bill is really designed to do. Despite what the minister says, this legislation is a lifeline for unrepresentative student unions that need compulsorily acquired funds to survive, because they do not have the confidence or they could not be bothered to appeal to students to pay to become members voluntarily. It is an attempt to breathe life back into these old-style student unions, many of which were corrupt and many of which had huge administrative costs that fell apart when the substantial and steady flow of funds they enjoyed with very little accountability under compulsory student unionism dried up as a result of the Howard government giving back power to young adults smart enough and hard-working enough to get a place at a tertiary institution, giving them the choice to decide whether or not it was in their interests to join a student union. That was, of course, through the landmark Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. I was one of many members to speak in support of that bill in 2005. As I noted at the time, I had campaigned for the very important principle of voluntary student unionism for all of my political life. I make no secret of that fact today. It was just as offensive when I was 18 to be forced to pay student union fees and for students from not wealthy backgrounds, with their limited resources, to be forced to pay compulsory student union fees when they could have put that money to better and more important use. So I make no apologies for that. We have currently a global financial crisis, with students being forced to work extra hours in order to qualify for the youth allowance. We have seen an extraordinary rise in youth unemployment, so, more than ever, it is important for students to have greater disposable income that they can control—not income that is diverted for the political and the social priorities of a small group of student politicians. This legislation is obviously a step backwards. For all of Labor’s talk about an education revolution, this legislation is simply a return to the good old days when unions ran all sorts of services on campus and played their political games courtesy of funds siphoned from their fellow students who did not have any choice in that matter. I have heard this criticism time and time again from those on the other side who say, ‘You and all those other Liberals were involved as student politicians on campus.’ Of course we were, courtesy of what we believed and the values that we held—not because we were getting some sort of free ride and some sort of carte blanche because of compulsorily acquired union fees. In fact, the very existence of those fees drove and motivated many of us to stand up for freedom, to stand up for what we believed in. Just because someone chooses voluntarily to be one of those few Australians to actually engage directly in political activity on campus, it does not make them, for one moment, a supporter of compulsory student unionism. Once again, with this legislation we see that students have choice taken away from them. Universities will be able to charge this $250 fee as a compulsory condition of enrolment. Once again, with this legislation student unions will be able to receive the funds they crave for the purpose of providing so-called ‘supported advocacy services’ whether that be administrative support for clubs and societies or the dissemination of student media, both of which are in the proposed guidelines. Once again, student unions or guilds or whatever other name they may have at a particular campus will be able to spend those fees as they see fit, without any real oversight or reporting. We see that the Minister for Youth and Minister for Sport has been given the carriage of this legislation, I assume in order to give it a softer, less sinister look than might be the case if the Deputy Prime Minister had been arguing it. The minister has told the House that, ‘The bill is not a return to student unionism.’ Come on, let us get real. Let us be clear. Saying it does not make it so. The Prime Minister may think that saying something makes it so but there is a reality out there and saying so, Minister, will not make it so. With this legislation, in all probability students’ money will be used for highly political purposes, despite what the minister says. You would expect her to say that. The guidelines which underpin this legislation are so broad that they basically mean this fee can be used for whatever purpose is seen fit. I am sure there are very many creative political minds on campus that will be able to facilitate this. The minister’s one assurance when she announced this plan in November last year was that the legislation would prohibit money being spent for political purposes. Let us have a look at the details of this so-called promise. The only political activities expressly prohibited by the legislation are: support for political parties, and support for the election of a person as a member of a Commonwealth, state or territory legislature or local government body. That is a pretty narrow description. It still leaves a large range of political activities, including funding campaigns against legislation and policies, and potentially against political parties obviously, or funding for campaigns for direct elections to the student union. So the university could decide to give the student union a substantial sum for the provision of—let us say—student media and the resultant newspaper could contain all manner of political messages and campaigns. That would be okay because that fits in with ‘…in student media’. The union could receive money to provide so-called administrative support for clubs and societies and use that money to fund the wages of someone they employ to do that, but who actually spends their time campaigning for the re-election of the union president. That would not be the first time that these paid student union positions have been used for such political purposes. This bill would allow exactly that to happen. Many of the services listed on the guidelines are currently provided by either the government, private sector or universities. The list includes things such as food and beverages which can be—and are—largely provided by the private sector, child care which is already heavily subsidised by the Australian taxpayer, legal services, health care and employment services—all services currently provided by the government. The union could ostensibly receive funds to provide important so-called services, but we all know how much of those funds have been and can be eaten up in administration costs. Before voluntary student unionism, Monash University collected over $8.5 million in compulsory fees in one year and a whopping 15 per cent of that went in administration costs. You work that out, Mr Deputy Speaker: 56 per cent of $8.5 million went in administration costs. One wonders whether there were 24 hours of truth in having a look at the accounts of that university and at how that 56 per cent in administration costs were broken up. I am sure that we would find many amusing items funded and certainly some very imaginative titles for that funding. In short, the minister has failed to deliver on her promise that this new massive $250 million fund will not be used for political purposes. She has failed to provide any protection whatsoever against militant student unionism. The minister will point to the guidelines as some sort of guarantee but they are not worth the paper they are written on, and she knows that. If she does not know that, she should know that. The content of the guidelines becomes largely irrelevant because this bill does not provide for a system of monitoring or policing whether or not universities comply with the guidelines. There will be no reporting system by which the education minister can ensure that the quarter of a billion dollars, collected through the new tax, will be spent appropriately. It will essentially be up to individual students to become whistleblowers and to raise any concerns they might have about how their amenities fee is being spent. Even if they can prove a breach, it will then be at the minister’s discretion whether any penalty should be imposed. Can you honestly imagine a Labor minister having to hold to account a Labor student union president? You can imagine the weird factional deal: the minister could be from the left, the student union president would be from the right and there would be huge discussions and machinations behind closed doors about how to save the bacon and the reputation of the student union president. It does not work in the big playground of the Labor Party. How is it going work at the student union sandpit level? It will not work. We have seen how dysfunctional the Labor Party is, particularly the New South Wales Labor Party. They have no shame. Look at the deals they do with developers. Look at how they run the states. Look at the contracts they give left, right and centre. It smells in the big party and it will smell even more in the sandpit of politics, because what do many of these student politicians see? They see their heroes who are not held accountable in the federal parliament or in the state parliaments around the country, and so why should they be held accountable? In that there is some consistency. The minister will be able to table any changes she wishes to the guidelines—and that makes a joke of them as well—and it will be up to the minister as to whether or not any action will be taken against those not following the guidelines. This is a joke. It is like the incessant consultation that this government has. They consult on this issue and that issue but, when you look beneath the surface, it is not really consultation. When you look beneath the surface it is just window-dressing, because they want to make it look as though they care what people think. They do not care what people think. They have an agenda and they will push it, and that is exactly what the minister is doing with this legislation. Did I mention, Mr Deputy Speaker, which minister that would be? It is not the one presenting this bill; the minister responsible for the Higher Education Act will wield all this power—none other than the Deputy Prime Minister. The Deputy Prime Minister is a long-time advocate of compulsory student unionism. She grew up politically within that system, and so you would expect her to quite naturally support that system. There are many reasons to oppose this legislation. It represents a broken promise by the government. The guidelines that underpin this scheme are very wide ranging. There will, in effect, be no reporting or accountability to ensure that the funds collected are genuinely spent on student services. But perhaps many will say that the very best reason to oppose this legislation is that the $250 slug will be imposed at a time when students and their families are under considerable financial stress. Many university students often work several jobs and exist on a shoestring budget. They often live on a diet of two-minute noodles just to survive and to afford basic accommodation, food, education and living expenses. This fee is effectively an extra up-front cost, an additional burden, an additional tax on education which will inevitably grow and compound over time. Research has shown that this sort of regressive fee hits those of low socioeconomic backgrounds the hardest. You do not need to be an economic genius to work that one out. These students are the ones who have to work harder and longer to put themselves through university. They do not have the luxury of additional time to play political games for 10, 20, 30 or 40 hours a week or to indulge in afternoon after afternoon of free drinks down at the union bar. The truth of the matter is that campus life is not what it was in the sixties, seventies or even eighties. Times have changed. Most of today’s university students live and work in local communities. They are members of their local sporting clubs and community organisations. They do not rely solely on campus activities or services. These students see university as a place of learning; they have highly developed social and community links before they even set foot on campus. The vast majority of students are at university to gain an academic qualification to help them get a job, to give them that financial freedom to get on with their lives and to carve out a life that they wish for themselves and their future family. They should not be forced to pay for services or amenities they do not want and, in the case of over 130,000 external students, may never have the opportunity to use. Many university students choose to be part of sporting clubs, associations and community activities situated off campus for which they do pay a fee. Why should they subsidise the activities of those on campus? Why? If the university gym is genuinely better than their local gym, and cheaper and more practical, then they can switch and pay for that service, just as you would expect them to do, but why should they subsidise this choice for others? Most importantly, at a time when the financial situation of students is becoming increasingly difficult and getting an education is their top priority, why should the choice to spend $250 on textbooks, on the internet or on other academic purposes be taken away from students? If universities are genuinely struggling to provide the basics for students like access to food and beverages then the government ought to take a close look at increasing university funding. They have plenty of money to splash around—$16.6 billion alone is being squandered on the ‘Julia Gillard memorial school hall’ program. Surely they can help out any university which is genuinely struggling. Why do struggling university students have to pay for this government’s economic mismanagement? Perhaps they think direct government payments to prop up student unions would look too much like payback or a bit of paid training for their future politicians. As we know, the student unions have been very kind to the Labor Party with the National Union of Students finding a whopping $250,000 to fund its campaign against the Howard government at the 2004 election. And if that money had been collected by those who had voluntarily joined and paid their union membership fees, I would not have a problem, but it was not; it was part of compulsorily acquired union funds used for such blatant political purposes. Whichever way you look at it, this legislation is compulsory unionism by stealth and the students have voted with their feet on whether they want to be part of a union. Since voluntary student unionism was introduced, membership of student unions has fallen substantially. Why? Because students do not deem that it is in their interests to join. It is quite simple. They are adults and they can make that decision. You may not agree with it if you are on the other side of the House, but why do you deny them the right to make that choice? We have seen that despite dropping their fees from $590 to $99, the University of Sydney has seen student membership fall to 30 per cent; Deakin University student union membership fell to just 17 per cent; Monash University dropped their fees from a whopping $441.20 to just $55 and still their membership fell to just 10 per cent of students; RMIT dropped fees from $500 to $80, yet their union membership fell to just two per cent; La Trobe University, seven per cent; the University of Melbourne, nine per cent; and, the University of Adelaide, six per cent. Interestingly, the University of Western Australia kept their fees at the same level and their membership remained steady at 60 per cent, mainly because, due to state legislation, they have had a system of voluntary student unionism for many years and it seems from their membership figures that they have been able to respond better than others. So to suggest that voluntary student unionism can work and that union membership can be maintained is quite doable. We have seen that from Western Australia because the union there offers services that are deemed worth while. The fact is that the Howard government provided over $52 million to help universities through the transition and universities are continuing to receive that money this year. We recognised that there would be a transition and that universities would have to adapt. But instead of continuing with this reform—we know this Labor government is frightened of reform; they do not even know how to spell the word, let alone try to engage in some meaningful reform—Labor has said, ‘Let’s turn back the clock, let’s go for the mediocre, let’s take the easy path, let’s go back to the good old days, let’s compel students to pay for something they don’t want and quite often they don’t use. Let’s help out those student union friends of ours who are struggling to adapt to the brave new world of accountability. Let’s go back to creating a nice little cash flow for them with no accountability and no consequences, because at the end of the day they are part of our broader family.’ That is what this legislation is about and that is why the coalition strongly oppose this bill. And no matter what the minister may say, no matter what assurances she may give, we know and students out there know that they are empty assurances. The bottom line is this. This minister and this government are treating university students, intelligent thinking adults, with absolute contempt for the simple reason that it does not suit their political agenda and their political ideology, no matter how outdated that ideology is. There are some on the other side I know who do not agree with compulsory student unionism but they would not dare raise their head. They would not dare speak against the old style orthodoxy, but I encourage all fair members of this House, on this side and on the other side, to think very carefully about this bill and what it actually does, to realise we are in the 21st century and the way students study, the way they socialise, the way they play sport, the way they access services has changed. Their expectations have changed and their costs have changed. Compulsory student unionism will try to drag us back to the bad old days. I encourage all fair-minded members to think about this, to have respect and a bit of compassion for struggling students and to reject this bill. Debate (on motion by Mr McClelland) adjourned. 12444 Miscellaneous 12444 16:52:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I present the following document: AusCheck Amendment Bill 2009—Summing up speech, House of Representatives. 12444 Committees 12444 12444 10000 Secker, Patrick (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr PD Secker)—The Speaker has received advice from Mr Katter that he wishes to resign as a member of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs. Mr McMULLAN (Fraser —Parliamentary Secretary for International Development Assistance) 16:52:00 —by leave—I move: That Mr Katter be discharged from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs.             Question agreed to. 12444 Bills R4195 12444 Debate resumed from 9 September, on motion by Mr Marles: That this bill be now read a second time. 12444 16:53:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I speak in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. A previous bill, in similar form, was defeated in the Senate in August. I say that with sadness and regret because this bill is necessary to assist in the proper running of universities, to give students access to the kinds of services they need. Regrettably, the defeat of the previous bill showed that the coalition has not moved on since the battles so many of them fought in the sixties, seventies and eighties at universities across the country. Their opposition to this legislation is ideologically driven and not evidence-based. You can see that from the words that dripped from the mouth of the member for Indi, from the sarcasm and satire that came from her when she was talking about this issue. This opposition is really not about student needs; it is about the coalition being ideologically driven by an opposition to one word. That word is ‘union’. The coalition’s attitude to the university sector was clearly evident with its absolute desire to impose Work Choices on the sector, linking university funding entirely to the imposition of AWAs on lecturers, tutors and administrative staff. That is the coalition’s response to the challenges and difficulties in funding and maintaining a viable tertiary sector in this country. So the legislation here is not being opposed because it is bad legislation. It is being opposed because of the extreme conservative position that has been held for decades by so many opposite. The legislation is about restoring equity, accessibility and accountability to the university sector and is about helping students, particularly those in regional and rural areas. It is an absolute shame that at various conferences the National Party passed resolutions to support the compulsory nature of assistance to university students and opposed this type of legislation earlier this year. They know full well that the services provided by student unions in universities located at Cairns, Townsville, Rockhampton, Ipswich, Toowoomba and elsewhere are vital in the areas of physiotherapy, child care, sport, recreation, culture and legal services. They are critical. The coalition was driven by conservative ideology in its imposition of voluntary student unionism in the university sector. That came to a head in 2005 when we saw the coalition’s Higher Education Support Amendment (Abolition of Compulsory Up-front Student Union Fees) Bill 2005. It effectively resulted in a university association, union or guild being prevented from charging a compulsory fee for facilities, amenities and services that were not of an academic nature. Students go to universities to do tutorials, attend lectures and engage in research but there are other aspects of university life. Many of them are at colleges and come from rural areas like Cunnamulla, Charleville, Birdsville, Mount Isa and Weipa in rural Queensland. They also attend universities at places like Rockhampton, Cairns, Townsville, Ipswich and Toowoomba. Many of those students live on campus or live with other students in rented accommodation close by and they use the university for all aspects of their recreational, sporting and cultural lives and in pursuit of the arts. They need assistance because often they are away from mum, dad, family and friends who would normally provide that kind of assistance. They might have played football, basketball, netball or hockey, or might have sung in the local choral society or the local rock band. It is university which gives them the opportunity to be involved in these types of activities. The Howard government knew when it passed its legislation back in 2005 that there would be problems. To assuage the National Party and Senator Fielding, transitional assistance of about $100 million was given to universities through three competitive funding programs. If the Howard government believed its voluntary student unionism obsession was not going to have an adverse impact upon university services and student services at regional and rural universities, why did it provide transitional assistance? Why did it listen at that stage to the National Party and provide that kind of assistance? They knew. The former Prime Minister John Howard and those people who sat at the cabinet table knew. They knew that student services in rural and remote areas, particularly in places like WA and Queensland, which are the most decentralised states, would suffer. That is why they provided that assistance. So do not come into this House and say, ‘It would make no impact,’ because the truth is it made an impact. We took to the last election a policy that we were going to restore campus amenities, restore services and make the system much better than it was. We are going to ensure that Work Choices is eradicated from the tertiary sector. But we are also going to ensure that student services are restored to what they were. That is what it is about: restoring the kinds of necessary services, such as medical and health assistance, physiotherapy and occupational therapy, sporting and cultural facilities, that universities once enjoyed and student unions provided free of charge to many of the people there. I think university unions do a great job. If we are going to say that we live in an independent, democratic and free society, they should be allowed to function in that way, free from interference and the dictates of obsessed, conservative governments who have an ideological opposition to them. Those sitting on the opposition benches must have very sad experiences at university because so much of their vitriol is aimed at, and so much of their time is spent attacking, student unions. Students in higher education need to get access to those amenities and services. They are crucial. They also need to get access to the kind of democratic student representation which is critical. The legislation we are discussing here, despite what the member for Indi had to say, is not about a return to compulsory student unionism. The legislation makes it clear. I wonder whether she actually bothered to read it. We are not changing, for example, section 19.37(1) of the Higher Education Support Act, which prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. That is not happening. We also have detailed guidelines, and it is very clear what they are about. We talk about such politically motivated activities as child care, legal services, clubs and societies, sport and recreation facilities, food and beverage provision. How can these things be considered to be politically motivated? How can they be considered to be the kinds of things that student unions should not provide? What is so wrong with those organisations providing them? The guidelines make it crystal clear that this fee cannot be used to support a political party or support a candidate for political office. They say it very clearly. The guidelines state that they ‘impose a similar prohibition on any person, including an organisation, who receives any such funds from the provider’ for doing so. It is there in black and white. The member for Indi must not have been looking at those guidelines clearly because she has not made reference to what the guidelines actually say in writing. The guidelines make the case clear. I think the university sector needs greater support. The government, unlike the previous Howard government, are engaging in greater support. We are delivering tremendous support through our Better Universities Renewal Fund. We provided universities with $500 million in 2008 to support infrastructure in key, priority areas. We are doing that with better libraries, laboratories, information technology, student places and student amenities. We have also increased childcare assistance to parents who are studying at university or TAFE—$23.9 million. The jobs, education and training childcare fee assistance has been extended from one year to two years and provides parents who are undertaking study, training and job search activities with flexible and low-cost childcare support. What did the coalition do in relation to those sorts of things? Did they invest to that extent? Did they give support in that way? They did not. A study has been undertaken, people have been consulted and an assessment has been made of the impact of the coalition’s obsession with voluntary student unionism. On November 2007, after one year of voluntary student unionism, we had a report prepared. It was done by the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association and Peter McDonald, a very important demographer. The report, entitled The i mpact of voluntary student unionism on services, amenities and representation for Australian university students: summary report, was based on evidence, not ideological obsession. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo —Obsession with freedom. HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr NEUMANN —This is what that summary report said, and it is worth noting for those opposite. A bit of evidence, a bit of empirical data, is what they need—not ideological obsession but evidence. 00AN0 Ciobo, Steven, MP Mr Ciobo interjecting— HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr NEUMANN —It might help the member for Moncrieff, who keeps injecting. It might give him some assistance. I suggest he sit back and just listen. We released this summary report. We undertook consultations from February 2008 and we invited submissions from stakeholders. The summary report says: Most submissions concluded that the abolition of upfront compulsory student union fees had impacted negatively on the provision of amenities and services to university students, with the greatest impact at smaller and regional universities and campuses. Many noted that the introduction of VSU had forced rationalisations, and that current levels of services were more limited than had previously been the case. In many instances, assistance was provided by the university but these funds were redirected from other uses such as teaching, learning or research. That was the case with the University of Queensland, Queensland University of Technology and other organisations. The University of Queensland, for example, had to redirect funds to help the student union with funding for sport because the costs had gone up enormously. That is the case across the country. The opposition should have a look at the study. I doubt whether they actually consulted it. It also found that there was a reduction of $166 million in funding from amenity and service fees, expected to rise to $200 million in 2009. It found that there was a loss of 1,000 jobs, a 30 per cent reduction in employment. How can those opposite say that they are committed to the sector, they are committed to jobs and training and they are committed to providing services for students at university when they presided over that? Those are the consequences of their obsession. This legislation really is good. It is about bringing back assistance to the sector. I have spoken to Pro-Vice-Chancellor Professor Alan Rix, from the University of Queensland Ipswich campus. I had a long conversation with him about this particular issue. In an email he sent to me, he had this to say: My personal view is that the guidelines in the area identified for support, including infrastructure, seem appropriate and would enable an institution to provide services accordingly. That is from someone in the sector, from the University of Queensland, who is held in high esteem—a pro-vice-chancellor, a well-known academic in Queensland and a well-respected person in the community. That is what he has to say about this. Do we hear those opposite quoting anyone from the sector? No, they spend their time deriding student unions and the people who stand up for the students who are struggling to get through university. They spend all their time casting aspersions upon them. We have got to provide solutions for more funding to go back into the sector. We recognised the negative impact of voluntary student unionism, and that is why this legislation came before the House and then the Senate earlier this year. Regrettably, because of their ideological opposition, those opposite opposed it in the House and voted it down in the Senate, and we can see from the shadow minister that they are going to do that again. That is really a shame. It shows that those opposite clearly do not support the sector—and we see that again in the legislation relating to income support for students that is currently before the Senate. The Deputy Prime Minister has talked about this as another example of the coalition not supporting the university sector and students who are struggling, particularly those from rural and regional areas. The Deputy Prime Minister has made it very clear that about 150,000 students who receive youth allowance will not get the proposed $2,254 start-up scholarships to help them meet the costs of their study if the legislation that is before the Senate is blocked, and students who would otherwise be eligible for a $4,000 relocation payment will not be able to receive this. These would be the consequences of the coalition’s behaviour and belief with respect to the university sector and students. The coalition say it is because they want to support choice, but we know what their view on choice and freedom is. Work Choices is the greatest example of the coalition’s belief in choice and freedom. It is freedom for the rich, but those who struggle, those from the working class and others who do it tough to get to university are on their own. That is the coalition’s attitude to university funding. As I have said, many universities—Griffith University, the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology—have said they have had to redirect funds from other avenues to their consolidated revenue, and other universities have had to use funds from research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall in funding for campus services. Without the passage of this legislation, we will see services decline further, and some, sadly, are likely to fold. I urge the National Party, who claim they are the party of the bush, the party that represents the regions, to do the right thing by regional students who attend the universities I mentioned earlier— HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr Lindsay —Who do not use any amenities— HVO Neumann, Shayne, MP Mr NEUMANN —They should do the right thing. And members from the Liberal Party should do the right thing as well, because they know how important it is to provide services on their campuses and they know that this legislation is balanced, sensible and practical. That is what it is. It is important legislation, and they should support it. If they want students in places like Townsville, Cairns, Rockhampton, Toowoomba and Ipswich to have access to information, health advice and legal advice, physiotherapy, and sporting and recreational facilities—if they are concerned about making sure students are fit and healthy in completing their university courses—and have access to cultural, drama and theatre and other groups that are important to university life, then they should support this bill. Students also need access to independent, democratic student representation. They need access to the kind of assistance that will help them. This legislation will allow universities to choose to implement a compulsory student services and amenities fee capped at $250 per student per annum, indexed annually. That is not a large amount but it is an amount that will make a big difference. It will help to fund student services and amenities, including those in regional areas of Queensland. I look forward to hearing the contributions of members on the opposition benches who represent those regional and rural areas, particularly in Queensland, just what they have to say about such services in their areas, and seeing whether they have the fortitude and the faith, and the commitment to their communities, to support this legislation. I look forward to the National Party having the integrity and the guts to stand up for students in rural and regional areas, particularly in Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales, and do the right thing by helping those students get through university. Let us make sure that on a bipartisan basis we can provide a sustainable, robust solution to addressing the ongoing cost difficulties with student services, amenities and representation. That will come if this legislation passes the House and the Senate. It will not come if those opposite continue to pursue the battles of the fifties, sixties, seventies and eighties. 12448 17:13:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —I consider the member for Blair, who has just addressed the parliament, to be a good friend and colleague, and I hold him in high regard. But, Member for Blair, I have never heard so much rubbish in my life as what you have just said to the parliament, and you have gone down slightly in my estimation. But, of course, as a person who represents the Royal Australian Air Force and me being a person who represents the Australian Army, there is no comparison, is there, between my garrison city and your small city! VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr Griffin —Controversial! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs is helping here! Thank you, Minister, and thank you for your support for Townsville and our garrison city. The member for Corangamite, who is in the chamber, is very envious, because he has only Fort Queenscliff in his electorate! HW7 Cheeseman, Darren, MP Mr Cheeseman —A fabulous place! HK6 Lindsay, Peter, MP Mr LINDSAY —There you go. The member for Blair condemned himself when he tried to make the point, which was an Exocet point, that the National Party should be standing up in the parliament for the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 because of the many rural students that they represent. A student in rural Australia who does not actually front up to the campus gets nothing for the $250 student services fee that this bill is trying to impose on them. For heaven’s sake, how could that be good for the National Party or for the students who come from regional Australia who do not actually go to the campus for their university education? How could the member for Blair stand up and claim that the National Party should be supporting this fee when it works against the very students they represent? The logic escapes me. This bill is nothing more than a compulsory tax on university students. Let’s call it what it is: a compulsory tax, $250 every year and you pay it whether or not you get something for it. It is going to be levied on every one of the one million Australian university students, who will be made to pay it irrespective of how they study, whether full-time, part-time or by distance. They will have to pay it no matter how few services they want or how few services they need. It is just illogical to make students pay for services that they are not going to use, so I firmly oppose this legislation. I have opposed it all the way through and I certainly strongly supported the VSU legislation when it went through this parliament back in 2005. It also represents yet another broken promise by the Rudd government. It is a surprise, that! Why are there so many promises that we have on the record, that were made at the time of the 2007 election, that have now been broken? Remember that Labor promised Australian students that they would not reintroduce a compulsory fee. In May 2007 Stephen Smith, the then shadow minister for education, stated explicitly that Labor was not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee for students, including any on a HECS arrangement. Today in the parliament in question time there was yet another broken promise. This one was in relation to RAAF Richmond where, prior to the last election, the then Labor opposition promised that RAAF Richmond would continue to be the important RAAF base in the Sydney basin. What have we seen today? We saw the government now considering making RAAF Richmond the entirely inappropriate second airport for Sydney. There are a multitude of reasons for that, but that is not part of this bill, so I do not propose to discuss that. I have quite some knowledge about this and I can say quite definitively that RAAF Richmond is not an appropriate location for the second airport for Sydney. This bill that we are debating today represents the second time this year that the Rudd government has broken their promise to Australian university students. I spoke on this legislation in March, which was the first time the government tried to introduce this tax. I thank Keegan Sard, who is a student at Bond University. I asked him about this, and he was quite definitive. He said: To bring back the days of compulsory unionism in Australia will spell the end of a student’s right and freedom to spend the limited cash flow that we receive on the areas that matter the most to us. We have student bodies that regularly spend copious amounts of money on frivolous escapades without a benefit to students or as a collective group. We should not have to compulsorily fund these exploits unless we choose to. The Labor Party is against choice, of course. Mr Sard went on to say: In the current economic crisis where students are losing youth allowance benefits and struggling to live in campuses all around Australia, this is certainly not the time to impose a monetary penalty or tax that could further jeopardise students’ lives and wellbeing. Mr Sard, thank you. You sum up exactly on behalf of all of Australia’s one million university students how they feel about this iniquitous tax. Today I am going to speak on the same issues I raised in the House earlier this year. Labor presented the same bill and they have not taken into account any of the concerns about this fee which have been raised by uni students across Australia. I speak on behalf of all of those students but particularly those at James Cook University, which is incidentally the most significant tropical university in the world today—well done to Professor Harding, her team and her students at James Cook University. Students at JCU have saved a minimum of $235 per year under voluntary student unionism. They saved that every year since VSU came into being. The Rudd government now want to hit my students in Townsville and in Cairns at JCU with a $250 fee for services they may never use and with no guarantee it will not be used to play politics. This bill will make every one of Australia’s one million Australian university students pay that $250 a year regardless of their ability to pay or their desire to use the services the fee would be funding. I am opposed to this attempt to slug students with a compulsory tax they do not want. Let’s have a look at a bit of the history of this. Since the introduction of voluntary student unionism by the Howard government in 2005, university students have saved on average $246 per year. This is a large sum of money for many students. In 2005 the then Labor opposition strongly opposed the issue with organisations such as the National Union of Students, spending one-quarter of a million dollars of student funds campaigning against the Howard government at the 2004 election. It is not hard to see why Labor want this back. Student compulsory fees were being paid in large sums to groups such as the NUS, who in turn were delivering political and financial benefits to the Labor Party. Labor opposed a policy that hurt their self-interest. They did not consider what students wanted. The Labor Party profited from compulsory student unionism on campus and want to go back to the days of getting such support. That is what we have with this legislation before the House today. Despite claiming that this bill will not allow the money to be collected and used to support the political parties—I have seen the provisions in the bill—this provision would apply only to direct payment to a political party. But there is no protection from the countless ways that students’ money could be used for political purposes or campaigns. The Rudd government were not happy enough just to break their promise to university students not to introduce a compulsory fee. They are now doing it again. What do students actually want? Students do not want to pay this compulsory tax. The Rudd government are trying to return to a system where students have no choice. But the real world is all about choice. I know the Labor Party rails against choice, but that is what the real world is about. This bill would have an unfair impact on students, who would be made to pay it no matter how or where they study. A full-time student on the university campus may be using a variety of services but, in contrast, a part-time student who works during the day may only attend classes some evenings and use far fewer facilities. This does not even consider a distance education student who may only physically attend the university campus once a semester and never use any of the services. To charge all three students the same fee, irrespective of what they use, is clearly inequitable. This bill is trying to take away the freedom of choice given by the Howard government’s introduction of VSU. This gave the students the freedom of choice to decide what they wanted to spend their money on. Students have been able to choose what areas and services of university are most appropriate to them and to use their financial resources accordingly. This user-pays system provides the best option for students and ensures that the inequality of the situation between the three types of students I just described does not apply. The most important factor in this debate is what students think. They are the ones that matter. They are the customers. I can tell you I have spoken to students from many different parts of Australia and they do not want this fee. They do not want to lose their freedom of choice. So what do students think? I went and asked them. I asked one of my people to get a broad range of comments from students across rural, regional and city based universities, studying mainly at Australian National University, James Cook University, Bond University, University of Queensland, Monash, Charles Sturt University and the University of Sydney—a pretty widespread group to get advice from. I thank Johnno Patado for his help in assembling these comments. The first question was: the government wants to bring in a compulsory annual fee of up to $250 for all university students, this money is then designed to assist university costs—what do you think about this? The first comment was: It’s crazy considering the price of tuition fees already. An extra levy would deter people from tertiary studies particularly those who have to support themselves. Good point. The next point was: As a university student I’m appalled. Most of us cannot afford to study at the moment, but I also see university education more of a right than a privilege and I think, if anything, the costs of university should be diminished as we will eventually graduate and then start substantially contributing to the economy afterwards. The think the goals should be on encouraging students to graduate so they can start contributing sooner. Dead right! And the next point: And what about full-fee-paying non-HECS students? Would it affect them any differently to those on HECS? I’m not sure if bringing in another fee would be a help or a hindrance. To be honest, I would rather keep my $250 and spend it on my textbooks and you know exactly what it is going towards. That is a good point too. The next student commented: I’m against it. I don’t really see which costs yet another fee would assist with. That amount of money isn’t enough to significantly reduce university fees nor would it really subsidise texts, which are sold privately anyway. The main cost associated with university for many students is accommodation and $250 doesn’t really make a dent in that either, nor would assistance in that regard be easily monitored. Finally to that question there was this response: I think we pay enough already given that university used to be free. Good on you. The student continued: Students are struggling and an extra $250 is money most students probably don’t have especially with the extra cuts in youth allowance too. Good on you, Labor! You are really doing the students in the eye on both fronts. The next question that we asked was: what if this compulsory fee was used for political purposes? Whew, anger! The first comment: I would like my money to stay mine, thanks, and I want to control what it is spent on. Good point. The second comment was: Absolutely not! If university students want to financially contribute to parties, that’s fine. If they want to join the Young LNP on their campus and do fundraising, that’s fine too. But no way should there be a compulsory fee to assist with that. The third comment: No way. People who are able to financially contribute and wholeheartedly want to contribute should be able to do so, and of course you can’t. But you can’t force someone to pay for the advertising they receive and absolutely not to forward any political agenda. The next question we asked was: would the fee be acceptable if it was put onto your HECS debt? A resounding no. For most people the fee will tally up to around $1,000 over a four-year course and that is around the cost of an entire unit of study and a big amount to pay off. The next comment was: Not really. It’s still not giving people the choice to support such a group if they want it or not. And now to this question: do you use university services like sports, clubs, societies and university health? The answer was: Sometimes the sports club and the uni club and the health service at university are really good but no-one knows where they are. And then it continued: We already pay for the classes and equipment needed for them. It’s the university’s job to use the money that we put into it to run itself. We then asked: if, yes, would you rather pay for these yourself as a user-pays system or have a standard fee for all students that covers the cost. User-pays for sure— got the vote— There are a lot of people who do not participate in anything. A standard fee is not fair for off-campus students who do their degree through correspondence. Another one said: We at Bond University have a standard fee that has to be paid before the start of the next semester for things like sport and certain clubs and societies. I opt not to pay it because I can’t afford to. I definitely believe that counselling and the doctor should stay free as they have given me unwavering support with my physical and mental health including references to hospitals and psychologists. And finally, the comment: I think I would prefer to have a user-pays system. Since 2004 there has been no compulsory student services fee. What has changed? Have we seen students demonstrating in the streets, blocking the doors of Parliament House, as we had today with students demonstrating on another matter? Have we seen that? Not a single thing. Nothing. People are happy. Students are happy. Services are being provided. At every university in Australia they are there. So why this hell-bent push by the government to now impose a compulsory $250 student services fee on everybody no matter what kind of study they do, where they might be studying and how much they use the services? No, it is totally illogical to put forward this particular fee. Many university students are under a financial strain during their studies. We all know that. Both sides of the House are well aware of that. Hitting students with another $250 a year fee may prove to be too much. Even with a HECS style arrangement this will be for many students an extra $1,000 on their HECS. We are still in a financial crisis and the future is uncertain. Saddling students with extra debt, with extra liabilities, at such a time is irresponsible. I say to the Labor Party: listen to the students. They do not want to pay this fee. They do not want an extra debt. For these reasons I will again vote against this legislation. 12453 17:30:00 Cheeseman, Darren, MP HW7 Corangamite ALP 1 0 Mr CHEESEMAN —I rise to speak on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. Firstly, I would like to acknowledge the part being played today by the National Union of Students and the Deakin University Student Association in their campaign to improve access to education and, importantly, campus services. This bill seeks to redress the devastation that the former government’s misguided policy direction has wrought on our higher education institutions. This bill is about putting the heart and soul back into universities and returning them to being bright and vibrant centres of social and intellectual interaction. It has about returning these institutions to being the creative thinking centres of new ideas and producing Australia’s next leaders in science, industry, government and, of course, culture. I believe that an environment on campus that is conducive to fostering a social atmosphere that assists in developing initiative and engagement is integral to underwriting every degree our students study for at our universities. This bill is an important part of re-establishing basic campus facilities such as child care, food services, sporting options, campus culture and entertainment—services and amenities that have been culled since the introduction of the voluntary student unionism legislation some years ago. The previous government’s policy was based on outdated dogma. The student fees legislation passed by the former government was based partly on ideology and partly on fear. They feared political debate, they feared student involvement, they feared they were losing the battle of ideas on campuses. They suggested that the views of student organisations were those of a dedicated group of activists, not the broad views of a majority of students. Instead of recognising that student representative organisations have a range of views and responsibilities—from running sports and social and cultural organisations through to providing advocacy—they failed to accept that student associations have a legitimate role to play in their communities. So the coalition ran a totally false smear campaign against student organisations. The coalition ran some bankrupt intellectual arguments about what student organisations do on their campuses. They suggested that student unions were badly run and gave poor service to the majority of students. Some coalition members claimed that student unions could not possibly accurately represent an entire student body—a good argument for a dictator. The coalition could not fathom how the National Union of Students joined the protestors at the Baxter detention centre against the previous government’s position. The coalition could not understand how students could legitimately have a social conscience. They cried foul when students ran campaigns against the ‘war on refugees’. The truth is that the Liberals cooked up legislation because they were losing the battle of ideas, the battle for involvement on Australian campuses. Rather than participating in the battle of ideas, they decided on the coward’s way out. They decided to scuttle legitimate student forums. They decided to scuttle their institutions. They decided to carve the heart out of universities and student campus life. That is what they did. The previous government’s misguided belief in their own dogma caused them to legislate against student associations. They gutted the system and almost killed student life. They were and are killjoys on legitimate campus culture. Back then it was ‘Little Johnny Killjoy’ and his unhappy band of sad sacks. Today, of course, we have the mutterings of Malcolm—and they are an even sadder bunch. When the previous ‘mean and tricky’ government were thrown out by the Australian people one of their clear legacies was the ghost campuses we often see today. This bill has already been voted down by those on the other side, which clearly denotes that they have learnt nothing from that sad episode in this parliament—sad considering that a number of those in the opposition who participate in the parliament today developed their skills in university organisations. The debate and the forums they participated in were funded by services and amenities fees and ultimately led them to this chamber. That is absolute hypocrisy. They seek to kill off the very institution that led them to this place. The ideological farce that the opposition maintain in suppressing student organisations is an anathema, and it should not continue in this place. Those on the other side who sought to ban student unions might have conveniently forgotten their role in Australian history. The Liberals’ move to ban student unions and get rid of student services was crass. Let us be honest, in many cases universities are why people are here in the chamber today. The ideas that we have were in many cases spawned or developed at university through the courses we undertook as university students, the debates we had with our friends and the debates we had in our student organisations. In many cases, the people we met at university are the contacts who have helped us on our path to the parliament to develop and represent one another and to pursue the common interests of our campuses and this parliament. Many members on the other side went to university. Nearly all are lawyers or have similar occupations and many of them participated in student unions or student associations. Almost all of the opposition members who went to university would have enjoyed the services and lifestyle, met their political contacts there and participated in debates in clubs and societies. Then we had the consequence of their coming here, where they attempted to legislate against and close down those services. That was based on pure ideology and madness. A quick look through the biographies of many opposition members shows some very interesting things. Within the opposition ranks there are two former members of the University of Western Australia Liberal Club, two former presidents of the Melbourne University Liberal Club, one former Curtin University Liberal Club executive member, one former president of the Adelaide University Liberal Club and two former presidents of the University of Sydney Student Representative Council. These parliamentarians no doubt enjoyed the well supported student amenities and campus communities that their clubs or societies were affiliated with. Back in March, when we last debated this legislation, I tabled an article on campus communities which talked about some of the social democrats who, in broad terms, in the 1970s supported the idea of Australian workers working together. That was within the culture that existed naturally on university campuses. I noted with great interest and enthusiasm that the recently retired member for Higgins, the Hon. Peter Costello, was photographed accompanying that particular article. Given his history within student unions through that period, it is disappointing that Peter Costello took the view that he took in this place, championing legislation that ripped $170 million from university funding. That led to a very dramatic decline in student services—in the health, counselling, employment, child-care, sporting and fitness services that university student associations and unions delivered to their campuses and their communities. That led to a very dramatic cut in the capacity of universities to deliver important funding for research and teaching; because in good conscience universities had to make up for the decline in services that had historically been offered by student unions and associations. My research went on further, revealing that the founder of the Liberal Party, Sir Robert Gordon Menzies, was in fact a former president of the University of Melbourne Student Representative Council. I am sure that he would be rolling in his grave if he knew what the Liberal Party has done to student life through their attack on student associations and student unions over the course of the last 15-odd years. When I look at my university, Deakin University within my electorate, I can recall a much more vibrant student culture than the one we currently see. There were many more services and a much stronger university student cultural life than we currently have as a consequence of that funding being ripped out of student associations. It is fair to say that student activism plays only a small part in the development of a vibrant culture on university campuses, but it is an integral part. There are also the services which stem from that and which support the efforts of students in their studies. This bill is about rebuilding student representation in Australia. This bill will overturn a very nasty piece of legislation that was introduced by the Howard government. We know why the Howard government abolished student fees—they did it because they feared, they loathed, the idea that students might come together and state strongly what they believed in and offer services to support students in their studies. The Liberals believed universities had become a hotbed of political recruitment for Labor and that Labor was using campuses to recruit support for the Labor Party. The Liberals were wrapped up in this view and decided for their own ideological reasons to ram through parliament a most foolish piece of legislation—a nasty piece of legislation. Australia’s university campuses used to be thriving places full of fun and life. The previous government went too far with their approach to university services and amenities, putting in place legislation to curtail them. As a consequence, university campuses were gutted of services, sporting clubs were decimated, debating societies fell apart, cultural organisations could no longer be funded, music events dried up and drama groups had no funding. Political clubs were seen by the Liberals as evil. This was all because the Liberal Party feared they were losing the battle of ideas on campuses. The motives were shocking and the legacy today is a tragedy. This bill will amend the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation and deliver a balanced, measured and practical solution to rebuilding student services and those amenities to re-engage students in an independent, democratic organisation that is able to deliver strong services and amenities to those students. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is about putting life back into student life. Students have often inspired the world; they have done so in the past and they will continue to do so into the future. It is a very important and basic premise that student representative organisations in universities should be fostered, and this bill does that. I commend this bill to the House. 12455 17:46:00 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 0 Mr TUCKEY —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is encompassed in the explanatory memorandum, which states in its opening paragraph: This Bill will amend the Higher Education Support Act 2003 to provide for a fee to be imposed by higher education providers— from 1 July 2009, so it is virtually retrospective— for a compulsory student services and amenities fee. The fee will be capped at $250 per student per annum and indexed annually. The Bill provides for the establishment of a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program (HELP): Services and Amenities-HELP (SA-HELP), which will provide eligible students with an option to access a loan for the fee through SAHELP if they wish. In addition, the Bill will require higher education providers that receive funding for student places under the Commonwealth Grant Scheme, to comply with new benchmarks from 2010 onwards, for the provision of information on and access to basic student support services of a non-academic nature; and requirements to ensure the provision of student representation and advocacy. Why was this voted down when it was previously labelled ‘compulsory student unionism’? It was for a simple reason. As I heard the member for Herbert say: firstly, those who do extension courses—and there are universities now within Australia that have something like 90 per cent of their undergraduates doing extension courses—cannot access the amenities. They cannot get discounted beer at the bar. They are unlikely to exercise a vote in the student union elections; they are not there, they are not canvassed, they are frequently working mothers and others who are attempting to extend their credentials in anticipation of future employment and they will not bother themselves with all the activities practised by the young and the enthusiastic in that particular situation. But this is just another tax. It becomes even more illogical, more hypocritical, when today, as we have for the last 10 days, we heard the Deputy Prime Minister, as Minister for Education, bemoaning the loss of certain funding that she proposed to selectively provide to tertiary students, such as a $1,000 scholarship—give them $1,000 with one hand and take back $250 with the other. Why? So that universities with huge revenues are able to strip a bit of money out of a student who—if the Minister for Education’s own ambitions were secured—would still be working 30 hours a week to qualify for Youth Allowance rent assistance. In other words, if they did a whole gap year, as the Deputy Prime Minister proposes, earning money for 30 hours a week, they would still have another six months to do, which would mean either that they have a two-year gap between secondary and tertiary education or that they attempt to do 30 hours work a week whilst attending university. As we know, the face-to-face times vary greatly in that regard. Some students do not have many hours a week of actual face-to-face time—they have another word for it that I cannot recollect at the moment. Others, such as those in veterinary science, medicine and those sorts of things often have to attend the university for 30 or 40 hours a week anyway. They have to try to make a living and, more particularly, if they are forced to pay rent because they have come from regions outside of the normal travel time of the tertiary institution they attend, they have got to find the money for it. This legislation says that if you want to go to university you will be taxed $250. We heard the member for Corangamite and previous speakers telling them how much value they are going to get for this money. Well, if you do not want any of the services, what is the value? If you are there every day drinking subsidised beer in the bar, eating subsidised meals in the restaurants, having a massage, going off to counselling—and if you spend too much time in the bar you will probably need the counselling—you get it for nothing, or it is heavily subsidised. But if you are someone who rushes in and does their lectures and their tute and rushes off to the restaurant where they are working at night for the purpose of funding their education, what benefits do you get? And do you get $250 worth? And if you get up in the morning and, because you are battling financially to get yourself through university, you cut a small lunch and put it in a brown paper bag and take it to the university to eat out on the lawns, or something like that, why should you be paying to subsidise the other person who has enough cash in their pocket to go to the subsidised restaurant or cafe? There is a simple factor applying here. Students are fully capable of deciding the services and representations they desire. If they have the financial capacity to do so, they can pay for them. If I am a young person who takes a job with a builder, or a council or something outside of the tertiary sector and I want to play tennis, or cricket or football in the various codes, I go along and join the relevant club and I pay the annual fee for that purpose, which funds the club. What is more, those basic services, frequently the tennis courts or the other amenities such as the oval or anything else, are provided by the local government authority that is levying rates against my boss or against my parents if we happen to reside in the same area. Those rates are not going to go down when this government taxes me $250 to go to university, when I am not going to use their sporting grounds or when I am not going to use the other amenities that are applicable. If it is my desire to be in the university rowing club and the rowing clubs needs funds for the purpose of operating, they say to me, ‘Mr Tuckey, it is $50, or $100 or $200 a year to be a member.’ That is what happens elsewhere in society and those services are all there. If I think that the university club is a bit elite at $200, I can join the Woop Woop rowing club for half that; surely that is my choice. Why has there got to be a legislated amount of money that I pay for the purpose of utilising a service provided by a university whose basic function is not to provide those services? They are the attractions to try and get the students in. Their basic function is to deliver education. If I am of the view that I do not want some feisty young individuals to represent me—on what I am not sure because they do not need to represent me as to the prices in the cafe as I can make that judgment—I can go across to the deli on the other side of the road if I think that the restaurant or cafe is too expensive. I can go down to the nearest pub, where there will be a lot of other young people anyway, and buy alcohol. I do not need to have it available to me on the campus. I might be better off without it. If all of those services are going to be provided by the university administrators, then let them fund them from within their revenues. This fee, of course, will not apply necessarily to an overseas student because, when the overseas student turns up, the university will tell them that they will pay full fees for the services and that will include a fee because you get a subsidised meal down at the restaurant. That is fair enough. The fundamental issue before us here is that all of those fees should be voluntary. As I said, if you want to have some union representative—you might even approve of them attacking a political party from time to time—you pay them the money and you assess their services accordingly. This is the whole issue of trade union membership these days. If a young person can go to the internet to find out what the award wage is that they can expect to be paid as a minimum for working as a brickies’ assistant or something else, they can do that. They do not need to pay a couple of hundred dollars a year to be a member of a trade union for that service. Of course kids, as far as I recollect over a long period as an employer, had a very good idea of what they were worth. And if they were in some doubt today they would send an SMS on the telephone to one of their mates, ‘What are you getting paid down the road to serve behind the counter or to do any other sort of service?’ It is the same in a university. We have this charade, this farrago, that there is a situation where a university cannot teach you unless you can get subsidised alcohol, subsidised food and child care. There are a very small percentage of students who required child care. It was a service that was recognised as being mostly available to the staff of the university. But again, if someone wants to set up a private childcare centre on the university, it will become eligible for the 50 per cent government subsidy. Why do I have to pay more for it? Why do thousands and thousands of students have to pay for something like that when they have no need for the service? It is as simple as that. There is no need for it. More particularly, as I have just read out, we have this heartbreaking suggestion that their debts to the government should be further increased by allowing them to borrow this money. They do not get it for nothing. They must pay that back at a later date. There will be interest accumulated and, if they are an extension student, they are paying for nothing. We know very well why the government wants this money. It is the same as it would like to force every individual worker in this country into a trade union because those funds become available to this government by one means or another. I made the point the other day when talking about donations to political parties that political parties would be better off if they had no sponsors, no donors, because, obviously, people who make large contributions to political parties expect something in return. Nobody expects more than the trade union movement. I have seen the situation in Western Australia when the CFMEU were not getting their way on some particular issue and they cut off the state Labor MPs’ funding. Boy, they came to heel then. That is apparently okay, but if anybody else in the private sector tries to do the same thing it is not okay. People might say, ‘Okay, we will no longer allow trade unions to donate to the Labor Party. We will no longer allow the Chamber of Commerce or some other industry group’—who in this day and age tend to share out the money anyway—‘to donate to the Liberal Party.’ That is fine. But if they all go out, as I saw in the West Australian newspaper the other day, and take out full-page ads tipping the bucket—as they did on one occasions—on the state premier for his decision to protect all the taxpayers of Western Australia from a certain claim for more money by state government employees, how do you prevent that? How does the government or the opposition of the day, when contesting an election, respond to various interest groups? There were two or three advertisements in one newspaper—one of the others was about something of an environmental nature. The political establishment is being bombarded by the supporters of both sides but they do not make donations any more. This bill is a process of taxing the tertiary community when in fact they can voluntarily pay for whatever they like. In the provision of fundamental services, they pay the going rate. If they think it is too expensive, they go elsewhere—not one of these university services is unique to a university. They are all out there in the private sector anyway, in a competitive environment. Why is it that, having paid for these things, someone else will decide where they are allocated; whether there is more money for the bar, more money for the restaurant, more money to print a paper that nobody is going to read? Surely if someone believes there is sufficient demand in the university for a local paper during prosh, or any time, you have a news stand and people will pull money out of their pocket and pay for it. But why should they be forced to? They might be totally disinterested in campus politics. They might be of a religion that does not even vote. Why should they be taxed for that particular service ? I made some mention of the youth allowance and I note that the other day the ABC news in my electorate quoted the Labor member for Albany, Peter Watson. He said regional students should be the only ones eligible for the Commonwealth’s Youth Allowance scheme. I can tell the regional members of the Labor Party that Peter Watson survived the last election by 86 votes. Peter has worked it out. He has worked out where the politics are. The minister representing Senator Wong in this place told us the other day that the Labor Party had a clear list of those in the Senate who had the temerity to talk against the emissions trading scheme. Well, I can tell the government benches that I have got a list. I will make sure that those who are more foolish than Peter Watson, the state Labor member for Albany in my electorate, who has got on the bandwagon and is in the pretty happy position of saying what he likes because he does not have a vote on the issue, go on that list. All these members opposite have voted down the concept of the old youth allowance and now they are waiting to take another 250 bucks off the same people if they can comply with Minister Gillard’s new deal. Why would you do any of that? It is wrong; it is unnecessary. I am fed up with having the minister tell us what the universities want. I am not here to address the interests of a few fat cat academics. I am here to represent the young people in my electorate who want a tertiary education and will have to finance their own affairs to get one. We get this silly argument that each and every one is on $300,000 a year. What a joke! (Time expired) 12459 18:06:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 will amend the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation and deliver a balanced, measured and practical solution to rebuilding student services and amenities of a non-academic nature and restoring independent democratic representation and advocacy in the higher education sector. The bill contains the same provisions for student services and amenities as the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 that was defeated in the Senate on 18 August 2009. Students are paying the price for the Liberal Party’s outdated view on, and ideological obsession with, voluntary student unionism. Voluntary student unionism is the raison d’etre of young Liberals and student Liberal groups. This is the glue that, for many years, has bound these diverse young conservatives together. Voluntary student unionism was something that the small ‘l’ Liberals, the libertarians and the big ‘C’ conservative groups within the conservative youth group movement could agree on. They could not agree on much but one thing they could agree on was voluntary student unionism. It was a policy obsession for many a member of those opposite in their early twenties, and unfortunately and rather sadly for them it remains a policy obsession today. Those opposite do not care about the practicalities of their obsession. They do not care about the young mother who is unable to go to uni due to a lack of affordable university child care. They do not care about landing a blow on regional and rural students. They do not care that they have carried this policy obsession for decades. They care more about their world view being maintained than about the practical and real outcomes of this view on the lives of students. They mask their view in an argument about choice. They fail to grasp the very simple proposition that we live in communities and that universities are also communities. Quite clearly, when we take a community approach to things and how they are there for the common good, we understand that there is cross-subsidisation. It happens every day of our lives. It happens with the rates that we pay to the local council. It happens in terms of the services provided by the state government. It happens in relation to the taxes that we pay to the federal government. We do not all use up these services to exactly the same measure but we are happy to accept that we live in a community and that part of living in a community is the cross-subsidisation that results so that those who are worse off, who find it a bit tougher than others and who cannot afford some of the services receive subsidised services. That concept is no different when we look at university communities and how they should operate. We are being asked by the opposition to ignore the fact that universities are communities. The opposition’s view is that we are all individuals and so we should purchase all of our services on an individual basis. This is the type of rationale that leads to the argument that we should not have a police force. There should be private security guards for those who can afford them and for those who cannot afford them—tough. That is the individual choice that someone makes. This is the approach that the opposition have taken. The opposition have taken an ideological view rather than a practical one on needs of students in universities across the country. In the past, the opposition have tried to mask their ideological arguments in a sort of overarching argument about choice. We saw a stark example of this in the debate on industrial relations and Work Choices. Those opposite were asking us to swallow the notion that individuals should be able to make choices about their own working arrangements and that they should be able to have so-called ‘flexibility’ of individual contracts. The Australian population, quite frankly, did not believe them. At the last election, there was an overwhelming rejection of what those opposite were saying about choice in the workplace. Voluntary student unionism is very similar to that issue. This is not about individuals having choice; it is about providing services for kids who are going to university who would otherwise not be able to afford those services. So for the member for O’Connor to say that kids will have the choice of going to the cafeteria or bringing a packed lunch is insulting to university students, particularly those students who come from my area, which has a lower socioeconomic make-up than many other areas. The kids in my area struggle to get to university. The subsidised services they are provided at universities are often the only way that these kids are able to take advantage of those services. The government is not saying that this legislation is the return of compulsory student unionism. There were problems with compulsory student unionism, and I think any fair-minded person would concede that. This legislation is not about compulsory student unionism. We are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. The new provisions state that a higher education provider who spends the fee on support for a political party or a candidate for an election to Commonwealth, state or territory parliaments or to local government is prohibited. A higher education provider must also impose this prohibition on any person or organisation to which it pays any of the fee revenue. The fear about this money finding its way back, as the member for O’Connor said, to the ALP’s coffers is clearly a position that the member for O’Connor has taken without reading the legislation, because it specifically says that that is not possible. Most fair-minded people would concede that there were problems with accountability in some student union organisations in the past. Many fair-minded people would concede that the previous government threw the baby out with the bathwater and that it went too far in its approach to university services and amenities. Students are being forced to deal with these consequences. Under the previous government, close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding. This resulted in the decline and, in some instances, the complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child-care, sporting and fitness services at universities. The member for O’Connor, again, I think, insulted university student when he tried to say that that funding was being spent on cheap beer and massages. Clearly, the member is not in touch with what the legislation is about, and he is certainly not in touch with what happens at universities. This legislation is about ensuring that some vital services are provided. The member for O’Connor insults university students and fair-minded people with his statements. Of the areas in this country’s economy that were neglected over the 11½ years of the previous government, higher education suffered more than most. In fact, the neglect of higher education by the former government was so bad that, while other OECD countries were on average increasing their funding by up to 48 per cent in the 10 years leading up to 2004, Australia saw a decline of four per cent. This shows a massive difference between what was happening in higher education in this country and that of comparable OECD countries, and we are paying for it now with bottlenecks in skills shortages. The previous government was warned about this over 20 times by the Reserve Bank and still it did nothing about it. When you see how the previous government decreased funding in this sector, it is little wonder that we have problems in skills shortages in key industries. The previous government created that situation. They knew that there were skills shortages in the country and that the situation was getting worse because of their inaction in education generally but particularly in higher education. The National Party have recognised publicly that the current approach to funding student services and amenities is not sustainable and that it has had a terrible impact, particularly on our rural and regional campuses. The National Party voted at their recent party conference to support a compulsory fee being levied on university students to support services and amenities on campus. Despite this, they did not support the passage of this critical bill in the Senate, preferring to side with their coalition partners over the needs of regional students. The National Party need to put their money where their mouth is. They cannot pretend to support funding for student services and amenities when they are out in the bush speaking to their constituents but vote against this important legislation when they are in Canberra. Increases in student costs on campuses were also identified through the consultations, showing that, as a consequence of VSU, students had been hit by price hikes in areas such as child care, parking, food and fitness services. Students have also experienced the indirect costs of VSU on the quality of their education with many universities being forced to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to make up the shortfall in funding for campus services. Following consultations, the Australian government has developed a balanced, practical and sustainable solution to help ensure that non-academic student services and democratic student representation are secured for the long term. Under this plan, for the first time universities will be required, as a condition of funding, to meet new national access to service benchmarks to ensure students have information and access to basic but important student support services like counselling and welfare services. In another first, universities will also be required to fulfil new representation and advocacy protocols to ensure that students have a say on campus. The government is consulting with the higher education sector and other key stakeholders on the development of these benchmarks and protocols and we will ensure that feedback from within the campuses is considered as part of this process. On top of these requirements universities have also been provided with the option of setting a compulsory fee, capped at a maximum of $250 per full-time student and indexed each year, to help rebuild student amenities and student support services. Universities will be responsible for whether or not they set a fee of up to $250 a year and will have flexibility to determine which students are required to pay that fee. To help students manage the fee, the Australian government will provide access to a HECS-style loan under the Higher Education Loan Program, HELP. This is called Services and Amenities-HELP. This means that students will be able to defer payment of the fee in a HECS-like arrangement and not have to start paying back the fee until they start earning a set salary in line with their HELP repayments. Universities who choose to set a fee will be required to consult with students on what services and amenities the fee will be used for. The government has also released draft guidelines that set out the range of services and amenities that may be funded through the collection of any services and amenities fee. They include things like child care, health services, sport and fitness amenities. Let us make it clear, Madam Deputy Speaker—the new arrangements are not a return to compulsory student unionism and we are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. Further, the fee will not be able to be used to support broader political activities. The government believes that this is a balanced, practical solution that enables universities, students and the government to work in partnership to rebuild important student support services and ensure democratic student representation and advocacy at Australian universities. The University of Newcastle’s Ourimbah campus on the New South Wales Central Coast—in my electorate of Dobell—is a fast-growing and increasingly popular choice for higher education. The campus grounds are nestled in an area of plush subtropical rainforest and bushland in a central location of the region. The Ourimbah campus offers university, TAFE and community college programs and courses all on one site so that students can take advantage of pathways between levels and sectors of education and training. Affiliates are the Central Coast Community College and the Central Coast Conservatorium of Music. There are a range of degree programs offered at this campus, including the Bachelor of Arts, Bachelor of Social Science, Bachelor of Information Technology, Bachelor of Business, Bachelor of Early Childhood Teaching, Bachelor of Education, Bachelor of Exercise and Sport Science, Bachelor of Food Science and Human Nutrition and Bachelor of Psychology. These are a few of the undergraduate courses available. The Ourimbah campus also has a number of postgraduate courses, including a Graduate Certificate in Science, Graduate Diploma in Education (Primary), Graduate Diploma in Science and Master of Food Technology. So you can see, Madam Deputy Speaker, that the University of Newcastle’s Ourimbah campus has grown to become a very good and very desirable higher education venue. The campus is currently engaging in such research programs which ask, ‘Can green tea lower cholesterol?’ under which Central Coast people with higher blood cholesterol are being targeted to determine whether regular consumption of green tea can help lower blood cholesterol levels. The Ourimbah campus is also behind the establishment of a new marine research centre on the Central Coast. This national centre of excellence in marine research and education will be a reality for the region by Christmas with the keys to its new home handed over at that time. This year marks 20 years since the first classes commenced at the Central Coast campus. This milestone gives the community the opportunity to reflect on the growth of higher education in the region over that time and the importance of having access to high-quality educational services. I have talked before in this parliament about how great our university campus is on the Central Coast. Recently I made calls for the campus to change its name. One would think that one of the things we could do rather quickly is at least change its name to the Central Coast campus of the University of Newcastle, rather than the Ourimbah campus, and then look over time to develop a university in our own right on the Central Coast. This issue is not just symbolic. It has a great effect on people being able to identify that this is a place of higher education—TAFE, community college and university—and that this is the Central Coast’s. It is something that the university needs to look at. In addition to the government’s commitment to improving university services and student representation, the Bradley Review of Australian Higher Education will report to the government later this year on broader issues relating to universities. Ourimbah university student Kris Gesling wrote in response to my previous speech: I’m glad the Federal Government boosted uni funding after Howard’s decade of decay but it was just a drop in the ocean to make up for what he did to our education system. We need more funding for education across the sector to ensure that Australia stays at the forefront of innovation. We’ve been lucky with the resources boom but that won’t last and has a devastating impact on our natural environment. Let us go back and have another look at what this bill is actually saying and when these changes come into effect. Universities that choose to implement the fee and make essay help available will be able to charge the fee once legislation has been passed and guidelines are in place. Universities will be able to charge up to $250. This amount will be indexed for 2010 onwards, in line with other loan programs under the Higher Education Support Act 2003. International full fee paying students are not eligible to access the higher education loan program. These students need to have the means to pay their tuition fees. It is therefore reasonable for these students to pay the services and amenities fees if a higher education provider decides to impose them. Part-time students are also affected by these changes. The guidelines to be made under the new provisions will specify how the maximum fee will be worked out for a student who is studying on a less than full-time basis. Higher education providers will be able to charge less than the maximum or not require some students to pay a fee at all. To wrap up, let us be reminded why we are going ahead with the changes under this legislation. The previous government went too far with its approach to the university sector, and amenities and students are being forced to deal with the consequences. Under the previous government’s approach close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding, resulting in the decline and in some instances complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child-care, sporting and fitness services. Universities have also reported having to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets to make up for the shortfall of funding for campus services. Without urgent intervention services will continue to decline and even fold completely. The decline in student support services has also impacted on the capacity of Australian universities to attract international students. Sporting organisations have identified a decline in participation and an inability to invest in infrastructure and undertake long-term development planning. The government has consistently committed to ensuring that university students have access to vital campus services. We are honouring this commitment. This is a practical, balanced and sustainable solution for securing the future of support services on campus and also for ensuring that students have access to independent representation. This is not compulsory student unionism. We are not changing the legislation that prohibits a university from requiring a student to be a member of a student organisation. You wonder whether the ideological problem that the opposition have with this legislation is because they are so historically opposed to any reference to unions. We saw what they did with Work Choices. We heard the member for O’Connor spend a good part of his contribution not talking about this legislation but talking about unions, industrial organisations, and their capacity to raise money and use it in political campaigns. Those things are clearly prohibited in relation to this particular piece of legislation. This legislation is about providing student services. It is about providing health services. It is about providing a counselling service. It is about providing sporting services. This is legislation that makes sure students attending higher education facilities around Australia get fair access to these services. It is about making sure the community that exists on university campuses has a fair go, collectively, rather than it being left to those who can afford to pay for these particular services being the only ones who can gain access to them. This is a piece of legislation that is important. It should be supported and I commend the bill to the House. 12464 18:26:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 has the primary purpose of imposing a new tax on the one million students attending universities across Australia. This $250 student fee was first introduced on 11 February 2009 with a section on VET-FEE-HELP as part of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. The first bill passed the House on 19 March 2009 and the coalition voted against it in the House of Representatives. It was then introduced into the Senate on 20 March this year and negatived at the third reading on 18 August 2009. As a result, the second time around the VET-FEE-HELP section has been removed and is now in a bill separate from this legislation. I am rising to talk for those who have contacted me wanting choice. Students in my electorate are saying they want choice and opportunity. This bill can be considered as another broken promise by the Labor government, with the Minister for Education stating in 2007 that at no point did Labor promise to introduce such a compulsory tax. In 2005 the Howard government introduced voluntary student unionism, a historic move for those who believe that freedom of association for students is a fundamental right, as is choice a fundamental right. The coalition believed then, and still does, that students should be free to choose how, when and on what they spend their hard-earned money. It is very hard-earned money that in so many cases is scarce for university students, particularly for those who will fail to qualify for youth allowance but who get to university in spite of that and for those who have no choice but to work while at university to support their education. Every dollar is important to each one of those people and we are very well aware of the significant costs of going to university for regional and rural students. We are aware that this cost can be anything from $15,000 to $30,000 a year for each student who has to move to the city to study, so every dollar is very important to both the student and their family. It is on behalf of these young people that I have risen to speak tonight. One of the university students from my electorate of Forrest who emailed me regarding this legislation said: While entering my final year at university I am all too familiar with the ‘high costs’ associated in being a student, especially considering the fact I have had to become financially independent from my parents in Harvey in order to study here in Perth. I would like to point out that there are many other students from a country background such as myself who are in the same ‘boat’ in terms of being forced to live away from home in order to have the opportunity to study. With this in consideration I can only view the proposed levy for higher education as an unnecessary cost placed on students, who already have numerous costs associated with their studies … The student went on to say in this email: In my experience the Student Guild at my University provides a large range of services to students, regardless of whether the students are full-fee members or not. Therefore I can see no extra benefit (in terms of services) that the Guild could provide if the levy was imposed. In terms of funding, I am certain that the Guild at my university has sufficient funds for its services (perhaps along with university funding) as every semester they launch a large campaign to recruit students in becoming members. As a Commerce student, I view this situation similar to that of Private Health Insurance, as it has many similarities. The Guild service is available to all students Those who can afford it or see extra value in becoming a member, will chose to subscribe. And those cannot afford it won’t subscribe, but are still entitled to some essential Guild Services. He also said: I believe that the Government of this country needs to provide our students with every means possible to encourage and support their studies, as it is the Tertiary students who will one day become the leaders of this country in solving its problems; from the environmental issues to economic problems. If the Rudd Government is genuinely serious in supporting the learning and developments of our nation’s students it will reconsider its proposal. Another current university student raised another two key points that I want to mention in the course of this speech. The first was that a majority of students are currently dissatisfied with the activities and funding distribution of their student guild. The second was that the implications of this legislation are not widely understood by a majority of students at the university she attends. The university student also stated that at present approximately 60 per cent of students at her university pay the student fee, which is currently $90. Furthermore, a majority of the guild members are those students who study full time and even live on campus. I remember the member for Wills, Kelvin Thomson, saying during the debate on the Higher Education Support Bill on 14 October 2003: … Labor will not support any measures to increase fees for Australian students or their families … Well, this particular university student from my electorate stressed her concern that under this proposed legislation the current fee of $90 could rise to as high as $250. Every dollar is important to this young lady, and $250 is a major additional expense for a university student, particularly when many students are unable to identify exactly what their student guild does for them. We also know that there are a number of students from regional and rural areas for whom ever single dollar is important. It is critical to whether or not they can study. I also understand that funding from student guilds in Western Australia can be largely determined by membership numbers in the groups, with groups with more members receiving more funding than the smaller groups. The coalition strongly believes that students from regional and rural areas certainly have a right to an affordable higher education. We have already seen the government ignoring regional and rural students through the proposed changes to the youth allowance and by now imposing a further annual tax. I am very concerned about the youth allowance issue, which might see fewer students actually being able to get to university only to be forced to pay this additional $250 in tax. We know that the current legislation disadvantages 25,000 students. Only 5,000 students of those who are currently in their gap year will be able to take advantage of the amendments sought by the coalition and agreed to by the government. However, we have legislation that will severely disadvantage rural and regional students, particularly those from farming and small business families who will not be able to access dependant youth allowance because of the assets test. That can often be so even though those particular small businesses or farming businesses, while they might have assets, can be extremely cash poor and have the significant and high costs of relocation and keeping their young people at university. Then we have the other particular part of the government’s youth allowance legislation, which is the requirement for 30 hours of work a week consistently every week for 18 months out of any two-year period. While members like me who represent regional and rural electorates would know of many small towns and small communities in which there just might be seasonal work available to these young people, there certainly would not be and will not be 30 hours of work a week, every single week for 18 months out of a two-year period. This further compromises their capacity to attend university and then they will be hit, if they are able to attend university, with actually having to find an additional $250. We have seen the government and the Minister for Education clearly oblivious to these issues, which are very specific to regional and rural areas. I have parents from towns like Donnybrook, Harvey and Dunsborough contacting me on a regular basis asking where their child would find 30 hours of work a week, every week for 18 months. It is a great concern. If it is not youth allowance that will have a significant detrimental effect it could well be the waste and mismanagement from Building the Education Revolution, or BER. We have seen $1.7 billion wasted in this program, with $7.3 million just for plaques and display signs. In conclusion, the coalition believes that students should be free to choose—students like the young people who have contacted me and said they want the choice of what to spend their hard earned money on. I oppose this bill on its primary purpose of imposing a new tax on the one million students attending universities across Australia. 12467 18:37:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —I rise today in support of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. It is somewhat ironic that the member for Forrest’s contribution in this debate centred around her concerns that the bill that Labor is introducing here will impose a financial cost or burden on students, not recognising the important services that will be offered to students, at the same time as the opposition, and clearly herself, are opposing the very scholarships that the government is proposing, particularly for regional and rural students, and also its measures to ensure that more low- and middle-income students, the majority of whom in fact live in regional areas, will be able to access income support. It is somewhat ironic that she is concerned about student unionism and what that will potentially do in relation to her perceived concerns about the costs that it might impose on students, yet she is not that concerned about the fact that the opposition’s proposals to block the income support measures for students will in fact see many, many students far worse off. With the introduction of this bill Labor are seeking to, again, revitalise those near terminal student services right across Australia. I use the word ‘terminal’ because, without the support of members opposite, the future cultural and social life of our universities will die. It is nine months since I spoke in support of these measures and I do so with as much conviction now as I did then. I speak on these bills because I know the grim situation that is facing our peak education bodies across the country—not only our universities, our student bodies and our student services and amenities bodies but also, most of all, the students who are facing the challenge of a loss of services on campus. That challenge is the real possibility that, by members opposite letting down students with their opposition to this bill, they will have to begin closing doors on student services and amenities. Unfortunately, in many universities, this process has already begun. Let us reflect a little bit on how we got here today. The former government, in a somewhat older style of thinking, believed that the sole objective of student bodies around this nation was to lobby against the Howard government—playing, again, old student politics and reliving the glory days of battles fought and lost when they themselves were at university, deciding that the way in which you crush student opposition to not only the Howard government but also conservative governments was to get rid of student unions. The same objectors to the bill today fail to realise the impact that their decision to introduce voluntary student unionism has had on university campuses, particularly in regional and rural Australia. When this government came to office we made a commitment to current and future students that we would restore services at universities, and I made a commitment to universities within my own electorate to show support for those student services. We on this side of the House know that the importance of these services not only for students but also for parents who are supporting them in going to university cannot be underestimated. In our first year, since being elected, the government held discussions around Australia to talk about the real needs of university students. The minister for youth travelled from region to region to seek feedback on the impact of the Howard government’s devastating changes and on what the Rudd government should now do to combat these effects. One of these consultation sessions was conducted in my own electorate in February 2008. There was a strong attendance by the major stakeholders across my electorate. They attended because they knew all too well the importance of getting the right system in place. We had strong involvement from the University of Ballarat, the University of Ballarat Student Association, the Australian Catholic University and the Aquinas Student Association. The Committee for Ballarat also attended, an industry peak body in the city, the City of Ballarat and also representatives from Deakin University Student Association, which many of my constituents in my electorate attend. They are all local stakeholders who put hard work and effort into working with the government to fix the problem created by the previous government. Following this review we found that student services and amenities were eroding across campuses around Australia. We also found that the former government’s changes were having a serious impact on, in particular, regional and rural Australia. And I know this to be true in my own electorate. I would like to quote some of the stakeholders. In 2008 the University of Ballarat, in their submission, stated: While the current services appear to be at least marginally sustainable, the ongoing maintenance of these services is subject to a significant overhead subsidy from the University. If this position is continued— which it has been— the University community will suffer from an inability to provide new or enhanced services. I am sure that if the university were to put in a new submission today it would not only say that it is suffering an inability to provide new or enhanced services but it would also tell you that, in reality, it is even struggling to maintain those services that continue to exist. The Australian Catholic University, whose regional Aquinas campus is in my electorate—in fact, across the road from my home—stated: Student Association reserves and University funding have been used to maintain essential services in the short term. It went on to say: This model is not sustainable past 2008. If only it had known then what we now know: that this battle would drag on much beyond 2008! And to those opposite who find this news compelling, I assure them that this information is not new. These quotes were part of the Aquinas university’s submission to the original review and were also part of my speech on the second reading in support of the previous bill. I know that members opposite are stuck in their archaic views and are pretty quick to begrudge the position of universities and their student bodies, but you would think that, of all the stakeholders across my electorate, they would listen to the Committee for Ballarat—a group of business people across the Ballarat region. Yet their voices were not heard. The Committee for Ballarat, like others, know how important student services and amenities are. In their submission, they stated: We are concerned that the introduction of Voluntary Student Unionism … has had a marked effect already on the provision of services, representation and amenities at the University of Ballarat’s regional campuses and the local regional campuses of ACU— the Australian Catholic University— and UM— the University of Melbourne. And, as I noted in my speech on the second reading on the previous bill, the Committee for Ballarat stated: We are convinced that unless the present, early, damaging trends are arrested and reversed very soon, then longer lasting and deeper damage will be done. We urge that remedial action be taken as a priority, in consultation with these universities. Amazingly, in 2005 I spoke against the Howard government’s changes when introducing voluntary student unionism. Earlier this year I spoke in support of our reforms and today, in November 2009, at the tail end of the parliamentary session, here we are again still arguing a point that the opposition fails to understand: the importance of providing student services and supporting regional university students. In this bill the government has recognised the importance of student services at universities. The bill is not some radical plan to invest in political activities on campus. Despite the conspiracy theorists on the other side, it is not some radical plan to make student associations suddenly become a political wing of the Labor Party. In these amendments we have provided for higher education providers to support student services that are of a non-academic nature. The history of the University of Ballarat provides a great example. Whilst there have been some members of its student association who have gone on to political life—former Premier Steve Bracks is one, and there have been a number from the conservative side as well—the student association has never been known to engage in political activity. It has been a very traditional regional campus student association that has focused on the provision of services such as food, child care and sporting services and it has also added to the cultural and social life of the university. I have been the member for Ballarat for almost 10 years, and the only time that the student association became political was with the introduction of voluntary student unionism. As I said both in my contribution to the second reading debate and when I opposed the bill in 2005, whilst I opposed the bill, to some extent I want to thank the opposition, who were then in government, for introducing voluntary student unionism, because it in fact activated the then president of the student association so much that he actually joined the Labor Party, having had no interest in doing so before, and he is now a long-term staff member in my office. I am very grateful for the fact that his political activism started because of this. But the student association at the University of Ballarat was not a political organisation by any means prior to that and would have had no interest in political debate unless it had a direct impact on them. In this bill we also have measures in place to ensure that higher education providers give students access to representation and advocacy. This bill also allows for higher education providers to introduce a compulsory student services and amenities fee, capped at $250 per student a year, if they choose to. Let me make two things about that fee very clear. Firstly, students who find it difficult to pay the fee will now, under our provisions, have the option of a loan, similar to what currently exists under the Higher Education Loan Program. Therefore, we will not place students, especially those in regional and rural Australia, in a position of further financial hardship. Secondly, this fee will be used to provide student services and amenities within the guidelines—food and beverages, sport and recreation, clubs and societies, child care, legal services, health care and housing. We want this fee to be spent on vital student services. Under our provisions we have prohibited the fee from being spent on supporting local political parties or supporting candidates for political office. Let me reiterate: our plan is that no money will be invested in political activities at universities. Let me talk a little bit about some of the services as they relate to universities in my electorate and what has actually happened. The University of Ballarat Student Association previously had a campus shop that assisted students by subsidising the cost of food, drinks, toiletries, stationery and much more. What has happened to that campus shop since voluntary student unionism has been introduced and the opposition opposed our amendments? That campus shop has now gone. Not only have students lost two great facilities, the campus shop and also the student cafe, but also the staff at the cafe and the shop have lost their jobs. There is no such thing as competitive pricing at the University of Ballarat, because students have only one choice when buying food and drink. Students struggling to make ends meet, already on tight budgets, are now paying an increased proportion of their week-to-week budgets on much needed supplies. Students are telling me that they have experienced considerable price hikes and there is nothing that they can do about it. Clubs and societies have also taken a big hit at the University of Ballarat. The number of students involved in clubs and societies has diminished dramatically, with fewer than half the numbers of volunteers today compared to three years ago. Clubs and societies are disappearing because the support they need to run is also disappearing. The importance of the universities’ clubs and societies should not be underestimated. Without this element, university campuses lose their sense of individuality. The communities that exist within the university stop. Many students rely on this social experience to develop friendships and to combat isolation, particularly regional students who have had to move a long way to go to the University of Ballarat. We also know that the rate of student retention at university is strongly supported by positive learning environments and that universities are not about just the quality of lectures and the quality of the campuses on which people are teaching. They are also about the social and cultural experiences that young people have at university. On-campus childcare facilities are no longer subsidised since voluntary student unionism came in. If it were not already hard enough for parents to study at uni as it is, the former government has made it even tougher. In terms of other services, certainly there has been a lot of concern about student advocacy. Much as I would love to think that universities and university boards always get it right, they often do not. Disputes often arise because students find themselves in difficult circumstances—they feel that they do not have their marks assessed properly or administrative errors occur. Student associations have provided a very important role in advocating with university boards, university councils and heads of units to negotiate their way through sometimes very difficult issues for students. We do not have to look too far to see that there are actually some supporters other than the government for this bill in the parliament. But there are many outside as well: Australian University Sport, Universities Australia, the Australasian Campus Union Managers Association and, more recently, the Australian Olympic Committee. These groups all know that the former government’s policy decisions have been a huge blow to higher education students. These groups all support the bill because they, like us, have the best interests of students at heart. Yet there is one group who opposes the bill: the Young Liberals students’ groups. It seems to me that a somewhat old-fashioned, ‘battles past’ argument is appearing again with this bill. Frankly, I think it is time. The world has moved on a bit from student politics and they really need to get over losing those battles. They do not need to continue to fight them within this parliament. But there may be a ray of hope in this debate. Whispers around National Party circles indicate that they are a bit divided from the Liberals on this bill. It is not often that I see the National Party as a ray of hope, particularly in relation to regional university students, but on this bill maybe they might be. Maybe National Party members have started getting out on the ground and seeing firsthand the devastating impact that the Liberal Party’s obsession has had on students. Maybe the National Party members have seen that it is students who in fact have been paying the price for the former government’s ideological obsession with this bill. I welcome the news that National Party members support a compulsory fee for university students for student services and amenities. Even more relevant to the university campuses across my electorate, the National Party have recognised that rural and regional campuses are being hardest hit. While the National Party may be saying one thing at conferences and to constituents in local electorates, we have seen in the past that in Canberra they will do the complete opposite. The last time these measures were introduced into the House the National Party voted against our amendments. But this time they have an opportunity to change their vote. We are now almost a year down the track from when our amendments were first introduced, and a lot has happened on university campuses. A lot of services closed and a lot of universities came under substantial pressure to cross-subsidise services that were previously funded out of student association coffers. So just maybe the National Party has seen the light and will actually follow their national conference position and support these bills. They should certainly follow this position as laid out in their own National Party conference and vote in support of the bill. Members opposite have refused to accept our position on this matter. We, along with a long list of stakeholders, have delivered them warning after warning about the impacts their changes have made to student life and university campuses. They know they got it wrong, yet their obsession and their stubbornness have meant that they have refused to change their view on this issue. They have successfully ripped away basic services from students in higher education. When voting on this bill, members opposite have to take into account the realities at hand. Firstly, students across Australia are doing it tough, and the changes those opposite have made mean that students are doing it even tougher. Secondly, the position we find ourselves in with this bill is a result of consultation across a broad range of stakeholders, and that is why there is strong support for the Rudd government’s amendments. Thirdly, the education and wellbeing of our nation’s current and future university students is a top priority. Without immediate certainty, services in my electorate will rapidly fold—if they have not done so already. The student association has limped along through this year in the hope that these amendments will be passed. The university has attempted to negotiate with the student association to continue, but that position is clearly not tenable in the long term. I am concerned that there will now be further job losses at the University of Ballarat Student Association. That is something I hope can be avoided. But if the amendments in this bill are not passed, then certainly the cultural and social life and the services provided to students at the University of Ballarat, the Australian Catholic University and the University of Melbourne campus in Creswick, and the services for those students who commute the long distance from Ballarat to Geelong, to Deakin University campuses, will cease to exist or cease to exist in the form that we know them. I commend this bill to the House. 12472 18:55:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —This must be deja vu—I remember the last time we spoke on this the member for Ballarat was the preceding speaker. On that occasion we had had some meetings with regional university people in one of the rooms here in Parliament House. A number of the issues that she raised just now were raised on that occasion. Let us hope we do not return to the scene of the crime; let us hope that this legislation is passed this time. The Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is really designed to recognise student services and amenities. I think there is still some confusion in people’s minds—or some people’s minds—that this legislation is about voluntary student unionism. It is not about student unionism at all; it is about the provision of amenities and services to university students and is particularly important in a regional context, as the member for Ballarat mentioned. I am very supportive of this legislation, and I would like to reiterate that support by way of a reference to a conference held last Saturday week in my electorate—the Vision New England Summit. It is an event that I hold once a term. I invite all interest groups from across the electorate to send one or two people and determine an agenda that they agree with right across the electorate. So, rather than what normally drives the political process, particularly in this place—the politics of division—people come along and determine what they have in common, irrespective of whether they are, as they were on this occasion, from the Transport Workers Union or the farmers association or the various tourist and regional development groups or whether they are the mayor and general manager of the local council or are involved in a whole range of other organisations across the electorate. Even in this place, many of us would recognise that even though there are arguments at the margin almost daily—and the art of politics is finding where the division is rather than the unity—there is a lot of unity of purpose in relation to a lot of the issues that we debate in this place. Resolution 12 from the most recent Vision New England Summit states: That this Summit calls on Coalition and crossbench Senators to pass the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009. And encourages all organisations and individuals to write to the Senators as a matter of urgency in support of the Bill. That is an interesting resolution because it comes from a very broad cross-section of political focus within the electorate, not only from the University of New England and others involved with education but, as I said, from all the council groups within my electorate and a whole range of other organisations. It is one of 21 resolutions that the Vision New England Summit agreed to support unanimously. There was no division in my electorate on this particular issue, and it was interesting to see how it played out on the day and gained the unanimous support of all of the interest groups that were there. One of the issues that plagued this particular issue when it was first introduced by the Howard government was that some young Liberals in particular, people who were actively involved in student politics and who have evolved to this place—you and I, Mr Deputy Speaker Adams, are not of that ilk, but some are—were living in the past, and they still are in relation to this particular issue. They are trying to settle old scores through the politics of this place. Some of those people are in their 40s now, and older, and they should recognise that this bill is not about reinstatement of little cliques of political dominions within various universities. It is about, as I said, the provision of services and amenities to young people at our universities. I would like to recognise a few people in the gallery behind me. I note that there are quite a lot in the gallery tonight! The first is a member of my staff and it is the first time she has been in this building. Melissa Penrose has been working for me for 14 years, and I welcome her to the building and obviously to such a packed parliament. It is something to behold! Graham Nuttall has always been in this building—members would recognise him, so I will not welcome him because this is his sandpit anyway—but there are two other people in the gallery whom I would like to refer to: Professor John Pegg and Dr Lorraine Graham. Some of you may remember that last week I moved an MPI that related to educational facilities for country people in particular. John and Lorraine are the architects of the QuickSmart program that was the basis of my matter of public importance. The bill that we are debating today, the service fee bill, was also part of that broad debate in the matter of public importance. I congratulate John and Lorraine for their leadership in relation to that particular program. As I mentioned last week, the QuickSmart program is a unique program in that it is based on assisting those young people with literacy and numeracy problems. We know of them in our various schools, and we have grown up knowing kids who have fallen behind at school. In some cases they never catch up and in other cases they become antisocial and react to the feeling that they are deemed to be failures with their schoolwork. One of the significant issues that John and Lorraine and their team at the University of New England have been able to achieve is to empirically assess the QuickSmart program over time. It has been going for eight or nine years and is currently in about 200 schools. They are here in Canberra at this particular time to talk to 10 of the schools in the Canberra area that are using the QuickSmart program. That particular program is showing that, over 30 weeks, kids who are falling two, three or four years behind in their numeracy and literacy skills can be brought forward and placed on a positive pathway. More importantly, and this is why I talked about the program last week, that upward pathway does not stop at the end of the program. They have been able to go back and assess young people five or six years after they have finished the 30-week program and have found that that upward path has been maintained. A lot of what is happening here is related to young people’s brains et cetera, but it is also related to confidence and a whole range of factors that are impacting on young people. So I am delighted that they are here today and that they have put this work into this program. I urge all members, as I did last week, to really look at this program because of lot of money is spent on education in this place. In my view, some of it is wasted; a lot of it is good money. But here is a program that brings kids forward and maintains that pathway, and the success rate is enormous. I used an example last week, and I will use it again, of the Orara school. It is not in my electorate. This program is in my electorate, but this particular school is at Coffs Harbour, in the member for Cowper’s electorate. They were so taken by this particular program that they put 44 young people into it. From memory, 42 progressed at the rate of more than 20 per cent. Two did not, but they had some special issues to be dealt with—and did improve anyway. But the farcical thing in terms of the education system is that the improvement was so great on the external testing that was done that that school lost its disadvantaged school funding the next year because they had been so successful. So what you will see at that particular school are peaks and troughs if we do not come to grips with these sorts of programs where we assist these young people. The member for Ballarat mentioned briefly the politics of this issue. When the previous government was in power and the voluntary student unionism bill was before this parliament, Senator Barnaby Joyce moved some amendments in the Senate, and those who remember the debate would remember that Senator Fielding became a key number at that time and the legislation went down. But I will always remember—because Senator Joyce had not been in the building for that long at that time—sending him a congratulatory note because of the stance that he took. Senator Joyce is a graduate of the University of New England and would have known, and still knows, the importance of some of the student services and amenities to young people who are away from home and attending university. As I said, I congratulated Senator Joyce on that occasion. Now that there has been a change of government there seems to have been a change of heart, even though the bill is somewhat different to the previous VSU bill. But I would urge Senator Joyce to look very closely at this bill again because, in my view—as I think he will agree when he reflects on this, as may some of the other Nationals in the Senate—this bill is a significant one in relation to the services that it provides to our young people. It provides that, if the money is not available, it can be part of a loan that the student can pay back after university has been completed. The National Party senators in particular should pay some heed to what their constituents are saying on this issue. At a recent conference it was voted that they should support this legislation. I think they are in a state of flux at the moment, with some internal divisions with the Liberal Party, so that they are reluctant to break with the Liberals on this particular issue. But I would urge them to look beyond that. Senator Joyce is, I believe, going to be a candidate against me at the next election for the seat of New England, so I should not be praising him up too much. But we will have some degree of common ground during the election campaign in that we both supported this legislation last time, and hopefully he will be supportive of it again on this occasion. I would urge those senators to reflect on what happened between them and the Liberal Party on the sale of Telstra. I think it is time that they actually did start to stand up on some of these substantive regional issues where our children not only go to university but in most cases live many hundreds of kilometres away from their parents and families whilst at university. Some of the services that this fee goes to providing relate not only to sport and the obvious ones but also to health, counselling and some of the issues where our young people may need help. We would all hope—and I listened to the member for O’Connor earlier on—that none of our kids would need any of those services. But one thing is for certain: if those services are not there, there is no way they will get them. There are occasions when our young people are vulnerable and I think they need the opportunity to seek help. As a parent, I think it is pretty low rent, in a sense, if I can guarantee help to some kids from country backgrounds who need help and assistance from time to time, in that there is a facility at the universities to actually help deliver those services. I would like to congratulate some of the Australian university sport people from across Australia who have been working hard on this issue, particularly Tom O’Sullivan. Tom has spent a lot of time in Canberra debating this issue and championing the issue with many members of parliament, along with Don Knapp and the University of New England sports director, David Schmude, who was here only last week talking to various people. I would hope that their influence—because they are all very sane, level-headed people—would have some influence on the numbers in the Senate. I would also like to recognise someone who is not with the university movement anymore but who put an enormous amount of work in, in the last parliament: Greg Harris. I think if the legislation is passed, in some shape or other, that Greg will, even though not involved directly now, have been very directly responsible for keeping the issue alive during those early days. I will conclude by saying that this will be a test for the National Party in the Senate because they actually believe in what the services and amenities fee is about. They fully understand what it means to our kids—particularly country kids but also city kids who are away from home—in terms of service provision. It underpins a lot of the services—services that some of our students may or may not use. But if those services are not there, our students will not be able to use them. As I said earlier, I think that the small contribution that is made, which can be arranged in the form of loan, is a way of making a contribution to university life. As per my MPI of last week, if members of the House and this packed gallery do not remember anything else they should remember the QuickSmart program, because it is something that really does work and needs our support. There are currently some suggestions before the Minister for Education in relation to that, and the government has been supportive of the program in the past. There are something like 200 schools utilising that program and, when you actually talk to the principals or the teachers of those schools about how it is going, the enthusiasm is quite incredible. If we are serious about the Aboriginal education issue that we talk about in this place quite often, the runs are on the board in the Northern Territory in relation to the empirical evidence—not just rumour and innuendo—of the success of this program in lifting Aboriginal kids who were dragging behind in terms of their numeracy and literacy. So I urge all present to have a look at the QuickSmart program on the website et cetera. If you need to talk to the architects, they will be in the dining room for the next hour and a half. 12475 19:15:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The Liberal and National parties have an obsessive hatred of all things union, and that obsessive hatred drove them to inflict major damage on student services in higher education when they abolished compulsory student union fees in 2005. I support the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 because it provides a framework for reversing the trail of destruction left by the previous government’s voluntary student unionism legislation—perhaps I should say ‘so-called voluntary student unionism legislation’. In particular, this bill will help reverse what has been noted as the ‘lessening of vibrancy and diversity’ on university campuses and will give essential service delivery back to students. The legislation fulfils the election commitment the Rudd Labor government gave from opposition to rebuild essential services and amenities on university campuses. It is an election commitment which we have already attempted once to honour with legislation that passed through this House in February and was rejected by the Senate in August. There should be no doubt that the so-called voluntary student unionism legislation was a direct attack on university students. When the regime was introduced by the Howard government in legislation in 2005 it imposed an annual reduction of some $170 million on essential campus services and amenities. That annual reduction of $170 million affected services such as the provision of food outlets; buildings; meeting rooms; toilet facilities; stationery; second-hand bookshops; childcare services; legal services; welfare services; accommodation assistance; funding to student groups on campus, including clubs and societies; support for campus theatres; student representation; educational advocacy; short- and long-term student loans; student newsletters; and student newspapers. It is evident from this long list of services provided under the previous model of university services that had existed for many decades and that were enjoyed by all with a university education in this country—a very large proportion of whom are members in this place—that the services were broad ranging and essential to the maintenance of a rich university experience. I spoke in February on the previous version of this legislation and I do not want to repeat the comments that I made then about the immense value of a full range of services being available to students. It was very good to hear that the member for New England, the previous contributor to this debate, understands the importance of the broad range of services being provided to students. He supports this legislation because he understands the need to put in place a compulsory fee system to be able to raise the necessary funds. He understands the disastrous impact that there has been from the former government’s legislation on students from regional areas in particular. It is an understanding which, regrettably, those opposite and their colleagues in the Senate appear to have not yet reached. I hope very much that those in the National Party to whom the member for New England directed his comments pay close attention to what he had to say about the disastrous impact of the current regime—the regime this government is determined to replace to honour its election commitment—on students from those areas that the National Party, at least, purports to serve. It is worth mentioning a few other effects of the regime introduced by the former government with its so-called voluntary student unionism legislation. The Australasian Campus Union Managers Association, which is the peak body representing student unions, reported a loss of over 1,000 jobs on campuses just one year after the introduction of so-called voluntary student unionism. In fact, some 25 out of 30 student associations experienced significant job losses, much of which came in the area of professional academic and pastoral support to students. Student advocacy also experienced a significant blow from the regime introduced by the former government. Advocacy is now mainly conducted by the university or a company representing the university rather than by independent student service providers. This means that students facing academic exclusion or those wishing to appeal against results may not have access to independent ombudsmen or independent representation. As part of the same survey, some 13 out of 18 student organisations reported that they had made substantial, or near total, cuts to departmental or portfolio funding. The broad range of clubs and societies which exist at higher education institutions across our country should be encouraged for the great services that they provide to students. I certainly look back very fondly at the range of services I was able to access at the University of Melbourne when I attended that great university in the 1970s—from the chocolate appreciation society right through to sporting clubs, bushwalking clubs and all the other essential services that should be taken to be part of university life. These clubs and societies diversify and enhance learning in our universities as well as provide important social avenues for students to unwind and enjoy life at university apart from their studies. The opposition does seem to have an obsession with destroying all things union and tearing away at all things that they perceive to be connected with the union movement. We saw that in their attack on the industrial relations system in this country with the Work Choices legislation. Regrettably, that same obsession was manifest in this regime that was introduced to Australian higher education institutions by the former government. It is an obsession which seems to stem from an irrational fear of trade unions and perhaps from the perception of the power of trade unions. But, regrettably, it has blinded those opposite to the true role that student unions have played on university campuses around our country. It has blinded them to that role, even though student unions are unique in the way in which they facilitate and enhance university life and provide essential services. So intent was the former government on tearing out and striking down anything they regarded as being associated with the union movement that they were prepared to visit destruction on the range of university services; they were prepared to visit extreme damage on the fabric of university life as it has been known for many decades in our country. I would remind the House, just to take a single example, that the current Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, was once the president of the student union at the University of Sydney. It has been interesting to hear contributions not only to the current form of the legislation but also when the previous version of this bill was debated in the House in February, in that those opposite made almost no mention that some of those sitting opposite—indeed, many former people occupying frontbench positions opposite—were directly and very actively involved in the student union movement. Regrettably, those opposite have persisted in the contributions we have heard thus far with the same kind of obsessive attack on all things union that we heard when the Senate rejected the previous version of this legislation in August. Those speeches in the Senate reflected not the slightest attempt to understand the legislation but were simply filled with statements bordering on abuse and condemning the legislation as what was treated by various Liberal and National senators as compulsory student unionism. We saw from Senator Birmingham the statement that it was a move ‘to a form of compulsion through compulsory student unionism’. We heard from Senator Cash this sort of statement: … the Liberal Party will continue to stand up for the rights of university students … There were multiple references in speeches in the other place to freedom of association. We heard from Senator Cash: Freedom of association, including the freedom not to join an association, remains one of the Liberal Party’s core beliefs. It is a pity, in fact, that those sentiments about freedom of association were not expanded to trade unions—true trade unions. But I digress. Perhaps the most intemperate comments heard in the other place were from Senator Bernardi, who, as with so many of those opposite, seems to have not read the former form of this legislation. Again, it seems that those opposite have still not grappled with the way this legislation works. Senator Bernardi had this to say: … compulsory student amenities fees—which is just compulsory unionism dressed up under another name. I am yet to hear a university student say, ‘I’m not going to attend university because they do not have the social and creative outlets that I want there.’ I would pause there to say that he clearly has not spoken to very many university students, because it is in fact something I have often heard from university students. They directly compare the range of facilities that are available at particular universities. The academic standards, the type of courses that are provided at universities, are only one of the matters that university students take into account in deciding whether or not to attend a particular institution. Particularly these days there is a great range of choice of the universities that one might choose to attend. But to return to Senator Bernardi’s comments, he said: A university is meant to be a place of higher learning. It is meant to be a place where you broaden your experiences and you learn to become an independent adult operating in the world. It is not necessarily a place just for slush funds to divert money in support of non-conservative governments or to support left-wing student unionists. That is not what it is about. Sure, we accept that there is a hotbed of socialism in some of our universities, which many of us reject, but we should not be paying for them to pursue their left-wing tendencies. That is as far as I will take it, quoting from Senator Bernardi. It is hard to believe that that is a senator speaking in the Australian parliament in 2009, seemingly misunderstanding the way this legislation is structured and misunderstanding the limitations that are placed on this legislation—not only the form of legislation that is directed merely at permitting universities to compulsorily collect a fee to provide services at universities but also omitting to see that there are very, very direct limitations involving any engagement in political activity. Far from this legislation being a return to supposed compulsory student unionism, it is a modest measure designed to repair the damage caused by the former government’s legislation. I would hope that, when this legislation returns to the Senate, opposition senators—guided by wise counsel such as from the member for New England about the disastrous effect that former government regime has had on student services—change the position that they adopted when the former form of this legislation was before the Senate. The former government very much seems to have intended to not only pursue its attack on unionism but also directly suppress the political activity and debate which has been and should continue to be a very important aspect of university life in this country. On this side of the chamber we want to encourage young people to be involved in participatory democracy— IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs interjecting— HWG Dreyfus, Mark, MP Mr DREYFUS —rather than stifle their interests, which I am sure is what the member for Mayo, from his interjection, wishes to occur. He wants to see a stifling of involvement in political activity and a stifling of the richness of university life. We say it is completely appropriate to require all students to contribute to the services that are provided for their assistance. I am happy to be able to say that Universities Australia have argued very directly for the same view. I will quote from the submission that Universities Australia made to the Senate committee inquiry into the former form of this legislation in February 2009. They said: … not all students may use these services during their study, but [Universities Australia] is firmly of the view that it is better for all students to contribute to the provision of the services, which are then available to all, than to not have the services available to those who need them. Additionally, such services will provide a safety net for those students who had begun their study with no need for the services, but whose situations change for the worse during the course of their study. It is not different from the approach that successive Australian governments have taken to such matters as the Medicare levy, which is a levy imposed on all, even though everybody here and the entire Australian community would understand that not all members of the Australian community, happily, have need to avail themselves of the services provided and funded by Medicare, by that levy. Students have experienced indirect costs caused by the so-called voluntary student unionism regime of the former government because universities have had to redirect funds that would have otherwise been spent on other aspects of university activities. Universities have had to redirect funds which otherwise would have been spent on research and teaching to fund services and amenities that, because of the voluntary student unionism regime of the former government and the reduction of funds available, would otherwise have had to be cut. The process will work in reverse. The reintroduction of a student amenities fee will help universities provide those services and allow them not to have to divert essential funds from research and teaching activities. Again, I will quote from something Universities Australia said on the subject. It is the peak body representing the university sector. It said: Universities have struggled for years to prop up essential student services through cross-subsidisation from other parts of already stretched university budgets, to redress the damage that resulted from the Coalition Government’s disastrous Voluntary Student Unionism … legislation … It is also worth quoting from what the Council of Australian Postgraduate Associations said in November last year: … this bill becomes an effective measure to restore and sustain quality student services for postgraduate students that are sustainable into the longer term. It should be noted that the student services and amenities fee will not present a financial imposition on students because they will have the option to take out a HECS style loan as a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program. The reintroduction of this vital legislation shows this government’s commitment to all Australians, including students. It shows a commitment by the Australian Labor Party to be the party which provides for and nurtures student learning. It meets an election commitment, which was to restore campus amenities, services and student representation—the effect of the Howard government’s legislation being that all of these were heavily cut. The bill will go a long way to reversing the disastrous change in the administration of our tertiary sector which began in 2006 with the coalition’s obsessive desire to destroy all things union. I predict, seeing that the member for Mayo is about to follow me, that we are likely to hear a yet further attack directed at all things union as the only possible basis for not supporting this legislation. I commend the bill to the House. 12479 19:34:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —I appreciate the warm welcome that the member for Isaacs just gave me as the warm-up act to my contribution this evening. It is always nice to hear from the member for Isaacs and be reminded of the talent that is sitting over there on the Labor Party back bench—so he tells us. 5I4 McMullan, Bob, MP Mr McMullan —No-one would ever say that about you, mate. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I think there was an interjection from someone over the other side. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—The member for Mayo will ignore the interjection. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I want to address a couple of comments that the member for Isaacs made about student unionism and the so-called attack by this side of the House on unions. It is actually not an attack on unions; it is an attack on compulsion, Member for Isaacs. We have no problem with unions at all. In fact, we have always supported their role in both the workplace and at university. Our problem is when you force people to be members of the union so that they can fund Labor Inc., so that they can fund the training ground. We accept that very senior members of our side—the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney; the member for Wentworth, as we were reminded; the member for Sturt; and, I think, the member for Warringah—were all involved in student politics. Of course they would be; they were interested in politics. The member for Isaacs was involved in student politics when he was a young buck. But the issue was that you chose to be involved. Our problem with this Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is that you are charging a compulsory fee to bump up the bottom line of the student union so that it can go out and campaign on issues which largely are not representative of what most university students think. That has always been our problem and that has always been how we have outlined it. The member for Isaacs said that this is meeting an election commitment. I will read to you what the then shadow minister for education said: … I am not considering a HECS style arrangement, I’m not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. I am not sure how that set of words is consistent with the election commitment they claim to be meeting. I would have thought that was the complete opposite of the election commitment the Labor Party gave. Like so many things that we heard from the Labor Party before the last election, it turns out that it is just not true—the approach on this issue, their economic conservatism or the buck stopping with the Prime Minister on health and hospital reforms. As we heard today, not one single hospital has been assisted. These promises made before the election have failed to be delivered. We were going to have a superfast internet network, NBN mark 1. We now have NBN mark 2 on the drawing board. All of these promises were made purely to get through an election campaign. The creme de la creme, we should not forget, was, ‘I’ll turn the boats back.’ That was the best promise that we had from the Prime Minister. It was just days—two days, I think—before the last election that he made that promise, and we have seen that that promise is as fraudulent now as it was when he made it. So this is clearly a commitment the Labor Party have gone back on. This reintroduction of compulsory student unionism is a broken election commitment. The second issue I wanted to address with the member for Isaacs is that he talked about the Liberal Party being the party that likes to censor debate. But we are not the party that have introduced censorship of what we can send out, including whether copies of Hansard can be sent out. I do not think that was our side of politics, Member for Isaacs; I think that was the side of politics that you are on. Under the biggest control freak of a Prime Minister in the history of our country, we now have to check what we can say about the policies of the Labor government of the day with bureaucrats in its censorship bureau. But the member for Isaacs has the gall to allege that we are the party of censorship. Give me strength. This is Orwellian in its nature. It is 1984. These guys will say and do anything to mislead this place. It is an extraordinary suggestion to say that the Liberal Party is the party that wants to censor or stop debate. We saw it at the Labor Party’s national conference. The minister for finance and his thought police at the front of the room had to see any motion before it could be put to the floor of the conference. That side of parliament have become a North Korean style communist organisation run by a factional warlord, and they want to control every single word, every single sentence and every single thing that happens—so much so that they are now trying to control this side of the House as well. All we have heard in the last few weeks is how much of a debate we do have on the Liberal Party side of politics. So the member for Isaacs’s arguments are somewhat befuddling, I must say. The real intent of this bill is to get back to what Labor believe in, which is a compulsion for unionism, a compulsion to ensure they get the money and the numbers. The student unionism plays an integral part in the flow-through of young people who make up the Labor Party brand across the country. There is no better example than the several members of parliament from South Australia. My friend the member for Kingston who is, I grant you, a hard worker, came through the training school. The minister responsible for this bill, Ms Kate Ellis, spent five years at Flinders University, three of them, from memory, as president of the student union, so she has a very long history with this area. She went from there into Labor Party staffer land in South Australia, with now Deputy Premier Mr Kevin Foley. So there is a long history here. The usual tactic with the Right in South Australia is that Don Farrell, dubbed the ‘godfather of the Right’ by the Adelaide Advertiser—and tonight he and the member for Port Adelaide hold the future of the Premier of South Australia in their hands, whether or not they believe the story, but we will not get into that during this debate—gets the numbers through compulsory student unionism, in the first instance, which allows them to build up their numbers base. They move into the right side of the SDA and they are able to control Labor Party branches and conferences in that way. I am sure my friend the member for Wakefield will very soon correct any mistakes I make on this matter. So this is very much Labor Inc. This is what they do. Student unionism is an important part of the Labor organisation and its structure in terms of how the Labor Party is able to operate, particularly in my state of South Australia, and we have seen that for a very long time. The $250 student services fee was first part of the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities, and Other Measures) Bill 2009 introduced in February 2009, which included a section on VET FEE-HELP. It passed this House in March, and we voted it down in the Senate in August. It has been reintroduced in this place without the VET FEE-HELP section, which has been hived off into a separate bill. So this is very much the ‘student unionism bill 2009’. Let me make this very clear. Unlike what the member for Isaacs said, this was not promised before the last election. Indeed, it was the very opposite that was promised before the last election. There was a very specific promise by the member for Perth as the shadow minister at the time—now our foreign minister—not to do this. But instead we are seeing the second attempt to get this student services fee through. I was interested that the member for Isaacs mentioned a couple of senators who had made contributions on this bill—I think they were Senator Birmingham and Senator Cash. In fact, I thought what the member for Isaacs did was make a very good argument, which was that this is about freedom of association; this is about choice. If students want to be part of the clubs and use the services that are offered at universities, they will join. There is no need for the compulsion. The only reason for the compulsion is to get the funds in the door so the student union, run by the Labor Party organisation, can run their campaigns, as they have for very many years. What Labor do not like about voluntary student unionism is that it has been chipping away at the underbelly of Labor Inc. That is what this bill is about: re-establishing those arrangements, which were taken away in 2005 by the former government. This bill is, very simply, about the reintroduction of student unionism in Australia. It is not about services. It is not about students’ wellbeing on campus. It is about the beginnings of Labor Inc. and important aspects of how the Labor organisation works. That is very much what this bill is about. The minister responsible for this bill is a beneficiary of the Labor Inc. organisation. She has very much benefited from how this set-up works, from student union days all the way through. She is now the minister who has been able to reintroduce this bill in an attempt to re-establish Labor domination at universities. What we are saying is that this bill should be treated as we treated its predecessor earlier in the year—with the contempt it deserves. This is a bad piece of legislation. It is a backwards step. It is purely about the reintroduction of compulsory student unionism in Australia. As I said earlier in my contribution, the issue is about compulsion. It is not that we do not like student unions. If people want to be involved in politics at university, if they want to get involved in student unionism or if they want to get involved in sports clubs at university, of course that is encouraged and of course that is what people should do if they wish to, but it should not be compulsory that they do so. They should not be forced to do so. This is a very Labor Party bill. The Labor Party is now trying to censor this side of the House as well as its own MPs and its own members. The Labor Party conference had the thought police at the front there run by the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Any idea to be presented had to go through the minister for finance. This is the most controlling government in the history of Australia. The most controlling Prime Minister in the history of Australia is now trying to control this side of parliament as well as his own. This bill should be treated with the contempt it deserves. It will obviously get through this place when it is put to a vote, but I am sure in the Senate it will be treated as it should be. 12482 19:45:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I do not know whether it is a good thing or a bad thing that I follow the previous speaker, the member for Mayo, because I could spend the whole of my time allotted refuting some of the almost hysterical and ridiculous arguments that he was putting forward on the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009. It would also mean that I would not be able to focus on what are some of the very important reforms that are contained in this legislation. For the record, particularly for the member for Mayo, this is not a bill that will reintroduce compulsory student unionism. In fact, the legislation specifically prohibits any university or higher education provider making it mandatory or requiring that students join a student organisation. But more of what the previous member had to say later. By way of beginning, I have just come from the Main Committee where I moved a private member’s motion concerning the Millennium Development Goals, particularly goals 4 and 5, which deal with the very significant issues of attempting to improve the global community’s ability to reduce both child mortality and maternal mortality. The reality is that, as we are speaking in this place today, 24,000 children under five will have died of preventable diseases like malaria, diarrhoea and other very common diseases. It is a reality that every minute we are speaking in this debate a woman is dying in childbirth. The reality is that those statistics are so shocking because they are born of poverty and they are born of a lack of resources in many communities across this globe to deal with some of those most fundamental issues like caring for our children and for the women that bear and rear those children. If there is one thing that any community will acknowledge that can reduce poverty, it is access to education. The opportunity for any person on this earth to be able to provide a living for themselves and to improve their existing circumstances is through their ability to gain an education. That is what this bill is about. It is about allowing students—in fact, enabling and supporting students—regardless of their background, regardless of their circumstances, to have the right to not just a university education but a university education that will give them all of the support that they need to obtain their degree. This week I am a little bit focused elsewhere. My daughter finished year 12 last Friday. Her father and I delivered her to the Sunshine Coast to enjoy what we all know as ‘schoolies week’. You can appreciate that my mind and my heart are a little bit elsewhere this week. While I hope that she is enjoying herself and enjoying the freedoms and privileges that go with a week without parents, I also hope she is not a victim of what we know are some of the excessive behaviours. But that is just this week. When she comes back from ‘schoolies’ she has the rest of her life ahead of her and her goal is to go to university. Her goal is to study journalism at university—a fact which maybe her mother, as a politician, is not necessarily completely comfortable with. Nevertheless, I will do anything to support her in her pursuit of opportunities and her goals as she moves into her adult life. The reason I support this bill is that I want my daughter not just to go to university—to attend tutorials and lectures and to struggle through the pains and trials of assessment—but also to enjoy her time at university. I want it to be the making of her not just professionally but personally—the making of her as a young woman who will develop a whole range of skills, be they social skills, friends or all those relationships that she will form that, hopefully, will be with her throughout her life. I want her to remember university as a time when she did not just learn what she had to learn for the next exam but when she learnt about life. That is the experience I had at university, and the experience I had through many activities at university, whether going to the theatre to see movies, whether playing sport or being able to eat in a cafeteria, because on the student income I received I was still able to buy myself some food, I want her to have. I want her to have those resources and those services as well. I want to know that if she gets into trouble and is finding it difficult, whether it is on a personal or educational level, there is a counselling service that she will be able to go to and seek the advice and guidance that she needs to keep her on her way. I want her to know that there are clubs and different societies where she can pursue all of the interests that she has as a young person and be able to do that with neither the fear of the cost of participating in that activity nor that the service will not be there at all because the university she is attending simply cannot afford it. That is the reality of this bill. It is not the sort of politically paranoid rant we heard from the member for Mayo. It is not about, as Senator Abetz said in his speech, turning vice-chancellors into shop stewards. It is not about forcing people to join an organisation that they see no value for. It is actually about supporting students to not just achieve their educational goals but also to enjoy a full round of services on the way. It is not also a broken election commitment, as the member for Mayo indicated. In fact, as Minister Ellis has said on many occasions publicly and in the House, this is about delivering on our election commitment to rebuild essential student services and amenities on university campuses. This is actually about getting back into universities those fundamental supports, resources, services and amenities that students deserve while they study, and indeed, many of them need. When you look at the results of what occurred on campuses right across this country as a result of the draconian legislation that was introduced by the previous Howard government, you can appreciate just how important this particular bill is. If you live in a capital city and you have the opportunity to attend one of the Group of Eight universities, as you know, they were well-resourced and in some ways were able to provide some support to students. They were able to prop up their student organisations with funding agreements. For example, in my own city of Brisbane there is the well-respected University of Queensland, which I attended, and I admit I was involved in the student union and was very active in it. The University of Queensland was able to support student organisations to provide some of the basic services that had been lost as a result of this legislation. But their bucket of money was finite as well. It meant that the university had to take money away from teaching and learning resources to provide those essential services to their students. But if you represent a rural or a regional electorate, you know that many universities did not even have that luxury. Many universities simply had to cut services or dramatically increase fees for students to be able to use those services, in effect putting those services out of reach for probably most of the students who actually needed them. Those who often cannot afford something are the ones who need that service the most. So, in effect, you had a whole group of students going through university not realising their full potential when it came to their educational goals because they simply could not afford some of those very essential services that they needed to back them up. We all know that nobody goes to university planning a major event or a dramatic episode that seriously affects their wellbeing. Nobody plans for the death of a family member or a car accident or many of those things that may either affect them mentally, and therefore seriously affect their educational abilities, or indeed may actually mean that they are not able to do the part-time job that they have been doing to get through university. It means that those people were left with no services to support them, with no counselling to support them, without the ability often to go and get a basic meal—those sorts of things. This legislation is essential to supporting the education of our young people. For example, the student organisation at Charles Darwin University went bankrupt. The SRC at Southern Cross University at Lismore had to be wound down. The University of New England union adjusted by dissolving the student organisation and taking on service provision under the entity of UNE Services. It now receives $300,000 a year from the university. Before the introduction of voluntary student unionism it received $1.85 million a year—a serious reduction in terms of dollars to the sorts of activities that students should enjoy while they are there. It basically means there are no sporting activities and, if you are part of a regional university, often it is the university facilities that are not just enjoyed by students but indeed the whole community. Many schools and other community organisations use university facilities because the community simply does not have the resources to build those facilities otherwise. So we saw communities robbed, not just students. Unfortunately, there is a litany of examples of universities that suffered as a result of the Howard government’s legislation. Indeed, we do not need to go as far as rural and regional universities. In my own electorate we have Griffith University nearby, the second largest university in Brisbane, a very well established, well respected university. Its main campus at Nathan is just across the border in the electorate of my good friend the member for Moreton. The Mount Gravatt campus is contained within the electorate of Bonner. That student organisation disappeared. As a result, though, of what is contained in this legislation, the $250 fee that the government is now allowing universities to require students to pay, it will in fact restore many of the very important services that were lost as a result of the SRC going under. They were unable to collect voluntary fees. We know that. It is not an argument for compulsory student unionism to acknowledge that voluntary fees, when you are a student, are the last thing on your mind. But if the university asks you to pay a simple fee of $250 and no more for the year, which in fact therefore provides the campus with the resources that it needs to provide child care, counselling and sporting facilities, that is not too onerous a burden on students and it provides them with many of the resources that are so essential. There is paranoia and what can only be considered an ideologically driven argument from the other side. There is a fear of students organising collectively. There is, as the member for Isaacs said, a fear of freedom of association. But the legislation illustrates some 16 items where the money can be spent—child care, legal services, health care, employment and academic support, just to name a few. I was halfway through my university degree when my first child was born. I know how important it was for me to finish my degree to have access to affordable child care on campus with my child nearby. So this is not an argument about how big a student protest you can fund, this is an argument about how people actually get their qualifications and get through university life without going under. If it were not for the support of some legal services, many students, because of circumstances that they could never predict, would be walking away from universities—a lifetime of opportunity wasted. Many female students and indeed many male students who do not have access to affordable child care would have to give up university and go out to full-time work rather than pursuing their dream and their education goals. I cannot understand how the opposition can oppose this bill. I cannot understand how requiring a services fee—to provide sporting activities, legal support, counselling services, academic support and subsidies for textbooks and other materials that students need to continue in their degree—suddenly translates into ‘Labor Inc.’ as the member for Mayo called it. They somehow think that providing subsidised textbooks is going to create some sort of ‘student revolutionary guard’ that is going to fundamentally attack the Liberal Party and make them disappear. That is not what this legislation is about. It is not, in fact, what student unionism is about. Understanding and appreciating that campuses need to make sure the money goes into the services students need is the very reason why the government is not reintroducing compulsory student unionism. It is the very reason why the government is not allowing student unions to develop and to redirect funds into what they see as political campaigns. In some universities there are tens of thousands of students. They are major communities, they are cities in themselves, and they have a right to say what services they want. They have a right to argue for the organisations and activities they want to be able to participate in not just to obtain their degree but to attain a level of maturity, to move into young adulthood and to participate in community life as well as professional life. It is important that the myths get put to bed and that we acknowledge the important reforms in this legislation that will enable students to do well. It is important that the students at Mount Gravatt, at Griffith University, at the University of Queensland and indeed at Charles Darwin University and James Cook University are able to enjoy a fulfilling and rewarding time at university and look back on university as a memorable time. It is also important that they are able to participate in democratic activities. It is important that young people who are going to university, who are eventually going to become the professionals and political leaders of Australia in the future, are not just sitting in a library beavering away at computer screens for hours a day because they cannot afford the textbooks they need. We do not want them to become insular, single-minded people who have to scrape everything together just to get through their exams. They need to be well-rounded young adults. They need to understand their professional duties but they also need to be able to enjoy and broaden their own personal skills and social activities by participating in all that campus life has to offer. Senator Abetz made comments about vice-chancellors becoming shop stewards. The member for Mayo made comments about creating factional warlords in the Labor Party. He obviously does not understand the factional leaders; they come from a range of backgrounds—certainly not just from university. The opposition cannot see that this is a balanced and practical approach to providing essential student activities. Unfortunately their education, and their ability to read the legislation, has failed them. 12486 20:05:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —I do not say that the statement ‘You can put lipstick on a pig but it remains a pig’ is an original statement, because it certainly is not, but in my view the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is ‘a pig’. This is one of the most outrageous pieces of legislation that I have seen introduced into the House of Representatives. The government claims that it is not seeking to re-institute compulsory student unionism. Well, this is in effect compulsory student unionism by stealth. I do not have a problem with students choosing to make an investment in facilities at university, I do not have a problem with students spending money on, perhaps, sporting facilities, but I am opposed to the element of compulsion. This legislation, as you would know, Madam Deputy Speaker, is being introduced by a party which in government has historically supported compulsory student unionism and also compulsory unionism in the community more generally. It is the old ‘no ticket, no start’—if you do not sign up to the union, you do not get a job. I strongly support the people in the community who want to join a union, if that is their choice, whether it be a labour union or a student union. But I also support the right of those who choose not to join, because I think that in Australia in 2009 we should consider ourselves to be a democracy. I do not believe in conscripting people into membership of organisations—it ought to be voluntary. The government, unfortunately, through the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 is bringing in a piece of legislation which effectively rips up the promises made by the government when in opposition prior to the 2007 election. It has been quoted undoubtedly in the House before tonight that the then shadow minister for education, the now Minister for Foreign Affairs, said in May 2007: I am not considering a HECS style arrangement. I am not considering a compulsory HECS style arrangement and the whole basis of the approach is one of a voluntary approach. So I am not contemplating a compulsory amenities fee. So effectively he told the people of Australia, who voted at the election later that year, that Labor would not be bringing in a compulsory amenities fee. What exactly does this legislation do? This legislation turns back the clock—turns it way back. In effect it brings in a compulsory and significant tax of $250 for each and every one of the million tertiary students in Australia. I have no doubt that the facilities at universities in many cases are superb. I have no doubt that they obviously need money to survive, they obviously need assistance and they obviously need support, but it is wrong for the government to allow universities to conscript students into making a compulsory payment. It is the antithesis of democracy. In many cases students will never use those facilities, so why should they be compelled to pay for those facilities? I have not yet heard an argument from the government that is in any way, shape or form remotely compelling as to why the government is ripping up a pre-election promise by, essentially, wanting to take control of $250 of each and every one of the one million tertiary students in Australia. It really is a ‘welcome to Labor’s reality’ tax. I am very disappointed in the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the government for defrauding the Australian people as they did at the election later in 2007. On top of that, students who pay the fees will have very little say on how those fees are going to be spent. I know that there is supposed to be some form of consultation. Under the rules, universities are required to talk with students about where the money is directed. However, this consultation is likely to be with the ‘elected’ representatives of the student union, who historically have been appointed by the very small minority of the student body which takes part in a non-compulsory vote. I am told that figures sometimes show as little as five per cent or 10 per cent of students actually vote to appoint student union office bearers, so a non-representative group will be the people sitting down with the university authorities to talk about how this confiscated $250 from our one million tertiary students in Australia will actually be spent. I would like to make a prediction that the student fees will, in effect, fund the actions and activities selected by the student union hierarchy, whether or not individual students are supportive. I ask the government to reconsider because how on earth can you ask students to pay $250 to a university to be used for purposes dictated by a body elected by five to 10 per cent of the student membership? I was a very strong supporter of the voluntary student unionism legislation introduced by the Howard government in 2005 because it gave students a choice as to whether they would be members of the union. Effectively, we gave them a choice as to whether they wanted to pay money to be part of a union which in many cases would espouse political views diametrically opposed to their own. We also gave them a choice on where they would spend their money. This bill before the House, the Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009, essentially deprives students of that right. We are treating students as being substandard Australians and this bill takes away choice for what, it could be argued, is the political advantage of Labor. As they enter university, students are hit with myriad costs. They emerge from the school system, which is fairly regimented and regulated, where in many cases they do not have to think for themselves about choices in the way that they will at university. They are hit with myriad costs that they previously have not had to bear. These costs can include textbooks, a computer and software—all of which are actually quite expensive these days—as well as accommodation, transport, food and so on. For those students who are entering university directly from year 12 it is a daunting new world that they face. Often they are leaving home for the first time and facing the prospect of having to fend for themselves for the first time; away from the comfort, security and love of their parents’ home, to make the journey toward education and career. This is particularly so for students from regional areas who go to the capital cities to study. To be hit within additional Labor charge of up to $250 will be a significant additional burden. It will be interesting to know what these fees go to in the area of services. But in many cases they will be services the students will not need, want or use. For many students, it is simply wasted money. Wouldn’t it be better to allow students the discretionary opportunity to use that money for purposes more directly associated with the advancement of their educational progress, like buying extra books, rather than having it confiscated and used, in many cases, for political activities. It should be noted also that the legislation does not preclude student unions from spending student money on extremist political causes. The bill leaves open a huge range of political activities upon which this compulsory fee could be spent. For instance, campaigns for or against political causes, specific legislation, policies or party policies are not precluded. The bill does not actually stop the use of these compulsorily acquired funds by student media for whatever minority cause the student union bosses want to use this money for. I find this bill is the absolute antithesis of democracy. The bill amounts to a rort created by the Australian Labor government, one that is impacting not only on the wallets of students but also on their freedom to choose who they associate with and their political alliances. Why on earth should students be forced to pay $250, which, after this token form of consultation by universities, could be allocated to student unions and used to promote political causes diametrically opposed to what the students believe in? This is just shocking. It is appalling. This is a situation which is completely and totally unacceptable. As a member for a regional area, I am very fortunate to represent the University of the Sunshine Coast. This is a wonderful new institution, which obtained its full independent status through the intervention of Dr David Kemp, who overruled the bureaucrats in the department of education after the university made a case to him, supported by local members. This university is doing a wonderful job. Even though it is doing a wonderful job, as Australia’s newest greenfield university it is still not able to provide the range of educational disciplines that many local students want, so many students who want to study medicine, law, dentistry, veterinary science or a range of other academic disciplines are still forced to go away from the Sunshine Coast, which is regrettable because I would like to see at least a medical school and a legal school at the University of the Sunshine Coast. They are forced to go to a capital city—in most cases Brisbane—where they have a huge range of new expenses. This $250 charge, if the universities in Queensland choose to impose it—and I suspect they will—will make it more difficult for those students to thrive and survive and get the educational resources they need to enable them to pass their exams and qualify in a professional area. To add to the concern of students, the fee is indexed. The government has not indexed the qualification levels for access to the Commonwealth seniors health card. More and more Australian seniors are now being excluded from holding the Commonwealth seniors health card because the income levels have not been indexed, and this is at a stage in their lives when they need access to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme at concessional rates. While the government has not indexed access to the Commonwealth seniors health card, it is in fact indexing this $250 fee to take into account future inflation increases. It is a cost that will rise considerably over time. It will be a handy little earner for the Labor Party and the Labor Party apparatchiks who operate through many student unions. Over three years alone, at three per cent annually, the figure would increase to $273. I suppose every cloud has a silver lining, even if the silver lining is a fairly dud silver—I was going to say ‘dull’ silver, but it is probably dud silver as well. The government will allow students to take out a loan for this cost, a loan that could be paid back later, along with other education related expenses. But we have a situation here where this bill will make the attaining of tertiary qualifications just that little bit more difficult. As I said earlier, this fee was never discussed by the government during the election campaign. It was never revealed as a Labor plan. People were duped and deceived into voting for the Labor Party on the basis that the Labor Party was not going to introduce an amenities fee or a compulsory fee for students. Despite that and despite the comments made by the now Minister for Foreign Affairs when he was the shadow minister for education, that promise has been torn up. People have been conned and deceived, and the government tries to suggest that this is somehow an acceptable position. Let us look at a couple of the defects in the bill. There are many defects in the bill, but this bill makes no provision for any government monitoring to make sure that the money is spent sensibly. There is no clear understanding of any obligations that the education providers themselves—the ones who get the money—may have to provide certain services, representations and support to students. Frankly, this bill shows a complete and total lack of understanding of the challenges facing university students. It is heavily biased to the support of the Labor side of politics. It brings in an element of compulsion, an element of conscription, without taking into account the impact on the lives of ordinary, real, decent young Australians, who are of course our nation’s future. It is a broken election promise by a government that will do anything and say anything to achieve its political goal, no matter what the consequences for the people of Australia. Is this bill a precursor of federal legislation making trade unionism compulsory? Where on earth will the government stop in its pursuit of its ideological aims? This bill, as I said at the outset, is a pig. The government might have put lipstick on the pig, but it is still a pig. It is a pig that ought to be slaughtered. 12490 20:21:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I wish to speak tonight on the government’s Higher Education Legislation Amendment (Student Services and Amenities) Bill 2009 and to highlight the unparalleled importance of it for students of tertiary institutions in this country. The amendments proposed in the bill will provide measures that support a balanced, practical and sustainable solution to rebuilding student support services. I am a firm believer that, in order to uphold the quality of the universities our proud country has, we must be committed to ensuring that higher education students have access to adequate amenities and services as well as access to vital, independent, democratic student representation. Without these fundamental and basic requirements the once great conditions of our universities will be lost; a distant memory from a time long since past. It is in my opinion irrefutable that, in order to maintain services and amenities of any kind, funding is required. It is also irrefutable that many people, particularly university students who may be struggling financially already, will not pay a fee for something unless they have to, irrespective of how important they may perceive it to be. Basically, if the students do not have to pay, most will not, and if they do not pay, the services and amenities cannot be maintained. The amendments proposed in this bill allow higher education providers to choose whether they want to implement a compulsory student service fee capped at $250 per student per annum. Whilst the bill does not make it mandatory for higher education providers to impose this fee, it does provide the opportunity for our higher education facilities that require additional funding to collect it in this manner. This makes the law more flexible as it does not force these facilities to impose the fee, nor does it disallow it entirely. The amendment creates a vital chance for higher education providers to accumulate the funding required to sustain student services and amenities. If we fail to support these changes we will witness the continued deterioration of services and amenities in our universities to the very point of no return, when the amenities become irreparable and the services unsalvageable. I have already made the point of saying that we recognise the fact that many university students may be struggling financially and that this fee could further their financial troubles. To combat this and provide an opportunity for students to be relieved of this burden whilst they study, the bill has included the innovative decision to provide eligible students with the option of a loan for this fee through the establishment of a new component of the Higher Education Loan Program, known as HELP, which has been named services and amenities, SA-HELP. This not only will allow the universities the privilege of being able to accumulate funds for services and amenities but will also allow students to put off paying the fees. The result of course is a win-win, with more funding for services and amenities at universities and no money out of students’ pockets at a time in their life when they can least afford it. As I understand it, the National Party have recognised publicly that the current approach to funding student services and amenities is not sustainable and that it has had a terrible impact particularly on our rural and regional campuses. As I further understand it, they voted at a recent party conference to support compulsory fees being levied on university students to support services and amenities on campus. Despite this they did not support the passage of this critical bill in the Senate, preferring to side with coalition partners and ignoring the needs of regional students. Coming from a regional area, I know the value of our regional campuses and the value of student services to students who relocate to study. Regional campuses allow many students the opportunity to engage in higher learning, but without funding this opportunity may be lost and with it the opportunity for students from my area to study closer to home. Some may be forced to relocate, but without vital funding the universities they elect to go to cannot provide the fundamental support services that these students will need to survive in a place unknown to them. Moving away from home to the city is already a very daunting prospect for many 17- and 18-year-olds from regional and rural areas such as those that my electorate encompasses. If we fail to grasp this opportunity to reinject funding into the services that support these young adults, then we are failing as their elected representatives and failing as their government. These students need the support to make it possible for them to survive. Without it, higher education for many of them will become impossible. I cannot and will not stand by and let these students be neglected and left to fend for themselves. It is wrong and I ask, today, that the National Party stand up for their own beliefs and prove to everyone, especially themselves, that they are capable of not only making a decision but delivering on it. The National Party need to put their beliefs where their mouth is and follow with their support for our universities and students. The cost is already too great and every delay pushes our once great institutions further towards the brink. The current legislation is crippling universities around the country by depriving higher education providers of the vital funding they need to maintain adequate student services and amenities. They are the very same services and amenities which students have been without, and will continue to suffer without, purely because of the Liberal Party’s outdated and ideological obsession with this issue. With respect, they went too far with their approach to university services and amenities, and students are being forced to pay the consequences. Under their scheme close to $170 million was ripped out of university funding resulting in the decline and in some instances the complete closure of vital health, counselling, employment, child care, sporting and fitness services. Without the provision of these services and amenities by higher education providers many students have been forced to pay higher prices for things such as child care, parking, books, computer labs, sport and food. This of course has resulted in higher costs for students. How is it rational that we remove a fee on students that then results in an increase to their costs? Some universities have highlighted incredible price hikes for services and amenities such as parking, food and child care, which, in one case, has seen an increase of approximately 500 per cent annually. Surely commonsense and logic would dictate that we should implement a strategy that will enable universities to provide many of these services without drawing the funding from somewhere else, as numerous universities have been forced to do. Some universities, in attempting to combat the rising costs of amenities and services, have reported having to redirect funding out of research and teaching budgets. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 34. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. The honourable member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 12491 Petitions 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Petitions, and in accordance with standing order 207, I present the following petitions: 83Z Mrs Irwin 3904 12492 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: RETAIN THE DEFINITION OF MARRIAGE BETWEEN MAN AND WOMAN We, the undersigned citizens draw to the attention of the House of Representatives assembled, that the definition of marriage as “a union between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life” is the foundation upon which our families are built and on which our society stands. To alter the definition of marriage to include same-sex “marriage”, as proposed by the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill, would be to change the very structure of society to the detriment of all, especially children. We, the undersigned citizens therefore request that the Marriage Equality Amendment Bill 2009, be opposed. 3904 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 3,904 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 361 12492 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: The World League for Protection of Animals, Inc End Recreational Hunting on Public Lands and Reserves We, the undersigned citizens and residents of Australia, draw to the attention of the House our united opposition to the inhumane practice of recreational hunting on public government lards. To permit, and by so doing, encourage shooting for pleasure is a completely anti-social and dan-gerous activity for governments to be endorsing. Recreational hunting on public lands not only en-dangers native fauna but also puts at risk public safety. In NSW, government officials have now permitted recreational hunting in some 372 public forests, covering more than 2 million hectares, with more public lands soon to be declared “open season”. The NSW Game Council is currently using tax payers’ money to promote market and expand the interests of hunters groups. All the representatives on the Government’s Game Council are pro-hunting interests, with most being active hunters themselves. Shooters’ groups are presently over-seeing their own dangerous activities on public lands. Bows and arrows and hunting dogs are sanctioned under current government legislation, permitting unacceptable cruelty to both intro-duced animals and native wildlife. We, the undersigned, seek the abolition of all hunting practices on public lands and reserves. 361 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 361 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 216 12492 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House to the Rudd Government’s changes to the workforce participation criteria for establishing independence under Youth Allowance by removing the following two eligibility criteria: that the recipient worked part-time for 15+ hours per week for two years or more since leaving school; and the recipient earned, in an 18-month period since leaving school, an amount equivalent to 75% of the maximum rate of pay (in 2009 this requires earnings of $19,532). The effect of this change is that eligibility criteria for the Independent Youth Allowance will retrospectively require participants to complete 30 hours work per week over a 18/24 month period compared to earning $19,532 over 18 months. This means a student who has complied with the previous rules but not worked 30 hours per week will have lost the credit for their effort and must start again thus losing 2 years before commencing a University Course. These proposal further disadvantages young people whose place of residence is beyond daily commuting distance from a University and thus must fund their total accommodation costs over and above the other direct costs of such an education. That working 30 hours per week while attending University is virtually impossible in more intensive courses. We therefore ask the House to change the criteria so that rural and regional students are not disadvantaged. 216 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 216 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 1863 12493 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain, concerned citizens of Australia Draws to the attention of the House the damage being caused to the heritage and other trees in the Royal Botanic Gardens, Sydney by the Grey Headed Flying Fox camp over the past 10 years. This is no longer sustainable so a relocation program is proposed which requires the assent of the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts. We therefore ask the House to request the Minister to approve the relocation of the Flying Foxes in May 2010 as proposed by the Botanic Gardens Trust and already approved by the NSW DECCW. If this is not done, another 40 significant old trees, as well as many palms and shrubs, are expected to die within the next 3 years and ultimately much of the Gardens will be destroyed. The bats will then move on anyway. 1863 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1,863 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 176 12493 To the Honorable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of certain citizens of Australia draws to the attention of the House: the discriminating effects of the Northern Territory Emergency Response. As it is currently configured and being carried out, the Emergency Response is incompatible with Australia’s obligations under The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination and The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights treaties to which Australia is a party, as well as incompatible with The Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples to which Australia has affirmed its support. We therefore ask the House to: Reinstate urgently the protections of the Racial Discrimination Act in regard to the Indigenous people of the Northern Territory and Consult widely with them about effective measures which respect the rights of Indigenous people and are free of racial discrimination. 176 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 176 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 20 12493 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives The petitioners believe that the Youth Allowance changes proposed in the Federal Budget place another barrier to university participation for students in regional areas; unfairly discriminate against students currently undertaking a ‘gap’ year; and contradict other efforts to increase university participation by students from rural and regional Australia. We therefore ask the House to retain the 2nd and 3rd elements of the workforce criterion so that tertiary education is accessible to regional students. 20 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 20 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 1 12493 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives; This petition of a ‘resident of Australia’ (father) and ‘Certain citizens of Australia’ namely his 2 children, draws to the attention of the House: issues pursuant to section 72(ii) of the Constitution of Australia, wrongful misbehaviour by other than proper administrations of justice by judges, committed at the bench of the Family and High Courts, in breach of laws of the Commonwealth. The first judge committed wrongful Misbehaviours at the bench of the Family Court, was granted “Immunity” not created by a law of the Commonwealth Parliament, by a superior Family Court judge. Then judges of the High Court, denied the right of hearings to challenge the immunity and correct the wrongs. This “Immunity” concealed judicial misbehaviours that perverted justice by “defeating the course of justice in relation to the judicial power of the Commonwealth.” This denied the House knowledge of “Proven judicial Misbehaviour”, the public knowledge of judicial “Contempt of the Court” and fraudulent actions of “dereliction of judicial duty’ by judges who are instruments/officers of those Commonwealth Courts. We pray the House: Accept the above stated has occurred and are “Judicial Misbehaviour” within the meaning of “section 72(ii) of the Constitution of Australia (Cth)” that require both Houses of Parliament to make a decision on. For the afore-sought decision to be made, we pray the House causes a “Commission of Inquiry” be held, on finding true, pray for the removal of those judges. 1 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1 citizen) 83Z Mrs Irwin 1 12494 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives; This petition of a ‘resident of Australia’ (father) and ‘Certain citizens of Australia’ namely his 2 children, draws to the attention of the House: the requirement for a Committee with Quasi Judicial powers to accept and determine, from the people, section 72(ii) of the Constitution of Australia issues and improper administrations of justice committed in the Federal Courts of Australia. The Queen’s most Excellent Majesty sets the example in Her Honourable Home by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. We seek the like to accept complaints like; of judicial wrongs, and denials of justice, from a wronged person/s in person. There is/will be a petition of the petitioners for a decision pursuant to section 72(ii) of the Constitution sought in this Honourable House that such a body could have decided before it is placed before this Honourable House. We pray the House; Accepts this is but one issue with JUST CAUSE to URGENTLY CREATE a “Judicial Committee of Inquiry” that has Quasi Judicial powers to; Accept complaints citing the judiciary. Make “section 72(ii) of the Constitution(Cth)” recommendations to the House. Make “section 75(v) of the Constitution(Cth)” applications to a Court on behalf of members of the public. Make recommendations of compensation for judicial wrongs be paid to the party/ies by whom appropriate other than a judicial officer. The power to send a matter back to the Court, including the High Court, for reconsideration. 1 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1 citizen) 83Z Mrs Irwin 1 12494 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives; This petition of a ‘resident of Australia’ (father) and ‘Certain citizens of Australia’ namely his 2 children, draws to the attention of the House: issues regarding the proper administration of justice and unfairness caused persons lacking legal representation. Persons seeking justice without representation is a growing issue and burden on the Federal Courts, namely the Family Court. These persons have a right to a McKenzie Friend. The assistance of a McKenzie Friend is often limited to note taking, and denied; a right to inspect evidence, the right of audience in the presentation of evidence, and the like. It appears this is due to persons trained at law are fearful the disadvantage caused the unrepresented persons, by lack of representation, may be reduced if the Friend gives any more help than note taking. We pray the House; Urgently makes laws which define the rights and obligations of a McKenzie Friend, for the Family or Federal Courts that are parallel to the Family Court Rules for a Case Guardian including the right of audience but not the right to make written applications on behalf of the party. Furthermore, make Law that the words ‘any person holding office under the Commonwealth” stated in “section 33 of the Judiciary Act 1903(Cth)” means or includes in its meaning “Commonwealth public official” as defined by the “Criminal Code Act 1995(Cth)” to enable corrections to judicial wrongs and errors in the High Court. 1 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 1 citizen) 83Z Mrs Irwin 18 12495 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives, This petition is of residents of Moe, Newborough and district and draws to the attention of the House that we support improving, renovating and extending the Moe Library and Latrobe City Council Service Centre on their present site. We also support significantly upgrading Moe’s transport infrastructure with the provision of an integrated transport interchange in and around Moe railway station. We further draw to the attention of the House a 2007 petition of residents (attached) from Moe district to Latrobe City Council opposing the relocation of the Moe Library and Council Service Centre and supporting their upgrade on their current site. We therefore ask the House to oppose the relocation of the Moe Library and Latrobe Council Service Centre to the railway corridor, to support their improvement on their current site, and to support quite separate and much needed improvements to Moe’s transport infrastructure. 18 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 18 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 797 12495 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of the members of the 11th Light Horse Caboolture Troop and Military Museum Association Inc. Draws to the attention of the House: the lack of tangible recognition by the Australian Government of the service to our nation by the many young Australians who have undergone military training in the Army, Navy and Air Force cadets. At the end of four years training, cadets are basically prepared for military service in the unfortunate circumstance that this becomes necessary, Cadets have regularly been used by schools, R.S.L. clubs, state and federal governments as a cost effective way of providing a uniformed ceremonial parade whenever such an occasion is needed. This service to the nation by cadets has been on an entirely voluntary basis. Of all the young people who are eligible, only 1% of young Australians actually volunteer to serve our nation with pride in the A.D.F. cadets. Cadets realize that when wearing their uniforms they are representing Australia. Many countries recognize the commitment of the personnel in their cadet corps. In 2006, Canada created a medal to recognize continuous meritorious service by deserving cadets. To qualify for this award, a serving or former cadet must have successfully completed four years of honourable service with no serious infractions. We therefore ask the House to: create a new civil award (medal) to recognize the service to Australia by serving and former A.D.F. cadets. 797 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 797 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 525 12495 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives: PETITION TO DECLARE THE 13TH AUGUST AS NATIONAL MARRIAGE DAY We, the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House of Representatives, the undeniable correlations between family breakdown and the other pathways to poverty, educational failure, serious personal debt, crime, welfare dependency and addiction. In recognition of the positive contribution that intact, stable marriages make to the well-being of children and society we call upon the House of Representatives to demonstrate its support for marriage by declaring the 13th August each year as National Marriage Day. 525 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 525 citizens) 83Z Mrs Irwin 21 12495 To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition of … Certain citizens of Australia Draws to the attention of the house … The alarming increase of Migration. We therefore ask the house to: Decrease the numbers of migrants as Australia is now in a major drought, the housing situation is unable to house many of our own Citizens—It is impossible to be admitted to a Public Hospital for Elective surgery and there are not enough jobs for school leavers or un-skilled workers. 21 83Z Mrs Irwin Mrs Irwin (from 21 citizens) Petitions received. Petitions received. 12496 83Z Irwin, Julia, MP Mrs Irwin —Ministerial responses to petitions previously presented to the House have been received as follows: 12496 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter dated 19 August 2009 about a petition seeking changes to the construction approval conditions for the Australian Rail Track Corporation’s (ARTC) Southern Sydney Freight Line (SSFL) project. This is a matter that should be referred to the State Government, as they set the regulations and standards around the construction for any rail project in New South Wales. It should however be noted that the SSFL proposal underwent a comprehensive planning and environmental assessment before it was approved. In particular, it underwent an assessment process under Part 3A of the NSW Environment Planning and Assessment Act 1979. In addition to this, the Australian Government Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts also assessed the project under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. Following these assessments, the NSW Minister for Planning imposed 74 conditions to his approval and the Hon Peter Garrett AM MP, Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, an additional eight. The ARTC has committed to fully comply with all of the conditions outlined as part of the approval process, including those relating to noise and vibrations. Thus, the ARTC is investing $13.5m to install noise walls along the SSFL. The specific locations and length of the noise walls have been determined by site specific modelling to ensure the noise along the SSFL complies with the conditions set out in the NSW Government’s planning approval. Thank you for raising this matter. from the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, Mr Albanese 12496 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 19 August 2009 to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon Jenny Macklin MP, regarding a submission to the Standing Committee on Petitions. As the petition relates to child support service delivery matters, your letter was forwarded to me as the Minister responsible for the Child Support Agency (CSA). The petition writer expresses concern over the increase in the amount of child support they are required to pay to the CSA and requests an immediate reduction in the amount collected. Having received advice from the CSA, I can provide you with a general response to the issues raised in the petition. The principle of the Child Support Scheme is to ensure that children continue to be supported following the event of their parents’ separation. The CSA has a responsibility to collect child support for the benefit of the children in accordance with their parents’ financial capacity. I assure you, it is not the CSA’s intention to cause any parent undue financial hardship in administering the Scheme. When a parent has overdue child support, the CSA will attempt to negotiate voluntary arrangements with the parent in the first instance. Where this is not possible, the CSA will seek to enforce the collection of the outstanding child support based on the parent’s particular circumstances. In enforcing the collection of outstanding child support, the CSA will seek information from the parent, as well as from third parties, such as employers, financial institutions or other government departments, to determine the parent’s capacity to pay. Once the CSA has an understanding of the parent’s true financial capacity to pay child support, it will make a decision on the most appropriate amount of child support payable. The CSA recognises that parent’s circumstances can change. If the petition writer’s circumstances have changed significantly since the CSA’s decision I encourage them to write directly to the CSA to provide sufficient information to substantiate their claim of financial hardship. Alternatively, if the Committee would like more specific information about this matter, they can contact Mr James Sorahan from my office on (02) 6277 7200. Once again, thank you for your letter. I trust this information is of assistance. from the Minister for Human Services and Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, Mr Bowen 12497 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 September 2009 referring to a petition submitted to the Standing Committee on Petitions regarding the adoption of a charter of rights. As you are aware, the Attorney-General, the Hon Robert McClelland MP, received the report of the National Human Rights Consultation Committee on 30 September 2009 and publicly released the report, on behalf of the Government, on 8 October 2009. This report represents more than nine months of consultations by the independent Committee chaired by Father Frank Brennan SJ AO and comprising Mary Kostakidis, Tammy Williams and Mick Palmer AO. The Committee received more than 35,000 submissions, conducted 66 community roundtables in 52 locations, commissioned research and focus groups, conducted online forums and had discussions with many Australians. The Government welcomes the Committee’s report. The Committee has provided the Government and the community with a valuable document which gives an overview of what we do well and options for addressing the areas where we can do better in the area of human rights protection. The petition that was attached to your letter discusses whether the Government supports the introduction of a statutory bill of rights. The Government has not made a decision about this issue. The Government has made it clear that any options developed by the Committee should preserve parliamentary sovereignty and not include a constitutionally entrenched bill of rights. It is also important that any response appropriately balances the rights of all groups in society. In addition to its recommendation about a statutory bill of rights, the Committee makes a number of recommendations to enhance human rights education and parliamentary scrutiny and legislative processes. The Government will be giving careful consideration to all of the Committee’s recommendations before responding to this report in the coming months. I trust that this information is of assistance to the Committee. from the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland 12497 Dear Mrs Irwin Thank you for your letter of 9 September 2009 to the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon MP, regarding the current petition under the Committee’s consideration concerning the proposed change to the rural classification of Gawler. Your letter has been referred to me as the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery. I note that the petitioners reject the introduction of the Australian Standard Geographical Classification —Remoteness Areas (ASGC-RA) system and have put forward their views on its implications on the local workforce and ability to provide after-hours and emergency services in the Gawler area. As I mentioned in my previous correspondence of 24 September 2009, the Australian Government has agreed to Gawler GP Inc using the term ‘Rural in Transition’, however, the geographical classification of Gawler will remain as ASGC-RA1 (Major City). I appreciate that there are local issues with respect to Gawler and where possible these have been responded to by the Government. Further, the Government has agreed to some changes in the training for Rural and Remote Procedural GPs program that address issues of concern in a number of communities around Australia, including Gawler. However, I must reiterate that the introduction of the ASGC-RA classification system forms a basis for rural health reform to ensure that rural programs are targeted to areas of greatest need. Moving to ASGC-RA will strengthen support to rural and remote communities, and ensure a more equitable distribution of the medical workforce. I can assure you that the Government will be closely monitoring the success of the transition to the ASGC-RA on the Gawler community, particularly with regard to changes to doctor numbers. I trust that the above information is of use. from the Minister for Indigenous Health, Rural and Regional Health and Regional Services Delivery, Mr Snowdon 12498 Dear Mrs Irwin I refer to your letter dated 16 September 2009 attaching the petition submitted to your Committee, from citizens of central Victoria, regarding the review by the Productivity Commission of the provisions relating to the parallel importation of books under the Copyright Act 1968. I acknowledge the position put forward in the petition urging the Government to reject the recommendations of the Productivity Commission to remove the restrictions against the parallel importation of books. The Government is carefully considering this matter, particularly in regard to the impact of the recommendations on key stakeholders. The Government will respond to the Productivity Commission report in due course. From the Attorney-General, Mr McClelland 12498 12498 20:32:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —Tonight I wish to speak on the work of the Petitions Committee. In my regular statements to the chamber of a Monday evening I have spoken about the rules governing petitions, the committee’s recent report on electronic petitioning and, on occasion, individual petitions of interest. Tonight I want to talk about another important aspect of the committee’s work—what happens after petitions are presented to the House. Also, as this is the final petitions statement of the year, I will conclude with an overview of the committee’s work for 2009. It will not come as a surprise to people who have heard these statements that the committee considers ministerial responses to be a very important part of the petitions process. We see it as a great advance that in this parliament virtually all petitions receive a ministerial response. It was not always the case. In our view these responses are serious, informative and are written in good faith. They add considerably to the public’s ability to know what is happening in relation to petitioners’ concerns or grievances. It is also noteworthy that the majority of ministerial responses are timely. I cannot put too great an emphasis on the committee’s appreciation of how ministers have responded in this way to the new rules governing petitions. It really does make a difference to the state of knowledge on these issues and to government accountability. Members will be aware that there is a further component to the work of the committee: our public hearings. These are in some ways different to the hearings of some other committees in that they arise not from a formal inquiry but from the committee’s regular work in receiving and considering petitions on a day-to-day basis. A recent hearing, on 28 October this year, showed the virtues of this practice. Appearing before the committee were representatives of the Department of Education, Employment, and Workplace Relations, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, and the Department of Human Services. The committee asked questions about changes to youth allowance, mandatory detention and detention debt, and the placement of Medicare offices. The transcript is on the committee’s webpage. I think that my colleagues in the committee will agree that in each case the standard of response and the willingness to engage and to respond in good faith to the committee’s questions was evident. The committee was pleased with the outcome. This week we are looking forward to another public hearing on Wednesday. This time the committee will be speaking to representatives of the Department of Defence, the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, and the Department of Health and Ageing. We will discuss unidentified war graves in New Guinea and its environs; forgotten Australians; disaster recovery payments; various aspects of the responsibilities of the Department of Health and Ageing including coverage for dental treatment under Medicare and residential and aged care; and the Australian Standard Geographical Classification Remoteness Areas classification of a regional centre—Gawler, in South Australia. The sheer breadth of the committee’s work is highlighted in the range of issues I have just quoted. We in the committee think this is interesting and important work. It ranges from national to regional to local issues and sometimes to the concerns of a single individual. A similar range of issues makes up so much of the working life of all of the members of the House. It is a privilege for us in the committee to have these opportunities to dig deeper, with the authority of the House, into the kinds of concerns that come across the desk every day in our electoral offices. These concerns may—or may not—get some wider attention in the media and other avenues of public discussion. But the committee feels that it is indeed essential that there is a forum in parliament where such matters can be explored with relative speed and ease and, to a certain extent, cutting across the different portfolio areas of government. As a result, we look forward to future public hearings—and indeed the full range of the committee’s activities—with a good measure of anticipation and interest. As I suggested, I will end by giving a snapshot of the committee’s work for 2009. By 29 October this year, the committee had presented 120 petitions to the House, comprising 259,477 signatures. For the same period there have been 87 ministerial responses to petitions—a dramatic rise from the years 2001-2007, for example, during which time there was at best one ministerial response in a year and frequently none at all. The new petitions system, initiated early in 2008, is bearing fruit. I have a wonderful deputy chair in Russell Broadbent and a wonderful bipartisan committee. I am very pleased to see such a result. I and the other committee members look forward to doing more work in this great area with the Petitions Committee in 2010. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—I thank the honourable member and remind her that she should refer to other honourable members by their seat or by the position they hold in the parliament. 12499 Committees 12499 12499 12499 20:38:00 Ripoll, Bernie, MP 83E Oxley ALP 1 0 Mr RIPOLL —On behalf of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, I present the committee’s report entitled Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia, together with evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr RIPOLL —As Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services, it gives me great pleasure to table this report on the work that we have done. The committee inquired into financial products and services regulation with a particular focus on the issues raised by recent collapses such as Storm Financial and Opes Prime. The committee received nearly 400 submissions, more than 200 of which were from people affected by the collapse of Storm Financial. The collapses of Storm, Opes Prime and others have certainly had a devastating effect on the people who invested in them. On behalf of the committee, I would like to thank those individual investors who took the time and effort to assist the committee with its deliberations while in the midst of such difficult personal circumstances. When taking evidence on these collapses, most notably Storm Financial, the committee has taken the approach that we are not a judicial body and are in no position to make judgments about individual claims that have been made to us. Nor has it been possible for the committee to resolve the contradictory evidence received from Storm investors, the banks who provided margin loans, and Storm Financial themselves. The committee can say this: investors were frequently given financial advice from Storm’s financial advisers that was clearly inappropriate for them. The committee has been highly critical of the one-size-fits-all investment strategy offered by Storm, especially when that strategy involved borrowing to invest against the value of people’s homes. We cannot reconcile the fact of Storm recommending aggressive, leveraged investment strategies to people on low incomes or near the end of their working lives, with Storm’s obligation under the Corporations Act to provide advice appropriate to their clients. The committee also considers the confusion between Storm and the banks over the provision of margin calls to be unacceptable, and it is concerned that some banks were lax in their lending practices when allowing Storm clients to borrow against their homes. The margin lending and consumer credit protection bills which the parliament has debated this year should rectify gaps in legislation that allowed these circumstances to occur outside the regulatory system. The committee has taken into account the circumstances of these collapses when making recommendations for regulatory change to guard against similar events in the future. As a committee, we recognise that isolated corporate collapses do not necessarily indicate regulatory failure. However, the committee received broad and consistent evidence telling us that improvements are needed to raise the overall quality of financial advice that Australians receive. The committee’s recommendations are designed to increase professionalism within the financial advice sector and improve consumer confidence and protection. A better regulatory framework for managing financial advisers’ conflicts of interest is needed. The product distribution role of financial advisers—and the remuneration they receive from product providers for recommending certain financial products—too often leaves consumers getting advice that is not in their best interests. The law needs to explicitly state that financial advisers must place their clients’ interests ahead of their own. The committee has recommended that the Corporations Act be amended to include a fiduciary duty requiring advisers to put their clients’ interests first. The committee believes that payments from product providers to financial advisers, such as commissions and volume bonuses, create entrenched conflicts that are very difficult to manage. The committee has therefore recommended that the government consult with industry on the most appropriate way to cease payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers. In order to make transparent fee-for-service payments more appealing, the committee has also recommended that the government consider the implications of making the cost of financial advice tax deductible. Greater professionalism could also be achieved by requiring those wishing to call themselves financial advisers to become members of an independent, industry based professional standards board. The committee has recommended that ASIC immediately consult with industry on setting up this body, which would establish, monitor and enforce nomenclature, competency and conduct standards for the industry. Recent collapses have also shown the need for more effective regulatory enforcement. The committee has recommended that ASIC be appropriately resourced to perform effective risk based surveillance of advice provided under licence and perform financial advice shadow-shopping exercises annually. We recognise that it is often difficult for ASIC to take action when it identifies problems. The committee has therefore made two recommendations designed to lower the threshold for ASIC to remove individuals and licensees from the industry. To protect investors when collapses do occur, the committee has recommended that the government investigate options for a statutory last resort compensation fund for investors. I thank the committee secretariat for their assistance with this inquiry and all of the committee members. Finally, I would again like to express my sincere thanks to all those who provided submissions to this inquiry and provided evidence at one of our public hearings. We as a committee hope that this report will lead to change to improve the regulation of financial products and services in the years ahead. (Time expired) 12501 20:44:00 Pearce, Christopher, MP A8W Aston LP 0 0 Mr PEARCE —I rise as a member of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services to speak on the report Inquiry into financial products and services in Australia. From the outset, I want to join with the chair of the committee, the member for Oxley, in acknowledging the disastrous consequences suffered by many people who had invested, in many cases, their life savings in the organisations which were probed by this review. I want to thank them for assisting the committee during such difficult and trying circumstances. As the chair has noted, the committee is not a judicial body. Our charter was to investigate and review the current regulatory and legislative environment for financial products and services in Australia and to recommend any appropriate changes. I strongly concur with the chair’s comments that there can be no doubt that a number of individual investors were given advice from some organisations that was clearly inappropriate for them and their personal circumstances. More broadly speaking, informing its view, the committee has taken into account all of the evidence provided relating to the high-profile collapses as outlined in the terms of reference. In addition, more broadly based evidence from across the sector was provided by many stakeholders about how the current framework may be improved so that greater levels of transparency and consumer protection are offered. It is important to note that, without diminishing the substantial negative impact many people experienced in the collapses considered by the inquiry, in general Australia’s regulatory system has served the community well. Every year there are many millions of individual transactions and interfaces which Australians have each day with financial products and services. Australia’s relative success, compared with others across the world, especially during the global financial crisis, is evidence that our system has in fact been robust and has worked well in the majority of cases. The committee’s report has made 11 recommendations. Recommendation 1 is far reaching and substantial and recommends that the act be amended to explicitly include a fiduciary duty for financial advisers operating under an AFSL, requiring them to place their clients’ interests ahead of their own. If adopted by the government, I believe this would have the dual benefit of further improving consumer protection and lifting industry standards. During the inquiry, there was much debate and discussion around conflicts of interest and the role that remuneration plays in managing potential conflicts. As many people are aware, the sector itself has proactively embraced the need for reform in this important area. The committee has recommended that the government consult with and support industry in developing an appropriate mechanism that will see payments from product manufacturers to financial advisers cease. Importantly, any remuneration structure in the future would clearly need to be compatible with the introduction of a fiduciary duty as outlined in recommendation 1. Recommendation 5 suggests that the government consider making the cost of financial advice tax deductible for consumers. The recommendation would potentially encourage many more Australians to obtain professional advice when they would otherwise not have considered doing so due to the costs involved. Any initiative that encourages a greater number of Australians to seek professional advice regarding their financial future I think is a step in the right direction. Recommendation 9 is also an important step in the right direction. The recommendation proposes that ASIC immediately begins consultation with the financial services industry on the establishment of an independent, industry-based professional standards board to oversee competency and conduct standards for financial advisers. Such an initiative would, without question, increased professionalism within the sector. The critical area of financial literacy is touched upon in recommendation 11. This is an area where I believe strongly the stakeholders have responsibility to promote. No-one can doubt that it is critical that citizens both young and old are better educated about the myriad of financial products and services which are available to them. Recommendation 11 suggests that ASIC develop and deliver more effective education activities to groups in the community which are likely to be seeking financial advice, particularly those seeking it for the very first time. Quite clearly, there is no one silver bullet in what is a complex and ever-changing area of commerce. The adoption of this report will provide better outcomes, I believe, for Australians. Tonight I join with the chair in expressing my hope and I am sure the hope of all committee members that the committee’s work will indeed further improve and very much enhance Australia’s financial services system. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—It being 8.50 pm, the time allotted for statements on this report has expired. Does the member for Oxley wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:50:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12503 12503 Mr RIPOLL (Oxley) 20:50:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 12503 12503 12503 20:51:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, I present the committee’s report entitled The Global Financial Crisis and regional Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 00AMR King, Catherine, MP Ms KING —From the CBD of Sydney to the CBD of Burnie, the effects of the global financial crisis, or the GFC, have been felt around Australia. Regional Australia has been described as the economic backbone of the nation’s prosperity. The regions are home to major export industries as well as small- and medium-sized businesses. Many of these have struggled during the crisis and behind each of these businesses are owners and employees, some of whom have faced the prospect of business closure, reduced working hours and job losses. It was the committee’s intention in undertaking this inquiry to assist the government to better understand how economic downturns affect regional Australia so that it will be in a better position to formulate regional development policy aimed at strengthening the economic resilience of our regions. In doing so, the committee travelled to each state and territory over the course of this year. The evidence gathered told a story about how the crisis had affected regional business, populations and local government. The crisis unfolded as the committee gathered evidence, so it was often difficult to ascertain the extent of its impact and the outcomes of government assistance. Nevertheless, the committee has made recommendations and comments where appropriate. Its report begins by examining industry sectors such as manufacturing, resources, tourism, retail and construction. In each case, the committee has noted the impact of the GFC on the sector and the ways in which the government is assisting. The committee recommends that the government examine the use of structural adjustment funds as a response to economic downturns and their ability to assist small business. The committee has also recommended increased funding for the TQUAL Grants program, increased cooperation in identifying key tourism markets and setting priorities for marketing those locations as part of its investigation into regional tourism. Discussion about the government’s bank guarantee scheme has led the committee to support a review of its differential pricing structure and to comment on banking competition in regional Australia. Support for small business is particularly important during these periods and, as such, the committee believes that the Small Business Advisory Service should continue to operate beyond its current two-year funding commitment. Small business can be further assisted by an increase in the number of AusIndustry representatives in regional Australia. Regional Australians are resilient people but, like everyone, from time to time they need assistance. Should unemployment continue to rise, the committee believes there may be a case for the introduction of a national unemployment mortgage assistance program, provided its impacts have been fully considered by government. The GFC has demonstrated the need in regional Australia for the provision of localised, collective social services, so the committee has recommended increased funding to the Department of Human Services in order to expand its co-location site trials and to increase its local service provision activities. The work of the local employment coordinators may also serve as an example of how pathways to coordinated service provision may be enhanced. Offices of the Department of Human Services are located throughout regional Australia, assisting local populations but also generating employment opportunities. To further grow employment options in regional Australia, the committee recommends that the government examine options for locating government departments or functions of government departments into regional areas. The GFC has not been the first nor will it be the last economic challenge faced by regional Australia. Its ability to respond to the future will depend on individual regions reaching their growth potential. The committee believes that this will only occur if local strategies are underpinned by Commonwealth government policies focusing on infrastructure, education and business support. The Regional Development Australia network presents one option through which government can further policies that assist in the development of regional Australia. Its success will be based in part on its ability to generate region-specific community and economic development planning that is supported by the region, to maintain productive levels of cooperation between the three tiers of government, and to facilitate cooperation between various agencies and government programs in the region. The GFC has highlighted the importance of having a mechanism such as RDA which can be used to advance regional development objectives. The crisis has also presented regional Australia and governments with an opportunity to examine the impact of change on regional Australia and to test policy responses. This inquiry has been greatly assisted by the help of committee members and I particularly acknowledge the deputy chair, the member for Hinkler, Mr Neville. Additionally, I thank the committee secretariat: Peter Keel, Julia Morris, Michael Crawford, Sophia Nicolle, Adrienne Batts, Kane Moir and Alison Wardrop. Once again, I want to thank all regional Australians who have participated in this inquiry. There is great spirit, drive and innovation within Australia’s regions and I am not surprised by the manner in which regional Australia has faced the challenges posed by the GFC. (Time expired) 12504 20:57:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise as a committee member for this inquiry and I also assume to speak in the place of the deputy chair, the member for Hinkler, who is away. I congratulate the chair, the member for Ballarat and the full committee for a report that is essential reading for all members who represent regional areas and for those who, at a community level, are involved in regional development. As a new member, I probably did not get to experience and learn from some of the other regions of Australia, but I was certainly a willing participant on behalf of my region. I enjoyed and valued the readings that came through and the substantial submissions that were put in from around Australia. I also enjoyed and valued the wide-ranging discussions that took place during committee meetings here in Canberra. From my region I was drawing similar conclusions to the ones that this report has drawn. I am pleased that the foreword identifies the difficulty in putting together a report—on an inquiry that is happening almost in parallel with events as they unfold—on the impacts of a global financial crisis on regional Australia. In light of those circumstances, I think they have done an excellent job in tapping into some of the incredible resilience found in regional Australia, including the positive stories that are there for all to see, some of the challenges that are faced, and the unknowns, as we go into the first period without real stimulus. There will be no cheques in the letterbox this Christmas. The implications of that going into next year will be of interest to all of us to see whether we have been the lucky ones in surviving the GFC. I got involved in this committee when I first turned up in this place because of an interest in local governments that had had some pretty significant exposure—with almost 25 per cent of their investments in collateralised debt obligations, or CDOs. On my arrival in this place in September 2008, a month before the stimulus package went through, there was certainly some interest on my part, and I made comments in my first speech about trying to get a handle on just how much public money had been lost. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! I apologise to the honourable member for Lyne. However, while his time has not expired, the time allotted for the debate has expired. I imagine the honourable member for Ballarat would like to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion. Ms KING (Ballarat) 21:00:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12505 12505 Ms KING (Ballarat) 21:00:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 12505 12505 12505 21:01:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I present the committee’s report entitled Treating impotence: roundtable forum on impotence medications in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. DZY Georganas, Steve, MP Mr GEORGANAS —I am pleased to present this report, entitled Treating impotence: roundtable forum on impotence medications in Australia, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing. The report has examined issues surrounding the provision and sale of impotence medications in Australia. The committee was concerned to discover that erectile dysfunction, better known as ED, is estimated to affect one in five Australian men over the age of 40. Of greater concern was evidence presented at the roundtable which indicated that these figures may not be a true reflection of the extent to which men are affected. The issue which prompted the roundtable was learning that while there are many possible causes for ED, it can, in some cases, be a symptom of extremely serious chronic health conditions like diabetes, heart disease and hypertension. The committee would like to use this report to promote the message that erectile dysfunction can be linked to chronic diseases and men experiencing ED should seek the assistance of a general practitioner. The report is timely because the government is developing a men’s health policy which aims to address the specific health concerns of men and reduce barriers men may experience in accessing health services. The committee hopes that this report feeds into that process. The roundtable forum presented an opportunity to explore concerns about some of the treatment of ED and to perhaps understand why men are choosing not to use their GP in the first instance. The report highlights four significant problems associated with the provision of treatment for ED in Australia which were discussed at the roundtable. Firstly, it seems that men do visit their GP but that GPs are not adequately equipped to treat and manage ED in this setting. The committee strongly support the notion that GPs are the ‘gatekeepers’ of the health system. We would therefore encourage all men to seek assistance from their GP as a first option when they experience ED. However, this requires GPs to be better trained to understand the specific needs of men as patients and to better treat and manage specific men’s health problems. Secondly, some of the treatments that men are accessing through commercial ED clinics are produced through extemporaneous compounding. This means that a pharmacist produces a medication using a list of ingredients especially for a patient, based on a particular script. Compounding is a legitimate tool of medical practitioners and pharmacists to treat the small number of patients who require specialised medications. However, the level of compounding employed by some ED treatment providers is far in excess of what the committee feels is reasonable. There is currently a review into compounding underway by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, and the committee supports stronger regulations for compounding in Australia. The third problem is the use of telemedicine as a routine option for prescribing medication to a previously unknown patient, as it limits the ability of the medical practitioner to undertake a complete health check. By telemedicine, I mean the big signs that we see around the country with 1300 numbers that men can call when they are experiencing this problem. Treating ED presents a significant opportunity to undertake preventative health checks, in particular because ED can be an early marker for chronic disease. The committee feels that this preventative health approach cannot be achieved through a telemedicine consultation. Therefore, the committee argues that the use of telemedicine to prescribe medication to a previously unknown patient as a first and routine option should cease. Finally, the committee was concerned by reports that commercial ED clinics are unwilling to share information about patient treatment with other medical practitioners. This unwillingness could adversely impact on the proposed e-record system to share clinical records. The committee encourages the federal government to consult with commercial ED treatment providers to ensure that they are integrated into any potential e-record system. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who contributed to this inquiry through submissions and discussions with the committee. I would also like to thank committee members and the secretariat staff for their efforts throughout the inquiry process. I especially thank the deputy chair, Steve Irons, and Amanda Rishworth, who attended the roundtable. I thank Sara Edson, Penny Wijnberg and James Catchpole, who all assisted with this report. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! I remind the honourable member for Hindmarsh that he should refer to other honourable members by the name of their electorate or by the title of the position they currently hold. 12507 09:06:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I thank the Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing for tabling the report on the roundtable forum on impotence medications in Australia, and as deputy chair I would like to add some comments. I would like to start by thanking everyone who was involved in the report. I thank the member for Hindmarsh, who was also the committee chair, the member for Kingston and the secretariat. They were particularly helpful on the day of the forum and assisted me greatly in my role as acting chair of the roundtable. I would also like to thank all the groups and businesses who attended and made submissions on this important issue. They are too numerous to mention, but it was a good representation of the medical, pharmaceutical and health services across Australia. Erectile dysfunction is an important issue to discuss because it affects millions of Australians across the country. The committee heard in a submission how a 2003 survey found that 80 per cent of men were worried about developing erectile dysfunction compared to 57 per cent of men who were concerned about developing prostate cancer. Yet, because of our cultural sensitivities, it is a topic that is rarely discussed in the public domain—but it is heavily advertised by radio and public billboards. I think not only has this probably discouraged discussion but it appears to have stifled discussion by those who suffer from this condition. Individuals have found it easier to speak to someone on the phone rather than have face-to-face contact with a GP or with family or friends. This roundtable forum provided a chance to shed some light on the issue and provide some overdue public scrutiny of the practices of the industry. This is an industry that needs scrutiny. Any industry that sources its income by playing on the fears and insecurities of people about facing their problems through a normal health consultation deserves scrutiny. There are two particular sections of the report that I would like to discuss with the House today. The first refers to the concern about the fact that many men with erectile dysfunction use the commercial sector rather than traditional GPs to obtain treatment. Erectile dysfunction is usually linked to ageing, but in some circumstances it is linked to other phenomena such as cardiovascular disease. Such symptoms may not be picked up in the commercial sector through a phone call. The commercial sector will not necessarily pick up on these important health issues, whereas a GP will. Although organisations such as AMI insist that they encourage customers to visit their GP, the fact is that many patients do not, perhaps because of embarrassment about the condition and because they think solving their issue over the telephone will be easier. I am sure I speak for the committee when I stress how important it is that anyone with erectile dysfunction go to a GP first, before approaching the commercial sector. The second issue I want to discuss relates to a practice known as compounding, a practice which the AMI undertake. I do not know of other companies in the industry who do this, but AMI were the only company that were prepared to come forward and contribute to the forum, and I do thank them for that. Under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989, it is an offence to import, export, manufacture or supply a therapeutic good unless it is included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods. Medicines on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods are subject to clinical tests and controls. There are a number of exceptions relating to this law. I commend this report to the House. 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. Does the member for Hindmarsh wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) 21:10:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39(c), the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting and the member will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 12508 12508 Mr GEORGANAS (Hindmarsh) 21:10:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 12508 12508 12508 21:11:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations, I present the committee’s report, incorporating a dissenting report, entitled Making it fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce, together with the minutes of proceedings and evidence received by the committee. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 00AN2 Jackson, Sharryn, MP Ms JACKSON —Pay equity or the lack of it was one of the issues that sparked my interest in politics and social justice. As a young woman I was outraged that someone could or would be paid less for their work because of their gender. It angers me that over 30 years later, despite some progress, this is still the case. Sadly, the average industry gender pay gap still stands around 17 per cent today. Many Australians are unaware of the existence of a ‘pay gap’ between men and women’s earnings. Evidence to the inquiry has shown that once people become aware of the pay gap most believe that it should be addressed. Australian women have much to celebrate. They have achieved high public office. Women are CEOs, business and community leaders, Nobel Laureates, academics, parliamentarians, local councillors, sporting heroes as well as mothers, sisters and partners. Australian women have more choices about their lives, their studies, their careers, their families and how they chose to live them than ever before. However, in the business sector women represent less than two per cent of our CEOs and chair only two per cent of our top 200 ASX companies. Women are more likely to be employed in low-paying jobs with little or no career paths and are more likely to be employed as casuals and part-time workers. Women have not fared as well as men in enterprise bargaining or under systems of individual contracts. Women miss out on the opportunity to accumulate superannuation because of interruptions to paid employment for family reasons (to have and care for children) compounded by lower pay, and are more likely to be dependent on pensions in retirement. This is not good enough and the time to act is now. Some will say that we should wait; for what I am not sure—divine intervention? It is 40 years since equal pay was granted by the Australian Conciliation and Arbitration Commission. Haven’t Australian women been waiting long enough? Australia should take a proactive approach to address the gender pay gap. Increasing women’s participation in the workforce will lead to increases in productivity for the nation. Perhaps we should ask: how can Australia afford not to do it? Education campaigns promoting community and business awareness of pay inequity alone do not work. We have tried that and the pay gap has widened. At the heart of the gender pay gap is the failure to truly value traditional women’s work—paid or unpaid. To continue to undervalue women’s work is simply not just. It is difficult to think of any other policy equivalent that clearly disadvantages such a large class of Australians that we do not rush to correct. This report sets out a scheme to act to close the gender pay gap. It includes proposed amendments to the Fair Work Act 2009, greater powers for the Sex Discrimination Commissioner to act on wage discrimination and the establishment of a specialist pay equity unit within Fair Work Australia with a broad mandate for change. We have called for change in other policy areas such as the removal of the $450 per month earnings requirement in compulsory superannuation and the implementation of comprehensive portability of employment entitlements legislation. Evidence from the private sector provided examples of best practice and the benefits for companies in addressing pay equity issues within their organisation. We have avoided creating regular reporting obligations for small and medium enterprises as we recognise the burden that red tape has on this sector. There should be no requirement for small businesses to supply information already collected by government agencies. Requirements from small business should be confined to one-off reporting and only when it has been established that there are significant issues within that industry. We have also reduced the existing reporting requirements for larger companies. However, those large companies that have been shirking their responsibility will no longer be able to do this. We acknowledge there are significant gaps in the data available for collection and research into pay equity and other issues affecting women’s participation in the workforce. In particular we have recommended the introduction of an Australian industrial relations survey. This improved data is necessary for more effective and strategic policy decision making. We have also recommended that the Australian government provide leadership by acting on pay inequity within the Australian Public Service as well as applying pay equity principles in all its administrative approaches. The Australian government’s decision to deliver paid parental leave in this year’s budget was a welcome reform and there are also reviews into taxation and childcare policies, all of which will help break down the barriers to greater workforce participation by women. The minister has also recently announced that the Australian government will be a participant in an important pay equity test case for employees in the social and community services sector. I applaud this decision. I want to thank the members of the committee and especially the committee secretariat for their hard work and participation in the inquiry. It has been a long but worthwhile journey for all of us. I commend the report to the House. (Time expired) 12510 21:17:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —On behalf of the coalition members I thank the secretariat of the Standing Committee on Employment and Workplace Relations for their efforts in assisting the committee in the publication of the report Making it fair: pay equity and associated issues related to increasing female participation in the workforce. The coalition accepts the motivation for the inquiry and many of the recommendations of this report. However, we cannot entirely endorse it because we believe there are other factors of significance that have not been detailed. We were disappointed by the lack of private enterprise evidence presented to the inquiry and, therefore, these recommendations should be considered as some of the stepping stones for future reform. The majority of evidence adduced from this report has been from organisations, individuals and groups who are more likely to be aware of and able to enforce gender pay equity, sectors that in one form or another are supported or funded by state and/or federal governments. Very little evidence has come from the private sector, which will also be directly affected if this report is adopted, and as such the recommendations should first be applied to public sector agencies to measure their impact. The costs associated with the implementation of these recommendations are currently unquantifiable and must not be imposed on the private sector until the ramifications of such adaptations are known. Without a cost-and-benefit analysis of these recommendations being undertaken, we are at risk of imposing processes that may in fact further disadvantage women from either entering or remaining in the workforce. The Fair Work Act 2009 is in its infancy and, as a number of recommendations are focused on changes to this act, the coalition is mindful of endorsing measures that alter the aspirations, processes and results of legislation that has not yet been fully implemented and suitably tested. This report will not revolutionise the female workforce and I believe the issues that dominate this inquiry do not address the major factor in gender pay equity. I deem the dominating factor to be the mindset of Australian society and until such time as Australians as a whole change their beliefs in relation to the role females have traditionally held in society the gender pay issue will never be solved. We have a cultural hurdle to overcome that women are the primary care givers and are expected to be the bosom of our society. The Australian vernacular terms of ‘stay at home mothers’ and ‘working mothers’ are firmly embedded in our language and therefore our culture. You may on occasion hear the term ‘stay at home father’, but I have never heard the term ‘working father’ bandied around and there lies the difference in attitudes towards men and women in Australia. This will always negatively affect female earnings, participation and conditions as opposed to their male counterparts. The test we use today examines the working life earnings, including superannuation, accumulated by a female employee compared to that of a male. Whilst women are the primary care providers, time spent in the workplace will always be less than their male counterparts. The singular change to the workplace that will increase participation is the provision of at-work childcare facilities for children and the formal support by government of after school supervision and mentoring facilities. The staffing and resources generally of such services will be a huge financial impost, and this will necessitate support or compensation from the government of the day. I once again thank the members of the secretariat: specifically, secretary, Dr Glenn Worthington; inquiry secretary, Ms Cheryl Scarlett; senior research officer, Mr Raymond Knight; and office manager, Mr Daniel Miletic. (Time expired) 10000 Slipper, Peter (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. Peter Slipper)—Does the member for Hasluck wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a future occasion? Ms JACKSON (Hasluck) 21:20:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12511 12511 Ms JACKSON (Hasluck) 21:20:00 —I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main committee for debate. Question agreed to. 12511 12511 12511 21:21:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —On behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, I present the committee’s report entitled Seasonal forecasting in Australia, together with the minutes of proceedings. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 00AMT Vamvakinou, Maria, MP Ms VAMVAKINOU —I am pleased to present this report entitled Seasonal forecasting in Australia on behalf of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation. Many of Australia’s economically important industries such as tourism and agriculture are crucially dependent on long-term meteorological forecasting, otherwise known as seasonal forecasting. This presents significant challenges as Australia is a vast continent with a diverse range of climatic conditions. The committee’s inquiry examined a number of these challenges and found that Australia needs to invest in resources and people to increase the reliability of seasonal forecasting for the benefit of individuals, businesses and emergency services. Not only is seasonal forecasting essential for our agricultural industries but also for tourism and water management, the planning of large infrastructure projects and emergency services. In weather sensitive industries information on long-term weather forecasting influences a wide range of management decisions. For example, grain producers need to know about seasonal rainfall, energy authorities must plan for extra energy loads during the heat waves, and the construction industry needs to factor in wet weather downtime. Emergency services rely on seasonal forecasting to plan for bushfires, floods and cyclones. The committee is concerned that Australia once led the world in research and development in climate and weather forecasting but has fallen behind in the last couple of decades. One of the major causes for the decline is the decrease in supercomputing capability. Australia’s supercomputing capacity has not kept up with comparable countries. The committee notes that new supercomputers have just been provided to the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian National University, but these will not make up for the shortfall. Another concern is the reduction to the bureau’s staffing levels, impeding its effectiveness and jeopardising long-term sustainability. Recruitment needs to be increased, employment conditions reviewed, career pathways encouraged and secure tenure provided to attract and retain more high-calibre personnel. Another contributing factor to the falling standards of weather forecasting is the quantity and quality of data coming from the network of weather stations across the country. Forecasting depends on accurate, long-term observational data. The integrity of current data is being threatened by a number of factors. Many existing weather stations are suffering the effects of age. Resource cuts have led a decrease in qualified observational staff and there are significant gaps between weather stations across the continent. The committee recognises that more weather stations are required to improve the amount and integrity of the data being collected. The committee understands that seasonal forecasts are only useful if the data is translated into meaningful information for end-users. A number of state governments are taking the lead in this regard, matching data to stakeholder requirements and producing a range of products that enable end-users to gain maximum benefit from long-term weather forecasts. Despite the difficulties identified by the inquiry, Australia is doing some impressive work in the research field not only by the Bureau of Meteorology and the CSIRO but also by state government agencies and universities. However, a nationally coordinated research agenda is required to capitalise on this research. The committee recommends the establishment of an institute of meteorological science to facilitate an ongoing partnership between relevant research bodies. This will go some way to helping Australia make up lost ground and regain its place as a leader in long-term meteorological forecasting. In conclusion, I would like to thank all those who contributed to this inquiry through submissions and discussions with the committee. I would also like to thank committee members and secretariat staff for their efforts throughout the inquiry process. I commend the report to the House. 12512 21:25:00 Bailey, Fran, MP JT4 McEwen LP 0 0 FRAN BAILEY —The terms of reference for this report required the committee to examine the efficiency, innovation, impact and benefits of long-term meteorological forecasting in Australia and to assess how innovation in overseas research could benefit Australia. This is a comprehensive report and it is my pleasure to be able tonight to speak, albeit briefly, to this report and endorse the eight strong recommendations made unanimously by the committee. It is a very comprehensive report and it is dealing with the economic, environmental and social wellbeing benefits of weather forecasting from both short-term and long-range forecasting. In Australia it is the Bureau of Meteorology that has the responsibility for the collection of meteorological data, the forecasting of weather and the state of the atmosphere, including the issuing of warnings for severe events that could endanger life and property. It is therefore of utmost importance that Australia has the very best equipment and personnel and research available to it because, as the chair has just previously indicated, of the range of industries that are so dependent on the accuracy of weather forecasting. Until recent times weather forecasting has used what has been known as ‘statistical’ methods. This is being able to forecast based on historical data. As the Bureau of Meteorology said to us in the hearings: A key assumption of statistical forecasting is that past weather and climate patterns are sound indicators of what we can expect in future. But a major change has occurred in weather forecasting, which is now called ‘dynamic weather forecasting’, and this has come about with the introduction of the supercomputer. I would just like to refer very briefly to the report where it tells us that a key assumption of the statistical forecasting is that past weather and climate patterns are sound indicators of what can be expected in the future. However climate change challenges this assumption because it suggests that in the future the conditions that affect weather and climate increasingly will exceed the bounds of past experience, hence of course the importance of the supercomputer. I would like the House to note that in July, earlier this year, I spent some time at the World Meteorological Organisation looking at their next generation of the supercomputer, which is known as the super-supercomputer. I draw the House’s attention in particular to recommendation 4 in this report because this is a very strong recommendation to the government to make sure our meteorological organisations are sufficiently funded to enable them to have this very latest equipment. It is absolutely vital that our weather scientists, who have exceptional international reputations, be given access to the equipment and the research that they so importantly need. In 1922, Lewis Fry Richardson said: Perhaps some day in the dim future it will be possible to advance the computations faster than the weather advances and at a cost less than the saving to mankind due to the information gained. In 1922 Mr Richardson, who was a mathematician, physicist and meteorologist, thought that was a dream. However, in 2009 we do have supercomputer technology in Australia. But, as this report points out, we really need the government to take note of this report and adequately fund our meteorological sciences so that they too can have access to the super-supercomputer. In closing, I thank the chair and the secretariat for all of their dedicated work in producing what I think is a very fine report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the member for Calwell wish to move a motion in connection with the report to enable it to be debated on a later occasion? Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) 21:30:00 —I move: That the House take note of the report. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In accordance with standing order 39, the debate is adjourned. The resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12513 12513 Ms VAMVAKINOU (Calwell) 21:30:00 —by leave—I move: That the order of the day be referred to the Main Committee for debate. Question agreed to. 12513 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 9.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 12514 12514 21:30:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —This evening I want to brief the House on moving forward after the apology to the care leavers, forgotten Australians and child migrants last week, who I will now refer to as the ‘remembered Australians’. I also take this opportunity to report back to the House that the majority of responses I have had from the remembered Australians to the apology were positive and they heard what they wanted to hear. Many have mentioned that Mr Turnbull’s words ‘We believe you’ were significant to them. In all, it was a positive and emotional day, but we must move forward. In the Senate report titled Lost Innocents and Forgotten Australians Revisited, which was tabled in June 2009, there are 16 recommendations. I would now like to discuss some of the recommendations, with the idea of moving forward for our fellow remembered Australians. After last week we have now dealt with recommendations 1 and 2 of the report. I would encourage the Prime Minister to complete recommendation 3, which states that the Prime Minister should write to the churches and charities that ran the institutions where this systematic abuse existed and request they provide formal statements, in particular on the issues of an apology, redress and provision of service to care leavers. The report recommendations frequently refer to recommendations in the Senate’s Forgotten Australians report, tabled in August 2004, and recommendation 6 from that report is highlighted on the Care Leavers Australia Network website. The recommendation states: That the Commonwealth Government establish and manage a national reparations fund for victims of institutions and out-of-home care settings. I support this recommendation and call on the government to establish this national fund as early as possible with financial input from the state governments, churches and charities. It is time we stood up as a society and dealt with this issue. I said in my speech last week that we can now only be judged as a society in how we deal with these wrongs and the people who suffered them. We need to help the remembered Australians rebuild what is left of their lives, as we certainly failed in the construction of them. The four areas that need to be dealt with are redress, including the punishment of the perpetrators of the abuse; acknowledgment and a sincere apology, which has now been achieved; compensation; and services including a national register. Part of the redress problem the remembered Australians face is that all Australian states have a statute of limitations. Generally the law allows for an extension of time to be granted but these allowances are extremely restrictive. Applications for extensions are expensive and there is no guarantee that leave will be granted to issue proceedings. The problem with the statute of limitations for remembered Australians is a real issue that we need to deal with. On the one hand this parliament has just officially acknowledged that the stories of physical and sexual abuse and neglect are real, but legally there is little avenue for this recognition to be pursued now. For years, when these people, our fellow Australians, made complaints or tried to pursue the perpetrators, they could not do so because no-one believed their stories. How could they start proceedings sanely, or with a purpose, when no-one believed them? Given the complexities of pursuing claims against the state, the churches and the charities, and the arguments the defendants use—they say they were not responsible for the conduct of their employees—our remembered Australians face an enormous task. When you consider the frailty and state of mind of these survivors—and survivors is what they are; they are survivors of systematic abuse overseen by the state, the churches and the charities—what hope do they ever have of seeking redress? We need a change of heart and mindset by all those involved. Considering that these state licensed institutions were actually paid by the state to look after these children, I would be calling for a refund. We should seek a refund for providing services under false pretences, for providing a product that did not work. Maybe the institutions could be pursued under the Trade Practices Act. I am not sure whether there is a statute of limitations in this area. Until we get a change of heart from the churches and the charities and they approach this with some truth and transparency—like the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition did with the apology—how can we hold our heads up as a society? I call on all parties involved to step up to the plate, confess your sins and become part of the solution. Become part of the journey that repairs and rebuilds the lives of the remembered Australians. Be a part of this new episode that can return the dignity and sanity of these people. Let them know their country loves them and then maybe you and the churches and the charities can also rid yourselves of the perception of being institutions who failed and abused these children and now continue to hide from the responsibility of those tragic failings. I call on the government to proceed on these issues as soon as possible—and it is good to see that the member for Corio is in the House. 12515 12515 21:35:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I rise today to raise awareness for White Ribbon Day on Wednesday, 25 November. White Ribbon Day is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women. This is something that all of us in this House should and, I have no doubt, do support. It is something that we should all aspire to within our local communities. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the White Ribbon Foundation, which works all year round to make violence against women a thing of the past. That is their slogan and it is the mandate they are pursuing. Most importantly, the White Ribbon Foundation not only sees violence against women as a women’s issue but sees involving men as critical to finding a solution. I take this opportunity to recognise the many high-profile men who have stood up and been counted by saying violence against women is not appropriate. In fact, many men have made an oath. You can go online to make this oath. I would encourage as many men as possible to go online to make this oath on the website. These men have sworn never to use violence against a woman, they have sworn never to excuse violence against women and they have sworn not to remain silent about violence against women. This is the oath they have taken. White Ribbon Day gives us a day to focus on when our nation has a collective opportunity to raise awareness about the issue of violence against women. The White Ribbon Foundation urges people to do a number of things. There are a number of ways that people can get involved with this very important day: men can wear a ribbon or a wrist band or they can swear to end violence against women and people can make a donation, hold an event in their community to raise awareness or simply tell their family and friends. The date of 25 November is International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women. Often we hear about violence against women that occurs in other countries. While it is very important to condemn violence against women wherever it takes place, we must not forget that violence against women is occurring at alarming levels here in Australia. The White Ribbon Day website indicates that one in three Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence in their lifetime. More than one Australian woman every week is killed by her partner or ex-partner. The biggest contributor to illness, injury and premature death for women aged between 15 and 45 is violence perpetrated by a husband, boyfriend or ex-partner. The cost to our society is great. The cost of violence against women is projected to be over $15.1 billion in health costs, worker absenteeism and police and court costs. The impact is great. I note that in the House earlier this evening a motion was moved by the member for Indi on this important issue. While the motion made some important points, it was incredibly disappointing that she used this important issue, which usually receives bipartisan support, to make cheap political points about the education revolution. It has been said regularly in this place that there is a time in some debates to come together to put down partisan politics and to work towards a greater good. I can think of no better issue than supporting a zero tolerance position on violence against women. I urge everyone in this House not to make it a partisan issue but to support White Ribbon Day and, for the other 364 days of the year, to promote zero tolerance for violence against women and children in our society. 12516 12516 21:40:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —When Prime Minister Rudd boasted about updated forecasts of a population explosion in Australia over the next four decades, it was a hackneyed and somewhat grating pronouncement of support for a big Australia that ignored the very warnings of the Secretary of the Treasury of the policy challenges such population growth presented. Mr Rudd’s reaction was a default to his diplomacy DNA that makes bigger always better for those claiming representative status in foreign lands, when a bigger nation makes the diplomat a bigger deal. It was a really careless remark from the Prime Minister, with Mr Rudd thumbing his nose at genuine community concern and already evident problems and growing pains in our major cities. Traffic congestion, water shortages, energy demand pressures, climate impacts, sprawling suburbs, public transport underservicing and overcrowding, work and family life dislocation, food security concerns as near-city productive agricultural land gives way to housing pressures, land use tensions and land release blockages, poor access to some key services, and diminished liveability and amenity are just some of the current population concerns the Rudd Labor government seems perfectly happy to ignore. The plea from Secretary Henry for coherent and coordinated policy action to address the predicted population growth has been passed over by Prime Minister Rudd and his Labor government in favour of more big talk and political spin. The lack of any coherent strategic plan to accommodate Australia’s rapidly expanding population in a sustainable and durable way while maintaining and improving the quality of life and living standards is one of the most glaring failures of the Rudd government on the eve of its second anniversary in power. That is not just the coalition’s assessment but a shared view from across the community. A report commissioned by the Business Council of Australia has echoed the concerns raised by the coalition. The Business Council is reported to have said: People won’t have confidence in population growth unless they feel their standard of living is going to be better as a result. Accounts of the Rudd government infrastructure spend put the proportion of spending towards productive infrastructure at only $1 in $7. There is no sign that this expenditure has been used in a catalytic way to better prepare infrastructure, city systems and policy for a cleaner growth economy. This was the theme of the Australian Davos Connection transformational change work that the Prime Minister was happy to be associated with but apparently unwilling to embrace. Just today, the Property Council of Australia pressed for new action and institutional structures to cope with urban renewal and future growth in Sydney, reflecting the coalition’s call for coherent and coordinated city-wide strategies for our major cities. Bringing strategic land use, infrastructure and transport planning together will help to better use existing land and assets and will help cities cope with and prepare for forecast population growth. Just last week, the Rapid, Active and Affordable Transport Alliance canvassed the related themes of land use planning, density challenges, infrastructure improvements, capacity limits and congestion and the need for integrated and interconnected strategic plans that encourage investment in a more sustainable set of options for citizens so they can choose to help cities better cope with current pressures and the added challenges of vastly increasing populations. Despite Mr Rudd’s pre-election noises, two years on and we still have no coordinated strategic plan on how our future population will be settled, no accountable plan to fund and deliver the infrastructure needed to accompany this population explosion he so welcomes and embraces, no cleaner growth strategy to provide the employment and economic vigour to maintain prosperity and living standards, no identification of the critical natural systems and essential land uses most at risk or challenged by growth pressures; and no accounting for the liveability of great cities like Melbourne but with twice the population. Population size, composition and settlement trends are both a key input and a consequence of policy action and inaction. How to influence it and what to do with it are key ongoing pressures for any competent government concerned about the national interest, as was evident with the former coalition government’s intergenerational analysis and action in response to this groundbreaking report’s findings. Mr Rudd has opted to do nothing, in favour of a boast of a more populous Australia on a business-as-usual basis—a population explosion in Australia. He has displayed a complete lack of any clear forward agenda. What is desperately needed is the kind of leadership and joined-up government policy responses offered by the coalition, where policy is not constrained by departmental ‘silos’, and a whole-of-government approach and strategies can be implemented by a portfolio dedicated to dealing with two of the great policy challenges of our time: rampant population growth and cities growing and groaning under their own popularity. It is time for the Rudd Labor government to take these compelling policy issues seriously. The Prime Minister’s glib attempts to say that he has the consequences covered are simply not backed up by facts and are as contemptuous as they are concerning. (Time expired) 12517 12517 21:45:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I rise to speak in support of the Prime Minister’s initiative, announced on the weekend, of $42.8 million to extend the National School Chaplaincy Program to December 2011. The National School Chaplaincy Program provided $165 million over the past three years to school communities across Australia. Queensland had 782 schools in the program, and they received a total of just over $42 million. In my electorate of Blair, there were 50 schools in the program, and they received just under $2.2 million. I want to commend the chaplains and the schools in my community for the great work they do. The assistance, guidance and support that the chaplains provide in the community are helpful not just to the students but also to the teachers, staff and parents. I have spoken to almost all the schools in my electorate today. The principals and deputy principals have said the following in relation to this program and the extension of the funding. Deputy Principal Graeme Goodger of Bremer State High School said that the program was ‘useful to parents and staff and loved by the students’. He commended Kelly Pedersen, the chaplain at that school. I spoke to Principal Jouwana Habash of Boonah Primary School, who described the chaplaincy as a ‘valuable service’ to the school community. Geoff St Clair, who has been at Gatton State School for many years as the principal, described the service as ‘very helpful to the school community’ and praised Ros Ballin, who is the chaplain at that school and the wife of Graham Ballin, the Baptist minister in Gatton. Peter Doyle, the Principal of Brassall State School, the third biggest state primary school in my electorate, described—at a chaplaincy dinner, some months ago—chaplaincy services as something that ‘should continue’ and said the funding was important. He said it was very helpful, not just to himself but to the staff and the students. That dinner was to raise funds for chaplains in four schools in the Ipswich area. The chaplains there were from the Catholic, the Anglican, the Baptist and the Uniting churches. The chaplains in school communities in the federal electorate of Blair—in Ipswich and in the rural areas outside it—are involved in a number of different programs. Some of the programs they are involved in and the assistance they have given have been tremendous. There are programs to increase awareness of poverty and other terrible issues, such as child exploitation, in the Third World, particularly in Africa, and to assist in raising funds for the relief of poverty and other issues that afflict African children. Those programs are in Ipswich State High School, in particular. There are breakfast programs for students who, sadly, come to school without adequate nutrition. There are programs teaching students about self-esteem. There is also assistance in the Mystery Tours, a non-alcoholic alternative to binge drinking at school graduations. I am pleased that the Rudd Labor government, of which I am proud to be a part, funded Ipswich State High School $40,000 for that model program. That program has been replicated at Bremer State High School and Redbank Plains State High School. In the canoe race at Bremer State High School, at the junction between the Bremer and Brisbane rivers, the chaplaincy canoe is always held in high esteem. Sadly, the Shayne Neumann canoe never seems to win that race, but the chaplaincy canoe gets the biggest cheer, in my experience. The chaplains help with school morale and have been tremendous in times of bereavement, loss, suicidal ideation and issues concerning drug and alcohol abuse and separation. The chaplains perform a great service, and I have been a strong contributor personally and financially to the chaplaincy services in my area. I commend the government for the extension of the program, which has funded 2,700 schools across Australia. I look forward to the services and the stakeholders playing a role in a review of this program. I want to show one example of how the service is tremendous. My own church, Ipswich Baptist Church, provides six chaplains across a variety of different schools in Ipswich and the rural areas outside it. Ashley Saunders, the senior pastor, says this: Please pass on our appreciation as a church for the decision to continue School Chaplain funding for another 12 months. He says that six chaplains is a fair number from one church. I think that is pretty important. I commend the Rudd government, particularly the Prime Minister, for this initiative. This is a great initiative which will help the school communities in my electorate. 12519 12519 21:50:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to speak on an issue very important to my electorate and to many rural and regional areas in Victoria. We saw 173 people lose their lives to bushfires this year. Two of those people were from my electorate. They were doing what so many residents usually do: staying at home to defend their properties. The February fire was the third fire in six years to ravage some parts of my electorate in north-east Victoria. The 2003 fires left their mark, as emotional scar tissue, on the psyches of many people who lived and worked in the area and those who fought the fires. Also, obviously, the fires left their mark on the landscape. Over 30,000 hectares were burnt in the Beechworth fire this year, and this was in addition to 900,000 hectares burnt during the 2003 and 2006 fires. Long after the cameras have gone and the media attention has faded away, these scars and effects are still there. I rose in the House, as did many others, in February this year to speak on the condolence motion for the Victorian bushfire victims. I said: It is not the first time telecommunications has become an issue with bushfires across Australia, but we need to learn the lessons and learn them quickly. We have seen both the Rudd government and the Brumby government offer uncapped and unconditional financial support to the victims of the February fires. As recently as October, the Prime Minister and the Victorian Premier joined together to announce support for fire-affected areas. The Prime Minister earlier this year said: This government will be a partner for the long term in the rebuilding of each of the communities. He went on to say: We must do all that is possible through this commission so that we properly prepare for the future. While financial support is obviously very important to help communities rebuild their lives, we also need to learn from this disastrous event, which is something that the Victorian government has failed to do in the past in relation to the bushfire threat, to the disappointment and anguish of many Victorians. As Mr Bruce Esplin, Victoria’s Emergency Services Commissioner, said after the release of the 2009 Bushfires Royal Commission interim report: I’d be a liar if I said I wasn’t frustrated in seeing the similarities between what I said in 2003 and what the commission said in 2009. One of the issues of critical concern to north-east Victoria is access to communications and this issue was raised in the most recent interim report of the royal commission. They recommended in 4.8: The Australian Government, Council of Australian Governments and the State determine whether it is technically possible to implement the second phase of the national telephony-based warning system (that is, the delivery of warning messages to mobile phones based on the physical location of a handset at the time of the emergency) with a view to implementation for the 2009–10 bushfire season. Despite promising that a warning system would be in place by the start of the 2009-10 bushfire season, the Brumby government has now conceded that the system is weeks away from testing. While a national early warning system is important, the fundamental issue that is often overlooked is the fact that many parts of Victoria, and particularly north-east Victoria, do not receive adequate mobile telephone coverage. We saw the Victorian Premier claim in the media that both the Victorian government and the Victorian royal commission have made representations to the federal government on the issue of telecommunications black spots, but effectively the Premier has washed his hands of the telecommunications issue. We saw the extraordinary statement by the emergency services minister, Bob Cameron, to calls for improved telecommunications in black spot areas when he said: Ultimately it’s a matter really for the telcos as to what they do and obviously … over the years we’ve seen continued expansion of coverage and I suspect going into the future with technology changes that will continue to occur. But if you live in one of those … areas you have to factor that in to your own individual fire plan. Thanks for all the care and concern, Mr Cameron, and I say that obviously with some sarcasm. People all over my electorate regularly contact me as they are frustrated with inadequate mobile coverage, and we have seen this coverage worsen since the switchover from the CDMA to the Next G network. The government has been incapable of keeping its promise to hold Telstra accountable to its guarantee that the Next G coverage would be as good as, if not better than, the CDMA network. The government needs to fulfil its promise. It needs to hold Telstra accountable to its guarantee. I have many constituents who have written to me saying that their coverage has become poorer since the switchover. (Time expired) 12520 12520 21:55:00 Irwin, Julia, MP 83Z Fowler ALP 1 0 Mrs IRWIN —I speak tonight on a proposal that is of great importance to my local area. It is of great importance because it has created the unintended consequence of division within the community. It threatens to undo decades of work intended to break down the barriers between the many ethnic groups in the Fairfield LGA. The proposal is a development application before Fairfield City Council to build a memorial on the corner of Elizabeth Drive and Smithfield Road at Bonnyrigg on council land. I have read some of the public’s response online in our local press, and my office has received many negative phone calls about this 4.5-metre or 17-foot memorial. I have made these concerns known to the Mayor of Fairfield and the member for Cabramatta, Nick Lalich, and the member for Smithfield, Ninos Khoshaba, on behalf of the people I represent. The memorial will be dedicated to the victims of the Assyrian genocide with the park named ‘The Garden of Ninevah’ to reflect a strong affinity with the Assyrian people. It has, without doubt, noble intentions, but there are great difficulties in supporting memorials on public land which are dedicated to one cultural or ethnic group, no matter how worthy or noble the cause. Let me say from the outset that I have great admiration and respect for the Assyrian people. Their contribution to Australian life and in particular to life in south-western Sydney is already written into the annals of our country’s relatively short history The Assyrian community has supported me over many years and I have supported the Assyrian community. This will not change. However, our community is made up of many ethnic groups, many nationalities and many cultures. It would be fair to say that there is hardly a nation not represented within the area. It is simply a reflection of our nation which has been built through migration. From our earliest days as a British colony when the First Fleet arrived at Sydney Cove pushing aside the Aboriginal inhabitants, to the early settlers, to the Chinese who worked in our goldfields, through to the waves of migration which followed the world wars, migration became the building block of our nation. Many came simply for a better life but many of our migrants have fled wars. Many have fled political and religious persecution to find a safe haven in Australia, a place of freedom and democracy and a place to raise a family without the ever-present fears of their homelands. They came from every continent—from Europe, Asia, South America, Africa and from the Middle East; from Britain, Ireland, Italy and Greece; from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos; from Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine; from Rwanda and Sierra Leone; from the nations of the former Yugoslavia; from Sri Lanka and Afghanistan and from many other nations that I will not have time to name tonight. Everyone will recognise the names and everyone will remember their histories, for they are all very similar. No-one has a monopoly on war or persecution, no-one has a monopoly on genocide but, sadly, we have seen it repeated time and again around the world and it is this fact which prevents me from supporting this proposal in its current form. While the Assyrian people should rightly be proud of their heritage this proposal threatens to open a Pandora’s box. Each proposal henceforth must be treated in the same manner. Is council prepared to offer public land for every proposed memorial? How will the council respond, say, if the Cambodian community sought to build a similar memorial? Would they not be worthy of the same consideration? Fairfield City Council should be taking the lead on this proposal. Council should elect to take charge of this memorial. Council should be seeking input from all the groups who make up our great community, including the Assyrian community. Rather than a memorial to one group, perhaps council should create a memorial to represent the contribution of all migrants in our community, a memorial to those who escaped for a new life in a faraway land—a land called Australia. Now that would be a proposal we would all support in my local community, which I am so honoured and privileged to represent in this parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 10 pm, the debate is interrupted. 12521 22:00:00 House adjourned at 10 pm 12521 Requests for detailed information 12521 12521 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt to ask the Speaker: What measures has the Government taken to save energy and water use in Parliament House. 2009-11-23 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott) took the chair at 4 pm. 12522 Constituency Statements 12522 12522 16:00:00 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 0 Ms ROXON —I want to take this increasingly unusual opportunity to raise something that I have been doing in my electorate of Gellibrand for the last 11 years that I have been a member of parliament. Each year we have conducted an SRC meeting, where I invite senior students from schools within Gellibrand to meet with me at my electorate office. I invite them to discuss issues that are of interest and concern to them to make sure that, as a politician, I hear firsthand about issues and concerns that rate highly in young people’s minds. Students really do seem to appreciate the opportunity to raise these issues with me locally. When I was first elected to parliament I was considered by others to be a young MP, but even at that time I was twice the age of the students whom I was meant to be representing, and of course over the last 11 years that gap is increasing. Each year different schools send students along, and this year students from Mount Saint Joseph’s Girls College, Braybrook College, Gilmore College for Girls, Williamstown High School and Emmanuel College all attended the SRC meeting. I also find it interesting to see how the trends change each year. In previous years students have focused on education, in particular the cost of tertiary education for students in the western suburbs of Melbourne, but this year one of the main topics of discussion was the importance of multiculturalism. Students indicated they were concerned about ethnic discrimination and violence, an issue that has an increased attention in the local and national media after a few very unfortunate incidents. They provided some creative suggestions to eliminate this problem. Some students suggested schools need to do more to educate students about the importance of multiculturalism in society. Others, though, provided examples of the activities undertaken at their schools, such as multicultural week, where students attend schools in their traditional and cultural dress, an issue of great importance in my area. Other students said they believed school communities understood the importance of multiculturalism and accepted it as a strength in Australia but said the wider community, and sometimes their parents, needed to be educated on its importance. I find these forums very valuable because the students raise a range of issues that might not otherwise come to our attention. Safety on trains and around train stations was raised. Students were concerned about vandalism and their own safety, particularly in off-peak periods. The lack of interaction and relationships between schools was also an area of discussion. Apart from some sporting competitions, students said that there was little interaction between schools in the west. They have asked me if I would be interested in developing an interschool program in Gellibrand similar to but larger than the SRC forum and including discussion and debate about important local and national issues. They said that this will give them an opportunity to meet with students from other schools as well as strengthen their relationships and friendships. I found it very useful to hear these views. I am now working with the students to see if we can do this in 2010. I want to thank the schools and the young people for sharing their ideas with me so that I am able to raise them in the parliament. 12523 12523 16:03:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —With the issue of unauthorised boat arrivals and migration again at the forefront of Australian minds, both politically and through the media, I wish to raise the plight of a family on the Sunshine Coast who are in a predicament. The issue is one of who we allow into our country, and people around the country have been expressing views on this. What is also important is the type of people we want in our country. We want people who respect and obey the laws, people who are prepared to assimilate and become part of the community and we want those who are not going to be a burden on the Australian taxpayer. We want decent people. Jannie and Amanda Klue and their two children Jan-Sari and Pieter-Nick, who arrived here from South Africa almost two years ago, would be described by many who know them as perfect immigrants. They have an incredibly high work ethic, which is demonstrated by the enormous effort they put into their convenience store business at Middy’s Shopping Centre at Buderim. They started work in the convenience store just two days after arriving in Australia on Christmas Day 2007. They have continued to work hard ever since, on most occasions putting in seven days a week, to ensure their business is a success and they do not become a burden on the taxpayers of Australia, that they create a good life for themselves and their children, and that they make an incredibly positive contribution to the community. In conversation, the Klue family have expressed their love of Australia and have described how they have settled in well here and developed friendships in the community, and of how their children have also made friends at the local Buderim Mountain State School. They are passionate about the Buderim community and describe Australia as the best country on earth. Through their past experiences of living in South Africa, a nation plagued by crime, living in a home behind razor wire and with CCTV security cameras, they now very much appreciate the high level of freedom that most Australians love and that some others here unfortunately take for granted. In spite of the benefits to Australia of these new arrivals, the family now finds itself in a situation where they may have to leave Australia due to a visa anomaly. They had applied for a state-sponsored business visa which required they had business assets prior to application totalling $300,000 in value. They owned two businesses in South Africa involved in microfinancing but, unfortunately, in spite of a letter from Mr Klue’s attorney, the immigration case officer has since rejected one of those businesses as it was not registered—but it is not required to be registered in South Africa. As a result, the family no longer meets the requirements of the visa and has been issued with a voluntary exit visa. The Sunshine Coast immigration agent Mick Bull is assisting the family and doing a wonderful job in exploring all possible avenues. I have spoken to the office of the minister, Senator Evans, and I want to commend the minister for the way he is looking at this family’s plight. Mr Klue has sung the high praises of the department, and we hope that this problem can be sorted and that this wonderful family will be able to remain in Australia, become Australian citizens and make a further contribution to our nation. (Time expired) 12524 12524 16:06:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —On Saturday, 31 October, I attended once again the Annual Awards of Excellence presentation for Clubs SA. Clubs SA is the organisation that represents many of South Australia’s community clubs which, in turn, provide the backbone to so many community based activities. These clubs are reliant on thousands of volunteers and give so much back to their local communities and frequently to national and international humanitarian projects. The awards presentation has been taking place since 1985 and provides an opportunity to celebrate and acknowledge some of the outstanding contributors amongst Clubs SA. I just want to go through the list of winners in the 2009 awards. The Employee of the Year was Matthew Nastasijevic, who comes from the Para Hills Community Club. For community service, the award went to the Para Hills Community Club. The Spirit of the Club Movement Award went to the Renmark Club. The Encouragement of Sport Award went to the Marion Sports and Community Club. The Occupational Health and Safety Award went to the Cobdogla and District Club. The Best Dining Facility Award again went to Para Hills Community Club. The award for the best bar also went to the Para Hills Community Club. The Best Entertainment Venue Award went to the Parafield Gardens Community Club. The most improved club was the Renmark Club. The best gaming machine venue was Grand North. And the Most Professional Manager Award went to Greg Saunders from the Parafield Gardens Community Club. The Best Club Operations (Non Gaming) Award went to the Vines Golf Club of Reynella. The Best Club Operations (Gaming) Award went to the Parafield Gardens Community Club. Club of the Year in the Regional category went to the Renmark Club. Club of the Year in the Metro (Small) category went to the Colonel Light Gardens Community RSL— TK6 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP Dr Southcott —Hear, hear! HWB Zappia, Tony, MP Mr ZAPPIA —I hear the member for Boothby saying, ‘Hear, hear!’, and quite rightly so—it is in his electorate. And Club of the Year in the Metro (Large) category went to the Para Hills Community Club. All of those clubs well deserved the awards they were given, and you would have noticed, from the wide spread of both locations and style of clubs, the range of different organisations that make up Clubs SA around South Australia and the fantastic job they all do for their own local communities—and I am sure that all of us in this place are familiar with local clubs. In fact, only yesterday I attended, at the Parafield Gardens Community Club, the KD Dance Championship, a championship arranged for schoolchildren in the local region, where KD’s dance school taught the schoolchildren and then put them through a local championship to help them get some confidence. In a similar vein I attended the Para Hills Community Club on Saturday night where the pitch and putt—pitch and putt is a modified golf game—national championship awards were given out, and I was pleased to see that it was hosted by South Australia, with the presentation at the Para Hills Community Club. 12524 12524 16:09:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to table a petition that has been to the Petitions Committee and has been approved. It addresses the Hon. the Speaker and members of the House of Representatives. The petition, from residents of the Gold Coast suburb of Coombabah, draws to the attention of the House that applications for developments requesting assistance under the National Rental Affordability Scheme may be approved regardless of whether local government approval has been sought or received for the development and without community consultation. The petitioners request that the House intervenes to amend the NRAS legislation to ensure local government approval is acquired for any development before applications can be submitted and that all applications are available to the public for comment prior to any consideration of an NRAS application. This issue came about because an application for an NRAS project was submitted for 134 units on Hansford Road in Coombabah in the mighty electorate of Fadden. Whilst I and the residents of Coombabah have absolutely no problem with social housing and certainly welcome it, approval has been given for 60 two-storey dwellings on the site that has been chosen. The application that is now before council and has NRAS approval from the minister is for 134 three-storey units. That is completely out of character with the area. The residents had no ability to have their voices heard by the federal Minister for Housing and to register a range of objections. That is an anomaly that should be addressed within the NRAS application process. It is not that the residents of Coombabah are against social housing; it is just that they want a voice. They want some answers. They want to know what will happen after 10 years, considering that Queensland is somewhat unique in that, for people to enjoy the benefits of an NRAS social housing development, they must be on the one social housing list, which is the list covering housing commission houses in Queensland—a list that, currently, has people waiting for 10 years. They want to know what happens when people go into these 134 units and, after 10 years, when federal and state governments withdraw their support, how those people will be able to continue to afford living in those units. They are perfectly reasonable and respectable questions to ask. People also want to know what is happening with social housing and housing commissions throughout the nation. It is noted that, in the last 10 years, as state governments, predominantly Labor, have controlled housing commissions across the nation, the number of houses available has decreased by 6,000, yet $6 billion has been spent. How can you spend $6 billion and have, as a net result, 6,000 fewer houses? The residents of Coombabah seek answers to a range of questions, and part of the petition process is to start that journey of seeking answers and indeed redress. The petition read as follows— To the Honourable the Speaker and Members of the House of Representatives This petition from residents of the Gold Coast suburb of Coombabah draws to the attention of the House that applications for developments requesting assistance under the National Rental Affordability Scheme (NRAS) may be approved regardless whether local government approval has been sought or received for the development, and without community consultation. Your petitioners therefore request that the House intervenes to amend the NRAS legislation to ensure local government approval is acquired for any development before applications can be submitted and that all applications are available to the public for comment prior to any consideration of an NRAS application. from 519 citizens Petition received. 12526 12526 16:13:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to inform members of the progress of my campaign to increase car parking for the many thousands of commuters in my electorate. Increasing the capacity of car parking for commuters was a priority election commitment of mine in the lead-up to the 2007 election, which saw me elected as the member for Robertson. The Central Coast has a very large contingent of workers who commute by train every day to Sydney. Commuting is a vitally important issue to every one of these people, as well as to their families. It adds significantly to the length of the working day for tens of thousands of my constituents. That is why I take very seriously any means to assist in improving the daily commute for these people. Most estimates of the number of people commuting every day of the week from Gosford, Woy Woy and other towns on the Central Coast are around 40,000. A large proportion of these people commute by train, and access to free, readily available commuter car parking at our local train stations is an issue of great importance to them. My firm election commitment to the people of Robertson was to increase commuter car parking in the Gosford CBD. So I was delighted that the Rudd Labor government was able to support the people of my electorate through a $7 million grant from the Better Regions Program. This allocation of funding was designed to increase commuter car parking by 400 spaces in the Gosford CBD. The money was allocated to Gosford City Council, which would build and operate the increased capacity of car parking within the Gosford centre. It is now approximately 18 months since council was informed that it could apply for the allocated money under the terms of the Better Regions grant. However, I have become increasingly concerned that Gosford City Council is not progressing with the necessary work on this project as quickly as the people of my electorate are entitled to expect. I fought hard for the people in my electorate to secure this campaign commitment and, since then, I have worked equally hard with Gosford City Council to bring this vitally important project to fruition. The delays to this project by Gosford City Council are creating uncertainty in the minds of my constituents as to when the project will be complete. I am also very concerned that Gosford City Council seems intent on charging commuters for parking in the new spaces funded by the federal government. A proposal to charge commuters even a small fee, in my mind, is completely unacceptable. Many commuters, especially those working shifts or irregular hours, will be faced with a daily impost on their household budgets, and they are already spending an extra $50 a week to pay for their train tickets. I would also oppose any moves to introduce any so-called nominal charges based on the time that they enter the car park. These 400 new car parking spaces will be an enormous benefit to Gosford commuters. I will continue to campaign for them and their speedy completion. (Time expired) 12526 12526 16:16:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —Had the coalition government’s broadband rollout continued, by now electorates would have faster, reliable and affordable broadband. The broadband relied on a mix of technologies and, significantly, was much cheaper than the alternative that Labor are describing in their National Broadband Network. I know that many residents in my electorate would have assumed when they first heard of Labor’s broadband network that it would be delivered through underground cables. In fact, based on Labor’s costings of $43 billion, 70 per cent of the network will be delivered by overhead cabling. Seventy per cent of the cabling in my electorate will be strung from Stobie pole to Stobie pole. In the electorate of Boothby, many residents, the local community, put a premium on significant trees. We have many tree lined streets and high-value properties, and many residents would be concerned at the impact of overriding state and local government laws. We have already seen in the Building the Education Revolution the overriding of local government laws. Since 1997 there have been measures in the Telecommunications Act requiring local government and state government approval for any overhead cabling, including pay TV cables. In the local government areas in the electorate of Boothby—the City of Mitcham, the City of Unley, the City of Marion, the City of Holdfast Bay and the City of Onkaparinga—I know that there will be a lot of community opposition to any overriding of state and local government laws by stringing up overhead cables. This will damage property values. There is potential damage to trees and potential damage to the cables. Even possums and birds can do damage to the cables. Already we have seen in New South Wales that the state government has suspended development laws. In Tasmania we are seeing that the government is proposing using the cables across electricity cables and poles. If the South Australian government overrides local and state development laws to allow the stringing of overhead cables, it will have a very detrimental impact on residents in my community. I know it will be opposed by many of the 120,000 residents who live in the electorate of Boothby. 12527 12527 16:19:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —Today I want to talk about a recent education announcement that will make a significant difference to secondary school students in the Huon Valley region in the south of my electorate of Franklin. A new trade training centre for southern Tasmania will be built under the Rudd government’s Trade Training Centres in Schools Program. The Huon Valley Trade Training Centre will receive around $6.4 million to construct a new building at the Huonville High School. The trade training centre will cater for students from Dover District High School, Geeveston District High School, Woodbridge School and the Huonville High School. The trade training centre will deliver a range of qualifications, including automotive, electrical, hospitality, horticulture and aquaculture. Southern Tasmanian students in the Huon Valley will become equipped with the skills they need to effectively and competitively participate in the workforce of tomorrow. This is really exciting news for the Huon Valley region. It is positive on a number of fronts. First, the young people will have increased access to world-class education and training opportunities in their local area. Second, the delivery of high-quality education through the trade training centre will help to increase the proportion of students achieving a year 12 or equivalent qualification. Third, the program has been designed to address the skills shortages in traditional trades and emerging industries by improving the relevance and responsiveness of the trade training programs in secondary schools. The Huon Valley trade training centre is all about southern Tasmanian children getting an opportunity to obtain the skills and education they need for their future. The principal of Huon Valley’s high school, Alison Grant, whom I called on the morning of the announcement, was thrilled at the news that a trade training centre would be built at her school. She is a local, passionate voice for education and fully supports the delivery of vocational training through the trade training centre environment. She said: The retention of students from the Huon Valley from grade 10 to further education in grade 11 has been an issue for a long time. Huonville High School, in particular, has worked hard to promote the importance of education beyond grade 10. The pathway planning and futures program at the school is regarded as one of the best in Tasmania. Currently all students post-grade 10, except for a handful, have to travel out of the Huon Valley to study. The provision of a first-class training facility in the Huon Valley will provide opportunities for young people who want to live, work and study in the Huon Valley and provide an exciting opportunity to build partnerships between educators and employers to work together in the best interests of the valley’s young people. I take this opportunity to congratulate Alison on the work she has done to ensure this outcome and also the local council—the Huon Valley Council—who I know have put a lot of time and energy into securing this important facility for the local community. Apart from the $6.4 million in trade training centre funding, the Huon Valley has also recently benefited from the massive investment through the Building the Education Revolution Program, of course. The trade training centre is a fantastic learning hub for the students. It delivers on our election commitment to build trade training centres, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact this will have on the region and its people. 12528 12528 16:22:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —I wish to speak on something that I am profoundly concerned about and disturbed by, and that is the politicisation and corruption of the entire peer review process of the IPCC and other organisations relating to climate change. This came to light with the release of certain emails between certain individuals concerned. I will read some of them to give you some flavour. This is regarding the WWF: Hi Mike. I am sure you will get some comments direct from Mike Rae in WWF Australia, but I wanted to pass on the gist of what they have said to me so far. They are worried that this might present a slightly more conservative approach to the risks than they are hearing from CSIRO. In particular, they would like to see the section on variability and extreme events beefed up if possible. Here is another one, to do with some papers that were published: The other paper by MM is just garbage—as you know. De Freitas again. Pielke is also losing credibility as well by replying to the mad Finn as well—frequently as I see it. I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow—even if we have to redefine what peer review literature is! Here is another one, to do with De Freitas, the editor of Climate Research, a peer-reviewed journal: One approach is to go direct to the publishers and point out the fact that the journal is perceived as being a medium for disseminating misinformation under the guise of refereed work. I would use the word ‘perceived’ here, since whether it is true or not is what the publishers care about. Here is another one from Kevin Trenberth on actual climate: The fact is, we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we cannot. The series data publishing in the August BAMS 09 supplement 2008 shows that there should be even more warming: but the data is surely wrong. Our observing system is inadequate. Here is another one, from Phil Jones again: So once again there is a blip in temperature that they don’t find convenient. If we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degrees Celsius, then this would be significant for the global mean—but we’d still have to explain the land blip. This is of grave concern. We have Dr Clive Spash with CSIRO being censored by the government. He has a paper that is critical of the ETS. That is not being published. Are we wanting further censorship? We are getting internet censorship and indeed censorship of our own mail to our electorate. (Time expired) 12529 12529 16:25:00 Vamvakinou, Maria, MP 00AMT Calwell ALP 1 0 Ms VAMVAKINOU —Last Wednesday I was pleased to stand alongside the Speaker of the House, the Hon. Harry Jenkins, and jointly host the inaugural Taste of Plenty Expo here in Parliament House. The Taste of Plenty Expo showcased food and beverages from throughout the Plenty Valley region. This region takes in most of my electorate of Calwell and the electorate of Scullin. Produce was contributed to the expo by a broad range of food and beverage manufacturers, ranging from cheese to wine, breakfast cereals and cured meats. The rich variety of food and drink that we were lucky enough to enjoy on the evening reflects the broad diversity of cultures that make up the communities of Melbourne’s north. To a large extent, this culinary history overlays the multicultural history of Melbourne itself. The culinary traditions of these communities now have found their place as a major structural component of food manufacturing in northern metropolitan Melbourne. Food manufacturers in Melbourne’s north now employ over 5,500 people, and this number continues to grow. Our culinary history is something that Melbournians are very proud of. Although this is the first event of its kind from the Plenty Valley, it builds on a very long history. The fertile river valleys to the north of Melbourne are amongst the state’s earliest agricultural districts and since the 1840s have produced a wide range of good food and wine. Last Wednesday I was pleased to share the stage with the member for Scullin, because the expo was more than just about enjoying good produce from our electorates; last Wednesday demonstrated the success story that is the Plenty Food Group. The Plenty Food Group has been a great success. It has overseen the expansion of food manufacturing in our region and has done a great job in working with the community to develop strategies that ensure local food and wine manufacturing continues to prosper. Moreover, the expo demonstrated how effectively our local councils have been at engaging and supporting this process of local, strategic economic development. I welcome the continued good working relationship between the federal government and the local councils—in this case, both the Hume City Council and the Whittlesea City Council. I would also like to acknowledge the participants from my electorate who made the effort to come to Parliament House last week. I want to acknowledge and thank County Cooked Meats, Denali Foods, Pronto e Fresco, Wilson’s Meat and Poultry/Olympic Smallgoods, Naturally Good Products, Amaranth Australia and the Hume City Council. There were many other manufacturers who contributed. I look forward to working with all food manufacturers across the north of Melbourne to continue the success story of the Plenty Food Group. Those members who did not get the opportunity to join us last week can look forward to our expo next year. 12530 12530 16:28:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —On 17 November 2009 I attended the year 12 graduation ceremony of Wanneroo Senior High School held in Wangara. The ceremony was particularly good. The formalities commenced with an address by Principal Pauline White. I found her address and her advice to her graduates particularly practical. It was, without doubt, advice for a modern age. I commend Pauline White for her commitment to her students and her keen understanding of the practicalities of the modern age. This was embodied by her suggestion that students watch what they put on social networking sites as those sites are being checked by potential employers. As I said, that is very good advice for a modern age. Apart from the address by the principal we heard from Ms Holly Chinnery in the keynote address. Ms Chinnery is a graduate of Wanneroo Senior High School. She is also the holder of a PhD and a scientist. In a candid and encouraging speech Ms Chinnery spoke about her struggles to succeed and ultimately her success both at university and internationally as a scientist. This young woman, who has achieved at a very high level, provided the graduating class with an excellent example of the opportunities that await them. Clearly being a student from Wanneroo Senior High School is no limitation on the opportunity for a great future. While all the graduates have the strong opportunities provided to them by the staff at Wanneroo Senior High School—and I am sure they will maximise their futures based on those opportunities—I would like to mention some of the award winners on the night. In particular I mention the winner of the academic dux award: Troy Miles. Troy also won prizes for applicable mathematics, chemistry, physics, calculus and material design and technology for metals. He was also the winner of the Institute of Engineers Award. A worthy recipient of the academic dux award, clearly Troy Miles will be able to turn his talents to a variety of technical and other disciplines in the future. He will do well. I would also mention the vocational dux, John Musulin. John Musulin was also successful in winning the senior science prize and the building and construction prize. Clearly John Musulin will have a strong future in the trades. I would also mention the winner of the Luke Simpkins Award, Marie Wiegand, for her excellent conduct and study efforts. Marie was also the winner of the visual communications photography prize and the English as a second language certificate. I congratulate Marie Wiegand. I welcomed the opportunity to attend the Wanneroo Senior High School graduation ceremony because these school graduation ceremonies are very special events. I have been to many of these graduations and I am very pleased to attend, even if it means crossing the country and flying overnight as part of that commitment to the year 12s. The reason I like to go to school graduations and indeed spend time in schools with my democratic information and role-play initiatives is that I like to meet with and encourage young people and children—those who have such vast potential ahead of them. It was the case as well with Wanneroo senior high on their graduation night. I saw the realised potential of Ms Holly Chinnery and I see the future potential of the 2009 undergraduates of Wanneroo Senior High School, a potential waiting to be achieved for themselves and Australia. 10000 Scott, Bruce (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. BC Scott)—In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members constituency statements has concluded. 12531 Committees 12531 12531 Debate resumed from 16 November, on motion by Mr Debus: That the House take note of the report. 12531 16:31:00 Debus, Bob, MP 8IS Macquarie ALP 1 0 Mr DEBUS —In my speech in the House I had been saying in respect of the report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs concerning remote area stores that poor nutrition, particularly low fruit and vegetable intake, was a very important determinant of the health gap as it concerns Aboriginal people. In most remote communities the store is the principal source of fresh fruit and vegetables, and therefore our committee made a number of recommendations aimed to promote the consumption and improve the supply and affordability of nutritious, fresh food in remote Indigenous communities, including collaborating with every remote Indigenous community to develop and manage a healthy store policy; and establishing a national remote Indigenous food supply chain coordination office. This office would support communities or groupings of communities to develop supply models appropriate to them that deliver healthy perishables regularly—weekly where possible. This may well be our most important recommendation. Other recommendations include establishing a remote community store infrastructure fund to assist in the investment of delivery, refrigeration and storage of fresh and healthy produce; and supporting community garden, traditional food and farming projects. We have recommended these improvements with confidence because we have seen that some stores and some communities are doing especially well at the present time. The financial capacity of Indigenous people living in remote communities is limited. This, combined with the fact that most goods and services in remote Australia are at least 20 per cent more expensive than in the city, poses an even greater strain on the access that may be had to healthy and affordable food. The committee found that there is no comprehensive data available on the cost of living for Indigenous Australians living in remote communities. Therefore, the committee recommended the commissioning of a regional cost-of-living study for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders living in remote communities. By far the majority of stores are owned by Indigenous community members in the communities in which they are located. The committee was impressed by evidence from remote communities that both own and manage their community store. Many remote communities take the option of appointing a non-Indigenous manager individually or through a store management consultancy group. Outback Stores is one such group, which is invited into communities to manage stores on a fee-for-service basis. Outback Stores is a non-government enterprise established by the Australian government in 2006. It presently manages 27 community owned stores, and the committee found that the Outback Stores model offers a successful store management option for communities. However, there is a significant difference between the business task that Outback Stores was established to fulfil and the need for food security which it is, at present, meeting. The committee has recommended that the Australian government should revise the purpose of the Outback Stores’ novel and recognise two distinct roles: one as a commercially viable store operator but also, where it is deemed appropriate, as a supplier of healthy food in communities where there is no viable store, or where access to healthy food is limited. As each community varies so much, so do the particular needs and the context in which the community store operates. The committee recognises this diversity and recommended that the government work with individual communities to develop and support a diversity of store operations and delivery models that recognise the unique needs and situations in remote Indigenous communities. Responsibility for making decisions such as who will manage the store, or what type of health policies will apply within the store are, first of all, with the Aboriginal corporation or governance body which manages the business of the community and the land on which the store is built. The responsibilities taken on in the directorship of the store by these Aboriginal corporations and the store committees they may form to run the store can be very significant. It is extremely important that these bodies function within an appropriate governance and regulatory framework. The committee has recommended that all Aboriginal owned and controlled stores should, in future, register under the Corporations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Act 2006—that is, the CATSI Act—which is administered by the Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations. At present, arrangements for this purpose are fragmented, with Aboriginal store bodies formed under a range of state, territory and Commonwealth jurisdictions. This not only creates confusion about legal obligations for the owners of the store but it also creates opportunities for unscrupulous money management. The Office of the Registrar of Indigenous Corporations offers a range of services that include store board education programs and auditing support, and it has powers to put a store experiencing difficulties into temporary administration. The committee also recommended that in the event that COAG agrees to a national licensing regime for all remote community stores—I understand that to be likely—the Australian government should take a number of factors into account, including concerns raised about the licensing process, governance structures, healthy store policies and eligibility. This inquiry into remote community stores has been beneficial in highlighting the pivotal role the community store has in remote Indigenous communities. The store is often the only source of sustenance for many remote communities, and it is also the social and economic engine of the community. As the title of this report suggests, it is, indeed, everybody’s business how well a store operates, because it does play such a critical role in the economy, health and wellbeing of the whole community. I take this opportunity to thank the previous chair of the committee, Richard Marles MP, for his contribution to the inquiry. I also thank the deputy chair, Andrew Laming MP, and all the members of the committee for the work they have done during the course of the inquiry. I should particularly mention two members present here, Mr Turnour and Ms Rea, for their quite special diligence in the prosecution of the inquiry that this committee has undertaken. I also express my gratitude to our especially competent secretariat staff: inquiry secretaries Susan Cardell and Rebecca Gordon; senior research officer, Loes Slattery; administrator, Claire Young, and secretary, Anna Dacre. All of these people have made a most important contribution to a report which has already generated a good deal of interest amongst remote Aboriginal communities and those who seek to support them. We have had steady stream of telephone calls and emails coming in from remote parts of Australia seeking more information, offering opinions and generally expressing gratitude that our committee has been able to make these unanimous recommendations to what we hope will be the long-term benefit of the communities that we have been examining. I thank this committee for allowing me to bring forward the report. 12533 16:40:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I too rise to talk about the report that has been tabled by our chair, the Hon. Bob Debus, and to thank him for his leadership of the committee. Everybody’s business is the report of an inquiry into remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community stores. It is an inquiry that I spoke to Minister Macklin and the former chair, Richard Marles, about last year, and we were very pleased to see the reference come to the committee. As the representative of the great electorate of Leichhardt, which includes Cairns, Cape York and the Torres Strait, I have a particular responsibility to represent Indigenous people in this country. Around 8,000 in the Torres Strait and 12,000 in Cape York Peninsula gives a total population of 20,000 Indigenous people in remote communities in my electorate alone, as well as the communities in Cairns. I would like to recognise the traditional owners and the elders of those areas as well as those of the other lands that we are speaking about today and thank them for welcoming us to those Queensland communities and the communities in the Northern Territory, South Australia and Western Australia that we visited during the period of this inquiry. This is a particularly important inquiry for remote communities because, as we know, closing the gap is a government priority, and going to that are health issues. We have an 18-year gap in life expectancy between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, and obviously health is a critical part of that. Having access to good-quality, nutritious food is part of that. Often we see government investing in new preventative health services, in hospitals or in health clinics, but critical to closing that gap and making a difference is the availability of foodstuffs, and this inquiry goes to the heart of that issue, which is very much the availability and supply of them in stores. There were 112 submissions to the inquiry and we travelled extensively, visiting remote communities all across the country. Health flows onto cost of living. You can have available foods in these communities—and there is a real issue with the availability of foods—but they also have to be affordable. The committee looked at those issues and we had a range of submissions on that, particularly in my electorate from areas in the Torres Strait and also in Cape York Peninsula. The other area that we looked around during the inquiry in a general sense was the issue of governance. We made some specific recommendations around Outback Stores, but the whole issue of governance of remote Indigenous stores and the importance of that was also discussed during the inquiry, and a number of recommendations came down in relation to that. Central to what we heard regularly, whether it was through submissions or whether it was through presentations to the committee, was the importance of the management of the local store and the engagement of the store manager with the local community. When we were in the Torres Strait we heard some really poor examples of engagement by the IBIS stores in the community. I am pleased to hear, on visiting the Torres Strait subsequent to this inquiry, that there have been some changes with a new CEO coming into IBIS, and I believe there is a new culture developing in terms of engagement with that local community. Similarly, in my electorate in Leichhardt, some of the feedback that we heard was that there is a well-functioning store in Aurukun run by Island and Cape. Concerns were raised in Kowanyama about the Queensland government-run store, which is in real need, about centralised buying. We need to make sure that store managers are properly engaged with their communities if these stores are to function correctly. There were recommendations made to that effect in this report. The engagement of the community store manager with the community is critical. If we go back from the store, the supply chain is critically important to the supply of fresh fruit and vegetables and other goods to these stores. We have made a number of recommendations for the supply chain. I will come to them in a second. As I said earlier, cost of living is critically important as well. You can have fresh fruit and vegetables available and regularly, but they need to be affordable, and the real issues are cost of living—particularly in remote communities—and governance. The committee made 33 recommendations as part of its report. I am going to jump around a little bit in the order of these recommendations, but I am going to talk about them in relation to the importance from the point of view of communities. Committee recommendation 13 was that the Australian government establish a national remote Indigenous food supply chain coordination office. We were talking about the importance of the store manager in the community, but the supply chain is critically important. What we heard is that there are issues and variations in the quality of the supply chain to remote Indigenous stores. We saw that there were some advantages to collective buying at a reasonable level. Outback Stores, ALPA Stores and Ibis have some capacity to do that, but there are some individual stores that would benefit from a national office that would work with them to pull together bulk buying and look at how they can support their supply chains. We made a recommendation about the minister establishing a national supply chain coordination office to work on those issues. There are some new technologies to monitor cold stores as they travel across the supply chain, and we thought it was important that those technologies not just be available to corporate stores but be worked through with some of the smaller community stores and privately run stores. We want to make sure that technology is available to those stores. Similarly, the coordination office would have an important role not in terms of bringing groups together to look at their supply chain but to make sure they were utilising the most up-to-date technology. The other supply chain issue that came up regularly with the committee was the increase in the cost of travelling and taking food along the supply chain and the impact that had on costs at the store level. With particular regard to the Torres Strait, we made a recommendation that the committee, following on from the assessment from a national supply chain coordination office, look at the options of a freight subsidy of the Torres Strait, recognising that in Tasmania there is a significant subsidy to freight across the Bass Strait. It is for different economic reasons; Tasmania is disconnected from the mainland and there are some competitive trade disadvantages there, while the Torres Strait island communities, similar to Tasmania, are disconnected from the mainland, but they are at the very end of a barge system in which you often have to have fruit and vegetables go from down south to Cairns, then on to Horn Island and then the outer islands. We felt it was critically important that this supply chain be looked at technically and that we also advise that down the track the minister and the office look at a freight subsidy to the Torres Strait specifically to address issues around cost of living. There was a recognition as part of the discussion of freight, though, that it was not just freight that made food expensive in remote community stores, and I encourage people to read the report and the evidence given there. Obviously, refrigeration equipment costs—if they break down people need to be flown out to communities; they often find out what is wrong with it and have to order the part—have a range of back and forth that can go on with the maintenance in the stores. That can add to the cost levels. Food can sometimes have to be thrown out, so there is increased cost with the supply of that food, because not as much of it can be utilised if it arrives in poor quality. These were the recommendations focusing on the supply chain and ensuring that we do not have wastage of food, but there are other issues around the cost flow-through. Freight is important, but other issues include maintenance of stores and the fact that you can have people from outside who not only need to be employed in the store but also need housing and a range of other support mechanisms. Another critical recommendation that flows from that is the issue of some stores having good-quality infrastructure. Effectively, the federal government invested extensively in Outback Stores to provide them with the capacity to upgrade infrastructure in stores following the Northern Territory intervention. We felt it was important that community stores and other stores also had the opportunity to access a government fund that would improve community store infrastructure, because having good-quality fridges and other sorts of presentation facilities in stores keeps that food better in the store and also makes it much more attractive to community members making purchases. So a store infrastructure fund was also one of the recommendations that we made in relation to this inquiry. Another issue we made recommendations about concerning access to fresh and good quality food was that of growing local produce and the availability of local produce. In the Torres Strait the federal Rudd government is investing in a program called You, Me and Gardens, through the Torres Strait Regional Authority, and we felt that there was a real opportunity in some situations for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to grow their own food and look to see if that can be linked to marketing not only into the stores but also directly into the communities. We wanted to make sure that was also picked up in the committee’s recommendations. I will move on to some of the governance issues. One of the issues handed down to us as a committee was to look specifically into Outback Stores. We have already heard the committee chair talk about the fact that we have made some recommendations on the registration of stores and their corporate governance. Outback Stores were part of the inquiry’s terms of reference, but we felt it was of particular importance that the federal government and the minister did not just consider one particular model as the right way to go. Outback Stores are doing a good job—we have heard positive feedback from communities about their work—but there are also good quality community stores and privately owned stores out there. We believe that the government needs to consider an approach to community stores that looks at ensuring, as part of government policy, innovative approaches that enable individual communities to meet their needs for fresh fruit and vegetables. Simply saying that Outback Stores are the best model and we should therefore provide government funding through Outback Stores was not necessarily the result of the inquiry or the recommendation that we made. The committee made a number of recommendations on Outback Stores, including that they should have Indigenous representation on their board and nutritionists on their board, recognising the need for clarification of roles in the delivery of commercially viable stores. We heard evidence that there are a selection of stores that are not currently commercially viable, and the government is effectively providing subsidies through FaHCSIA to support those stores. We wanted to make sure there was not some confusion in the longer term governance of Outback Stores in those two areas. Particularly for those stores where there is not necessarily sustainability at the moment, we thought that, rather than simply saying that was the responsibility of Outback Stores, in the longer term government should engage with those communities and look at how it can work with those communities with a long-term approach on innovative ways to deliver fresh fruit, vegies and produce in store to those communities. For example, in Western Australia there was a store that was meeting community needs by getting someone to drive out once a week to the community, having purchased goods in Kununurra. That was the way that local community met their needs. There were other hub-and-spoke models that we thought were effective that were being run out in particular communities. We thought it was important that, through government policy and government regulation, we enable different communities to look at different models to meet their own particular needs. If we are going to build up local communities, and we need to make sure government regulation allows them to have the capacity to meet their own needs and be empowered. For the longer term, we have made a number of recommendations on licensing so that, if the government does move to a national licensing framework, it ensures that these innovative hub-and-spoke models—community supported, owned and managed stores—are not put at a disadvantage in relation to corporate stores or Outback Stores. There are a range of recommendations about that. In my closing remarks I would like to thank once again the traditional owners and elders of the communities we met. I would like to particularly thank some of those in my electorate: the Chair of the Torres Strait Regional Authority, Toshi Kris, who presented to the committee; Pedro Stephens, the Mayor of the Torres Shire Council; Councillor Fred Gela, the Mayor of the Torres Strait Island Regional Council, who also presented to the committee; Councillor Wayne Givara from Badu Island Council; Councillor John Morsby; Councillor Ron Day from Mer; as well as councillors in Cape York: Joseph Elu, Neville Pootchemunka and Tommy Hudson from those communities. These people made us so welcome in my electorate. I also thank those people from other parts of Australia who made us so welcome. I would also like to thank the chair, the Hon. Bob Debus, and the former chair, Richard Marles, for the support that they provided throughout the preparation of the report and the hearings. I thank the secretariat, including Ms Anna Dacre and Ms Sharon Bryant, who led the secretariat well; inquiry secretaries Ms Susan Cardell and Ms Rebecca Gordon; research officer Ms Loes Slattery; and office manager Ms Claire Young. I thank them all for the work that they have done. I really do recommend this report to members from remote communities. 12536 16:55:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —I too rise to speak on this very important report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs entitled Everybody’s business. As previous speakers have already said, and indeed as has been said by people from the Prime Minister down, it has been made very clear from day one that this government is committed to closing the gap on Indigenous health. We are also committed to attempting to redress some of the wrongs of the past in the treatment and policies that have very clearly affected Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in this country. It began with the apology but it did not stop there; it continues. This particular report, Everybody’s business, is a key document in terms of the government’s attitudes to and development of policies towards closing the gap on Indigenous health. We all know that, regardless of where you come from or who you are, the health and prosperity of any community is shaped by the health and wellbeing of the individuals within that community. Indeed, if we are going to address some of the very serious health problems that affect Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people today we have to start with addressing the health of those communities and the health and wellbeing of individuals within those communities, particularly those people who are living in remote communities that do not have the equity of access and the nearby support and resources that so many people living in larger populations benefit from. I must make particular reference to the children in those communities. If we are going to create well-functioning and prosperous communities we have to ensure that the children in those communities are well cared for and, indeed, achieve all the nutritional needs that they require to grow up to be healthy, positive and active human beings. Whilst remote community stores may seem a very small and specific topic to look at, the issue actually has massive implications for the way that we and future governments develop policies for Indigenous peoples living in those communities. The fact that this report has produced 33 recommendations is a reflection of not just the commitment of the committee and this parliament to supporting improvements in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities but also how significant the community store is, particularly in those remote communities in the north and west of Australia. The report focuses on two key areas. One is nutrition, with a deliberate emphasis on the importance of nutrition and of providing good-quality fresh food to people in order that they may not suffer from the allied health problems associated with not eating the right food. It requires education and an understanding of diet and the importance that fresh food plays in contributing to your health. But it also involves the logistics of actually providing fresh fruit and vegetables in particular, and fresh food and nutritious food more broadly, to some very remote parts of Australia. The logistics of that, as you can understand, Mr Deputy Speaker, is a major challenge alone, not to mention that of making people aware of this and encouraging them to transfer from not-so-good food to healthier food to improve their lifestyles and those of their families. Nutrition was a very important part of the focus of this report. As the previous speaker, the member for Leichhardt, said, it is not just about the logistics of getting fresh food to people and getting them to purchase it and eat it. It is actually about how you can create an environment where people are encouraged to buy that fresh food. It is about making sure that you can invest some significant capital funds into the improvement of the store so that it does have good working fridges, a freezer and cold storage areas, so that food does not wilt and go off too quickly. The store must be an attractive place to walk into and the displays and all of the things that are designed to encourage people to purchase certain goods within a store must have been paid attention to. It is about capital investment as well as logistics. It is also therefore important that we acknowledge the importance of governance, which is the other key focus of this report. The way a store is governed has a significant impact on the community’s attitude towards that store; their sense of ownership of the store and their sense that it is a fundamental part of the community that is providing an important service encourages people to use that store and purchase goods in it. What also emerged very significantly was that a well-run, well-managed store is one thing, but unless there is a level of community involvement and engagement with the running and operation of that store then it does not quite service the community in the way that it should. Particularly in remote communities, where the store is the social economic hub of the community, the people living within that community must be a part of the management and operation of that store. Where possible, local Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people should be employed in the store and training should occur that enables local Indigenous people to end up being the managers of that store. Community ownership of the store has a significant impact on the community’s involvement, engagement and support for that store. So governance was also the other key factor when it came to conducting this inquiry. The nature of the store is not just about the building. The member for Leichhardt and the chair have already talked about the hub-and-spoke model where it is not necessarily just a big shop that you all rock up to to buy your groceries. If there is a central hub by which delivery can occur to very remote communities, providing fresh, quality food which also has those communities supporting that particular model of delivery, then that will work. That is why the recommendations around licensing are critical to the success of the adoption of this report. There are varying models and ways of managing a store. Communities are different; they have different dynamics and different governance arrangements. The way the community store operates should reflect the differences in the communities, many of which we had a great opportunity to visit. At this point I would like to focus on the experience that I had and I am sure other committee members had in conducting this inquiry and indeed visiting some very remote, very different parts of this country. It was an incredible, overwhelmingly positive experience that I had, whether it was engaging with elders and members of remote Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities or sitting in a capital city, like Darwin, Melbourne or Brisbane, listening to people who had come a very long way to present evidence on what they saw was a very important, indeed vital, topic for the success and the future of their communities. There are some amazing people out there doing some amazing things in circumstances and conditions which I know many people would probably baulk at. There are leaders within the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community who are bringing their communities with them and are taking the negative experiences of the past and trying to turn those experiences around into positive ones for their communities and the children—the future—of their communities. There are some amazing women out there in many adverse circumstances who have struggled to provide their children and their families with the basic essentials that keep them going. They provide them with the essential nutrients—in food, including vegetables—that they require and they have also built up around them a very positive community that is not just healthy in body but healthy in spirit. If I can recommend anything, it is that, whilst this report raises many concerns that we need to address if we are going to support people living in those remote communities, it also highlights the incredible strength of character and strength of leadership coming from many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people out in their communities. I want to pay tribute to them and to the incredible commitment they have to improving the lives of themselves, their family and, indeed, their people. So it is important that we get that balance right and understand that this report is not advocating a top-down approach; it is advocating working with those leaders within each of those communities who we know can, with the right support and infrastructure, manage to bring about great improvements in those remote communities. In closing I acknowledge both chairs of the committee, Mr Richard Marles and the Hon. Bob Debus, both of whom, in very different ways, have brought great strengths to the conduct of this inquiry. I particularly acknowledge the committee secretariat: Anna Dacre, the secretary; and Susan Cardell and Rebecca Gordon, who travelled with us everywhere, organised everything on time and tolerated us when we were late but made sure that we did manage to get those planes. We appreciate them for that. I also acknowledge Loes Slattery and Claire Young, who provided such incredibly important information and backup that really made the conduct of this inquiry so much more pleasurable and informative. They gave us background that enabled us to ask the important questions, not just the ones that we thought were important. I thank them for that. I also acknowledge my fellow committee members. This was an enjoyable inquiry. When you are travelling with anybody in remote parts of Australia it can often be a challenge, but I am happy to say that from both sides of the fence, in terms of the political divide, we all got on very well. I think that as a result of all of our individual contributions we have come up with a report that is well worth reading and that I know will have a very positive impact for the future health and wellbeing of the Indigenous people of this country. Debate (on motion by Dr Jensen) adjourned. 12539 Bills R4230 12539 Debate resumed from 21 October, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 12539 17:08:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —The coalition supports the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. The bill makes amendments to the Native Title Act 1993 by the insertion of a new subdivision into part 2 of the act. It facilitates the construction of housing and associated community infrastructure in Indigenous communities that are or may be subject to native title. The bill seeks to consult meaningfully with the native title parties through a legislated consultation process of up to four months. The new process ensures that the representative Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander body, or any registered native title claimants in relation to an area of land or waters, are notified and afforded an opportunity to comment on future legislation—future acts—that could affect native title. The purpose of this bill is to simplify the process by which tenure issues can be resolved to enable the construction of public housing on native title lands. The reason for this is to ensure that the hundreds of millions of dollars that have been allocated to building housing in remote communities for Indigenous Australians might build an actual house at some point in the future. To date this program has been, I would argue, one of the sorriest chapters of the government’s administration. This is a program that has failed at every single point. The coalition, who support this program and the investment of these funds and have done so right from the outset, will do what we need to do to ensure that the government has the support to get this program working. But we remain horrified and disappointed, as do Indigenous Australians and Indigenous communities right around the country, at the incredibly poor progress that has been made with this program. It is also my hope that the consultation processes that are set out in this bill will indeed involve talking to the native title custodians of these lands and that we will not have the situation where this process, as we have seen too often, particularly in Central Australia, is hijacked by land councils. I recently visited Central Australia with my shadow ministerial colleague, the member for Warringah. We met with quite a number of Indigenous native title custodians who had been shut out of many consultations by the Central Land Council, and that was cause for great concern. I hope that what we see and pay for in this bill will actually translate into some genuine consultation with those who have a long-term interest in these lands and they will not just be subject to some sort of bureaucratic process overseen by the Central Land Council in particular—ticking boxes rather than carrying out the purpose of this bill. The purpose of our support for this bill is to provide genuine consultation with the traditional owners. Where a future act is covered by these amendments and certain procedural requirements are met, the future act will validly affect native title. These amendments will operate for 10 years, which matches the 10-year funding period under the national partnership agreement entered into between the Australian government and the state and territory governments for remote Indigenous housing and service delivery. The key issue here is that when you undertake an activity like this type of construction on these lands it has the effect of extinguishing native title. So it is important in order to guarantee the faith of this process that we put in place a measure that will guarantee the security of the title while at the same time trying to provide much-needed services to these communities. I have referred to some of the significant problems that have occurred with Indigenous housing programs in debates in the House of Representatives on numerous occasions but I will repeat them here again. In September 2007 the former government signed a memorandum of understanding with the Northern Territory government as part of the Northern Territory intervention. The delivery of housing formed part of that landmark action, an action which coalition members were and remain keenly supportive of and proud of. In April 2008 the Rudd government announced a funding package of $647 million over four years to deliver 450 new houses, 233 builds on existing houses and the refurbishment of 2,500 existing houses spread across 73 remote communities. The announcement, made by the minister, indicated that work under this program would begin in October 2008. The October 2008 deadline passed by and no work had commenced. A further $25 million was allocated to the program between October and December 2008 and a new start date of February 2009 was announced. It too passed by. In response to a question about the start date for the program on 20 August, Minister Macklin avoided answering why no new homes have been built under the program. She just repeated her government’s previous announcements. We have had many announcements and many start dates that have passed but sadly we have had very few, if any, houses built. This was particularly so back in August. A review of the program undertaken by the Commonwealth and Northern Territory governments found that the program had been slow to deliver housing. That is not a great revelation. It found that the structure of the program is too bureaucratic and costs associated with the program are too high. It recommended a refocus of the program in order to achieve the desired targets. It found that the objectives were working against one another—design and consultation against cost—and that this was caused by the lack of effective oversight at the delivery level. It was found that the program’s governance and management arrangements would need to be restructured. The program is clogged up with unnecessary bureaucracy. There are unresolved leadership and capacity issues that have affected the ability for outcomes to be delivered under the program. Continuation of the program structure without change would cause unsustainable unit costs and result in future targets not being met. Most significantly, the review found that more than $45 million had been spent under the program without a single house being built. That finding alone has, in my view, not really attracted the same level of profound accountability in the minister that I would expect for such a profound failure. We are talking about $45 million being spent when not one single house has been built, and without an answer or explanation for that and with no great sense of responsibility or accountability for what is an appalling outcome. The initial unit cost for the program was revealed to be too ambitious. The average cost of projects was revised down from $560,000 to $450,000. It could be argued that, given the cost of delivering programs in these places and the way in which they are administered by, in particular, the Northern Territory government, it would almost be cheaper—in fact it may well be cheaper—and a better use of public money to simply give the homes away. Administration costs have been found to be more than 11 per cent of the program’s budget, and steps were recommended to reduce the proportion of the program’s budget devoted to administration. It was recommended that the layers of management involved in the delivery of the program be reduced from six to three. On 31 August 2009 the minister gave the Northern Territory government a four-month deadline. Remember that this was a program where the MOU was first agreed in September 2007. By August 2009, almost two years later and following these catastrophic failures, we gave them a four-month deadline to lift their game on Indigenous housing. We are still in this deadline period. Unless the Territory government improves its management of the program, the Australian government may step in and take charge. I am flummoxed as to why we are not at that point already. A minister who was really in charge of this program would not have suffered such appalling outcomes and allowed them to drift and to continue. She was in fact warned by her parliamentary secretary at the time, Senator Ursula Stephens, that these programs were out of control. No action was taken effectively on this, because the poor outcomes continued. Both the minister and the then parliamentary secretary have been reported to have been subsequently comforted by the progress of the program and no longer as concerned as they might previously have been. I had the good fortune recently when I was in Central Australia to meet Alison Anderson, who was the Northern Territory minister for Indigenous housing and Indigenous affairs. She is a remarkable person. She is an individual who has a real strength and inner conviction to pursue the interests of her people. She, frankly, was not going to cop it any longer—she was not going to sit there and watch this waste and this abuse of public funds, which were intended for the welfare of Indigenous Australians, continue. She called it. She said enough was enough. She called the Labor government in the Northern Territory for what it was. When you read her description of that government you could easily mistake it for referring to any Labor government in the country, particularly at a state and territory level. It may well be a prophecy of what the current federal Labor government will be like in the years ahead. Nevertheless, she called it as it was. She was prepared to ‘out’ this shameless waste and this shameless abuse of public trust in terms of the moneys that were available for this important program. She resigned, and in doing so I think Alison Andersen has been a brave advocate for her people because she has finally stood up—someone in that government finally stood up—for their interests and ensured that governments could no longer look away. It is my hope that the federal government will not look away, that their four-month deadline period—and I understand they have embedded federal public servants into the process in the Northern Territory—will yield some results. But based on the form, I am not encouraged. The government’s failure to properly deliver this program has resulted in the need to scale it back. Just last week the Australian reported that four out of five proposed renovations were scrapped because of cost blowouts. A lack of funds has necessitated cuts to the scope of renovation works to be undertaken. Homes that required more than 50 refurbishment items would now have an average of only 10 items performed due to funds not being available. I was in Santa Teresa not that long ago and I saw four homes whose roofs had blown off. I understood, from speaking to some of the residents and officials in that town, that more than $200,000 had been allocated to fix the roofs on those homes. That did not happen just last month; it happened one year previously. The roofs blew off, the money was allocated and, up to a year later, the roofs were still off those buildings: a year to fix four roofs. I would like to know whether those roofs have subsequently been fixed. I hope they have. The money was made available. The government was aware of the problem and I would hope that it had been fixed, because the people who were living in those homes have had to go and live in other homes. As we all know, overcrowding in Indigenous housing is one of the key problems facing these communities. In terms of closing the gap, as the government refers to it, one way of ensuring that the people who live in these homes in these communities do not suffer any greater disadvantage than they already suffer is, when a roof blows off a house and money is provided, you have a system that enables the roof to be put back on that house within 12 months. Within 12 months would be nice; within one month would be appropriate, but I think it would be the absolute expectation of any Australian in this country that we would be able to at least get that done within 12 months. This bill seeks to ensure that there is a more streamlined process for making sure that these homes can be built where they need to be built. The coalition supports that. What we are troubled about is the complete incompetence and inability of the governments working in this area to actually deliver these homes, and this is a major concern. The broader issue of tenure—while we are talking about tenure—goes further than just the delivery of public housing. The broader issue of tenure is critical to resolving what can be a great opportunity for Indigenous people in this country, and that is the opportunity to own their own home. That should be a primary objective of any Indigenous housing program that any government in this country, particularly a national one, pursues. The opportunity to buy your own home and for others to see that opportunity not only existing but being achieved for Indigenous Australians has the very real potential to help people turn their lives around. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Interjecting E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr MORRISON —I am glad that the member for Kennedy agrees with me, because I am sure he would agree that we need to have this as an objective. As long as we provide the opportunity to extend the type of interventions that we are looking at in this bill to broaden opportunities for Indigenous Australians to realise home ownership, then I think we are seeing only part of the picture. But it is consistent with this government’s focus only on public housing in this area, never looking beyond public housing to see where the opportunities are for achieving private ownership. The International Real Estate Institute, or a variation thereof, runs a program in South America called the Strategic Housing Initiative. They have come to Australia and looked at the potential for the program’s application here. When the institute went into the slums of South America they discovered that the people in these slums had jobs. They were teachers, they were policemen, they were nurses—they had a regular income. What they did not have was the opportunity to buy a home that they could afford. They have gone to the governments in these countries and said, ‘If you provide the land, we can build the houses.’ They have designed the homes so that they can be built and purchased at an extremely affordable rate, and micromortgages are offered to people so they can buy their own homes. So you now have in the slums of South America governments working with private industry. They are setting aside land on which to build homes and people are being taken out of the slums, where they are the victims of slumlords, and they can buy their own homes. If that can be achieved in the slums of South America, it can be achieved in this country. I would certainly support seeing that happen. Secondly, dealing with the issues of native title and enabling these lands to be used by those whom they are entrusted for, it is important to develop commercial opportunities not just for the land councils—or not even for the land councils—but for the interests of private individual Indigenous citizens of this country. We need to find a way so that these lands, which are theirs, are able to be used for their private purposes in order to create wealth and opportunities for them. Whether it is supporting businesses or other endeavours, this is critical. We see an example of this in the government’s ETS bills that are currently before the Senate. Most recently—on the weekend and over the last week—the opportunities for commercial abatement under that scheme that the coalition has been arguing for and how that might impact on individuals who live on those lands being able to utilise those opportunities and attract a commercial gain have been raised. This is something that is currently not resolved in those bills. I think it is something the government should be paying attention to. Thirdly, there is the chronic need to see these lands that are affected by native title used to unlock land supply in remote regional centres. In particular I refer to Alice Springs. It is unthinkable that a town such as Alice Springs could be landlocked, but it is. Commercial rents in Alice Springs have literally gone through the roof. Companies are bidding against private individuals, they are competing against private individuals, to secure housing for people who come to work in that town. Their inability to do that is limiting the opportunities for that town to grow and for jobs to be created. Even worse for the citizens who live in that town, rents are going through the roof. The federal government believes that the problems of housing affordability are limited to the availability of social housing. In a housing forum I conducted in Alice Springs the advocates for social housing sat next to the private real estate developers and sung the same tune: unless we release land supply in Alice Springs then this town is heading for a crisis, or in fact is already in a crisis. You have people living in tents in Alice Springs and that is not just in the town camps. That is the only form of accommodation available to them because of the inability of the Northern Territory government to deal with land supply. Alice Springs’s land supply is controlled from Darwin, which is further away than Adelaide. There is a great need for some master planning to be conducted for the township of Alice Springs that equally addresses the native title issues on the surrounding land and the other lands that are available to be freed up for housing development. My recent visit to Central Australia revealed not only the chaos with the failure of the housing program but the frustration and the loss of hope that has followed the government’s lack of commitment to follow through on the intervention program. The failure of the housing program has really shattered confidence in the intervention. The intervention has produced some excellent outcomes in terms of nutrition, income quarantining and improved security with the placement of police, who have worked closely with communities. I think they have achieved some very good outcomes. Sadly, the failure of the strategic housing program has completely shattered faith and confidence in the program. Once faith and trust are shattered, they are very difficult to restore. So, while there have been successes, it is very important that we build some momentum again and have a renewed focus on where we go to from here. There are some good things occurring, as there are in all places around Australia in this area. Those good things occur—from what I can observe—not so often due to good policy but due to good people. There is some good leadership, some good vision and some great commitment of individual Australians, Indigenous and otherwise, working in townships and working in remote outstations across the country. The presence of police, as I said, has created safer communities. These are the good lessons that we have learned from the intervention. We need to learn more in terms of the design of accommodation in these places to ensure that the type of housing built is most appropriate to the needs and lifestyle of the communities for which it is intended. We need to ensure that we provide an ongoing and robust system of governance. The left hand simply, in a lot of these places, does not know what the right hand is doing. There has been a complete breakdown of the integration of the delivery of government services and support across many of these places. My colleague the member for Warringah and shadow minister for Indigenous affairs recently wrote in the Australian about this topic and made an excellent suggestion about the possibility of an expanded version of the Cape York system, where: … an appointed administrator, advised by local elders as commissioners, can decide all local governmental matters not just ones to do with welfare. For such a system to work, decisions about land use would need to give rise to secure title at least in townships. He said: To work, the administrator would need general authority over all the local functions of government such as policing, health and education, as well as municipal services. The integration of the delivery of services, the clear presence of accountability and the clear presence of authority to direct and act are something that is sadly lacking in these communities and are something that I believe they are desperately crying out for. They are something I commend to the government to consider. Just last week in this place I talked about the kiaps, who worked in Papua New Guinea over a long time during the period in which Australia had some responsibility for that place. The kiaps had similar authority, not just for issues of law and order and security, health and various other things but for things like economic development, and they had some authority over the coordination and the delivery of government services right across those remote villages and communities. A model similar to that, as the member for Warringah and shadow minister for Indigenous affairs is suggesting, I think would put some real governance on the ground. And real governance on the ground, with the ability to direct traffic, to make decisions and to get actions, would ensure that the roofs of the four houses in Santa Teresa which were blown off over a year ago and for which funding was allocated would get on a lot quicker than the current system is delivering. As long as we have the situation in the town camps in Alice Springs and in towns like Hermannsburg where children are simply not safe, we also need to ensure that the remote outstations have the opportunity to develop economically and to provide a viable community that can support their population. I am reminded and will always be reminded of young Shirley Ngalkin, a six-year-old who was killed in Hermannsburg in 1998. The subsequent trial for those who perpetrated that crime was the trigger for the Northern Territory intervention. We visited the remote outstation where she used to go to school before her family took that fateful decision to go into Hermannsburg, where she was raped and drowned. It was a very sobering moment to look at the plaque outside her former school. I wish she had been able to stay in that community. I wish her parents and those responsible for her had not felt the need to go and spend that time in Hermannsburg. Maybe Shirley would be with us today. Maybe she would not—there are many other problems in these communities, as we know. But, as long as the Shirleys of our country are at risk, I think it is critical that we get these things right. I do believe the government want to get this right. I do not doubt their sincerity on the issue. I do not doubt the sincerity of the minister on this issue. It is not a question of sincerity. It is not a question of purpose. It is a question of being able to deliver on the ground. This bill should assist in the delivery of these programs, but, unless the significant bureaucratic problems associated with the delivery of housing to Indigenous communities in remote areas are overcome, this bill will offer little substance. Really, at the end of the day, it comes down to the government’s ability to deliver policy. 12545 17:34:00 Perrett, Graham, MP HVP Moreton ALP 1 0 Mr PERRETT —I rise to speak to the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. Before I do so I would just like to touch on the contribution made by the member for Cook. They say a stopped clock is right twice in 24 hours. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —Even a broken one. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —Even a broken one is right twice. I waited for 25 long minutes there to see if at any stage the member for Cook would actually touch on the legislation before the chamber. Unfortunately, he did not come close. I will be focusing on the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2). Beginning with the apology to Australia’s Indigenous peoples at the very first sitting of the 42nd Parliament, the Rudd government has been working towards closing the gap to improve Indigenous health, Indigenous life expectancy and Indigenous education. It was quite an honour to be one of the 42 new MPs sitting there at the very first sitting of the 42nd Parliament—and I was 42 years old at the time. Probably much the same age as the member for Oxley, I would imagine. 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll —In fact, exactly the same. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr PERRETT —In fact, exactly the same age. The apology was quite a moving experience. The apology was not only an acknowledgement of past wrongs but also a sign of hope and commitment to a better future for Australia’s Indigenous people. I would like to think that it was the start of a new Australia, and certainly I have been told that by many of my constituents, both Indigenous and non-Indigenous, affected by the apology. Certainly it was a step towards making a prouder and more noble Australia, one where there is dignity for all Australians whether your roots go back 40,000 years or just 40 minutes since you got off the plane from, say, France or somewhere like that. A major part of the Rudd government’s commitment is in the efforts to address dire housing issues like overcrowding, homelessness and the poor standard of housing generally which can be found in remote Indigenous communities. Census data tells us that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are four times more likely to become homeless and six times more likely to live in overcrowded accommodation than non-Indigenous Australians. That is a shameful set of data. As we know, overcrowding has negative flow-on effects, contributing to poor health, family violence and challenging educational outcomes. In a former life I was a union organiser in the independent education sector, doing enterprise bargaining at Waja Waja High School in the Woorabinda Aboriginal community. I remember looking at some of the horrific lifestyles and practices that went on in that community. That is not to take away from the many good people who were committed to changing that community around and many other communities. Certainly you do not have to look far to see the great efforts of many people in Queensland and throughout Australia to breach the gap. I would particularly like to mention someone who is nominated to be the Australian of the Year—Dr Chris Sarra, who went to teachers college with me. He was a year below me at teachers college and has since gone on to bigger and brighter things. He has been nominated for his work in leadership in Aboriginal education. I wish him all the best, as I am sure the other Queenslanders in the room would, in the hope that Dr Chris Sarra is the next Australian of the Year. It is estimated that well over 10,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households are overcrowded and more than 15,000 Indigenous households experience housing stress, paying more than 25 per cent of their income in rent. Those numbers are staggering—10,000 overcrowded households. We can only imagine the sadness and tears that go with those figures. The rate of homelessness for Indigenous Australians is also significantly higher than for non-Indigenous Australians, with Indigenous Australians making up nine per cent of the homeless population. Through COAG the Rudd government is working to turn this around by constructing and upgrading housing in remote communities, particularly in Queensland and Western Australia. This National Partnership Agreement on Remote Indigenous Housing is worth $1.94 billion over 10 years. It will deliver more than 4,000 new homes and major upgrades to almost 5,000 homes as well as  improving tenancy management. As a former native title adviser to the Queensland state government, I know—unfortunately—that there is currently no way to quickly negotiate land use agreements on land that is, or might be, affected by native title. It is a complicated, drawn-out process and it is hard to do such things quickly—the ILUAs. Given the urgency of the housing needs in Indigenous communities, it is vital that our nearly $2 billion in housing can be built quickly. We need roofs now and rights later. Obviously, to do so is not done lightly. The Rudd Labor government well knows the importance of native title. After all, it was a Labor government that was in power when on 3 June 1992 the High Court brought down the Mabo decision. Certainly, it was a Labor government that responded to this decision handed down by the judiciary. If we cast our minds back to 1992, the Australian reality and view of Indigenous rights then was not quite the same as it is now. It would have been great had a parliament handed down a decision like the Mabo decision, but the political will obviously was not there. But give Paul Keating his credit: with a difficult Senate, he responded in a way that brought forth a piece of legislation that we can be proud of. Unfortunately, the state of Queensland has played an interesting role—some of it not always particularly noble, I would suggest. We can look at some of the atrocities, perhaps, visited upon Aboriginals and Torres Strait Islanders in Queensland over the years—as the Bjelke-Petersen government, and I would even suggest that the Goss and Beattie governments, did not necessarily step up as much as they could have in terms of recognising the consequences of native title. There was a lot of fear out there in 1992 and in 1993, and also later when the Wik decision came down. There were definitely people beating the fear drums in terms of saying, ‘Your backyard is going to be taken,’ et cetera. In fact, it is interesting when we look back at that history—it has been quite a while now—and explore what Australia might have done. But, thankfully, the Keating government was able to steer that native title legislation through. I have just been reading a book by Andrew McGahan, an author from Dalby in Queensland, called The White Earth, which explores this particular time, the hysteria and what it meant for the identity of Australia. It was certainly a very significant time. As I said, we do not treat native title lightly; the Rudd Labor government fully appreciates the importance of native title and how important it is for the aspirations of Indigenous people and in recognising their connection with the earth. This bill will ensure that state and federal governments can get on with the job of delivering better housing in Indigenous communities, and that is now, not in the never-never. As I said, it is important to get a roof over a kid’s head right now and we will worry about the native title rights later. This bill amends the Native Title Act 1993 to allow the government to build housing and infrastructure in discrete Indigenous communities on land that might be affected by native title, without the requirement for an ILUA or compulsory acquisition. State and territory governments will still be required to undertake genuine consultation with possible native title holders as part of a new process and to report to the Attorney-General on this consultation. There is still some process there, but the exigencies of housing, on balance, mean that this is the most appropriate thing to do. The Attorney-General will have the power to amend the consultation requirements over time to ensure that the process works well for all parties. This bill is all about ensuring the timely delivery of housing and infrastructure in Indigenous communities over the next 10 years. That is why this bill includes a sunset clause, to ensure that these amendments are operational for the duration of the funding. As a government, and as a caring country, we cannot stand by and allow the appalling standard of housing and infrastructure to continue in Indigenous communities for any longer. This bill ensures that we can get on with the job of improving Indigenous housing and, in doing so, help to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. I thank the Attorney-General and the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs for identifying the urgent needs and responding to them. I commend the bill to the House. 12548 17:45:00 Katter, Bob, MP HX4 Kennedy IND 0 0 Mr KATTER —In respect of the member for Moreton’s contribution, Mr Deputy Speaker, I do not know where these people get these extraordinary ideas. Has he no memory at all? The worst riot ever in Queensland parliamentary history was when the maligned Bjelke-Petersen government’s policies were overturned by the Goss Labor government. It was the worst riot in Queensland parliamentary history. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett interjecting— 10000 Schultz, Alby (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr AJ Schultz)—Order! The member for Kennedy now has the call. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Don’t you remember that? You obviously have a very selective memory, member for Moreton. When the deed of grant in trust legislation was introduced—by me, I might add—on the front page of the Australian newspaper, of the Cairns Post—of every newspaper in this country—was that the elders wept. After 130 years they got their land back, only to have it taken off them again by your party in 1992. Don’t you have any memory? HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Is the member for Kennedy willing to give way? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Yes. I want to take the interjection. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Do you have the Aboriginal Land Act that followed the DOGIT legislation? Are you familiar with it? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —It was my legislation. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —The Aboriginal Land Act, not the DOGIT legislation. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Kennedy will now answer the question. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Mr Deputy Speaker, I welcome the questions. Do you know, I had this enormously radical approach. It was revolutionary. We went out and sat with the people. We called a meeting and simply asked them what they wanted. And, do you know, in the 26 years since not one single minister has ever done that. Over 3,000 attended— HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Rubbish! Absolute rubbish! HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Say that outside and I’ll sue you! I can prove that we had over 2,800 people at the meetings. Say it outside and we will see who is— HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Mr Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Does the member wish to field the question? HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Yes, absolutely. I am taking his question. HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett —Member for Kennedy, if you are suggesting that there has never been a minister since you to go and consult with Aboriginal people, that is highly offensive. That is what I objected to. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —Name what minister— HVP Perrett, Graham, MP Mr Perrett interjecting— 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The member for Moreton will resume his seat. You cannot debate the issue. You have been given permission to ask a question. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —From now on you will cop it between the eyeballs. There were 2,800 people who attended the meetings. They attended the meetings and we asked them: ‘What do you want?’ They said, ‘We want our land,’ and I said, ‘Right, I’ve got a piece of paper and I have got to put someone’s name on the bottom of it. It is up to you as to what name you want put on the bottom of it.’ I would leave too, if I were you, member for Moreton. I asked: ‘Do you want to put the shire council? We are going to set up shire councils here. Do you want land councils? Do you want the names of the land councils put there? Do you want tribal councils?’ They were not called native councils at that time; they were called tribal councils. I asked: ‘Do you want the tribal council name on it? Do you want private ownership, the same as everyone else in Australia has, do you want a continuation of government ownership, or have you got some other idea?’ They discussed it. Most of these meetings took the best part of a day in each community. Surprise, surprise: we had given them the choice and they decided that they wanted to own their own houses, their own farms and their own cattle stations. They did not want the tribe to own it. They did not want the local council to own it. They wanted to own it themselves. That was what they decided. In fact, in all of those meetings there were only three people who objected. The previous speaker referred to the Bjelke-Petersen government. Of all of those communities, I think at Yarrabah there were over 2,000 people who attended the celebrations at the handing over of the deeds of grant. So either the previous speaker knew absolutely nothing about what he was talking about or, alternatively, he came in here and positively and mischievously misled the parliament. There are only two possibilities here. One is towering ignorance— 83E Ripoll, Bernie, MP Mr Ripoll interjecting— HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr KATTER —What have I just said that is incorrect? Either he did not know what took place or, alternatively, he is being mischievous. There are only two possibilities here. Rosalind Kidd, most certainly no admirer or supporter of conservative politics, wrote a book called The Way We Civilise: Aboriginal Affairs—The Untold Story. It is a textbook throughout universities in Australia. Frank Brennan, most certainly no friend of the conservative side of parliament, wrote a book called Land Rights Queensland Style: The Struggle for Aboriginal Self-Management. Both of those books are highly flattering of what we did in Queensland. They are, I might say, historical documents. The member comes in here and rewrites history when in actual fact his party overturned that legislation, precipitating the worst rioting ever seen in Queensland parliamentary history. The beautiful fence was torn to pieces. There were about 2,000 people. Some people would not describe it as a riot. I would. I was in the middle of the people there. They smashed the door, they smashed windows and they tore down the flag. Two hundred went to hospital, it was alleged—we do not really know how many went to hospital—and some 200 were supposedly sent to jail for objecting to the overturning of the legislation. There was no credit accruing to the government except that the government simply went out there, asked them what they wanted and then delivered it to them. There was nothing extraordinary there. What proceeded was that all of the six million acres in Queensland that were referred to as ‘reserve areas’—a lot of them were old mission stations or penal-type reserves such as Palm Island—were moved over to ownership by the local council, because someone had to decide who got what parcel of land to put cattle on, a farm on, a service station on or whatever the hell they wanted. The government did not want to be involved in that. We believed the local people should do that. There was an appeals tribunal, which was a couple of tribal elders—for lack of a better word; ‘justices of the peace’ was the technical term—a magistrate presiding and one representative of the government. It would be up to the council. You would apply to the local council to take up a private block, and if you did not like the outcome then you could appeal. If the council did not like the outcome then they could appeal. That was what happened. I turn to the housing, because this is supposed to overcome our housing problem. I have just come from a conference of the mayors representing 40,000 people of Aboriginal descent in Australia. In fact, they are the only properly elected group that represents people of Aboriginal descent in Australia. They represent the shire councils that were set up under the act during that period of time. I think a lot of the criticism of the premier, Bjelke-Petersen, was well directed in the early years, but I think the criticism in the later years would get you laughed at if you knew what took place on the ground then. But I turn back to the housing. A man called Gregory Wallace became a very famous man in Australian history. He comes from a little town called Hopevale. For those of you who follow rugby league, Matty Bowen comes from Hopevale. The first ordained priest in Australia, Pastor George Rosendale, was ordained in the Lutheran Church and came from Hopevale. The first Aboriginal Australian member of parliament comes from Hopevale. It is a very famous town with a very successful history in the area. I think the honourable member for Leichhardt would agree with me that Hopevale is still making a very significant contribution today. Greg Wallace came up with the idea of working for the dole. He convinced the local people to work for the dole and was put on 60 Minutes. There was such a surge of approval from the whole of Australia for what had taken place there that the next week there was a second broadcast of Greg Wallace on 60 Minutes—the only time in 60 Minutes’ history that there has been a repeat. So they got Work for the Dole. Noel Pearson’s brother Gerhardt Pearson rang me up and Gerhardt said to me, ‘Why can’t we use Work for the Dole to build houses?’ and I said, ‘Gerhardt, you should get the Nobel peace prize for this year.’ I am not making political points here. I made the comment in anger, in defence of a government that I was part of, but Gerry Hand said: ‘What an absolutely brilliant idea. Let’s get going with it.’ Within two weeks Gerry had given me approval to move with it, so we were then freed up. Half our labour force was coming from Work for the Dole, so we were building very, very cheap houses. Eric Law and Lester Rosendale were instrumental in securing from the ACC—a meeting of the mayors of all the councils at the time, if you like—an agreement that all houses in Queensland would be built exclusively by black labour, not white labour. In other words, the houses would be built exclusively by people of Aboriginal descent. So that was overlaid on top of the scheme. Finally, Donnie Fraser from Doomadgee rang me up—again, a person of Aboriginal descent, a local boy at Doomadgee. He did not come from that area but he married a local girl and he was of Aboriginal descent himself. Donnie Fraser was later mayor of the community, and he came up with the idea of having our own block-making machines. I was a bit scared about this because I thought this might be a bit sophisticated. He said: ‘No, it’s not. We can train people to do this. There is some sophistication, but we can train them.’ Anyway, we ended up with eight block-making machines, I think there were. I remember at Doomadgee—I hope my figures are right here—we had been building 2½ houses a year. But by mobilising the free labour from Work for the Dole, by mobilising the local block making—the blocks were double the price by the time they got there, and of course the blocks were also being made by Work for the Dole labour—we had extremely cheap blocks. Every 1,000th block had to go down and be tested. They had to meet Besser specifications, which they did. So we went from building around 2½ houses a year to around 10 or 12 houses a year in Doomadgee. I will make the point again—I have made it twice, but I will make it a third time—that I really did not have anything to do with these decisions. They were not my decisions. The people wanted them to happen. They seemed to me to be reasonable ideas and I am sure that Gerry Hand, the ALP minister at the time, would say the same thing if he were here now. He would say they were not his decisions; they were decisions from the people themselves. We are now asked to accept that the federal government is going to run the housing schemes. The federal government has run the Northern Territory now for 30 years. Go and have a look at their handiwork. Have a look at how the Northern Territory communities are performing. Some of the communities in Queensland have now been under self-management for nearly 30 years. Go and have a look. I am sure the member for Leichhardt would agree with me here. Go and have a look at our communities. Go to Pormpuraaw—well, I have not been to Pormpuraaw recently. Go to Kowanyama. Go to Yarrabah. Go to Mornington Island. Go to any of our communities and see how they are performing, and then compare that with the federal government’s performance. They have been running the communities in the Northern Territory. Compare the performance of both. What is happening here is that the Northern Territory model is being forced and imposed upon the Queensland communities. Not surprisingly, they are bucking. The performance of the federal government bureaucracy in the Northern Territory speaks for itself—and I am not having a go at the existing government here. The bureaucracy for the last 13 years was that of their political opponents. The last seven houses at Mornington Island, I was assured, were for a contract of $4 million. They were $600,000 a house. You can have a look at the photographs of the houses. They are not a whole lot bigger than the toilet block on our floor in Parliament House here. They are disgracefully small. They have no ventilation. They are hot boxes. How anyone could live in them or go to sleep at night in the intense heat that would be generated inside those houses is quite amazing to me. One of the young mayors got up at the meeting last week and said: ‘Can’t we have houses that we can live in? These houses are most unsuitable for us.’ When we went out again and asked the people they did not say that they wanted gunyah type houses or houses that were sort of Aboriginal. They really wanted conventional houses, but they did want ventilation; however, I have not got time today to go into the details of that. You are saying that the outcome should be local involvement, but this program has no local involvement. It is an insult to say to these people that they have been consulted. Does it have private ownership of houses? Does it allow a person to own his own house? No, it does not. Does it work for the dole? No, it does not. Is it local labour? No, it is not. Is it suitable housing? No, it is not. Does a local manufacturer manufacture the blocks? No. I was guided by Mahatma Gandhi. He said: ‘It may be that we Indians cannot run India as well as the British Raj, but it is infinitely more important that Indians run India rather than the British, even if we cannot run it as well.’ I have referred before to Pastor George Rosendale. I needed him to do a job and I was talking like a machine gun for about 25 minutes and he just listened patiently and put up with me. When I finished he said, ‘When the department of Aboriginal affairs come in and build 10 beautiful houses for us at Hopevale, that is not progress.’ He was working on his beach hut. He had cut down some trees, got the bark off them and put them in a bit of concrete in a hole in the ground, and he was nailing galvanised iron on and pouring the concrete—a very simple, humble sort of dwelling. He said, ‘When you get 10 beautiful houses built for you by the government, that is not progress. This is progress.’ When I said that at the mayors meeting all of them nodded. They all knew exactly what I was saying. One of mayors said, ‘Your problem is you’re addicted. The first step in overcoming alcoholism is to admit to yourself that you are an alcoholic,’ and I am quoting Mayor Percy Neal here. He said: ‘You are addicted to the idea that black people can’t run their own affairs. You’ve got it so ingrained in your head that you can’t overcome it. It’s just there, like an addiction.’ He said: ‘We were here for 30,000 years. We might not have been batting terrifically, but we were doing all right. We were surviving. We didn’t need you. We don’t want you. Don’t come in here telling us what to do. Leave us alone. Let us do our own thing.’ After 200 years we still do not allow them to own their own houses. The only place on earth that you are not allowed to own your own house is in the 30 per cent of Australia that is Aboriginal lands. For one brief shining moment—that the last member condemned—for six or seven years they were able to take up private ownership of a block of land. We made many mistakes. Only about four per cent of the area ever got out to private ownership, and some that has been set back since then, as the member for Leichhardt would know. But for one brief shining moment it was there. It can be done. There is no reason that it cannot be done. There continues to be a 17-year life expectancy gap, with arguably six or seven times the number of children of Aboriginal descent now being stolen off their parents than were being stolen in the stolen generation. They are the only people on earth that cannot own their own homes. The average occupancy rate was reported recently—and I think it is pretty right—as being 15 people in a house using one bathroom facility. Yet you could give them a private title at Yarrabah. We have already had imputed valuations done, and they have said they are worth $100,000. So if you just give us the right of private title then we can go and get the money to build a nice kit home ourselves—and come in at a price we can afford the repayments on. But still, as I speak here today in what is almost the year of our Lord 2010, if you are of Aboriginal descent and you live on that 30 per cent of Australia that is supposed to be Aboriginal lands you are not allowed to own your own home. Everyone comes in here and talks about it. The last member from the opposition spoke about it. They were there for 13 years and nothing was done. (Time expired) 12552 18:05:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise to support the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. This is important legislation in terms of the Rudd government’s commitment to close the gap in Indigenous life expectancy. We are making record investments in health and education and we are also making record investments in housing. To roll out our housing initiatives we do need to introduce this legislation and get it through the House and the Senate. I recognise the contribution of the member for Kennedy. We both represent significant Indigenous communities in North Queensland and Far North Queensland and I know we are both passionate about wanting to improve the lives of those people in our electorate. The bill will amend the Native Title Act 1993 to allow the expeditious construction of public infrastructure, especially housing, in Indigenous communities. It will do this by including a new future act process to ensure that public housing and infrastructure in discrete Indigenous communities can be built expeditiously following consultation with native title parties but without the need for Indigenous land-use agreements, ILUAs. It is important legislation. We are making record investments as I have said across education, health and a range of different areas to close the gap in Indigenous life expectancy. These are practical measures and we have a $5.5 billion commitment to build new Indigenous housing over the next 10 years. The apology was important to Indigenous Australia in recognising past wrongs and wanting to move forward, but as we step forward we need to make sure that we have the right processes in place to ensure that we can build housing in communities like Hopevale, Kowanyama, Pormpuraaw, Aurukun, those in the northern peninsula area and other parts of my electorate. This legislation balances the need for the urgent investment in infrastructure, specifically social housing infrastructure and some community infrastructure, whether that is health, education or emergency services type infrastructure, that is needed in the community, with the need for proper consultation and involvement with traditional owners. I spoke to the Cape York Land Council in relation to this legislation at a recent hand back of native title areas in Kowanyama. I know the Attorney-General was down there for that hand back the day before me and I was there for the national park hand back and had some discussions with the Cape York Land Council about these issues. They obviously have some concerns in relation to the rollout of this legislation to ensure that there is proper consultation with Indigenous traditional owners and that they are respected. They also recognise—and I think this is broadly recognised across communities—that within communities within the townships themselves there is a need for real investment in housing and tenure reform. The federal government has said that we are committed to building additional housing—$5.5 billion over 10 years—we are committed to investing in new roads and other community infrastructure to really improve the lives of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, but to do that we need to get some certainty and some security around tenure. This legislation is very much about making sure that we can expedite and achieve that process. The legislation does have a sunset clause. There is a 10-year national Indigenous partnership agreement that we are working through with states and territories. As the member for Kennedy and others have mentioned, the COAG process is very important in rolling out our investments in communities. It is critically important that we make sure that we do this urgently. Not only do we need to do it urgently to ensure that we actually see houses built and this infrastructure happen but to do that we need to create more certainty of tenure to underline that. We also need to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are involved in the construction of those facilities and some of those houses. I know that Minister Macklin is very much committed to that. We have not necessarily been very happy with some of the outcomes that we have seen over the past 12 or 18 months in some areas in relation to that, but we are working towards making sure that we have very good involvement by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the construction of any of these new houses that we build. I am very much committed to that. I know that Minister Desley Boyle in Cairns is very much committed to that as well. Both of us at times battle with some of the government agencies around this. I can assure you that both the federal and state government—and I know the member for Kennedy is committed to this as well—want to make sure that Aboriginal people are involved in the construction of those houses and facilities. In relation to that, the state government has established a new office in Cairns, the Remote Indigenous Land and Infrastructure Program Office. I think it is great that it is based in Cairns. This is going to enable people to be closer to the majority of remote communities in Queensland, which are on the cape or the gulf—areas like that. There are some in southern parts of Australia, but Cairns is much closer to most than Brisbane, so I congratulate the minister for locating the office in Cairns. It is very much an office that is about bringing together the different state agencies to work on cutting red tape and expediting what happens in communities. I know that in the last week or so there has been a roundtable with mayors, and they have raised certain concerns about the rolling out of the state’s plans in relation to the housing initiatives, but they are very much federal government initiatives and we want to work in partnership with the state government and with mayors and local communities to make sure that we can see this housing delivered in a very expeditious way. That is very much what this legislation is about. It is about recognising that native title and some of the issues around native title need to be expedited as part of that process. The office in Cairns will be very much about working through some of the tenure issues. I share the aspirations of many Indigenous people. I was up in the Northern Peninsula area recently and was talking to a teacher up there, James Matysek. He is a local Indigenous man, and he has been teaching in the school up there for six years. He would like to buy his own house in Bamaga, but obviously he cannot; there is no ability for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people to buy or own their own house in these communities because the tenure does not allow that. The state government has a program whereby after six years you cannot live in teacher housing anymore; you need to move into community housing. Obviously in rural communities people can go and buy their own houses and the like, but in Indigenous communities it is a real problem. So he had to get himself onto the local council social housing list. He would like to buy his own house. He has that aspiration now, but there are many other people that would like that now, and there will be many others down the track who will aspire to purchase their own house as we close the gap, create more employment opportunities for people and build economic activity and enterprise in communities. Currently that is not possible. This legislation is very much about initially cutting through some of the issues around red tape and making sure that the rights of traditional owners are balanced with the need to build this infrastructure. The longer term aspiration must be not only about the 40-year leases and the social housing but also about the ability of people to own their own home so that people like James Matysek in Bamaga can do that. I have a letter here to Mr David Glasgow, the Commissioner of the Family Responsibilities Commission, from a group of 70-plus residents in Hopevale who are raising real concerns about the move to tenancy management by the state government and now the new rules where they pay 25 per cent of their income in rent. There is a large amount of income going to the state government in rent to manage, maintain and support this social housing. What members are saying is, ‘If it’s that amount of money that we’re now paying, the houses aren’t in the best condition.’ The federal government, through its housing stimulus and its commitment through the national partnership agreement, is investing more in housing and we are upgrading housing, but a number of these people would like to buy their own houses, similarly to James Matysek up in Bamaga. They cannot do that at the moment. They are recognising that 25 per cent of their income goes to rent. A lot of them are working in Hopevale, in the government operations in their own communities or in the supermarkets, the butcher shops and other things. We are seeing communities starting to be transformed through our ‘closing the gap’ agenda. We need to make sure that we implement legislation that ensures that we get some certainty around social housing. Particularly in terms of the land and infrastructure program office, the state government looks beyond the social housing agenda into the longer term agenda, which is around certainty for 99-year leases and the like for these sorts of individuals. I congratulate the Family Responsibility Commissioner, David Glasgow, and the members of the FRC in Hopevale—Desmond Bowen, Estelle Bowen, Brian Cobus, Victor Gibson and Doreen Hart—who I met with recently in Cairns as part of a workshop they were having to raise this issue with me. I contacted the member for Cook, Jason O’Brien, to discuss this issue and also the Indigenous Coordination Centre. The ICC, through Mike Fordham, is organising a meeting in Hopevale on 30 November to enable these issues to be worked through and for the Land and Infrastructure Office to explain to local people what the future holds in terms of the rollout of the Pride of Place Program, which is a very important part of our welfare reform trial. The office will also explain what is happening in terms of the tenure changes that we are looking to achieve through this sort of legislation and the ability to build more social housing. What I am saying to Minister Boyle and to these members who have written to Commissioner Glasgow and others and have raised it with their FRCs is that they are looking for aspirations that are really beyond social housing. I really think it is important that we do not lose track of that agenda and that we do not just create another social housing framework in these communities. We need to look beyond that. Even though this legislation deals specifically with social housing, we need to also continue to be thinking forwardly about those 99-year leases so that we can give certainty to those sorts of people. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms Saffin —Is the member for Leichhardt willing to give way. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —Yes. HX4 Katter, Bob, MP Mr Katter —The state government when they overturned my legislation in 1991 promised that they would replace it with the machinery to take up private ownership. It is 19 years later and they still have not done it. I plead with the member for Leichhardt to use his influence inside the government to get the federal government to do it. The state government is not going to do it. After 19 years they are not going to do it, Jim. HVV Turnour, Jim, MP Mr TURNOUR —I thank the member for Kennedy. I know he is a passionate advocate for this area. I do understand the issues he is talking about. I talk to Minister Boyle regularly about this and I know she talks to Minister Macklin. This new land and infrastructure office has only just been established. They have effectively got up and going in the last month. I will be continuing to press that, Member for Kennedy; you do not have to worry about that. You have heard through my comments today the sort of vision that I have, which I think many of us share in terms of the longer term aspirations for Indigenous people. The Attorney-General is here to wrap up in a minute, but I would like to thank him for the involvement and engagement he has had in my electorate and community. Last year he came up and met with the Cape York Land Council, which I greatly appreciated. He also met with Minister Wallace in Brisbane following on from that to see what we can do to get the federal and state governments to work more effectively together. I know that they really appreciated it in Kowanyama when he would go up and visit the local communities for the handback. I look forward to my constructive partnership with him. He made some very worthwhile comments in the introduction of this bill and I look forward to his comments in a minute in his closing remarks around the bill. I just want to again emphasise that this is very much about ensuring that we can expedite the rollout of our commitment to social housing and other community infrastructure. We do understand that we need to balance the traditional owners’ rights and respect for them. The Attorney-General has put requirements into this legislation, and he can have influence in how those consultations are undertaken with traditional owners. There are specific time periods involved in that. There needs to be a consultation report that is produced as part of that. In some ways this is going to create, and is creating, some angst in communities, with mayors and councils concerned about their roles into the future. My commitment is to work with the Attorney-General, Minister Macklin, Minister Boyle and the local governments and their CEOs as well as their broader communities to make sure we can roll out this investment in housing. It is $5.5 billion over 10 years. It is a significant investment. It is part of our commitment to closing the gap. Whether it is in housing, community infrastructure, health or education, the Rudd government is making record investments in these practical measures. Also, the first order of business when we came to Parliament House—and I was a very proud new member of the Rudd government—was to apologise to Indigenous Australians. We really are getting on with the job of implementing practical measures while we recognise and respect the needs of traditional owners and the wrongs that have been done in the past as we build a brighter future for Indigenous people. As I like to say in my electorate of Leichhardt, ‘What am I all about? Building a better future for Leichhardt.’ This legislation is very much about that. I commend the bill to the House. 12556 18:19:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I welcome the opportunity to make some brief comments on the Native Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. I look forward to this bill enabling the government to put processes in place whereby private ownership of homes can be achieved. Obviously it is difficult to negotiate native title to achieve these aims. In any case, I hope that the government succeeds. I also hope that in the fullness of time—sooner rather than later—that the government’s investment achieves value for money and real change. I worry though, and the source of my concern comes from my experiences within the electorate of Cowan which, as members and advisers might not be aware, is an outer metropolitan area of Perth. Within the electorate of Cowan there are a couple of what might be called town camps. Cullacabardee is one and the Sydney Road Nyoongar community is another. On 29 May last year, in response to the concerns of a lot of people of the Gnangara area of Cowan—a semirural area—I rose to make a speech in this very place to talk about the concerns of my local people regarding those that lived and operated out of the Sydney Road Nyoongar community. I think there was very little doubt that this was a centre of crime: stolen cars, damage to property, break and enters. Rivalling, if not more important than that, were my concerns that young people of that small community—I think there were only 30 to 40 people living there—were not being properly looked after and did not have access to education. The once proud school that had been built over successive parliaments, starting I think in the term of Gough Whitlam, had been ultimately trashed. There had been some financial mismanagement issues to do with the school causing its closure, followed by excessive vandalism by local people from that small community. This is tragic and, when you look at the mismanagement followed by the attack on the school, it does not cause one to have great confidence in the ability of that camp to continue to run itself. I had some doubts so I called for it to be closed, but unfortunately, due to the arrangements for the ownership of the land, that was not possible. However, what was achieved was a series of police raids on the following day. Luckily, with the assistance of two West Australian journalists, Dawn Gibson and Flick Pryor, the cause of concern—the crime and concerns about the welfare of young people and children in the Sydney Road Nyoongar community—brought about almost immediate action. Police raids broke up a business based on car stealing and on-selling of stolen cars and parts. Some great progress was made. What resulted was that at the end of May and in June most of the families were moved out to areas where opportunities and access to schools close to the immediate area were possible and, in my view and that of most people in the Gnangara area, to a more positive environment for young people. I welcome that move as do the local people. The community has not shut down completely. There are one or two houses left where some people live. From my most recent discussions with Senior Sergeant Matt Ray of the Wanneroo Police Station, I have heard that crime figures are hugely reduced. There might be one incident a month in Gnangara whereas there were considerably more in the past. There have been many upsides to it. The people in the Gnangara area are more comfortable now with their personal safety and the safety of their property within the area, including Landsdale where there were issues as well. Landsdale is the next suburb to the south. There are far fewer issues with regards to damage to local houses and property and the stealing of cars has reduced. Overall people have much better access to services because they are not in a closed-off, isolated community with negative influences around them. I think it has been an overwhelmingly positive effort. I again record my thanks to Dawn Gibson and Flick Pryor of the West Australian. I also thank those people involved from the WA police for their services and for greatly improving the situation. Further, I thank the people of Cowan who brought this issue to me, including our former staff member Millie Rundle, a young Indigenous lady. I thank her, and a number of other people, for bringing this to my attention. Like a lot of people in this place, I am one who believes in personal responsibility. If you provide people with the opportunities by which they may succeed, you expect them to do the right thing—to try to look after themselves and the property they have been given. So I certainly welcome the government’s move to create a real sense of ownership in communities. I do not profess to have any great experience in outback communities, only having visited several during my time in the Army. But I certainly welcome the government’s attempt to ensure that private ownership is made possible and that people can reach their aspiration of owning their own home. Given the provision of value-for-money assistance as required, I look forward to them accepting full responsibility in looking after the assets provided. I welcome what you are doing, Minister McClelland, and I wish you all the best. 12558 18:27:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I thank members for their contribution, including the previous speaker, to the debate on theNative Title Amendment Bill (No. 2) 2009. The bill is aimed at improving housing and reducing overcrowding in Indigenous communities. This is, of course, essential to the government’s efforts to close the gap on Indigenous disadvantage. Decent housing ensures a proper kitchen for the preparation of food, and a door that locks keeps out violence and potential trouble. A safe place to sleep for children ensures proper schooling, and a working shower means better health outcomes. In November 2008, the Council of Australian Governments committed $5.5 billion over 10 years to deliver much needed Indigenous housing in remote Indigenous communities across Australia. Arrangements that provide secure tenure are necessary to ensure that public money is spent effectively on housing and other services. Land tenure reform accords tenants with the certainty and protection of an enforceable tenancy management agreement that is consistent with public housing standards. At present there is no specific future act process—that is, constructing future development in this case—on native title properties for housing and infrastructure development for the benefit of Indigenous communities. State governments have indicated that this creates uncertainty which results in delays in housing and service delivery. Alleviating poverty and overcrowding in remote Indigenous communities is paramount. To do this, governments must be able to deliver urgently needed services quickly. The proposed amendments will enable infrastructure to be built on Indigenous held land where native title may exist. The bill requires appropriate consultation with, but is not dependent upon, the consent of native title parties. The new proposal goes beyond just housing to also include a limited range of community facilities for public health, education and emergency services. This is a holistic approach that recognises that community health and wellbeing depend upon the availability of all of these public services. In accordance with the government’s commitment to resetting the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australians, the new process gives native title parties an opportunity to share their views in relation to the design and delivery of urgently needed housing and public infrastructure, and it provides flexibility to allow the native title parties to choose the level of consultation that is appropriate to each individual project. The new process strikes a balance between the urgent need for these services and the need to engage with native title parties, and protect native title rights and interests. It also contains important safeguards to ensure genuine consultation with native title parties. Acts covered by the new process will be invalid if the action body fails to comply with the notification and consultation requirement set out in the amendment. This encourages governments to undertake real consultation with the native title parties when planning and developing public housing and infrastructure projects. The quality of consultation will be controlled and monitored by a scrutiny of consultation reports. These reports must be provided by government, detailing how they have complied with the requirements of the bill. Further, the non-extinguishment principle, compensation and consultation mechanisms under the new process will ensure that native title rights are not adversely affected in the long term. The bill will sunset after 10 years. The sunset is approximately in line with the duration of the national partnership agreements on remote Indigenous housing and remote service delivery. The sunset provides an incentive to state and territory governments to deliver on housing and infrastructure commitments in a timely manner. I will briefly comment on some of the comments that have been made during the course of the debate. In respect to the member for Cook’s comments about the government’s Strategic Indigenous Housing and Infrastructure Program it is important to note that the new process contained in the bill we are debating is not generally applicable to that program. That program applies primarily to land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act, which is not subject to the future acts regime in the Native Title Act. However, it is important to note that the Australian and Northern Territory governments are committed to deliver 750 new houses, 230 rebuilds and 2,500 refurbishments of houses in remote Northern Territory communities by 2013. Work has also been taking place on over 75 housing lots across the Northern Territory, including the Tiwi Islands, Groote Eylandt, Tennant Creek, Wadeye, Palumpa and Gunbalanya. This includes rebuilds, refurbishment works and new houses. By the end of this year we estimate work will be taking place on over 200 housing lots across 15 communities. This includes 50 new houses under construction, and more than 150 rebuilds and refurbishments underway or completed. As well as the focus on public housing, the government is determined to support as many Indigenous Australians as possible to achieve their aspirations to own their own homes, as well as addressing those issues in partnership to bridge the gap. Although this new native title process is designed specifically to alleviate the urgent need for public housing in Indigenous communities, it must be stated that it neither inhibits nor detracts from the Commonwealth government’s commitment to Indigenous home ownership initiatives. The vast majority of Indigenous community residents are social housing clients and are likely to remain as such for some time to come. The government is pursuing Indigenous home ownership through other mechanisms. In conclusion, this bill facilitates the delivery of the Rudd government’s unprecedented funding commitment to improve housing and reduce overcrowding in Indigenous communities. The bill will ensure that such housing and infrastructure can be delivered in a timely and certain way, and in a way that respects the rights and views of the native title parties regarding the use of the land. I commend the bill to the House. Bill read a second time. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 12559 Statements by Members 12559 12559 12559 18:35:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise tonight to ask a question of this Labor government. This question has been put to me by a woman named Margaret, who last week emailed me about the recent visit by the Minister for Defence to Toowoomba for official duties. Margaret says she learned that the minister landed at the Oakey Army aviation base, where four helicopters were waiting ready for him. ‘Why four?’ asked Margaret. Is it because there was a possibility that the three would not make the warm-up period! He flew the 29 kilometres to Toowoomba for his official duties and then repeated the process in reverse. So why did the minister spend so many taxpayers’ dollars using Defence helicopters when he could have driven the 20 minutes from Oakey airport to Toowoomba? Upon inquiries by Margaret, it was revealed that it was because the Warrego Highway was too dangerous for him to travel on. So Margaret, who was, understandably, quite angry, asked this question, and I put it to the government on her behalf: what makes his life more precious than hers? What makes his life more precious than those of the helicopter pilots and the Army personnel who travel that road almost daily or the families, the truck drivers, the schoolkids and the tourists who drive on that road daily? I have written numerous letters to the federal transport minister and his state counterpart asking for funding for the Warrego Highway. I have presented petitions with more than 5,000 signatures to the House calling for an upgrade. I was told, ‘Sorry, Bruce, there is no money.’ We discover that the Rudd government find the road too dangerous to let the defence minister drive on it but they let my constituents drive on it every day. (Time expired) 12560 12560 18:36:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —On Wednesday, 4 November I attended the concept to creation showcase of science based projects designed and created by schoolchildren from schools in the north-eastern and northern regions of Adelaide. Students from 16 schools participated in the concept to creation showcase, which was organised by the Northern Advanced Manufacturing Industry Group, otherwise known as NAMIG. The following five schools from my electorate of Makin participated in the concept to creation showcase: Banksia Park International High School; Para Hills High School; The Heights School, where I will be opening a BER project next week on behalf of the Deputy Prime Minister; Tyndale Christian School; and Valley View Secondary School. NAMIG commenced operations in 2005 with the purpose of, firstly, creating awareness of advanced manufacturing and advanced technology industries; secondly, promoting the relevance of mathematics, science and technology studies; and, thirdly, developing underpinning employability and enterprise skills through project based approaches to learning for students. These outcomes have been actively pursued through authentic and effective partnerships with local industries, local governments and tertiary education providers. The defence industries are to be particularly applauded for their significant contribution to the establishment and performance of these programs. I congratulate all 16 schools that encouraged and supported students to participate in the showcase. I particularly congratulate the students for their innovation and creativity of their projects. I also acknowledge the work of NAMIG’S General Manager, Bernie Fitzsimons, and the many local industries that support the concept to creation project. It is a wonderful example of how the education sector across the northern and north-eastern parts of Adelaide are working collaboratively to create career opportunities for young people. (Time expired) 12561 12561 18:38:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —Tonight I condemn some blatantly unscrupulous and anti-competitive behaviour confirmed over the weekend. Midland Brick, a subsidiary of Boral, has been forced to make a public apology to BGC for its prolonged and sustained attack against BGC which was designed to stop the construction of BGC’s brickworks on Perth airport land. With the conclusion of a three-year court battle, a public apology for defamation and substantial investment in malicious attacks against BGC, tonight I am calling on the ACCC to investigate what is openly anti-competitive and unconscionable behaviour. I expect the ACCC to take a look at Midland Brick’s carefully masterminded subterfuge as it was designed to keep bricks at an artificially high price, lining Midland’s own pockets by stopping major competition from BGC. It clearly was not in the interests of WA consumers. What is worse is the well-funded and targeted misinformation campaign it has conducted under the guise of a community association concerned about the environment and fronted by a Mr Greenwood. Ironically, BGC’s brickworks have far superior environmental performance to those of their competitors. Midland Brick has now earned the title of a serial offender, pushing the bounds of trade practices law to its edge. The ACCC will be familiar with the company following investigating them for colluding with Metro Brick during 2001 for price-fixing on bricks to be supplied to Western Australian markets. Midland Brick has form on this. The ACCC has the power and the resources to take on the corporate crooks. The ACCC must use its legislative muscle, expertise and financial resources to pursue this serious— (Time expired) 12561 12561 18:39:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 0 Ms PARKE —I want to take this opportunity to say a few words in thanks and recognition of the work of Dr Jacqueline Dewar, who is currently the Secretary of the Joint Standing Committee on the Australian Commission for Law Enforcement Integrity, which I chair, and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on the Australian Crime Commission. Sadly for us, Jacqui is leaving Canberra for a new life in Queensland after more than a decade of important public service here in Parliament House. In addition to a range of roles within the secretariats of various parliamentary committees, Jacqui has also worked in the library and in the Parliamentary Education Office. She has travelled in support of parliamentary delegations and she has delivered seminars on the role of committees and other parliamentary procedures through the Department of the Senate’s external seminar program. I know I have been blessed in my first role as a chairperson of a parliamentary committee to have had the benefit of Jacqui’s assistance and guidance. Not only is she a lovely person but she has been the epitome of public service professionalism, always well prepared and organised. She has the knack of anticipating the kinds of issues and last minute requests for information that are part of this work. Above all, Jacqui has a genuine interest in the question of how best to advance professional ethics and law enforcement integrity. It is that combination of extreme competence with real policy engagement that has made Jacqui such a wonderful committee secretary. I am sure I speak for all parliamentarians and other parliamentary staff who have worked with Jacqui over the years in thanking her for her important contribution to our work and in wishing her and her family all the best in the future. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —A few members have indicated to me that they are wondering why we started a little bit early. For the benefit of those members, we are able to do that under the standing orders. Because members were present and ready with their 90-second statements, I took the liberty to do it. HWE Simpkins, Luke, MP Mr Simpkins —I saw the clock ticking. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —We do not look at that clock, we look at one here. 12562 12562 18:42:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I rise to present a petition with the signatories of 512 Australians, urging that 13 August be declared the annual national marriage day. Other members have also presented these petitions, and on 16 September I presented the request of 7,071 Australians asking for this declaration. There will be more. The petitioners see undeniable correlations between family breakdown and other pathways to poverty, educational failure, serious personal debt, crime, welfare dependency and addiction. The Rudd Labor government must clearly uphold the law of Australia that marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman, particularly for the benefit of their children, with no compromises. That is not to deny rights for same sex relationships dealing with issues such as superannuation, but it is to mark a line in the sand and clearly dismiss attempts to redefine marriage by stealth. The commitment from Mr Rudd in 2007 was clear: no schemes would be created that mimic marriage, yet currently, ACT legislation provides for legal ceremonies to be conducted by celebrants. Having avoided this issue in his address to the Australian Christian Lobby on Saturday, the Prime Minister must now take a stand against attacks on the law of this nation that protects marriage. I congratulate the organisers of this petition, including the Australian Family Association and, in particular, Mrs Mary Louise Fowler. My colleague, Senator Guy Barnett, has also proven a driving force. I commend the national marriage day concept and the intent that drives it. The petition read as follows— To the honourable The Speaker and members of the House of Representatives: Petition to declare the 13th August as National Marriage Day We, the undersigned citizens of Australia draw to the attention of the House of Representatives, the undeniable correlations between family breakdown and the other pathways to poverty, educational failure, serious personal debt, crime, welfare dependency and addiction. In recognition of the positive contribution that intact, stable marriages make to the well-being of children and society we call upon the House of Representatives to demonstrate its support for marriage by declaring the 13th August each year as National Marriage Day. from 512 citizens Petition received. 12562 12562 18:43:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 0 Ms COLLINS —In September this year I moved a private member’s motion in this place, calling on Telstra to reconsider its decision to introduce an administrative fee of $2.20. I am pleased to report to the parliament that that decision has now been reversed. In fact, Telstra wrote to me in early November to say that after listening to feedback from valued customers they have decided to discontinue the fee. The constituents that lobbied me in my electorate who were really concerned about this unfair and unjust fee are really pleased with this decision. I understand that the change will be implemented by Telstra over the next few months and that they will automatically refund all people who have paid that $2.20 administration fee. I would like to put on record my thanks to David Thodey for listening to the local community. I would also like to support Telstra’s call for its competitors to remove similar administration fees and charges that are currently placed on their customers in local communities. I think that any fees or charges that people have to pay for actually paying in cash are unfair and unjust. I do not think that they have a place in Australian society today. 12563 12563 18:44:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Next Thursday will be a great day for Drouin because the Minister for Environment, Heritage and the Arts, Mr Peter Garrett, will be coming to Drouin to open the Path of Achievement. This celebrates excellence in sport, recreation, sports administration and coaching in Drouin, Athlone, Ripplebrook, Drouin South, Hallora, Modella, Labertouche, Jindivick, Drouin West and Drouin East. Originally the funding from the federal government was for about 100 people. Now there are 550 local townspeople being acknowledged for their achievement and dedication to sports, recreation and the arts. Happiest, though, will be Michael Derrick, Dick van Leeuwen, Rod McLeish, Kerry Irwin, Leonie Blackwell, Sharon Rippon and some others who have been heavily involved: James Guerts, Sue Acheson, Merle Rose and Deidre Rose. This has been a magnificent project from the community that has grown out of all proportion from its beginnings. At first it was just to get rid of graffiti and for the community to have a pathway that reflected the beauty of their surrounds. Now they are going to have something that is absolutely amazing. Minister Garrett will be ‘blown off his feet when he sees the beds that are burning down there’ in Drouin for this magnificent achievement by this community for its arts, its program, its sports and its celebration of people. 12563 12563 18:45:00 Jackson, Sharryn, MP 00AN2 Hasluck ALP 1 0 Ms JACKSON —I was delighted to join a group of young people from my electorate in the early hours of Sunday morning as they boarded a plane to head for Timor-Leste. This group are on the Kalamunda Schoolies Timor-Leste trip. It is the second year that the trip has been in operation. There were 14 very excited young people heading for what I hope will be a life-changing experience for them. I can certainly say that, after speaking to last year’s participants, many of them were fundamentally changed by their trip to Timor and had such a wonderful time whilst they were there. These young people, instead of heading off to our coastal towns and summer holiday villages to celebrate the end of their schooling lives, are heading off to two small villages in Timor, some two hours from Dili, where they will be working on a variety of community projects. I would very much like to record my respect and admiration for Brian Davis and Lyn Harris, who have coordinated the project this year. I would also like to congratulate the Kalamunda Rotary Club and the Kalamunda Chamber of Commerce for their terrific work in supporting and sponsoring this year’s trip. A lot of hard work goes into raising money to ensure that the trip is a success. As I have said, it is an obviously worthy cause. (Time expired) 12564 12564 18:47:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I inform the chamber that I have initiated a federal petition to call upon the government to ask Australia Post to establish a red street posting box on the Kingsway in the vicinity of Darch or Madeley and also close to the Madeley-Brightwater aged persons facility and independent living area. There is a great need for a street posting box on this street. It is a significant distance by walking path or by road to the nearest postbox. There is a great need to put something in the local vicinity so that those aged or infirm persons can easily use Australia Post services. I would imagine that, if established on the Kingsway, it could later be moved the short distance down to the new Darch shopping centre so that it would be available for people in Darch and would also not be too far from the Madeley-Brightwater estate. That petition has been initiated and I thank Joan Tillbrook, Eileen Brown, Edwin Tamlin and Joan Brouwer for raising the issue with me. I am most happy to advance it. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—As the 90-second statements have concluded, I propose to suspend proceedings. Sitting suspended from 6.49 pm to 6.55 pm 12564 Bills R4249 12564 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Ciobo. 12564 18:55:00 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 0 Mr CIOBO —I rise tonight to present the Tax Laws Amendment (Improving the Producer Offset) Bill 2009. In September 2007 the then coalition government established the Australian Screen Production Incentive, providing more than $280 million over four years and generous incentives for Australian film and television productions and for offshore productions to locate to Australia. The new incentives included the producer offset, which provides a 40 per cent rebate to producers of Australian films, and a 20 per cent rebate for the production of other media. The intention of the producer offset was to provide the necessary impetus to grow the Australian production industry by making it easier for Australian producers to attract private investment, increase equity in their productions and develop stable production companies. As Senator Brandis, the then Minister for the Arts and Sport, said at the time: The introduction of the Producer Offset reflects the Government’s view that a sustainable and independent screen production sector is crucial in building a stronger Australian film and television production industry. I am introducing this bill today to reinforce this view and the coalition’s commitment to the view. While the producer offset was welcomed by the Australian screen industry, it is clear it is not operating to its optimal and planned capacity. In a comprehensive paper that was submitted in July 2008 the Screen Producers Association of Australia, otherwise known as SPAA, raised concerns with the current government regarding the timing of the acquittal of the producer offset funds back to the producer after the issuance of the final certification. Currently, the producer offset funds are remitted only once a tax return is lodged for the financial year in which any project is completed or through some other sort of special vehicle. Some of the practical problems and unintended consequences of this provision are the delays that can occur between completion of a production and the receipt of the offset funds which leads to cash flow loan terms being longer than would ordinarily be necessary had the reimbursement occurred at the time of lodgement. The Media Entertainment and Arts Alliance said: One serious problem has been identified concerning the operation of the producer offset. It serves to erode the benefit of the offset, trigger unnecessary expenditure on financing costs, increase production budgets and will cause cyclical employment and utilisation of film industry facilities, equipment and services. In response to these concerns the Australian Taxation Office has advised the Screen Producers Association of Australia that, whilst recognising the industry’s concerns are ‘reasonable on commercial grounds’, it is not ‘willing to exercise the relevant discretion at this point in time’. In reasoning this decision the tax office said: The timing problem identified by industry is inherent in the design of Division 376 and government could have chosen to deal with the timing issue differently if so desired. It is time the Labor government did deal with the timing issue differently. The opposition, and I as shadow arts minister, have been advised that the commissioner has ample discretion in section 168 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to make an early special assessment to assist Australia’s film producers and runaway productions. However, I understand the commissioner and the tax office are, in the absence of any specific instructions, expected to maximise revenue collected for a given budget. The government has allocated $100 million for the refundable film and television offsets in the 2009-10 budget. The opposition is not proposing to increase this expenditure. Rather, tonight I am proposing for it to be used more efficiently and effectively. That is why this bill requires the commissioner to consider the effectiveness of the producer offset in making a decision. This will implore the tax office to exercise the relevant discretion where a company applies to the commissioner for a special assessment under section 186 of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. There are nearly 2,500 businesses in the $2 billion film and video production industry. The coalition appreciates the contribution these businesses make to the Australian economy and the nearly 14,000 Australians they employ. That is the reason why we and I, as shadow arts minister, are very committed to seeing the producer offset meet its full potential. I commend this bill to the House and I place on the record my urgings to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, the member for Kingsford Smith, to get on board, to support this private member’s bill and to ensure that the Australian film and television industry is best able to move forward with a more effective producer offset. Bill read a first time. 10000 Saffin, Janelle (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms JA Saffin)—In accordance with standing order 41, the second reading will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12566 Private Members' Business 12566 Debate resumed, on motion by Mrs Mirabella: 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 $16.2 billion on the Deputy Prime Minister’s Building the Education Revolution 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. 12566 19:01:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —In 1999 the United Nations declared this day to be International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women, and a white ribbon has become its symbol. It is very sad and indeed quite shocking that in their lifetime one in three Australian women will experience physical violence and one in five Australian women will experience sexual violence. The consequences of this violence, as we well know, are devastating not only for the individuals but for their families and also have very serious economic implications. Each year it is estimated that violence against women costs the nation $13.6 billion, and this figure is expected to rise to $15.6 billion by 2012. By wearing a white ribbon on this day we, as members of parliament, show a united front by demonstrating our very personal commitment not to commit, condone or remain silent about violence against women. Everyone needs to know that violence against women is not acceptable in our society. It is not the answer. It is not the solution to anything. We need to empower women so that they know they do not have to suffer this sort of violence and abuse in silence. We need to present a clear message to our children about the sort of behaviour that is not accepted in our society. This year there is a new campaign in which men are being asked to swear an oath never to commit, excuse or stay silent about violence against women. Interested men can swear this oath at www.myoath.com.au. I applaud the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, who will be leading by example and swearing the oath this Wednesday in the Senate courtyard. I also applaud the member for Lyne, who recently appealed to male parliamentarians to be outspoken, get active in this campaign and become white ribbon ambassadors. I encourage all of Australia’s 10 million men, whatever their culture, to take up the challenge and swear the oath this Wednesday, making a commitment to end violence against women. While I believe a bipartisan approach is essential when fighting problems like violence against women, I need to make the following and final points. This government committed $41.5 million in response to the report of the National Council to Reduce Violence Against Women and Their Children, but a closer look shows that the government is just rebadging programs that were operating under the former coalition government’s Women’s Safety Agenda, which was an investment of $75.5 million over four years. In fact, the budget papers revealed no new funding whatsoever for the government’s new national plan, as the funding announced was simply a redirection of funds allocated by the former Howard government. The Rudd government has squandered $16 billion on things like the Julia Gillard memorial school hall program while committing less than one-third of one per cent of that to addressing the insidious problem of violence against women. It has squandered almost half a billion dollars on consultants. Even just a tiny percentage of this money could have done a great deal of good for the women and children plagued by violence every day in this country. Whilst I would like to send this speech out to constituents of mine to urge them to be part of the White Ribbon Day campaign—I know many are interested, we have local organisations that are very active in promoting safety for women and in working against violence and sexual abuse of women and children in our society—I may have to seek advice because some the facts criticising the government may come under the government’s new censorship rules and I may be prevented from actually sending this speech out to constituents. Putting aside the government’s inaction, I do call on all Australians to embrace the White Ribbon Day campaign, which supports stamping out violence against women. It needs to be more than just this one day. It needs to be a continued effort. Government resources need to be put where large sentiments exist. It is not good enough to have good intentions; governments need to act on them in an honest way not just rebadge former programs. That is the only way of moving forward to eliminate violence against women. 12567 19:06:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —Violence against women is a fundamental breach of human rights. It is wrong and it cannot be excused or justified under any circumstances. It is a terrible fact that any woman can become a victim of sexual assault or domestic violence. Violence knows no geographical, socioeconomic, age, cultural or religious boundaries. In Australia we know that one in three women will be affected by physical violence in their lifetime. We know that one in five women will experience sexual violence. We know that this violence is usually perpetrated by men who women know, in their own homes, often repeatedly. These are not just numbers on the page. These figures represent our mothers, our sisters, our wives and our daughters. The White Ribbon Day campaign is led by men who are willing to take a stand and be positive role models for other men in the community. The aim of the White Ribbon Foundation of Australia is to eliminate violence against women by promoting cultural change around the issue—that is, by men providing role models for other men and boys. I am proud to stand alongside hundreds of other ambassadors Australia wide, including the Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and of course, the Leader of the Opposition, Malcolm Turnbull, on this White Ribbon Day to help eliminate violence against women. It is a pity that this motion has been tainted a little by politics. This is a motion that should be above politics. This is a motion that cuts across all spheres of politics and something that we should all be striving to pursue instead of bringing issues into this about how much money is being spent by which government. White Ribbon Day on 25 November is a very special day, and it is a pity that we have put politics into this particular motion. It would have been far more beneficial if there were no politics in the motion and we all spoke about the importance of eliminating violence against women. Sometimes we do not want to be seen as interfering in other people’s affairs, but it is our responsibility as a community to do something. If we see someone being assaulted on the street, we should call the police. We should also call the police if we see our next-door neighbour assaulting his wife, daughter or another female. In the last few decades we have heard more people speaking out about violence against women and this is a very good thing. Violence against women is a community issue. Culture and attitudes are shaped when people are young, often through the attitudes of people that they admire. Many of us, especially men, have been standing around having a beer—and I have been in this situation at barbecues—when somebody may say something derogatory about women. Sometimes people laugh in the group, but it is our absolute duty to pull that person aside, tell them that it is wrong and that it is not acceptable. The more often we can do that, the better this issue will become. This should be the absolute opportunity for us men to raise why it is inappropriate. It is about men taking leadership roles and providing guidance about the correct way to act. Well-known male role models who speak out publicly against violence against women is one campaign that I believe will work. We know that when it happens violence against women does not just affect women; it affects our children, friends, communities, workplaces and ultimately the nation. The new research released by the government shows that each year violence against women costs the nation $13.6 billion, and this figure is expected to rise to $15.6 billion by 2021. The government’s goal is to reduce all violence in our communities, and we take a zero-tolerance approach when it comes to violence against women. We should note here that the Australian government has placed the issue of domestic violence firmly on the national agenda. In May last year the Australian government announced the establishment of a national council that was given the responsibility of drafting a National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and Their Children. In March this year the national council presented the Time for action report, which outlined a plan to reduce violence against women and their children over the next 12 years. I am also proud to say that the Australian government responded in April and took immediate action, pledging millions of dollars in support services and education to help tackle the problem. We are absolutely committed to working with every state and territory government on this issue to develop the national plan to reduce violence against women for release in 2010. In my home state of South Australia, the South Australian government has been supporting White Ribbon Day activities with its Don’t Cross the Line campaign, combining a community message with legislative change to reduce the incidence and acceptance of violence in the state by making the issue of violence against women public. Men are part of the solution through speaking to our friends and colleagues and through taking a stand in our communities. (Time expired) 12568 19:11:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —I rise to speak in support of the motion. I commend the member for Hindmarsh on his presentation and the spirit of bipartisanship which he extended across the chamber in relation to the issue of violence against women—in particular the comments he made in relation to zero tolerance. It is never acceptable to have any violence at all in our community directed at women. I commend the member for Indi for bringing this issue to the attention of the House tonight. As our electorates share a boundary in the high country of Victoria, I am sure the member will agree that many of our constituents share similar views on a whole range of rural and regional issues. With respect to the rights and safety of women, it is highly recognised in both our communities. This Wednesday, people from across the world will unite in an effort to highlight the need to stamp out violence against women in a celebration known as White Ribbon Day. The recent history of White Ribbon Day dates back to a group of Canadian men in 1991 who, I understand, saw it as their responsibility to encourage a change in their community attitudes after the murder of 14 women in Montreal. They wore white ribbons to signify their view that violence against women was completely unacceptable, which they hoped would help to gather support from the broader community, especially men. That tradition has continued to expand throughout the world—so much so that we will see hundreds of thousands of participants across Australia on Wednesday. They will be participating in White Ribbon Day and raising funds from the sale of white ribbons which will go towards the implementation of a range of strategies to reduce the incidence of violence against women in our local communities. Before I continue into the other aspects of the motion currently before the House, I would like to take the time to shed more light on what the White Ribbon Foundation of Australia identifies as the key reasons for participating in White Ribbon Day: Wearing a White Ribbon is not a badge of purity or a badge of perfection. It does not mean that the wearer has perfect relationships. It means that this man believes that violence towards women is unacceptable. It is a visible sign that the wearer does not support or condone the use of violence against women. I am sure everyone in the House will agree that this is a noble and worthwhile cause to support. However, despite the strong support for White Ribbon Day amongst leaders in our community and throughout the world, we see violence directed at women continuing in our society today. The motion by the member for Indi referred to the fact that approximately 350,000 women will experience some form of physical violence and 125,000 women will experience sexual violence each year. Women often experience violence at the hands of men they know, and the abuse is often repeated. Breaking that cycle is incredibly difficult for many of the women involved. I believe it is to our collective national shame that there are still this many cases of violence against women occurring every year. I have spoken on this issue in the past, and I commend other members for continuing to raise the issue in this place, as I believe it will take community leadership from members of parliament and the battle will not be won on any one day. It will require a level of support for events such as White Ribbon Day to be continued and for goodwill to be pursued throughout the year. White Ribbon Day is an opportunity for us to focus our attention and to redouble our efforts for the ongoing commitment that will be required in the longer term. There needs to be a change in culture around the way violence against women is viewed in our society. It is never okay and there can never be any justification for physical violence, sexual abuse or bullying, harassment or intimidation of women. I have commended action in the past to establish the national council for the prevention of violence against women, and we must continue to implement initiatives and programs that help prevent further violence against women and provide refuge and support for women who have experienced violence. Lives are broken and families are torn apart when this violence occurs in the domestic situation, and we need to be continually vigilant to help women get their lives back on track. The motion before the House today also notes that violence against women costs the Australian people $13.6 billion annually, and the national council’s plan for Australia to reduce violence against women and their children from 2009 to 2021 states that if there is no reduction in current rates it will cost the economy an estimated $15.6 billion in about 10 years time. It does give a sense of the size of the problem we are faced with here today. The effects of violence against women are extensive and further support is needed if we are to improve the current situation. I take up the member for Hindmarsh’s comments regarding the need for a bipartisan approach. It is not a question of deciding which government gives more or anything else like that tonight. There is certainly no doubt that we need to be continually vigilant to make sure we are providing the support services for women who have been affected by violence. These preventative measures and campaigns that we have been talking about tonight for White Ribbon Day are certainly a significant part of that. I commend the exceptional job that the White Ribbon Foundation of Australia does in raising awareness of the many women and children who live with violence or the threat of violence in their homes every day of their lives. We need to take action to prevent that violence against women. I urge everyone to show their support for White Ribbon Day on Wednesday. I take up earlier comments as well that it cannot be just one day a year where we focus our attention on this particular issue. We do need to act as role models in our communities for other men and young boys and to live by the creed of respect for all women. I encourage others to take the oath this week as well. 12570 19:16:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 0 Mr NEUMANN —I commend the member for Gippsland and the member for Hindmarsh for their contributions and I agree with them wholeheartedly that this needs a bipartisan approach. It is with sadness and regret that I note that the member for Indi has tried to politicise this motion. This is a very serious matter and it should be above partisan politics. She linked this issue with an alleged squandering in excess of $16 billion under the Building the Education Revolution. I can tell the member for Indi this: there are 313 projects in 85 schools in my electorate, and those school communities do not believe we have squandered the money that they are using to benefit the children. It is really a shame and disgraceful that this motion has been linked in this way. It is to be regretted. I commend the member for Gippsland for his very accurate, sterling and sensitive contribution to this debate. The member for Hindmarsh is correct in saying that violence against women is cowardly. It is unheroic and unmanly. Violence takes many forms. In my more than 20 years practising as a family lawyer I saw many cases, spoke with many clients and prosecuted and defended many cases involving domestic violence. Domestic violence takes many forms, and people do not acknowledge it. The White Ribbon Foundation is to be commended for bringing to the attention of the Australian public, particularly Australian men, the fact that violence takes a multitude of forms—for example, physical abuse, threats, damage of property, forcing another person to have sex, depriving someone of the necessities of life, demanding someone hand over their Centrelink payment, criticising, humiliating, forcing someone out of a car or into a car, abusing someone in front of children, taking the children away, repeatedly stalking someone or phoning them and other things that put someone at risk and make them feel ashamed or humiliated or fill them with feelings of inadequacy. These are terrible things that are perpetrated by so many men against so many women. The Queensland Police Service estimates that there are 30,000 instances of domestic violence in Queensland alone each year. The CEO Challenge has urged employers to recognise that domestic violence costs—as it did in 2003—in excess of $8 billion to the Australian economy because women come to the workplace feeling inadequate and that they are not productive, their self-esteem is lowered and they feel they cannot contribute at home or in the workplace. So this is an economic issue, but it is also a personal issue and a familial issue which affects all of us. The member for Indi is trying to politicise it. I was going to speak without mentioning what she had to say. I was going to speak in a very bipartisan manner, but I have to say to the member for Indi that she really needs to have a look at herself for politicising this very serious issue. There are implications for children as well. Children copy violent or abusive behaviour. They are stunned into terrified silence. We see them frustrated and angry, humiliated and depressed. Bed-wetting happens and there is suicidal idealisation. They end up running away from home. They start abusing alcohol and other substances. They try to intervene to stop the abuse and they are hurt. They feel that their lives are not worth living and that there is no refuge and no safety anywhere. It is a shame that we are politicising this by this motion. My electorate of Blair has many great organisations which adopt the same attitude as the Rudd Labor government that there is zero tolerance with respect to domestic violence. I do not accept that the Rudd government has done nothing. The Time for Action plan was formally received by the Prime Minister on 29 April 2009. We contributed nearly $42 million in terms of a new national telephone and online crisis service, more primary prevention activities, a national scheme for registration of domestic and family violence orders and more research. My electorate has many great groups such as the Ipswich Women’s Centre Against Domestic Violence and I commend Gabrielle Borggaard for the work they do. There are also the Ipswich and the West Moreton Lifeline, Booval Community Service and the wonderful work done by coordinator Bianca Law, Ipswich Community Youth Service and the Family Relationships Centre. All of them work very hard to prevent domestic violence in our community. (Time expired) 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12571 Debate resumed, on motion byMs Rea: 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. 12572 19:21:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —It is almost unbelievable that in our modern world today, a place so often called the global village, there is even a necessity to move a motion such as those in the parliament. Sadly it is a fact that women are dying in childbirth at a rate of one per minute even as I am speaking and that roughly 24,000 children will die today of preventable diseases—things as common as diarrhoea and malaria. It is a reality that we as a global society are far from doing the right thing when it comes to preventing such horrific events from occurring. It is also a reality that in any community, no matter how progressive or civilised we call ourselves, if we cannot care for our small children and for the women who bear those children and support them through pregnancy, childbirth and the rearing of those children then we are failing as a community. It is very important that all members of the House, regardless of the issues that they may have been battling over today, take some time to read and acknowledge the frightening statistics that glare out at you when you read this motion. I was privileged to have a meeting in my electorate office on 1 April this year and it was far from a practical joke that a number of constituents in my electorate came to talk to me about this very serious issue. We had students and staff from Iona College, including teacher John Carroll. We had Erika Meerwald from St Peter’s Catholic Church in Rochedale, Jennifer Byrne from Caritas, Paul Mercer who is a Wyndham doctor and also involved with TIA, Mitchell Evans, Mick Doyle, Michael Lucas and Sam Hutsig, all students from Iona College which is a very large private boys school in Bonner. Accompanying them was Gillian Marshall who is the Queensland chair of the Make Poverty History Coalition and a tireless worker on this issue. As a result of the discussion with them I agreed that I would move a private members motion on this issue because we are falling way behind in our achievement of the Millennium Development Goals, particularly MDGs 4 and 5. I would like to acknowledge Nell Kennon, the government relations coordinator for World Vision, who had a key role in the drafting of this motion. Indeed, it was her efforts, her work and her research that pulled this motion together. It is also important that we acknowledge the importance of this motion today, because it is part of World Vision’s Child Health Now campaign, which has been launched in New York and Nairobi and will be launched in Australia on Wednesday. So it is timely that this motion is going through the parliament. What I want to acknowledge, though, is not just the horrendous statistics which tell us all that we must each individually and as a community be striving harder to introduce policies and provide development assistance aid for people in those countries where child and maternal mortality is extremely high. It is also important to acknowledge that the Australian government is well aware of this problem, that we have made commitments to targets around funding in development assistance for these particular goals. Indeed, as a result of this year’s budget we have increased funding by $200 million over four years for the United Nations partnership for the MDGs, which includes $42½ million for the UN’s Population Fund—a lead agency on millennium development goal 5. It is important that this government has not only increased spending for achieving the Millennium Development Goals but also refocused a lot of that spending specifically to the issue of health, acknowledging the need to support more programs to assist children. When you consider that children die of diarrhoea and that with such simple medication as we take for granted they would be able to stay alive, it is so important that our funding is directed to this area. (Time expired) 12573 19:27:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 0 Mr MORRISON —I rise to support this motion and I commend the member for Bonner for an excellent motion. I support every word of it. One of the things I am most pleased about is that, as we have moved through what has been a very difficult economic time, the one thing we have not debated in this place is the cutting of overseas aid. I think it is a tribute to the government and a tribute to the opposition that this has not become a political football in the course of the broader debate. So I commend the member on the motion and on her own genuine commitment to the outcomes sought by the motion. Australia’s aid effort is significant. We are delivering $3.8 billion in overseas development assistance, or 0.33 per cent of our gross national income, with a commitment to raising this to 0.5 per cent by the middle of the next decade. There are very important objectives in the Millennium Development Goals that we seek to support by these commitments of foreign aid. Australia’s foreign aid payments are working in a global effort to help eradicate extreme hunger and poverty and achieve universal primary education, along with reducing child mortality, improving maternal health and delivering a sustainable environment. Other goals are to promote gender equality, combat HIV-AIDS and malaria and build global partnerships for development. It is a topic that I have spoken about on many occasions. In fact, in my maiden speech I commended the government for their commitments in this area, and I hope that together all members can acknowledge our ongoing obligation to those who share one thing with all of us, and that is our common humanity. It is important, though, that we deliver foreign aid in a way that builds up our neighbours across the world, creating stronger and better societies and delivering new hope to individuals. I believe this is the intent of the motion before us this evening. Our aid should promote stability and growth among our neighbours, address serious health challenges, tackle the hard issues of debt relief and be responsive and flexible when disasters strike, as Australian governments of all persuasions have always demonstrated when these disasters have struck in the past. None of us will forget the response of the Australian government to the tsunami tragedy, which was so swift and overwhelming and which was responded to in kind by the Australian people in such an incredible fashion. The coalition government also gave priority to these matters and was a keen supporter of overseas aid. Minister Downer made it clear when he said: Australia’s overseas aid program plays a central role in Australia’s approach to addressing challenges to regional security and prosperity. Through the aid program, Australia is helping our neighbours realise the benefits of broad-based economic growth, respond effectively to the challenges posed by fragile states, and cope with humanitarian crises. There is one thing I am concerned about, and particularly in the context of the motion that is put forward tonight. We need to focus on the health needs of women and children, and that is why I am personally very disturbed and concerned at the decision of this government to reverse a 13-year position that had stood in this place in overturning the ban on foreign aid used to pay for abortions. The ban was in place for a very good reason. A similar ban had been introduced by the Reagan administration in 1984. It was then overturned by the Clinton administration before being reinstated by President Bush in 2001. In this country, it was introduced by John Howard following a lot of work put together by Senator Brian Harradine from Tasmania. The government has recently overturned this decision, and it was completely within the Prime Minister’s ambit to ensure that that did not take place. Instead, I believe, he simply rolled over. This is despite protestations prior to the election to large constituencies within the Australian electorate leading them to believe that he would not allow such things to happen. He allowed himself to be rolled over on this matter and failed to stand up for the rights of unborn children in overseas countries. This is a provision that has not been asked for. In Senate estimates, Senator Boswell asked AusAID about whether this was necessary. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade responded that they were not aware of any particular request to fund abortion related activities. This is about the priorities of our aid budget. I totally support a strong and growing aid budget to meet the millennium development goals, but we must have priorities for that budget. I fail to see how funding abortions could in any way get to the top of the list of funding priorities for overseas development aid. Given the serious issues that are noted in the motion tonight from the member for Bonner—and I support all of these—I am at a loss to see how funding abortions actually furthers these aims in priority to other initiatives that go directly to supporting the health and wellbeing of women and children in developing countries. The Prime Minster had the opportunity to stand up and be counted on this issue. He chose not to do that. He basically chose to roll over and allow people to pursue a domestic agenda with our foreign aid budget. For that I think the Prime Minister needs to explain himself to all those he led to believe he would do otherwise. 12575 19:32:00 Neal, Belinda, MP B36 Robertson ALP 1 0 Ms NEAL —I rise today to speak in favour of the motion proposed by the member for Bonner. The motion outlines the progress the Rudd government has made towards the millennium development goals. There are two MDGs of special interest in this motion. Millennium development goal 4 aims to reduce mortality rates for children under five by two thirds by 2015. Millennium development goal 5 relates to reducing the maternal mortality rate by three-quarters by the same year. The motion quite correctly notes that there is more work to be done in millennium development goals across the world in both child and maternal health. I, too, applaud the government’s increased commitment to foreign aid. In his speech at the London School of Economics in April 2008, Prime Minister Rudd supported the goal of accelerated progress towards the MDGs. He made a special mention of the government’s goal reducing maternal mortality. In 2008, a woman died in childbirth at a rate of one every minute, which is a truly startling figure. We know that each year 500,000 women die from pregnancy related complications that are largely preventable or treatable. An estimated 90 per cent of newborns whose mother has died will also die within their first year. The World Bank predicts that between 2009 and 2015, infant deaths in developing countries may increase on average between 200,000 and 400,000 per year due to the global recession. This government is determined to build its role as a development leader among the world community through an increased overseas development aid budget. In the 2009-10 budget, the government committed to increasing overseas development aid so that it reached the target of 0.5 per cent of gross domestic product by 2015. This goal was praised by the OECD and I am sure it is praised by many people in our community. Australia is currently on track to achieve this goal. The government does still retain an objective of 0.7 per cent of GDP, but this is an aspirational goal. In the 2009-10 financial year Australia provided an estimated $3.8 billion in overseas aid. Rather than being charity, the government views this continued overseas development aid as an investment in our broader community. This investment helps fight the entrenched poverty that could challenge global peace and security. Most of Australia’s aid is targeted at the Asia-Pacific region, which is clearly in our backyard, where an estimated 950 million people live on less than $1 per day. In Southeast Asia 200,000 mothers and 3.2 million children are dying each year from preventable causes. Expansion of aid allocations are planned for Southeast Asia and Africa. Millennium Development Goals 4 and 5 are a vital part of the government’s aid agenda and spending aid for maternal newborn child health has increased as part of overall increases in overseas development aid. The government believes that the MDGs relating to maternal and child health are achievable but that increased effort and greater cooperation among developing and developed nations is needed. The motion before us today states: Australia still requires an increase in total health funding in the foreign aid budget to progress toward the Millennium Development Goals … 4 and 5 … The reduction of child mortality by two-thirds and the reduction of maternal mortality by three-quarters are goals that I support and I commend the member for Bonner for raising these vital matters in the parliament. These two MDGs are the slowest of all the Millennium Development Goals, as far as progress being achieved in 2015 is concerned. I urge all members to do everything practical to help with these goals, to avoid trivial political points and to really work together as a parliament to assist those in need in our world community. 12576 19:36:00 Washer, Dr Mal, MP 84F Moore LP 0 0 Dr WASHER —I would also like to commend the member for Bonner for this motion. The seven Millennium Development Goals were established in 2000 through the UN by 189 governments, including Australia. These goals are crucial targets of social and environmental progress to be achieved by 2015. Goal 4 is to reduce by two-thirds between 1990 and 2015 the under-five mortality rate. Goal 5 is to reduce by three-quarters between 1990 and 2015 the maternal mortality ratio, and achieve universal access to reproductive health by 2015. Sadly, these goals have made the slowest progress of all. In the developing world as a whole there were 480 maternal deaths per 100,000 births in 1990 and in 2005 there were 450 deaths per 100,000 births. The government’s increase in total health funding in the foreign aid budget and the increase in spending to maternal newborn and child health is to be commended. However, great effort and cooperation from all developing and developed nations is required if the goals are to be achieved. In 1950 our global population was two billion. Currently, it is 6.9 billion and by conservative UN estimates it will be 9.15 billion by 2050. We currently have the largest generation ever entering reproductive age. There are currently one billion living in extreme poverty and 75 million children are not educated. In many poor countries in our region one in 50 women die during pregnancy and delivery. Every year around 536,000 women die in pregnancy and childbirth worldwide. Improved access to family planning is critical. Forty per cent of pregnancies are unplanned. In poorer countries in Africa and the Asia-Pacific region, 40 per cent of maternal deaths would be eliminated if contraceptive needs were met. And there would be a 20 per cent reduction of deaths in children under five if women could use contraception to space their births by two years or more. Countries that have lower fertility rates spend substantially more on the health and education of their children than those with higher fertility. The majority of maternal deaths are due to obstetric complications such as post-partum haemorrhage, infections, eclampsia, prolonged obstructive labour and complications from unsafe abortions. Anaemia, exacerbated by malaria and other conditions such as HIV, increases the risk of death from haemorrhage. Haemorrhage alone causes 34 per cent of maternal deaths in sub-Saharan Africa. Most of these conditions can be prevented or treated with reproductive health services, antenatal care and assistance at birth. In reaching goal 4, reducing childhood mortality, effective interventions are required such as nurturing newborns and their mothers, infant and young child feeding, vaccines, case management of diarrhoea, antibiotics for pneumonia and sepsis and malaria control. The WHO estimates that the total additional costs for achieving universal coverage of such essential interventions accumulated over 10 years would be $52.4 billion. There has been progress in this area, with the proportion of undernourished children under five years of age declining from 27 per cent in 1990 to 20 per cent in 2005: some 27 per cent fewer children died before their fifth birthday in 2007 than in 1990. This decrease has been due to a combination of interventions: the use of insecticide-treated mosquito nets for malaria, oral rehydration therapy for diarrhoea, increased access to vaccinations for a number of infectious diseases and improved water and sanitation. However, preventable and treatable conditions such as pneumonia and diarrhoea continue to kill 3.8 million children aged under five every year. None of the goals are achievable in isolation. We must stabilise populations for there to be environmental sustainability. Poverty cannot be alleviated without empowering women with education and by meeting their contraceptive needs. We are not isolated from these issues: poverty, population growth and the adverse effects of climate change will exert significant pressure upon worldwide migration. Progress towards the goals is now threatened—(Time expired) 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Order! In accordance with standing order 193, the time for members’ statements has concluded. 12577 Bills R4243 Debate resumed from 16 November. 12577 12577 19:34:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I move: That the bill be read a second time. I do appreciate the chance to speak again on this Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009. This is a very important bill, because it is about trying to assist the civilian casualties of the war on terror. The war on terror has been a bipartisan exercise in this parliament. It was begun, if you like, by the Howard government in conjunction with our allies; it was, in most respects, enthusiastically supported by the then opposition; and the Rudd government is certainly participating vigorously in the war on terror in Afghanistan and elsewhere—and it is right that the Rudd government should do so. But this is not just something that affects Australian military personnel. We have seen on several major occasions now how the war on terror has touched ordinary Australian citizens who have found themselves in the line of fire. In the World Trade Centre on September 11 there were Australian victims; tragically, in Bali in 2002 and again in 2005 there were Australian victims; and in London, and twice in Jakarta, there were Australian victims. All up, more than 300 Australians have been killed or seriously injured as a result of Australia’s participation in the war on terror. If we take the second Bali bombing: the bombers went to that beachside restaurant in Bali precisely because they knew there would be Australians there. Australians were directly targeted in that instance precisely because they were Australian. In other instances, of course, it was because they were citizens of the West generally, but in Bali in particular, Australians were precisely targeted because of their Australian citizenship. Through the bill we are debating I am proposing a national scheme, analogous to the state victims of crime schemes, for the innocent Australian victims and the innocent Australian civilian casualties of the war on terror. I am not proposing a massively costly scheme. If all of those 300 plus people or next of kin got the maximum amount I envisage of $75,000, it would cost the Commonwealth government about $30 million at the most. I read in the Newcastle Herald today that it was not the federal government’s job to provide assistance or compensation. If it is not the federal government’s job, it is no-one’s job. If there is any responsibility of the federal government it is surely to protect and look after Australians who get into trouble abroad, particularly if those Australians are being targeted, at least in part, because of our participation in the war on terror. I also read in the Newcastle Herald this morning something about the government looking at compensating all people who get hurt. That is a nice thought but, as Paul Anicich, one of the victims of the 2005 Bali bombings, said, he first heard this from Gough Whitlam back in 1973. These people deserve better than to have to wait 20 or 30 years for a general scheme and, frankly, they are in a different position to people who just happen to get injured in the ordinary course of life. I want to thank Paul Anicich and Tony Purkiss, two of the Newcastle survivors of the 2005 Bali bombings, for coming to the parliament today. I did not have the privilege of meeting Paul on that dreadful aftermath day, but I have got to know him quite well since. He is a great man. He in particular, along with everyone else, deserves to be acknowledged and assisted. And Tony Purkiss—what an inspiration! He was blinded by that attack. He is still engaged in ocean racing. Yes, great spirit is shown by these people, but they also deserve acknowledgement and recognition. Finally, I do want to thank the Prime Minister for his gracious treatment of my question in the parliament. I am pleased that the government is looking at the matter. Something has to be done. It does not have to be this bill, but it has to be something. (Time expired) 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Is the motion seconded? 12578 19:47:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 12578 19:47:00 Grierson, Sharon, MP 00AMP Newcastle ALP 1 0 Ms GRIERSON —I rise to speak on the private members’ bill Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009. This bill is opposed by the government in its current form. However, as the Prime Minister said today in question time, we are prepared to consult around finding better ways to support the ongoing needs of those who sustain physical and psychological harm as a result of catastrophic incidents such as terrorism. We are prepared to do that in a thorough and proper way. Tonight the Prime Minister has announced that the government will engage the Productivity Commission to examine the feasibility of a national long-term care and support scheme, a scheme that would address this issue of improving the support to those of special need, no matter how the injury or harm is sustained. In his speech he also made special mention of the victims of terrorism, including Paul Anicich and Tony Purkiss, who were here today. It is a very welcome acknowledgement of his recognition of their circumstances. Improving the system for all Australians remains the government’s focus. However, as the member for Newcastle and the public representative of the families and individuals affected by the 2005 Bali bombings, I have particular sympathy for them as, I know, do the mover of the bill and also the seconder, the member for Paterson. I put on the record my acceptance that the member for Warringah brings forward this legislation in good faith and out of genuine concern for the victims that he has come to know well. When he found himself on site during the 2005 Bali bombings, he provided enormous direct support to the Newcastle victims, working closely with Novocastrian Dr Adam Frost, who was also in attendance that night, to gain the most appropriate medical assistance and arrange the rapid evacuation to other medical facilities and back to Australia. I note that Dr Frost’s actions were appropriately recognised through the Australian honours list in 2007, when he was awarded the Order of Australia Medal for ‘service to the community through the provision of medical aid to victims of the 2005 Bali bombings’. I have no doubt that the actions of Tony Abbott and Adam Frost saved some victims from prolonged suffering, disability or even the loss of their life. Like the victims and their families, I will be forever grateful for their actions on that night. I also put on the record my appreciation of the resolute efforts of Paul Anicich to raise the ongoing complications physical, mental and material faced by his fellow victims and their families. As I have said, Paul was in the chamber today, as was Tony Purkiss, who lost his sight in the 2005 bombings. I acknowledge both their presence and the way in which they exemplify the ongoing mutual concern and support that exists amongst the Newcastle victims of the bombings. The bill before the House today applies to: … Australians who are killed or injured as a result of international terrorist acts by establishing a framework to facilitate the provision of financial assistance for persons who suffer injury as a consequence or their next of kin. Within the bill, ‘Priorities for assistance’ designates: … a person who suffered injury requiring hospitalisation as a result of an international terrorist act or to the next of kin of a person who suffered death as a result of such an act. The bill also provides for the development of eligibility and implementation guidelines by the Attorney-General, after extensive consultation, for the provision of a compensation payment which must not exceed $75,000. In rejecting this bill on this occasion, it is important to understand that this is a bill with insufficient detail or specifics regarding the key issues of eligibility criteria, payment thresholds or administration of this payment over the long term. As mentioned previously, the Rudd government is intent on providing rigorous attention to the needs of Australians who suffer disabilities and injuries of all kinds and from all circumstances so that the process eventually adopted is the right one and is informed by those who themselves suffer, by their carers, and by the medical and social sectors that provide services to those affected. As noted by the Prime Minister tonight, the process we have begun takes note of the special needs of the victims of international terrorism. The study will consider coverage of entitlements and implications for health services. I have endeavoured over these years to keep our ministers informed of special issues that have arisen, and I thank the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, Jenny Macklin, who met with Mr Paul Anicich at the community cabinet in Newcastle late last year. An issue raised at that time was the need for some type of identification and medical record that would save victims from having to repeatedly explain and revisit the reason for their condition to various medical and support personnel. It is pleasing that the government is currently also in negotiation with the states regarding the development of a national individual electronic health record for all Australians, something I am sure could assist the victims of terrorism who have ongoing needs and certainly do not want to revisit the trauma in these ways. In response to another issue raised with me, the Minister for Health and Ageing, Nicola Roxon, and the Minister for Human Services and minister responsible for Centrelink, Chris Bowen, are currently considering ways to improve the processing of medical claims made by victims of terrorism who come under the special assistance schemes such as the scheme set up for those who sustained injuries during Bali 2005. However, that a special unit is already dedicated to these people and does have the experience and training to deliver this service promptly and effectively means that anything we do must be considered carefully and any change we make must enhance, not detract, from the system. That scheme, of course, covers the survivors, immediate family members of Australian survivors, and deceased Australians and eligible foreign nationals. I stress that the Newcastle victims involved in the 2005 Bali bombings have been very appreciative of the assistance that they received from government at the time of the bombings—the previous government—and the support they have received since. I understand that they advocate strongly for system improvements that will benefit not just themselves but all of those who have been affected by acts of international terrorism, perhaps the most heinous of crimes against a nation and its people. At the time of the 2005 Bali incident FaHCSIA implemented an ex gratia assistance package for the victims and their families. This has been the case for victims of international terrorist attacks in Bali in 2002, London in 2005, Egypt and Lebanon in 2006, Mumbai in 2008 and Jakarta in 2009. That package, of course, is an extensive one, and it is devised in response to each specific circumstance. I think that flexibility is something we have all appreciated. At the personal level, though, I wish to repeat my appreciation and that of the 2005 Bali victims for the way in which so many agency and department personnel provided more than just functionary support at the time. Their compassion and considered support went beyond their responsibility and made the ordeal so much more bearable, as did the generous compassion and support extended by the people of Newcastle. The bill itself proposes monetary compensation based on state government victims of crime legislation which arises from the statutory responsibilities of the state. However, in the federal arena I know of no precedent for compensation payments such as those proposed in this bill. From my research it appears to me that the only compensation payments made to any collective group of victims has been to prisoners of war incarcerated in the Pacific and European theatres of war during World War II. The payments were amounts of $25,000, and I think we need to pay respect to precedents so that we follow the principles and extend them only when we know it is the right thing to do. However, I do think there is a need for some consideration for a mechanism that takes into account emerging individual circumstances that may not have been anticipated at the time of the specific event that triggered the special assistance package. Tonight, of course, the Prime Minister has delivered the mechanism for that consideration to occur. Again, I thank the Prime Minister for his willingness to take a further look at issues around improving the support to those with ongoing needs as a result of international terrorist attacks, and I welcome his commitment tonight to conduct a rigorous study into a no-fault social insurance scheme as well as other options for long-term care and support building on international best practice. I also note that that when the Prime Minister was shadow minister he met with some of the victims of the incident in Bali in 2005 in my office and provided them with support and guidance. While my government does not support this particular bill in its current form, we do remain indelibly committed to providing support for Australians who are victims of international terrorist acts. The Prime Minister demonstrated this not an hour ago with his announcement of a feasibility study into a national disability insurance scheme. As I have mentioned, we are looking at a number of other ways to provide greater assistance to those in need. A bill of this nature is simply unprecedented at a federal level and something that obviously needs further careful consultation and consideration. The horror that was experienced at Jimbaran Bay and Kuta Beach on the evening of 1 October 2005 was indescribable; the pain and suffering that was caused is indefensible and that the victims of the blast deserve the utmost care is inarguable. I and my government will continue to work to make sure that those affected continue to receive just and appropriate assistance in an efficient and effective way, and in a way that the government can deliver. But tonight I must oppose this bill. 12581 19:57:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise to speak on the Assisting the Victims of International Terrorism Bill 2009 put forward by my colleague and friend, Tony Abbott. Tony Abbott understands the needs of people who have been affected by acts of terrorism. This bill provides $75,000 for the victims of terrorist acts overseas, and there is a precedent for this—that is, that the states provide $75,000 to victims of crime. Indeed, the federal government has a precedent for this, because under the Howard government $25,000 compensation was paid to prisoners of war. I congratulate Tony Abbott for introducing this bill. If every person of the around 300 people who have been injured or killed in acts of terrorism offshore made a claim, this bill in its full capacity would amount to less than $22½ million. It is not a lot of money in the scheme of things, considering the pain and suffering that these people go through. Today I saw a person who has been a friend of mine for a number of years, Paul Anicich, come to this House. The Paul Anicich of today is not the Paul Anicich I have known for the best part of 14 years. He is a shell of the man, and still struggles daily to deal with the after effects of the Bali bombing. This is a man who was an outstanding and successful legal practitioner; this is a man who was a leader in our community and a very passionate advocate for the Hunter region. Today, Paul works hard at just trying to keep his life and his family together because it was not just Paul who was affected—Penny was also involved in the blast, and their young bloke has had to suffer the effects because of the stresses on the family. Paul, when he came to see me not long after he got back to Australia and had recovered, wanted nothing more than a victim’s gold healthcare card, a gold healthcare card that helped meet the shortfalls in the medical expenses, a gold healthcare card that allowed for the provision of electronic transfer of information so each and every time that the— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The member’s time has expired. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —I should have had 20 minutes, Mr Deputy Speaker. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand that the time allotted for debate is such that speeches were to conclude by 8 pm. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Then the other deputy speakers have erred, in that they have allowed other members to speak for too long. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Could I move an extension of time, Mr Deputy Speaker? 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I do not think we are in a position to do that. The arrangement that has been agreed to is that this debate would conclude by 8 pm and that— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Then I move that the question be put and a vote be taken on the bill. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —You are aware that we do not have provision for taking— LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Then I ask you to refer to the House of Representatives that the bill be put. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I will report that request to the House of Representatives. The debate is adjourned and a resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Mr Deputy Speaker, on a point of order: I have asked that the question be put, so it is not to be listed as an item of debate for the next sitting. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —The standing orders do not allow for a motion ‘that the question be put’ to be dealt with in the Main Committee. I understand the request that you have made and I will report it, but I note that the debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Deputy Speaker, would it not assist the operation of the parliament if the member for Paterson was allowed to continue his remarks for two minutes? I think it would assist the operation of the House on a subject as sensitive as this if that indulgence could be extended to him. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —I understand the spirit in which the request is made, but the time allotted for debate is not something which I am in control of. It is something which is organised between the whips prior to these matters being debated here. 12582 Private Members' Business 12582 Debate resumed, on motion by Mr Oakeshott: That the House: recognises that Wednesday 25 November 2009 is the International Day for Elimination of Violence Against Women which is symbolised by the wearing of a White Ribbon; calls on all men to actively participate in White Ribbon Day and speak out against violence against women; recognises and applauds the recent work of the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians on Population and Development (AFPPD), to which the Australian Parliamentary Group on Population and Development is a member, for the establishment of the AFPPD Standing Committee of Male Parliamentarians on Prevention of Violence against Women and Girls on 7 September 2009; acknowledges that the establishment of the AFPPD Committee is a significant step in bringing together male parliamentarians from across Asia as role models and outspoken activists for the prevention and elimination of violence against women and girls; notes that one in three Australian women will experience physical or sexual violence in her lifetime; and acknowledges that gender based violence costs the Australian economy over $15.1 billion each year, including health, work absenteeism, police and court related costs. 12583 20:02:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I feel reluctant to speak for the next two minutes because I was enjoying the member for Paterson’s words, but the parliament moves on. I start with a quote: We must unite. Violence against women cannot be tolerated, in any form, in any context, in any circumstance, by any political leader or by any Government. The time to change is now. That was from UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in 2008. I also quote Parliamentary Secretary Bob McMullan, who said in a recent speech that gender based violence is Australia’s greatest policy failure. I emphasise the word ‘greatest’ for reflection by all members. I also refer to a comment made by Tim Costello, known to many members in this place for the work he does throughout the Asia-Pacific, when asked in a briefing of members of parliament: what is the one thing that would make a difference to the lives of many in the Asia-Pacific region? The answer was: improving gender equity and the lot of women and girls within the Asia-Pacific region. So it is somewhat of a no-brainer to say that this is an important topic. I fully endorse the concept of White Ribbon Day, the White Ribbon Foundation and, more broadly, the engagement of men and boys in this important topic that, for too long, has not really been on the priority agenda of many men in policy-making positions not only in Australia but throughout the Asia-Pacific region. Violence against women and girls is without doubt an enormous and complex problem affecting every region of the world. In Australia it is estimated that one in three women experience physical violence and one in five experience sexual violence over their lifetimes. Persistence of such a high incidence in the 21st century in a First World developed nation such as ours is testimony to the complexities and the entrenched nature of the problem. If you are not passionate about this topic of gender inequity, please listen to the economics of the topic and I hope that should engage every single member of this place. The economic burden of violence against women and girls in Australia alone is great. The report by National Council to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children suggests that the cost of violence against women and their children to the Australian economy in 2009 will reach $13.6 billion. Now put that into the context of some of the stimulus money—it is twice the social housing package and twice the subsidy to the car industry—it is a substantial amount of money that has been lost to the Australian economy through inattention by all of us in public policy when making decisions about this vexed question of violence against women and girls. The expected cost is to increase to $15.6 billion by the period 2021-22 unless there is immediate intervention and that is according to the national council’s Time for action report. So there are opportunities for action by local members of parliament. As many would have seen in their emails I would strongly urge all male MPs in this place to have a look at the White Ribbon Day campaign that is having its highest profile week this week with White Ribbon Day on Wednesday. I would urge everyone if they are not already a White Ribbon ambassador to become one and to get involved in the White Ribbon Foundation. There is this week a friends of White Ribbon emerging. I would urge all male MPs to think about joining that and being involved. As a general comment about advocating on this topic, please visit a local women’s refuge, listen, learn, respond to the issues that arise and understand that there are local issues at play, but these very much tap into a global campaign. We have heard reference to Millennium Development Goals tonight. Goals 3, 4 and 5 are all relevant and worth getting to understand if you do not already. I would also urge members to look at the Secretary-General of the United Nations UNiTE campaign which has a list of practical steps for people in public policy making decisions, countries such as ours, to embrace on a global scale and be involved in a real push for our generation to do something about a problem which we should not have to deal with but we do. I would hope that we all, particularly men, embrace this topic, get it on our agenda and work hard to minimise it into the future. (Time expired) 12584 20:07:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I would like to congratulate the member for Lyne for moving in this chamber what I consider to be a very important motion. This motion is timely as this Wednesday, 25 November, is the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women also known as White Ribbon Day. White Ribbon Day started in Canada in 1991 on the second anniversary of the massacre of 14 female engineering students at the Ecole Polytechnique in Montreal and it has since spread around the world. It was an attempt to come to grips with the horrific violence of that and other events and also with the violence and abuse that many women experience every single day of their lives. It was a recognition that for gender based violence to be eliminated men need to take responsibility for that violence and to work to prevent it. Violence against women can take many forms. It can be domestic and family violence. It can be not just physical but psychological and economic, it can be sexual assault and rape including date rape, and it can be sexual harassment and discrimination. The damaging results of violence against women by men are felt at a personal level, at a family level and at a community level. Far too many women suffer enormously as a result of male violence in our country and, as the member for Lyne has already said, one in three Australian women report experiencing at least one incident of either physical or sexual violence since they reached the age of 15. The abuse experienced can result in lasting damage particularly where women have been physically or sexually assaulted on an ongoing basis by their male partners or other family members. Last year in this House I talked about the 2004 VicHealth report into the health costs of violence, but it bears repeating because it illustrates the enormous effect of violence on women. For women under the age of 45 being a victim of domestic violence is responsible for more ill health and premature death than any other risk factor. It causes more ill health than high blood pressure, obesity or smoking. Violence against women takes away from women the ability and the power to make choices about their own lives. Women who feel unsafe in their own homes, unsafe in public, unsafe in the workplace or unsafe in schools and universities do not enjoy the same rights, the same standards of living or the same quality of life that is enjoyed by the rest of the community. Gender based violence disempowers women, and that is why people often talk about it as being an abuse of human rights. Preventing violence against women requires us to address the underlying issues of sexism, lack of respect for women and a sense of privilege that many men enjoy. It requires us to work to change attitudes, emotions and behaviours that support violence such as sexist jokes. Beliefs that women are inferior or that some women ‘deserve it’ or were ‘asking for it’ do not simply encourage violence; they create a culture in which silence becomes the acceptable response to violence against women. The White Ribbon Foundation was established in Australia in 2007, and I have been an ambassador for the White Ribbon Foundation since not long after its establishment. As I said last year, it is an association that I am very proud to have. This year the white ribbon campaign is My Oath. I was with the Prime Minister in Sydney earlier this year at the launch of the My Oath campaign. Through this campaign, Australian men are being urged to swear an oath ‘never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women’. It highlights for us again the importance of challenging violence against women every single day. It is not simply about not committing violence against women. When we see violence, we must speak out. When we hear the expression of attitudes that lead to violence, we must speak out. This Wednesday—which is White Ribbon Day this year—provides an opportunity for all men to commit to the goal of eliminating violence against women. I would urge every Australian man to commit to this goal. Directly, in this parliament on Wednesday, members of this parliament will have the opportunity to join the My Oath campaign. This should mean, I hope, that very many members of this parliament will be swearing never to commit, excuse or remain silent about violence against women. I again congratulate the member for Lyne for bringing this motion and commend the motion to the House. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12585 Debate resumed, on motion byMr Georganas: That the House: notes the tragic loss of life to suicide which has taken an average of approximately 14 persons per 100,000 in Australia through most of the twentieth century—three quarters being male—and a disproportionately large number being in rural and regional areas; notes the establishment of RU OK?, an important national initiative to raise awareness about suicide rates, the impact of suicide on our society, and how we can all help to prevent suicide by connecting with each other; recognises and supports the inaugural RU OK? Day on 29 November 2009 that will bring Australians together to prevent suicide and raise the profile of organisations providing support for those affected by, or at risk of, suicide; acknowledges that sector research shows that people at risk are helped by talking about their problems—that a single conversation could change a life; and works to inspire and encourage all Australians to connect with friends and loved ones to prevent small problems from becoming big ones, by reaching out to anyone doing it tough and asking them ‘Are you OK?’. 12585 20:12:00 Georganas, Steve, MP DZY Hindmarsh ALP 1 0 Mr GEORGANAS —R U OK? is based on a simple concept. It is about taking the time to ask someone the three simple words, ‘Are you okay?’ It is a simple question, yet its meaning is profound and asking the question means you care about the answer. It is this connection, this thoughtfulness, that can help someone open up and communicate their problems. Research shows that it helps people at risk of self-harm to get them to talk about their problems and that talking can ensure that small problems do not become big problems. It is shocking to learn about the prevalence of suicide in our society. Around 2,000 people take their own lives in Australia each year, and that is tragic. That does not include the number of people who attempt suicide or the number of people thinking about suicide or the number of people affected by suicide. Suicide claims the lives of more Australians than our road toll, and it is the biggest killer of Australian men and women aged 15 to 35. People who are isolated or feel isolated are at risk. This includes the elderly and people living on their own. Losing one’s life partner, a perceived lack of purpose upon retirement, isolation should children move out to find work, depression and stress can all contribute to suicide. I am particularly conscious of these factors in relation to my own electorate, where the proportion of single households is one of the highest in the country. I am pleased that the Australian government is committed to strengthening suicide prevention efforts in Australia and that it remains concerned about people at high risk of suicide. This includes Indigenous Australian men, those in rural areas, people with drug and alcohol problems and people with mental illness. In recognition of this, funding under the National Suicide Prevention Program has more than doubled from $8.6 million in 2005-06 to $22.1 million in 2009-10. Mental illness remains the single biggest risk factor for suicide. In addition to this specific suicide prevention funding, broader funding by the Australian government on mental health programs contributes significantly to the suicide prevention effort. The 2009 report on government services identified recurrent funding of $1.6 billion by the Australian government on mental health services and programs. Australian health ministers recently agreed to achieve better alignment between state and territory governments and the Australian government regarding suicide prevention activity through the development of a nationally agreed suicide prevention framework. This is a key area of action under the fourth National Mental Health Plan, which was endorsed by health ministers on 4 September 2009. I am very pleased that Gavin Larkin started R U OK?, an organisation to help all of us understand that we can help someone. The national R U OK? Day initiative encourages all of us to take some responsibility for the wellbeing of those around us and to take more opportunities to connect with each other. All we need to do is ask those three simple words—‘Are you okay?’—and then listen to the answer. This initiative also aims to raise the profile of suicide prevention and support services such as beyondblue, the Black Dog Institute, Lifeline and SANE Australia. These organisations are just some of R U OK? Day’s crucial partners in this new national campaign. I am very pleased that a number of other organisations are supporting the campaign, such as the National Prescribing Service, the Australian General Practice Network and the Pharmacy Guild of Australia. R U OK? also has the support of News Limited and on R U OK? Day itself one million homes across Australia will receive in their newspapers a guide to specific signs to look for, how to have a successful conversation about it and where to direct people for their health. The first national R U OK? Day is this coming Sunday, 29 November 2009. The organisation has distributed through the whips’ offices here badges for all of us to wear this coming week. I think it is wonderful. It is practical and positive. It is a positive initiative and I urge everyone in this place to support it. I ask all of us to ask our friends and families and people in our communities and electorates to ask people if they are okay. (Time expired) 12587 20:18:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise this evening to express my support for and to commend the motion put by the member for Hindmarsh. This motion noted the tragically high rate of suicide in this country—which is some 14 people per 100,000—as well as the disproportionately large number of suicides in rural and regional areas. According to the ABS statistics, approximately 2,500 people die by suicide each year. Of course, there are many more people out there who think about committing suicide. That is a great worry to us as well. More Australians die by suicide than die on our roads each year. We do not talk about it and we do not see on the news the tragedy of suicide, but we do see road deaths almost daily in our local papers and on the news at night. Suicide is the biggest killer of men and women aged between 15 and 35. This motion also notes the establishment of R U OK? and the national R U OK? Day on Sunday, 29 November. This will be the inaugural R U OK? Day, which, as they say, aims to inspire all Australians to reach out to anyone doing it tough in order to prevent little problems becoming big ones. R U OK? Day is about taking the time to talk to friends and loved ones and to ask them if they are okay. It is supported by respected organisations such as beyondblue, the Black Dog Institute, Lifeline, headspace, SANE Australia and the Australian General Practice Network. I would like to mention some of the wonderful work these charities are doing for the drought affected communities in my electorate of Maranoa. Last year the Black Dog Institute organised two ‘tie up the black dog’ meetings in my electorate: one in Goondiwindi and one in Roma. These were held in the middle of winter—and in the middle of winter out in western Queensland it gets well below freezing at night—and in the middle of the week. Not many people would normally come out in the middle of the week in the middle of winter to listen. I was staggered to see that there were over 1,000 people in those two towns, Goondiwindi and Roma, who turned out to attend those meetings. There were many concerned wives, relatives and friends who were interested in attending and, of course, many men as well. I was devastated by the impact that suicide was having. Perhaps I was not was not reading my electorate in that regard. But that was an example of people voting with their feet—coming forward to listen to what those presenters had to say and to hear the stories so that they might help them identify others who may be thinking about, tragically, taking their own lives. I want to express also my support for the motion of the member for Hindmarsh because there are so many people in my electorate who have been affected by suicide—whether it is a relative, a friend or a workmate, suicide has become a tragic statistic in the lives of people of Maranoa, who are suffering through one of the nation’s longest and harshest droughts. Just a fortnight ago I met with the drought support counsellor in South Burnett, which is at the eastern end of my electorate. The Burnett region had its exceptional circumstances revoked by the federal government in June this year. Whilst it is a very difficult job for NRAC to do, this area and many other parts of my electorate should not have come out of EC at that time. In fact, the state agricultural minister wrote to me and said he did not believe that the buffer zones should not be reinstated. They were not. He also said that this area, particularly the South Burnett region, should not lose exceptional circumstances classification. This charitable organisation has spent some $16,000 of government emergency relief money and with that money they have helped 488 families. I have to ask the question: what would have happened to those families without that meagre amount of money to help them on a day-to-day basis? This drought counsellor is a very strong and lovely lady. She said that this drought has really fractured communities. She said that people are only so resilient and then they start to retreat into themselves, and that is when the community crumbles. Tomorrow will mark two years since the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry was given the opportunity to become the minister for one of the most important sectors of the Australian economy. I say to the minister for agriculture: these regions should not have come out of drought relief. The drought counsellor in that region said to me that in a six-month period in the last 12 months she went to over 25 funerals—most of those were farmers who had taken their own lives; some were small business people. I say to the minister: reinstate a health card and income support. With only 32 days to go to Christmas, show some compassion and support these families. Anything that can be done to prevent suicide is something that is worthwhile doing. (Time expired) 12588 20:23:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 0 Mr ZAPPIA —I commend the member for Hindmarsh for raising this matter of the incidence of suicide in Australia and the work of the R U OK organisation. We have heard that Sunday 29 November is the inaugural R U OK? Day, on which Australians are encouraged to reach out to anyone who might be doing it tough and who might also be contemplating suicide. We have also heard that, sadly, over 2,000 Australians each year die by suicide; and for every person who commits suicide about another 10 make an attempt. We also heard how more people die from suicide than by road accidents. In fact is the biggest killer of Australian men and women aged between 15 and 35 years of age. For those whose suicide attempts fail there is a second chance, but for those who do suicide there is no second chance. There is no bringing them back, undoing whatever caused the suicide or reaching out and helping them through their trauma. Equally sad is that for every suicide the lives of many more family and friends are forever damaged as they grapple with the unanswerable questions of what if or if only—if only I had made more time; if only I had taken more interest; if only I had acted. There may be questions such as: what if help had been sought? What if he or she were alive today? What if the suicide attempt had failed? These and many more questions will forever haunt the close family and friends left behind. We all know people and families affected by suicide and we have all seen the pain they have endured. Two of my long-term friends committed suicide. Only last week the 26-year-old son of a family acquaintance was buried after having committed suicide. Today’s society is full of people struggling to cope with financial pressures, family expectations, study, drug addiction, violent situations, sexual abuse, gambling and so on. Everybody is prone to stressful situations and everybody copes differently. Everybody under stress does, however, cope better if they have the necessary support around them. That is why I particularly commend the efforts of the R U OK? organisation. I particularly note that a disproportionate number of suicides are from rural and regional areas. Suicide rates in rural and regional Australia are significantly higher than the national average. Very remote regions have suicide rates double that of major capital cities, and approximately 80 per cent of these suicides are males. It is the most common means of death of Australian men under the age of 44. I have discussed the matter of rural and regional suicide with people from those areas and, in particular, with people who have been personally associated with counselling services in the Riverland region of South Australia. Many Riverland growers have endured successive years of drought, poor crops and low prices for their produce. Their debts are mounting as their crops fail, and for some their spirit is ultimately broken. These are extremely hardworking, decent people with self-pride who can no longer cope, yet they make the most courageous decision I can think of: the decision to take their own life—not an easy thing to do. These are people who have families and friends, people who should not end their life by suicide. One can only speculate at the stress a person must be under to take their own life. Males are less likely to discuss their problems with others. It is a male trait. Many males also have a belief that they are the breadwinner of the family and therefore feel responsible when their farms fail. Males often see themselves as being weak if they have been abused, bullied or exploited. Perhaps that is why we have a higher incidence of suicide amongst males than we do amongst females. The R U OK? organisation ought to truly be commended for raising this matter publicly, and through their efforts on the 29th I hope that it will get the public recognition it deserves, because we as a society can collectively help those people who might otherwise be contemplating suicide. We can help them by being receptive to them. We can help them by initiating conversations with them. We can help them by being good listeners. We can help them by encouraging them to talk to others and to seek help, and we can be helpful to them. If we all do those things when we notice stress in the people that we associate with—often we notice but perhaps, for whatever reason, decide to mind our own business and take a step back away from them—and if we in fact take an interest in those people, we may well be able to give them the support they need. If we can save even one life through our action, then it has all been worth while. Once again, I commend the R U OK? organisation for this very good initiative. 12589 20:28:00 Irons, Steve, MP HYM Swan LP 0 0 Mr IRONS —I rise to support and commend the motion put forward by the member for Hindmarsh and also to support the inaugural R U OK? Day on 29 November. As members would be aware from my previous speeches, I have close links with Youth Focus, a youth suicide prevention organisation in my electorate of Swan. Tonight I want to concentrate particularly on youth suicide. The first part of this motion notes that a suicide rate of 14 persons per 100,000 has been the norm in Australia for much of the 20th century. It is disappointing that successive governments have failed to make any significant inroads into this problem over time. The latest data from the ABS shows that Australia has a youth suicide rate of 8.3 per 100,000, and the statistics show a rate of 12.3 for males and four for females aged between 15 and 24. As members would be aware, Mr Georganas is Chair of the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing and I am the deputy chair. Last week I met with the member for Hindmarsh to discuss the issue and I am pleased to say that we both agreed to work towards getting a roundtable on youth suicide for the health and ageing committee. I am pleased that we are both committed to dealing with this issue and I believe this roundtable could have the potential to save lives. This will be the inaugural R U OK? Day and I look forward to participating in it and letting my electorate know about it. Tonight my 17-year-old son is down at schoolies or leavers in the south-west of Western Australia, so I sent him a message, ‘Are you okay?’ and he has sent back a message to say at the moment he is okay, but I have asked him to send me messages twice a day while he is down there. But I gladly support this motion and I am grateful for the opportunity to speak. 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Order! The time allotted for this debate has expired. The debate is adjourned and the resumption of the debate will be made an order of the day for the next sitting. 12590 Grievance Debate 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—The question is: That grievances be noted. 12590 12590 20:30:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise this evening to speak on an issue that certainly grieves me. I am aghast at the double standards of this Rudd Labor government, particularly the Department of Immigration and Citizenship, in relation to the differing principles applied to those wishing to reside in Australia. Let me set the scene. We have just witnessed the debacle of the Oceanic Viking, where 78 asylum seekers have been promised processing within four to 12 weeks when normally the average processing time for offshore asylum seekers is 52 weeks. Australia, led by our Prime Minister, has been held to ransom by economic opportunists, making a mockery of our so-called border security. Who are these people? Where do they really come from? And what do they really have to offer Australia? The National Resource Sector Employment Taskforce met for the first time on November 16, 2009 and is charged with helping to secure up to 70,000 skilled workers required in the resource sector over the next decade. For Kevin Rudd to have initiated this taskforce, he must be aware of the economic resource boom that is ramping up in Australia, particularly in Western Australia. One of the first projects under consideration by the National Resource Sector Employment Taskforce is the Gorgon LNG project in my patch, my patch being the powerhouse of the nation—in this case, where 40 trillion cubic feet of gas will be tapped, creating a very conservative estimate of 10,000 direct and indirect jobs. The Pluto gas field, with the first gas expected in late 2010, is creating up to 3,000 direct jobs during the construction stage and 300 during operation. The iron ore sector of WA employed 4,798 more people in 2008 than it did in 2007. And the gold sector in Western Australia was up by 726 personnel for the same period. In 2009, with the many burgeoning goldmines and the gold price at a record of US$1,100 per ounce, these figures are far more elevated. The sectors mentioned are expected to continue rising, thus creating more and more demand for skilled labour. In fact, over the weekend it was reported that Pluto had suffered a potential $1 billion cost overrun. A shortage of labourers was cited as being among several factors that had contributed to the blow-out. A spokesman also confirmed that the company had fears about the availability of some trades during peak construction. Here lies my grievance: the Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, has openly welcomed economic opportunists arriving on illegal boats about which we know nothing. Are they going to be able to contribute to this economic boom or are they, because of the devious process they use to into the country, going to be an economic burden to our society? On the other hand, I have a story about a respectable community minded family who live in the city of Kalgoorlie-Boulder. Mr and Mrs Gerhardus Kemp and their lively cricket-playing, Aussie-lifestyle-loving boys came to Australia to help out with the economic boom. They answered the call to bring skills to our land—to sell up back home in South Africa and contribute to the Australian economy. Mr Kemp is a boilermaker with qualifications that date back 13 years. Mrs Kemp has been a qualified hairdresser, also for 13 years. They went through the right channels and were rewarded with a life in Australia—or so they thought. Because the immigration department is in a state of disarray, it would appear that all available resources are being poured into the service of economic opportunists who have been arriving without restrictions since the changes made by the Rudd government. Now, Mr and Mrs Kemp might be sent back to a land where they have nothing. Mrs Kemp would be forced to remain in South Africa with the boys whilst Mr Kemp would need to work in Europe to support his family. Why? All because the immigration department took so long to process the family’s offshore visa application—over 12 months. By the time it was processed the laws had changed. Lost paperwork, the fact that they were unable to speak to a caseworker and numerous other monumental failures mean that this family, who are embedded into the local community, may have to uproot and relocate back to the land they left. They left only too willing to contribute to the building of the Australian economy. Priority processing, effective as of 23 September 2009, gives the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship powers to consider and finalise visa applications in an order of priority that the minister considers appropriate. Mr Kemp applied for an offshore visa which, if the government had not bungled his application so severely, would have been granted prior to 23 September 2009. With the new processing arrangements, anyone whose application was previously lodged with the department and not yet finalised will fall under the new guidelines. Even after 23 September Mr Kemp may still have received the visa he initially applied for if his trade was on the critical skills list found on the Australian government Department of Immigration and Citizenship website. The critical skills list has not been updated since March this year, even after all the reports by government and industry leaders that we have a resource boom around the corner and a severe lack of skilled workers to meet the demands that this boom will place on our country. The critical skills list contains the following occupations: anaesthetists, engineers, aircraft maintenance engineers, podiatrists, psychiatrists and even wall and floor tilers. In fact, 24 of the 40 critical skills listed were from the medical fraternity, which is fair, but there is no mention of welders, boilermakers, fitters and turners et cetera. Has the immigration department fallen prey to the hard-nosed militant and thuggish union leaders and their lead-swinging union members by removing the opportunity for Australia to broaden and enrich our workforce and culture, by creating an unfair playing field? It is a very good question to ask. Have the trades that will support the necessary infrastructure for our resources boom been deliberately left off our critical skills list because the unions fear they will fall victims to the many enthusiastic, hard-working potential immigrants wishing not only to contribute but to embrace and enjoy all the benefits that our great nation of Australia has to offer through doing an honest day’s work for an honest day’s pay? Here we are on the edge of a boom and we are not doing anything within the immigration department to acknowledge it. Rather, they seem more intent on giving a free leave pass to those we know nothing about, those who choose to sneak in. What of those who are left behind waiting in the queue, left to lament the fact that they did not have the money in their pockets to pay these horrendous dealers in human trade, the people smugglers? All I know is that we have right now a dilemma that will not be solved by somebody who throws the dictionary away and invents his own. The immigration department as yet has not come up with a solution that will stop the people remaining in the queue being gazumped by individuals with money to spend on people smugglers. Perhaps I should tell my constituents to paddle out to sea, throw away all their identification, phone officials from aboard their dinghy with a claim of having a sick child on board, put an axe through the boat, be picked up at taxpayers’ expense and come to Australia the easy way, because those who come to Australia the easy way—even at risk of life and limb in a leaky boat, even at risk of sinking at sea unknown—have jumped the queue. There is no denying it. The activities of the UNHCR are well known in the refugee camps around the trouble spots of the world, yet these people with their resources—their cash and their family’s cash—choose to jump the queue. They choose to take this risk. They choose to go to sea in leaky boats and present themselves to Australian authorities so they will have an almost guaranteed opportunity for fast-tracked citizenship of this nation. I do not believe this is humane, fair or equitable in any way. We need to get back to border protection that offers Australians the satisfaction of knowing that it is Australia—our departments and those administrators—who will choose who comes to Australia, not the people smugglers and those opportunists who happen to have money in their pocket and are able to jump the queue and leave those with a humanitarian need doing the right thing in the queue in those concentration camps. (Time expired) 12592 12592 20:40:00 Burke, Anna, MP 83S Chisholm ALP 1 0 Ms BURKE —I rise tonight to talk about the global plight of asylum seekers and refugees and the impact of this on Australia, and to return balance to the debate. The honourable member for Kalgoorlie’s speech has given us a complete example of where the opposition wants to take this debate. It is a disgrace. Playing politics with people’s lives is reprehensible. The sheer fact that the member for Kalgoorlie has no understanding about how immigration policy works was completely evident in his speech tonight. I am very fortunate to represent one of Australia’s most multicultural and ethnically diverse electorates. As such, the asylum seeker debate is played out predominantly by my constituents. My office receives considerable correspondence regarding asylum seekers, with a wide array of opinions and views expressed. Many within my electorate are very involved in the cause of asylum seekers and refugees, and work tirelessly to support these individuals. The majority of those contacting my office want to see a more compassionate approach from government towards asylum seekers. They want individuals who risk life and limb to see a better future for themselves and their families. They do not talk about them as queue jumpers, because they understand the migration policy—and there are two totally different queues, which the member for Kalgoorlie does not seem to understand. Others contact my office seeking a harder approach to the issue and are concerned about the consequences of Australians accepting a greater number of asylum seekers. Others think we need to have a wider ranging debate on population. This government is committed to striking the right balance on this issue and delivering an immigration policy that is fair and humane. The opposition are trying to accuse the government of introducing policies which lead to an increased number of people seeking asylum in Australia, as the member for Kalgoorlie has just amply demonstrated. This argument is easily rebutted. The issue of asylum seeker claims is a global issue that goes beyond what is happening in Australia. In fact, the number of people seeking asylum in Australia is minuscule in comparison with what is happening elsewhere in the world. I am proud to be part of a government that has ended the failed Pacific solution, the temporary protection visa and the 45-day rule. Earlier this year, I had the great privilege of presenting to the parliament a petition organised by the Uniting Church of Australia calling for a more humane approach to the issue of asylum seekers. The Uniting Church and many other churches within my electorate have done some fantastic work in advocating the plight of refugees in the community. It is with great pleasure that I can say the government has acted to amend Australia’s policy in relation to asylum seekers and refugees, and to remove the cycle of debt forced on asylum seekers who had to pay for their own detention. We make no apologies for introducing reform which breaks from the cruel policies of the Howard government—flawed policies that failed to uphold Australia’s commitment under international law and saw legitimate refugees living in Australia denied access to health care and the opportunity to work and support their families. The punitive treatment of refugees by the Howard government did nothing to stem the tide of illegal immigration. Claims from the opposition that changes to these policies are fuelling an increase in asylum seeker levels simply do not add up. As with many claims by the opposition, the statistics do not support their argument. The claims made by the member for Kalgoorlie are totally and utterly flawed. According to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees report on asylum seeker levels and trends for the first half of 2009, the numbers of individuals requesting refugee status during this time continued the upward trend already observed over the past two years. The report indicates that the increase in people seeking asylum in Australia is part of a worldwide trend driven by insecurity, persecution and conflict. In the first half of 2009, 2,503 people sought asylum in Australia. This figure remains well below that observed in 2000, when there were 13,100 claims, and in 2002, when there were 12,400 claims. Additionally, the number of people seeking asylum in Australia is small in global terms. Europe remains the primary destination for asylum seekers, with 139,600 claims registered in the first six months of 2009, including France with 19,400 claims, the United Kingdom with 17,700 claims and Germany with 12,000 claims. This is an important point. Australia receives very few asylum claims in comparison with other industrial nations around the world. This fact is sometimes lost in the hysteria of the asylum seeker debate here in Australia—as amply demonstrated by the previous speaker. Five thousand two hundred people sought asylum from Sri Lanka in the first half of 2009—a 12 per cent increase on 2008 levels. There is a large Sri Lankan community in my electorate who are obviously very concerned about what is taking place in their country of birth. I have met with members of the community and listened to their distress about what is taking place. I have met with both the Tamil and Sinhalese communities. No Sri Lankan has been untouched by the awful conflict that has occurred in the country and, although military victory came to pass some months ago, there are significant concerns regarding the resettlement of hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens. This is the driving force behind thousands of Sri Lankans fleeing their country in search of asylum, with many attempting to come to Australia. The Rudd government is continuing to respond to the humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka through our aid program, especially the needs of internally displaced people. In 2008-09, Australia devoted $24.5 million to meeting humanitarian needs in Sri Lanka. This financial year, we will provide more than $35 million in development assistance. We have called upon the Sri Lankan government to be more open about the conditions of displaced persons in camps and to ensure quicker and safer resettlement of these individuals back to the north where they wish to return. But we have also welcomed the end of decades of conflict. We now call upon the Sri Lankan government to reap the benefits of peace and reconcile a divided nation. In light of the global increase in people seeking asylum, the government is committed to maintaining a strong border control policy to uphold the integrity of our immigration policy. It is our policy that all irregular maritime arrivals are subject to mandatory detention on Christmas Island while health, identity and security checks are undertaken and claims for asylum are assessed. Unlike the Howard government, it is our policy that no child be held in a detention centre. Children and, where possible, their families are housed in temporary accommodation on Christmas Island, not a detention centre. We believe that this is only right—that we should treat people who seek our protection humanely. It is right that we meet our international obligations under the UN refugee convention. I mentioned that we have ended the 45-day rule. Many of my constituents had been supporting asylum seekers who were living in the community. We focus greatly upon those who are in detention centres, but there are some thousands who have been seeking asylum while in the community and have been placed under a bridging visa E regulation, which gave them no work rights. During this time, they were left to starve. They could not work, they could not seek government support and they could not seek Medicare—they could seek nothing. This was the most inhumane part of a very flawed system, one that supposedly stopped the boats coming. The boats kept coming. People still seek asylum. We will always have asylum seekers in our world. Tragically, we have never been devoid of conflict in any of our lifetimes in the history of our world, in the history of humanity walking the earth. And we will always have people who are caught up in tragic circumstances needing to find somewhere safe to reside. Australia has the opportunity to provide that safe haven. I am not, as the member for Kalgoorlie claimed, throwing open the doors, but I am advocating for a humane approach to individuals—one that treats people with respect and dignity, one that does not play politics with human lives. It seems that the asylum seeker debate brings out the worst in the coalition—though not all, I must admit. But it does seem to have created a situation where sound and fury seem to have taken over: ‘Here is the debate; we will jump on this debate and traumatise individuals who have been so traumatised already.’ Although we have, thankfully, avoided the toxic debate that ensued in 2001, it is disappointing to see the coalition attempt to deceive the public into believing government policy has led to an increase in asylum seeker levels here in Australia. In doing so, they are attempting to exploit the issue of vulnerable people for political gain, and for this they should be condemned. The Australian government is committed to a more compassionate approach to this issue that does not reject the fundamental issue of border protection. I am proud to be part of a more compassionate government that has wound back the Howard government’s intrinsically cruel and inhumane policies. I am hopeful that a sensitive approach will continue to be deployed into the future. 12595 12595 20:50:00 Moylan, Judi, MP 4V5 Pearce LP 0 0 Mrs MOYLAN —I would like to associate myself with many of the comments that have just been made by the member for Chisholm. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the terrible humanitarian disaster that is unfolding in Sri Lanka at the moment and the plight of many Tamils as they remain in military controlled camps. I would also like to associate myself with those comments that stress the need for a continuing humanitarian approach to issues to do with asylum seekers. I thank the member for Chisholm for those comments. This evening I rise to speak in particular about the sick and sorry state of Australia’s health system and about the government’s inaction in addressing the problem specifically in our public health sector. Before I continue, I would just like to acknowledge the many men and women who work in the health sector today. Having been the recipient of care from time to time, I cannot speak highly enough about the work of individuals within our health system. When one seeks these services, it is evident that many of the staff are very overworked and that they work in very stressful situations. It is a shame that after almost two years in office, and after many promises about reforming the public health sector, and particularly hospitals, we have seen the government actually move money away from crucial areas of the health portfolio. The promised reform of the hospital system has not eventuated, but we have seen plenty of wasteful programs as a result of knee-jerk reactions to the global financial crisis. One would not want to pretend that there was not a situation to be addressed, but I do think some of these programs have been put in place in haste and that the public moneys have been badly mismanaged—money that could have gone into health programs. Health is the one area where money can least afford to be cut, but attempts to appeal to everyone by the Prime Minister have seen money cut from essential health programs. This is a huge concern, not just from my perspective but from the perspective of people in the electorate of Pearce. It was evident in the results of a survey that I recently conducted electorate wide which asked people what issues were most important to them. The responses overwhelmingly nominated health and the fixing of our hospitals as the No. 1 priority in the electorate. Unfortunately, as shown in the Australian Medical Association’s recently released public hospital report card, the performance of Australia’s public hospital system continues to deteriorate and people still experience excessive waits in emergency departments and excessive waits for admission to a hospital bed. The issue of capacity is a very important one. Bed ratios have been cut by more than 67 per cent since the late 1960s and by more than half since the start of Medicare in 1984-85. Advances in medical care and technology have reduced the average length of stay in hospital, while the private system has also picked up more of the load. However, the cut in bed numbers has been too deep and, with an ageing population and growing complexity of caring for this population, improving public hospital capacity is vital. In analysing the results of our electorate wide survey, we found a majority of people who identified the health system as a priority were over the age of 55 years. This shows that the public are looking to plan for their future. As members of parliament, we should be pre-empting the changes that society needs and legislating accordingly. I suppose in some ways this age demographic reflects our ageing population and the growing numbers of people in this age category, and that is not going to change any time soon. The performance of the public health system is ultimately what it is judged on. Data provided by the Australian Medical Association shows that there is great room for improvement in this area. In June 2009 the Road Trauma and Emergency Medicine Unit at the Australian National University repeated its access block prevalence survey in which it surveyed 79 Australian public hospitals in all states and territories. At the time of the survey one-third of patients under the care of emergency departments were waiting for admission to wards. Of those patients, 70 per cent had been waiting more than eight hours. In 22 hospitals there were 44 patients who had been waiting more than 24 hours. Unfortunately, this is not getting better in the rural and regional areas of Australia—areas of which there are many in the Pearce electorate. I have firsthand heard of the many horror stories from constituents who have tried to be admitted to emergency departments in rural areas. However, often there are greater problems in these areas in accessing specialist services. This is a fact acknowledged by the Rural Doctors Association of Australia, a body that has worked tirelessly to try to improve government responses to rural health over at least a decade and probably beyond. Rural populations have the right to a level of health care equal to that available to their urban counterparts. In reality, as the Rural Doctors Association of Australia state in a 2009 paper, The value of local specialist medical services to rural Australia: In reality, this depends on the number of specialists and other health professionals in the community and the workload they are expected to carry. I think we all understand that it is not possible for public hospitals, whether they be urban or rural environments, to achieve short waiting lists all the time, but a commitment needs to be made to better resourcing public emergency departments as well as an increase in inpatient beds. The Prime Minister promised to fix the hospitals by June this year. After two years we are yet to see him deliver in this area. Western Australia’s emergency department waiting time performance for category 3 patients has been in steep decline over the last three years and, at 49 per cent, is totally unacceptable. I would remind members of this House that up until fairly recently Western Australia did have a Labor government. It reminds me of an article that I saw in the Courier-Mail on Tuesday, 8 September, where doctors in Queensland were encouraged to drink coffee to beat fatigue. The Courier-Mail reported the confessions of junior surgeons and medics whose exhaustion-induced errors had killed or hurt patients during on-call shifts of 30 to 80 hours. This is patently ridiculous. I think we are just asking too much of some of our medical profession. Certainly in the rural areas many of our doctors suffer burnout. It is very difficult to keep medical doctors in those areas. Many of the hospitals have been closed, putting additional pressures on GPs. But to return to the issue of burnout, a guideline document underpinning Queensland Health’s fatigue risk management system claims: … solutions such as ‘we need more staff’ might not be achievable or effective in managing a fatigue risk. Instead, the 102-page document deems the strategic use of caffeine to be beneficial as a fatigue fighter for doctors on marathon duties. Does this sound like a health system that is working properly? I think not. Often in these cases doctors and hospital staff are doing the best they can, and the best outcome achievable for the patient is always at the forefront of their minds. This becomes more and more difficult when they are placed under such enormous pressure to try to meet the expectations of the public. All the public really wants is access to affordable and equitable care. However, as the public hospital report card states: When public patients are obliged to wait—for years in some cases—for a necessary procedure, it is no longer possible for governments to claim that access to health care is equitable. Long waits for access to care impair quality of life, reduce workforce productivity and reduce the contributions that older Australians can make to the community. A person’s health impacts on all aspects of their life. If they are unhealthy, they cannot work and contribute fully to society. They cannot volunteer with their community groups. They cannot be involved in recreation activities and they cannot be available for their families and children. For women, maternal health is probably one of the most important or pressing issues that we have to deal with within our society, particularly in Indigenous communities. Put simply, if our health system does not function properly then society cannot reach its full potential. Currently, the system is understaffed and underfunded. (Time expired) 12597 12597 21:00:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 0 Mrs D’ATH —I welcome the comments of the member for Pearce and her concerns for the health sector because I also rise to speak in my grievance on the impediments to future health reform in this country. I wonder where the concern was of many of those on the other side in 2007 and the decade that preceded that. If there are concerns about what the Rudd government has achieved in its first two years, I ask that those on the other side closely examine their own actions in this parliament in our trying to achieve those reforms. My concerns are not just my own but those of my local community. It is true to say that Australia’s health system has many strengths. For each of those people raising concerns about the health system in my local area, there are individuals who will praise the system. They have commented on the uniqueness and the privilege that Australians have in having access to free public health services. I have had numerous people telling me their very personal stories where they have found themselves in hospital and not only have informed me that they could not fault the service they were provided but were full of praise for the doctors, nurses and allied health professionals that looked after them. I believe that we owe a great deal of gratitude to those people: the doctors, the nurses, the allied health professionals and all those who dedicate their working life to assist those most in need and when they are most vulnerable in our health service. Does this mean that we do not have challenges in looking to the future of our health and hospital system in Australia? Of course not. The National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission report, released on 27 July 2009, highlighted some of the many challenges that we face: the fact that less than two per cent of the health expenditure is spent on preventative health; one out of every three Australians who present to public hospital emergency departments are not seen within a clinically recommended time; and one out of every six Australians on a waiting list for elective surgery are not seen within a clinically recommended time. It is estimated that there are some 650,000 Australians on public dental waiting lists, with an average waiting period of two years for essential dental treatments. About two-thirds of people who need mental health care go untreated. And, of course, the health costs are rising rapidly. These problems have not occurred overnight and they certainly have not arisen only in the last two years. This report shows us that we have a significant challenge. The Rudd government has certainly not been sitting back and ignoring this challenge or, worse, exacerbating this problem by taking money out of the health system, as the previous government did. Much work has already been done by the Rudd government to ensure that health reform has stayed at the forefront of the government’s agenda in its budget considerations and negotiations with the states and territories through COAG. For example, the Rudd government has already committed to investing $64 billion in the hospital and health system across the country over the next five years—a 50 per cent increase on the previous agreement by the Liberals. We have invested $600 million in our elective surgery program. We have invested $750 million in taking pressure off emergency departments. The Rudd government has also invested in new health infrastructure and in our health workforce on preventative health measures. The government has committed to a total of $650 million for two dental programs and will invest $1.6 billion in improving Indigenous health. And additional funding has gone into aged care. For the future the government has embarked upon a path to build a health and hospital system in Australia that meets the needs of the 21st century. The government has committed to an overhaul of the health system to ensure that it can cope with future challenges, including an ageing population and rising healthcare costs. We cannot afford to rush this. We do have to get it right. We cannot undo 12 years of Liberal neglect in just 18 months. The government released the final report of the National Health and Hospitals Reform Commission on 27 July 2009. This is the most comprehensive root-and- branch review of the health system since the establishment of Medicare. Immediately upon the release of this report the federal government engaged in a national conversation with the Australian people, and with our health professionals and providers to offer advice on future reforms. The Prime Minister, the Minister for Health and Ageing and other members of the government have been engaged in consultation with health professionals around this country on the National Health and Hospital Reform Commission report recommendations. Following this national conversation, the government will convene a special meeting of COAG at the end of 2009 to present the results of the feedback and consider the commission’s report. In early 2010 the government will present the Commonwealth’s plan for comprehensive reform to the states and territories. Now let us look at what those on the opposite side of this House have to contribute to this very important discussion and the health reform that has come before this parliament. The National Health Amendment (Pharmaceutical and Other Benefits—Cost Recovery) Bill 2009 sought to amend the National Health Act 1953 to provide authority for the cost recovery of services provided by the Commonwealth in relation to the exercise of powers for listing medicines, vaccines and other products or services on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, and designation of vaccines for the National Immunisation Program. In implementing a cost recovery fee for Commonwealth services it is important to note that patients’ co-payments would not have been affected. In fact, cost recovery is not a new policy; cost recovery arrangements have been applied with success by many departments and agencies at state and federal level including, for example, the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and the Australian Prudential Regulatory Authority. The pharmaceutical industry is familiar with cost recovery. The industry has been paying for the pre-market evaluation of products by the TGA since 1991. What did the Liberal Party do with this bill? As it was the Liberal Party’s policy when they were in government you would think they would support it. In fact they opposed it. Thankfully they eventually saw commonsense and passed the bill, but not before delaying the passage of this bill and causing a loss of expected government revenue of at least $9.4 million in 2008-09. Let us look at another example of the opposition’s action on health reform. We all remember the Excise Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009 and the Customs Tariff Amendment (2009 Measures No. 1) Bill 2009, better known as the alcopops bills. These bills were first rejected by the opposition and then one year later the Liberals supported them. However, there were still some Liberals who could not bring themselves to support the bills in the Senate the second time around. On the more recent legislation—Health Legislation Amendment (Midwives and Nurse Practitioners) Bill 2009, Midwife Professional Indemnity (Commonwealth Contribution) Scheme Bill 2009, Midwife Professional Indemnity (Run-off Cover Support Payment) Bill 2009—Liberal members of this House chose to have a bet each way: while backbenchers said they supported it, the shadow minister could not bring himself to say anything positive about these new initiatives. The shadow minister, the member for Dickson, simply banged on about home birth and the fight he had with the government. More recently we had the Australian National Preventive Health Agency Bill 2009. You would think this bill which is to establish a national body to coordinate education, to collate research and data, to assist in the development of initiatives and to work with other state and territory agencies on preventative health initiatives would be supported. In the Senate questions were asked by the opposition prior to delaying this bill on whether this bill would lead to increases in tobacco and alcohol consumption. The Liberals are stalling on this bill, arguing they will not support it until the government releases its response to the National Preventative Health Taskforce. Last week the Rudd government took the step of reintroducing the Fairer Private Health Insurance Incentives Bill 2009 after the Liberal Party in the Senate rejected this bill earlier this year. This bill seeks to implement a number of changes to ensure fairness and the long-term viability of the private health system and to introduce a means test on the private health rebate. I am yet to encounter someone in my electorate of Petrie who believes that couples earning more than $240,000 should be subsidised for their private healthcare. However, the Liberal parties do. Even if you are earning $400,000 per year as an individual the Liberal party believe that you should get the 30 per cent private healthcare rebate. Of course the Liberal party will cry foul and say that these changes will drive people back to the public health system. This is the same argument they ran when the Rudd government sought to increase the Medicare levy threshold to ensure that low-income households would not be penalised for not entering into private health. How disappointed they must have been when the Minister for Health and Ageing, the Hon Nicola Roxon, announced on 16 November this year that private health insurance membership has increased despite the Rudd government’s policies. In fact for the September 2009 quarter a total of 44.7 per cent of all Australians were covered by private health hospital insurance, the highest proportion of people with hospital insurance since December 2001. I have taken much of my time in highlighting the position taken by the opposition in this parliament since the Rudd government came into office. I did this because it is important that the Australian public know what or who is standing in this government’s way in achieving much of our health reform agenda. With the Prime Minister and ministers for health and other members of this government engaging in a national conversation about reforms which will see more reforms into the future, some of which may come before this parliament, it is time for the opposition to stop taking populist positions on health, just as they do with CPRS, education, refugees, infrastructure and many other issues, and support this government in its agenda to work for a better health system for all now and into the future. We need to ensure that this country has a fair and sustainable health system. It is time that the opposition woke up to this fact. 12600 12600 21:10:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise tonight to raise a grievance about the condition of local roads on behalf of the many constituents of the electorate of Paterson. As I travel around the electorate of Paterson, from Bulahdelah to the Barrington Tops, from Dungog to Raymond Terrace, from Nelson Bay to Maitland, from Metford to Forster and from Gloucester to Nabiac, the common concern amongst the locals is the condition of their local roads. As member for Paterson, I have seen too many lives lost on local roads. It seems speed, alcohol and a lack of seatbelts are causing mayhem on our roads, with the New South Wales road toll already well above last year’s tally. Tragically, the road toll is already 100 more than at the same time last year, and sadly this number is tipped to rise even further as the summer holiday period kicks off and families pack up their cars to visit family and favourite holiday spots. Of course, well-managed infrastructure and driver education are key to reducing the road toll in the future. While the Pacific Highway has been and is being improved in my electorate, there are other roads which are in dire need of funding to boost safety and stop the senseless loss of life. The roads that are of concern that are continually brought to my attention include the following: the need for completion of the dual carriageway on Nelson Bay Road from Salt Ash to Nelson Bay, the deterioration of Tocal Road from Maitland through to Paterson, passing lanes on the Bucketts Way, the upgrading of the Lakes Way from Bulahdelah to Pacific Palms and then on to Forster and, in particular, the roads around Gresford, Dungog, Vacy and Paterson. Local councils have already completed the task of identifying black spots and those deteriorating roads most in need of cash. Cost estimates have been drafted and work commencement rests only on Rudd Labor government funding to make it happen. My constituents are rightly angry when they write to me, post on my website and phone my office asking why dangerous sections of roads lie in disrepair while the Rees state Labor government do nothing and the Rudd Labor government wastes millions of dollars on other programs such as bungled home insulation schemes and indecent cash giveaways. As the elected representative for Paterson, I fought hard for federal cash to make the F3 link road, now rebranded the Hunter Expressway, a reality. I would like to remind the House that it was the coalition that committed the funding during the last election for the F3 link road between Seahampton and Branxton. It was the Rudd Labor government that finally succumbed—and only because the then Minister for Defence, the member for Hunter, was embroiled in controversy and this was seen as a way to save his job. However, this cash did not come easily. Instead, we were forced to wade through the Nation Building Program (National Land Transport) Amendment Bill 2009, which was largely spin. The primary function of that bill was to change names. The AusLink national project became the Nation Building Program national project, the AusLink Black Spot Program became the Nation Building Program Black Spot Project and the list goes on. What the bill really lacked was substance and cash for shovel-ready projects that would create jobs at a time of rising unemployment. The project is now aimed to begin in 2010 and is earmarked for completion in 2013, which is five years after the project was actually shovel ready. We will now wait for this vital infrastructure to be completed to help ease the daily pressure on roads throughout my electorate. This is a win for residents but should have come sooner. It is also just one of a number of local projects which are in need of critical funding. The roads around the Dungog area are of major concern. Federal funding is needed to support Dungog council in repairing these roads not only to ensure motorists have adequate access to services but to ensure our roads are safe. East Gresford resident Stephen Wright has been one of those proactive constituents in my electorate. Stephen has been delivering furniture around the Gresford-Dungog area and daily has to deal with the potholes and patched roads. This year Mr Wright has taken his experience of the state of roads in the region by way of video footage to the NRMA website RoadTube. He says: The situation around Gresford and Dungog now is about as bad as it could get. I deliver furniture around here but the roads are so bad I face the prospect that my deliveries may be badly damaged when they are bounced around on the roads. Entitled ‘Worst road ever’, the video clips are accompanied by a commentary from Mr Wright. The video clip made its way to Dungog council and state and federal MPs, including me. Mr Wright said: The authorities say that they want to develop the Dungog and Gresford areas for tourism and promote the industry here by bringing visitors … But if the roads get any worse, the only way you will get tourists in here is by helicopter. The Dungog council draft management plan for 2009-12 discloses council’s proposed financial budget for the year 2009-10 and details their planned activities for the next three years. The Mayor of Dungog, Glen Wall, indicates the dire circumstance regarding local roads. In his mayoral message he says: The condition of our roads continues to be the most glaring shortcoming, continuing to undermine our ability to improve the Shire’s economic development potential. For too many years we have struggled to balance Community expectations with income and maintaining an ageing infrastructure. The mayor goes on to say: … additional funding is invaluable with regards to improving our road network, but the fact still remains that the only opportunity to rebuild the road network and then continue to maintain it will only be possible with a sustained continuous funding source such as a dedicated percentage of the Federal government’s tax base (GST) returned to Local Government. Similarly, Vacy residents Michael and Rhonda Stevens wrote to me in the past few months stating their concerns for the state of the roads. They said: The state of roads, in our opinion, overall is bad to very bad. As examples: entry to Paterson from Vacy, the turn off to Dunns Creek, Dungog Road at Martin’s Creek just past the bridge, Gresford Road between Vacy and Gresford, the road to Dungog from Vacy, and entrance to Vacy Village. Michael and Rhonda are now rightly asking, ‘When will these issues be fixed?’ Similarly, Port Stephens council has put together a list of major projects in need of funding. The No. 1 priority is the long-awaited Fingal Bay link road and, as I said before, a dual carriageway to the Nelson Bay Road. The Great Lakes council, for example, has put together a $134 million wish list for the next decade. At the top of this list is $50 million for upgrading the Lakes Way and $20 million for upgrading the Bucketts Way, which would cover the entire stretch passing through the Great Lakes, Dungog and Gloucester council areas. However, funding is not the only barrier to improved roads in my electorate. Delays in work have also angered and frustrated residents, who have been forced to wait weeks, months and even years for critical upgrades to begin. In my term as the member for Paterson I have been 100 per cent committed to improving roads and driver safety in the region. In the 2007 election the coalition pledged a further $20 million package for the installation of passing lanes on the Bucketts Way, funding for the Nelson Bay to Fingal Bay link road and funding to upgrade the Lakes Way—all of which, nearly two years on, are still issues. While in government I fought hard for the many hundreds of millions of dollars being spent on the Pacific Highway upgrade, the improvements to the Bucketts Way and the Lakes Way, and roadworks in Dungog and Port Stephens. Even though we see this as a success, there is still much more work to be done to ensure these roads are safe for our locals and visitors alike. The $14.7 billion cash splash would have been better directed at funding more local government road infrastructure, which would have provided a much longer benefit to our communities. Now that Christmas and the holiday season is approaching, it is ever more important to acknowledge the state of our roads. I urge everyone from my electorate and everyone visiting or passing through to drive safely these holidays to ensure that each and every one of us makes it to our destination. I still believe the people of Paterson deserve better roads and, as their elected member, I will continue to listen locally and act nationally on the issue of road funding. I will continue to hold the Rudd Labor government to account for their relative inaction. If any of Kevin Rudd’s Labor colleagues doubt the dire need for funding for roads in my electorate of Paterson, I urge them to take a drive through it. Only then will they understand the roads my residents are forced to endure every day and hopefully they will make the passage of road funding much shorter. I say that as a matter of experience because it was not until I took John Anderson as the roads minister on the Bucketts Way—the 80-kilometre strip from Gloucester through to the Pacific Highway—and he experienced the potholes, the dangerous corners, the shoulders that have disappeared and the fact that drivers were having to deal with trucks mostly carrying local cattle up and down the strip that we got funding. It is these conditions that make these roads dangerous. We spent over $26 million on the Bucketts Way and improvements have been made, but it is still only a single-lane carriageway all the way and what we need are passing lanes. We have hit a situation where people are travelling faster and driving with greater expectation. They need those passing lanes to be installed to ensure their safety and the safety of others. I urge the government to take heed of this request. 12603 12603 21:20:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —Before I enter into this grievance debate tonight I want to take the opportunity to, among other things, wish everybody in this chamber a safe and happy Christmas. I want to wish the residents of my electorate of Flynn likewise and send my best wishes to all of them, including my hardworking staff. My hardworking staff make me look good. I want to thank the people of Flynn for giving me the opportunity to represent their interests in federal parliament. For me it is a great honour, particularly so as the first ever federal member for Flynn. I do hope I will be able to represent their interests for many years to come, and in that regard time will tell. For a lot of people in the electorate of Flynn, Christmas has come early. In my electorate there is much excitement and long-term job security for many of my constituents with recent announcements of a number of job-creating projects. These include Hancock Prospecting and its Alpha project for a new coalmine, with an expected construction workforce of approximately 2½ thousand. When running at full capacity it will employ around 1,600 workers. Waratah Coal announced another coal mine at Alpha recently. This will create another several thousand jobs during the construction and mining phase of the operations. When asked about the effect of the CPRS on the project, the CEO of Waratah Coal, Peter Lynch, said: I don’t think the CPRS is going to have enough of an impact to present insurmountable problems. The Belvedere joint venture is another new coalmine—this time proposed at Moura. It is expected to create another 600 jobs. Wesfarmers has just announced the expansion of the Curragh coal mine at Blackwater, which is expected to create another 300 construction jobs. On top of this, Boulder Steel has announced a proposed new steel mill at Gladstone and Xstrata a new coalmine at Wandoan. And, of course, the much awaited new clean energy LNG industry for Gladstone is expected to create thousands and thousands of new jobs. As I said when I first arrived at Parliament House, my expectations were that within 10 years Flynn would become the busiest electorate in Australia and the powerhouse of this nation. I have no reason to not restate those words here tonight. But, of course, with such massive expected growth comes much responsibility—responsibility from both state and federal governments and big business to get the policy settings right and the social and other infrastructure in place for our future. With the Queensland state government expected to reap huge rewards from this growth by way of massive new increases in royalties, the people of Flynn want and expect—and deserve, I might add—a return for their royalties. To be frank, the people of Flynn are sick of working their guts out only to see most of their hard-earned money go to South-East Queensland. It is time, I believe, for the Queensland state government to deliver back our fair share. This is not an indication of treachery or disloyalty on my part but another timely warning to my party that for me my community of Flynn and the people I represent will always come first. It is also a plea to the state government to do better. Big business has a share in the responsibility too. As I have indicated to all the players beating a path to my door, my community of Flynn expects that big business recognise their responsibility to leave a substantial community footprint. Otherwise, I would expect my community will eventually turn against them. Certainly I have received the promises and assurances; now they need to deliver once the green buttons are pushed. I wholeheartedly support all of them but, again, not at the expense of my community. With their development comes great social responsibility and I expect them to respect that, just as they have committed to me that they will. For example, we still have plenty of things to fix in Gladstone, my hometown, when it comes to our social infrastructure. We need more childcare facilities, more affordable houses and an injection of funds into our sporting fields. This is critically important not only for the Gladstone community but for big business in order to attract and retain the workers and staff necessary to work and man their major projects into the future. Against this backdrop, I am delighted that the Rudd Labor government has recognised the true value to this great nation of the people of Flynn. I could not be happier with my government’s support. I thank the Rudd government personally and on behalf of my constituents of Flynn. The Rudd Labor government is pouring millions and millions of dollars into Flynn to make it a better place in which to work, rest and play. The Rudd Labor government continues to deliver many great projects throughout the whole electorate of Flynn. The people of Flynn, I believe, are happy with the Rudd Labor government—as well, in my personal opinion, they might be. Before I leave tonight I want to wish the farmers of my community of Flynn some good luck. A lot of them are doing it extremely tough with the current drought in Flynn. I do pray for them and I extend to them my sincerest best wishes. Tonight I also want to outline, in the limited time available to me, some of the great projects in Flynn that have been delivered or are in the process of being delivered by the Rudd Labor government. They include but are far from limited to an announcement in relation to the Magavalis Sports Complex at Biloela, a $2.3 million investment in a sporting complex in that community, with the end result that no longer will the kids of Biloela have to play netball in the dirt. There is also a $1 million public pool for the Blackwater community, or at least an extension thereof; a community centre for Agnes Water of some $1.4 million; $500,000 for the McIndoe Park at Emerald, which was desperately needed for junior sport; the Emerald priority national broadband network; the Gladstone breast care nurse; the North Burnett Trade Training Centre of some $1.1 million; the Banana Engineering Skills Training Centre in Biloela of $1.5 million; and a $25.3 million investment in stage 3 of the Kirkwood Road ring-road in Gladstone. In addition to that, we have committed $430,000 to critical black spot projects in Gladstone. In addition to this funding, there is substantial funding for our schools throughout Flynn. Some 140 schools throughout Flynn will share in a total amount of $140,701,088. Banana schools will receive over $18 million, Gladstone schools over $43 million, Central Highlands schools over $30 million, Bundaberg schools in my electorate over $11 million, South Burnett schools over $4 million, North Burnett schools over $11 million, Barcaldine schools over $4 million, Blackall-Tambo schools over $2 million, Dalby schools over $1 million, Longreach schools over $6 million, Rockhampton schools in my electorate over $1 million, Winton schools in the far west of my electorate over $1 million, and Woorabinda schools some $3 million. These are great projects for the community of Flynn and I thank the Rudd Labor government for its investment in my community of Flynn. Debate interrupted. 12605 21:30:00 Main Committee adjourned at 9.30 pm 12606 Questions in Writing 12606 12606 992 12606 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 10 September 2009: In respect of overseas student visa applications- Of the total number of applicants for (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09, how many successful applicants were first interviewed by an officer of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. How many of these interviews were conducted face-to-face. What is the level of document fraud detected at overseas posts. What kinds of documents are typically fraudulent. What integrity measures are in place at overseas posts when checking qualifications, financial records and other required documentation for granting student visas. Are different overseas posts subject to different levels and intensity of integrity checking when assessing applications; if so, which ones and why. For (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09, how many student visas have been cancelled by the department or the Minister because false documents were provided in relation to initial or subsequent applications. For (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09, how many, and what percentage of (i) student visa applications were submitted by agents on behalf of their clients, and (ii) these agents were offshore. How many agents have been charged with lodging false or fraudulent documentation or information between 1 July 2008 to 9 September 2009 12606 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McClelland —The Minister for Immigration and Citizenship has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department does not record the number of interviews conducted by officers in the course of processing Student visa applications. The Department does not record the number of face-to-face interviews conducted in the course of processing Student visa applications. Face-to-face interviews, however, are conducted regularly across the caseload. Interviews are also conducted by phone, depending on the client’s location in relation to the issuing post. The Department does not specify the type of fraud in recording a fraudulent outcome on a visa application. In 2007-08 and 2008-09, 2273 and 3847 instances of fraud were respectively recorded in DIAC systems for Student visa applicants. The majority of fraud which is identified in the Student visa caseload relates to financial documentation provided in support of the applicant's claims to have the financial capacity to support themselves in Australia. This includes loan documentation, bank deposits, income tax returns and overdraft statements. The Department has a range of measures to check the authenticity of documents provided by Student visa applicants. These include contacting the relevant document issuing authorities, including educational and financial institutions, various government authorities and employers to verify a document’s authenticity. All Student visa applicants must provide proof of identity and are subject to security, character and health checks. Student visa applications are processed according to levels of immigration risk. Each country by education sector is assigned an immigration risk level, known as an AL. These levels range from AL1 (low risk) to AL5 (extreme risk) and are calculated on the basis of objective data on the immigration compliance of Student visa holders in Australia. Assessment Levels allow the Department to align Student visa requirements and integrity checking with the calculated immigration risk associated with Students from each country across education sectors. The higher the AL, the more stringent the documentation requirements and levels of checking for Student visa grant. The Department regularly reviews the AL for each country and each education sector and changes are made where objective data indicates a change in immigration compliance. A list of current Student visa ALs can be found on the Department’s website and is attached (Attachment A). While Assessment Levels form a broad framework for levels of integrity checking, the Department continually monitors the student visa caseload and, as a result of information obtained, may impose additional integrity measures on existing or emerging markets where it is warranted. As an example, in addition to ALs, the Department maintains more than 60 profiles for the student program that guide decision-makers on handling risk. These, and other measures, are part of the Government’s ongoing response to any changes in risk within the student visa program and build on the Department’s continual effort to combat fraud as it emerges. The Department makes visa cancellation decisions for breaches of Student visa conditions and other reasons under specified powers within the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) (for example, under sections 109, 116, 128 and 137J). Section 109 and section 116(1)(d) of the Act provide a specific power to cancel a visa where a holder has given the Department a bogus document (as defined in section 97 of the Act) in support of their visa application. Section 109 also allows for the cancellation of a current visa based on provision of a bogus document in relation to any previous visa held. In 2008-09, 55 Student visas were cancelled due to the provision of bogus documents in an initial or previous visa application. Some cancellations under other powers may have involved fraud of some type, but this level of detail is not recorded in departmental systems. There were over 302,000 student visa applications lodged in 2007-08. Of these over 84,000 (27.9 per cent) recorded the involvement of an agent, including over 55,000 where the agent was located offshore. There were over 360,000 Student visa applications lodged in 2008-09. Of these over 113,000 (31.2 per cent) recorded the involvement of an agent, including over 59,000 where the agent was located offshore. Please note that the data does not record agents used by clients who submit paper applications offshore and are recorded through the Department’s Immigration Records Information System (IRIS). For this reason, the number of applications that would involve an agent would be higher than the figures recorded. During the period between 1 July 2008 and 9 September 2009, no agents have been charged under the Migration Act 1958 for lodging false or fraudulent information or documentation. The Department takes administrative action where there is evidence of agent collusion in detected fraud, which can include referring an agent for a possible breach of conduct to the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority, formally warning an agent, or suspending access to lodge visa applications online. In line with the Commonwealth prosecution guidelines, cases would only proceed to possible prosecution where there is evidence of significant fraud or repeat offences. Attachment A: List of Overseas Student Program assessment levels is available from the House of Representatives Table Office. 12608 12608 1040 12608 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 Mr Danby asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 19 October 2009: In respect of the alleged involvement of the Australian-Hungary citizen, Mr Tibor Gede, in the unauthorised screening of the Nazi German Film Jud Suss (Suss the Jew) in Hungary in 2008, a film owned by the Friedrich-Wilhelm-Murnau Foundation, has the Hungarian Government been in contact with the Australian Government for assistance with locating Mr Gede for possible copyright infringement; if so, (a) what information did the Australian Government provide; (b) is Mr Gede in Australia; (c) has Mr Gede’s exact whereabouts been identified; and (d) has the Hungarian Government caught up with Mr Gede as a result of assistance from the Australian Government. 12608 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government of Hungary has not been in contact with the Australian Government for assistance with locating Mr Gede for possible copyright infringement.