2010-02-02 42 1 7 REPS 0 0 2010-02-02 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 2 pm and read prayers. 1 Miscellaneous 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received the returns to the writs which I issued on 30 October 2009 for the election of members to serve for the electoral division of Higgins, in the state of Victoria, in place of the Hon. Mr Peter Costello, and for the electoral division of Bradfield, in the state of New South Wales, in place of the Hon. Dr Brendan Nelson. By the endorsement on the writs, it is certified that Kelly Megan O’Dwyer has been elected to the division of Higgins and Paul William Fletcher has been elected to the division of Bradfield. Mr Paul William Fletcher and Ms Kelly Megan O’Dwyer made and subscribed the oath of allegiance. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! On behalf of the House, I welcome the new member for Higgins and the new member for Bradfield. 1 Ministerial Arrangements 1 14:04:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I inform the House that the Minister for Trade will be absent from question time this week. He is in South Africa to promote Australia’s trade investment interests in Africa at the Mining Indaba Conference. The Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry will answer questions on his behalf. With your further indulgence, Mr Speaker, I formally congratulate the Leader of the Opposition on his election to this office. 1 Miscellaneous 1 14:05:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, on indulgence: members of the House will be aware of the catastrophic earthquake that occurred in Haiti on 12 January—an earthquake of a magnitude of 7.0, striking the most highly populated part of that nation. Australia is a long way from Haiti, but Australians have nevertheless been moved by the images that we have seen of this terrible tragedy. It is a tragedy on a scale that simply defies our comprehension. It reminds us in its human dimension of the tsunami much closer to home. The number of people affected is beyond imagining. An estimated 170,000 men, women and children are now confirmed to have lost their lives. A quarter of a million people are injured, waiting for medical help. Up to one million people are left without a home or any belongings. The nation’s infrastructure has suffered colossal damage, including to hospitals, roads, schools, water supplies and electricity and communications networks. For any country, this earthquake would have been a terrible tragedy, but in Haiti it is particularly traumatic. Haiti is the poorest nation in the Western Hemisphere. Indeed, the disaster is made all the more tragic by the fact that Haiti’s future had in recent times begun to look brighter. Relative stability had been restored to Port-au-Prince after years of extreme gang violence. Foreign investment was on the rise, and new economic opportunities were emerging. Then this quake hit. On behalf of the parliament and the Australian government, I extend our deepest condolences to the people of Haiti and to the families and friends of the victims of the quake. Among the confirmed dead is an Australian-British dual national who worked with the United Nations, Frederick Alan Wooldridge. We convey our deepest sympathy to Mr Wooldridge’s family and to his friends. In this time of crisis for the people of Haiti the international community has responded quickly and generously. As of yesterday, the United Nations Financial Tracking Service reported that almost US$1.25 billion had been contributed or committed, and a further US$781 million had been pledged. Australians have, in the great Australian tradition of compassion for those near and far, donated $13.5 million already through such charities as World Vision, Oxfam and Doctors Without Borders. The Australian government has also committed $15 million to these humanitarian efforts. This comprises $10 million in emergency assistance and $5 million in longer term help. Of this funding, $2.5 million will be provided to Australian non-government organisations who are working with vulnerable populations, including women and children. The Australian funding will also include assistance to help children recover from the devastation wrought by this earthquake, including many who have become orphans. There will also be support for projects to provide children affected by the earthquake with ongoing schooling and safe locations. I also announced on 24 January that the government has approved the deployment of a small team of Defence air traffic controllers to assist America’s efforts to bring supplies into Haiti as quickly as possible. We know that the recovery and healing process in Haiti will take years. It will require ongoing support from the international community, and the Australian government stands, as always, ready to assist in these efforts. To conclude these remarks about Haiti, the principal supporter of Haiti in its time of need is of course the government of the United States of America, and we appreciate America’s continued global role in tragedies of this order of magnitude and remember America’s heavy lift effort early in the days of the tsunami. Bearing that in mind—I am sure with all members of this place—we place on record our welcome and anticipation of the visit of the President of the United States, Barack Obama, and his family to Australia during the month of March. 2 14:09:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —on indulgence—I join the opposition to the Prime Minister’s remarks of sympathy and support for the people of Haiti. What can we say about tragedy on this scale but to bow our heads in sorrow? Tragedy on this scale can do nothing but unite all of us in grief. We believe that there are 100,000 dead—maybe many, many more. This is sorrow almost beyond the scale of ordinary comprehension, but it is good that Australia has been able to do its bit to help. I acknowledge the remarks of the Prime Minister about the American effort in its own backyard, and I am sure that the people of the world, let alone the people of Haiti, are grateful for the great efforts that the Americans are going to in this respect. It was a famous Labor man, 60-odd years ago, who spoke of a light on the hill—not to make someone Prime Minister or premier, not just to put an extra sixpence in people’s pockets, but to work for the betterment of mankind not just here but wherever we can lend a helping hand. In saying that, in one of the memorable passages of Australian politics, Ben Chifley did not just speak for the Labor Party; he spoke for Australia. Australians like to lend a helping hand wherever we can, and I take quiet pride in the strong and long arm of Australia that, even in the Western Hemisphere, makes it possible for us to do what we can to help the people of Haiti. We grieve for the dead; we feel for the living. We are resolved to do what we can to ensure that they will not be abandoned, and we admire the human resilience that they have shown, which reminds us of the great capacity of human beings to bear up even to unimaginable strain. 2 14:11:00 Questions Without Notice 2 14:11:00 2 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —When I first challenged the Prime Minister to a public debate on climate change, he refused, saying that the coalition had no policy. Well, Mr Policy—Mr Speaker; first time nerves, Mr Speaker—we have a policy which is simpler, cheaper and clearer than the government’s, and I renew my question: does the Prime Minister have the guts to have a nationally televised debate about climate change—my direct action versus his great big tax? 3 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Mr Speaker, thank you for that question without notice from Mr Policy! It is about policy, and can I say to those opposite: the proceedings of this parliament are broadcast daily. We are here all week, we are here all next week and we are here for five weeks in the current sittings. If the honourable gentleman wishes to engage in a debate on the future of climate change, I welcome that debate. First of all, it would be a debate about whether or not we accept the science of climate change. We have a view on that. Someone opposite says that climate change is, to use his own words ‘absolute crap’. Secondly, we would have a debate to respond to the honourable gentleman’s question about whether or not the policies on offer have an effect, and I think that is pretty interesting when you look at what has been put out there into the public space today, because those opposite have not put a cap on carbon pollution at all. We have put a cap on carbon pollution because that is the first test. The second test is this: do you actually charge those who are the biggest polluters or let them off scot-free? Those opposite have decided to let the biggest polluters off scot-free, and guess what they are doing: they are going to charge the Australian taxpayer instead. Thirdly, for the flow-on consequences for working families, we offer compensation. Those opposite, led by the Leader of the Opposition, offer one big fat zero. So, Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman asks: ‘Shall we have a debate?’ I thought that that was one of the reasons the parliament was here assembled—to debate the big challenges. If his preoccupation is being on television, can I just say that there are cameras all around here, it is on every day and long may it continue thus. I therefore respond to the honourable gentleman’s question by saying, ‘Yes, and let us have the debate in the people’s house.’ 3 3 14:14:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 Mr BEVIS —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister update the House on the long-term challenges outlined in the Intergenerational report? 3 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Brisbane for his question, because one of the long-term challenges pointed to in the Intergenerational report to which he refers is, in fact, the challenge of climate change, and if we do not get that long-term challenge right then it is difficult to get all the other challenges right. It is not just an environmental challenge; it is an economic challenge for industries such as tourism as well. The Treasurer yesterday released the Intergenerational report, and it contains some pretty interesting conclusions. This is the third Intergenerational report, and the intergenerational reports of 2002 and the one following that—those of the Treasurer’s predecessor, the former member for Higgins—pointed to the core challenge of our ageing population. Most critical are the two challenges which come from that again. First, what are we going to do about the impact of a smaller proportion of Australians working in the workforce and, therefore, generating less economic growth than in the past and, therefore, less taxation revenue to fund services in the future? That is the No. 1 challenge. The No. 2 challenge is: how do you actually boost economic growth in order to fill that gap so that we can generate that extra tax revenue in order to fund the future needs of an ageing population in health, in aged care and in pensions? These are the two big challenges which are identified in the Intergenerational report. Here is a figure which everyone in this chamber should reflect upon: as of today 14 per cent of Australians—one in seven—are over the age of 65. By 2050 23 per cent of Australians—one in four—will be over the age of 65. Take that down to the number of people in the workforce. Forty years ago we had 7.5 people of working age for every person over the age of 65. Today that figure is five people in the workforce for every person over the age of 65. Roll the clock ahead to midcentury and we are down to 2.7 people in the workforce for every person over the age of 65. This defines the core challenge because, unless we can fill that gap, what we are going to see is economic growth going down from its historical average in recent times of 3.3 down to something like 2.7, which actually has a huge impact on revenue and on individual living standards. So the big challenge for each intergenerational report is: how do you plug that economic growth gap which arises from the ageing of the population? The response to this is that there are two big policy levers available to government and the wider economy. One is productivity growth and the second is what you do with workforce participation. We must boost productivity growth. That is No. 1. What we have in the Intergenerational report is a very clear definition that if we lift productivity growth to where it was back in the nineties—which is around two per cent—instead of 1.4 per cent, where it fell to when those opposite were in office, we boost growth back to an average annual growth figure of something closer to three. That begins to plug the growth gap and begins to plug the revenue gap for the future. So what are the tools available for us? Boosting productivity growth by (1) investing in infrastructure; (2) investing in skills; (3) investing, also, in the microeconomic reform agenda to cut away red tape from business. These outline the core elements of government economic policy because, unless we deal with these challenges now, they will confront each government as it is elected in the future, because health and ageing will not simply disappear. This is the challenge we face. If you look at the impact of health budgets on state budgets around the country, it is huge: by 2046, absent policy change, state based revenue will be consumed by health and hospitals expenditure alone. So this outlines the core elements of the challenge and the policy agenda which all responsible policy leaders in this country would be advancing. How do we boost productivity growth through infrastructure, through skills and through microeconomic reform; how do we lift workforce participation; and how do we reform the health and hospital system of the future and fund it in order to ensure that we have the services which the seniors of today and tomorrow deserve and need for their futures? 4 4 14:20:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to a briefing provided by the government to the Daily Telegraph last November which indicated that the government’s emissions trading scheme will increase Australian families’ bills by $1,100 a year—$1,100 a year, a great big tax on Australian families. I ask the Prime Minister: will he confirm this figure? I ask the Prime Minister to release in full the government’s modelling of the impact of his great big new tax on Australian families. 5 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I notice, in response to the Leader of the Opposition’s question about $1,100, that after he was challenged on that figure by myself and other spokesmen of the government in recent times he suddenly went silent. The reason he went silent is that the figure is without foundation. The honourable member would be familiar with the fact that the impact on the average family is $624 per year—$12 per week. The honourable member knows that what he did in order to support his fear campaign in the community was simply double it up. What we need is a bit of transparency and honesty in this debate, and it would start in terms of the actual impact of climate change policies—this government’s and the opposition’s—on working families. The government has put forward through the Treasury modelling the impact of its emissions trading scheme. The opposition leader today said: ‘Here is a policy. I think this is how much it costs, but don’t ask me how I’m going to fund it.’ The answer to that is that, if you are going to have an unfunded policy, it flows through to taxpayers paying the price for an opposition’s policy which is not properly costed and not properly funded. Ultimately, working families pay one way or the other; what the Leader of the Opposition has sought to do is try to be very quiet about the way in which working families would be slugged by the proposal which he has put forward today. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —You’re licking your lips! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I say to the member for Bowman that I might lick my lips about the chance to send somebody on their way. 5 5 14:22:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 Ms RISHWORTH —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer outline for the House the implications of an ageing and growing population for Australia’s future economy? 5 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Kingston for her question. The challenges laid out in the Australia to 2050 report I released yesterday are very serious but they are certainly not insurmountable. As the Prime Minister said a moment ago, the ageing of our population does have some very big implications for Australia’s future economy and for our society. The Intergenerational report shows that by 2050 the proportion of Australia’s population aged 65 and over will nearly double. Those opposite may want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore this fact. They certainly did not ignore it during the two previous intergenerational reports, but apparently they now deny the reality of this very basic demographic fact. This means by 2050 there will only be 2.7 people of working age for every person aged 65 and over, compared to five people today. Common sense tells you that this will put pressure on economic growth and it will certainly put pressure on living standards. It means that living standards over the next 40 years will likely grow at a slower pace than in the past 40 years. The IGR projects real GDP per person to grow at 1.5 per cent a year over the next 40 years, compared with 1.9 per cent over the previous 40 years, and economic growth to slow from an average of 3.3 per cent over the last 40 years to 2.7 per cent over the next 40 years to 2050. Faced with these projections governments can make choices, and governments have two choices: we can ignore these future challenges, as the previous government did, or we can take steps now to grow our economy and to lift our growth potential by lifting the productivity of our economy—and that is the approach that we take. We on this side of the House understand the nature of the challenge: we need to ensure we have continuing prosperity with rising living standards, with social cohesiveness and with a sustainable environment. We on this side of the House are committed to doing that and to working hard to do it, and that is why we brought forward this Intergenerational report. As the Prime Minister has already said, it means we have to increase our growth rate of productivity and it means we have to get in there and do the hard work and the hard yards of the reform agenda, and we have been doing that from day one. The Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Treasurer sat around the cabinet table under the previous government, saw a growing and ageing population and did absolutely nothing. They said: ‘It’s got nothing to do with us. Leave it all to the states.’ They would not be a partner with the states or local government in investing in infrastructure. They would not ‘fess up to the fact that we had a skills problem in this country and that we needed to do much more to educate and skill our workforce. All of those things were swept right under the carpet, but this government is determined to implement a regulatory reform agenda which lifts our productivity. The Minister for Finance and Deregulation is making great strides in that area, as is the Minister for Education. There are the investments in extra training places—711,000 extra vocational education and training places and 50,000 additional university places—and, of course, the $36 billion investment in infrastructure. All of these things go to the very core of a reform agenda. They go to the very core of a nation-building agenda. They go to the very core of the quality of life in our communities. All of these issues were swept under the carpet by the previous government. We are up to the task of taking on this challenge, but of course those on the opposite side of the House simply want to sweep it all under the carpet and play their political games. We on this side of the House will not sweep the big challenges under the carpet. We are up to the task of meeting the future challenges of this country to sustain our living standards and to protect the quality of our lives. That is what we are dedicated to, but those opposite are so divided and so bereft of any alternative policy they have nothing to do but to play short-term, cheap, populist politics that does not add up to a row of beans—and it certainly does not add up to leadership. 6 6 14:27:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is to the Prime Minister, and I refer the Prime Minister again to his great big new tax. Is the Prime Minister aware that the annual cost increase from his proposed emissions trading scheme for the average dairy farmer will be between $6,000 and $9,000? Can he tell the House what impact this will have on the price of milk and other dairy products at the supermarket checkout? 6 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Nationals for his question. It goes again to the assertion about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on the overall household sector. Once again he used this figure of $1,100. Again the National Party pluck it out of space—pluck it out of thin air. The figure was contained in the question of the Leader of the Opposition which I answered just before. If they bothered to honestly reflect upon the data and modelling released by the Treasury of the precise impact on families of acting on climate change, it is there in black and white. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order: relevance. The Prime Minister was asked a specific question about the flowthrough of costs to the checkout of a $6,000 to $9,000 increase for dairy farmers. He is not answering that question. He is answering a question that was asked earlier in question time. If he does not know the answer, he should sit down. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I would have thought that, if the Manager of Opposition Business has raised a point of order on behalf of those that he serves in that position, those behind him might like to listen to the response. Whilst he has put an earnest case that he believes requires my agreement, I remind him that on this question by way of a preamble, perhaps generously, I had allowed the argumentative use of words that open the answer as it has been responded to, making other things relevant to the answer. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The nice thing about the member for Sturt is that he always puts an earnest case. Five weeks ago he put an earnest case in support of an emissions trading scheme; today he puts an earnest case against an emissions trading scheme, but it is always earnest. In fact, more than half of them over there supported the scheme, six weeks ago, that they are now arguing against. I find that interesting. But consistency has never been their strong suit. The question goes to the cost of living impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The impact on the CPI is 1.1 per cent, as indicated in the modelling which was released by the Treasury. The Leader of the National Party asked a question about the impact on bread and milk. Within that price index milk goes up by 0.8 per cent, bread goes up by 0.7 per cent and meat by 0.7 per cent. We have been up front about the impact on prices. I would suggest that the Leader of the Opposition, as he built up to the announcement of his alternative proposal today, would indicate what the cost flowthrough of his proposal is. We have been transparent in the papers, in the attachments and in the Treasury numbering on what flows through to individual working families. It is there in black and white. Those opposite are pretending this: they can act on climate change, but it can be cost free for the entire economy. Business does not have to pay and working families do not have to pay. Does the taxpayer have to pay? Somebody has to pay. Let me tell you: in this proposal put out today, there is not much by way of substance. 7 7 14:31:00 D’Ath, Yvette, MP HVN Petrie ALP 1 Mrs D’ATH —My question is to the Treasurer. Will the Treasurer update the House on the outcome of today’s meeting of the Reserve Bank? 7 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Petrie for her question. Today the Reserve Bank board left the official cash rate unchanged at 3.75 per cent, its lowest level since 1967. I am sure all of us on this side of the House certainly welcome this decision. Families will welcome this decision and businesses will welcome this decision, but it is obviously not welcomed by those opposite. They are perhaps the most disappointed people in the House today because they somehow think that they can use these decisions for their political advantage. Today’s decision means that a family with a $300,000 mortgage are still paying around $600 a month less than they were paying 18 months ago. That does not mean that interest rate rises do not have an impact. They certainly do. They certainly do hit the family budget, but we on this side of the House understand that they impact on the family budget and that is why we are so determined to focus on a low inflationary strategy. That is why we are so determined to make the investments in infrastructure that were not made by those opposite. That is why we are so determined to educate our workforce and to skill our workforce, because under those opposite inflation hit 16-year highs and interest rates went up 10 times in a row after they had promised to keep them at record lows. So we are committed to a long-term strategy here to do everything we can to expand the productive capacity of the economy to make sure that we can do everything within our power to lessen inflationary pressures in the economy. I think it is worth mentioning that rates are now 300 basis points lower than they were when the Liberal Party were last in office. If the shadow Treasurer wants to be taken seriously in this whole debate, he should explain how he proposes to keep interest rates at 1967 levels forever. He should explain that to the House. He is out there constantly making erratic and wild statements and we had an example of this only last week when the latest inflation number came out. He went out and made the most weird and extreme statements about that inflation number. Most of them were incorrect. It was the usual ‘sloppy Joe’ approach, but it is no substitute for policy and no substitute for economic analysis. We on this side of the House are determined to do everything we can to see sustainable growth which lifts living standards up and we are determined to make the necessary investments for the future. 8 8 14:34:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —My question is to the Prime Minister. Given the fiasco at Copenhagen, why is the government still insisting on foisting a great big new tax on everything on the Australian people by reintroducing its emissions trading scheme legislation today when the rest of the world is not moving in the same direction? 8 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Deputy Leader of the Opposition for her question. It is useful to reflect on the number of positions that she has had on this matter in recent times. In the Howard government, she was all for emissions trading; five weeks ago, she was all for emissions trading and global action; and today, suddenly, she is all against—full throttle forward, full throttle in reverse. The question that the Deputy Leader of the Opposition asked is about the impact of Copenhagen. I want to make three points about what was achieved at Copenhagen. The first is that all Australians would agree that the outcome in Copenhagen was disappointing. Everyone across the world accepts that fact, except that there are only a limited number of people in the world who laugh at that fact. The mood of the nation and across the world is: how do we act together to bring down greenhouse gas emissions? Those opposite may take a perverse delight in the problems which were there for everybody to see at the Copenhagen conference on climate change as we tried to forge an agreement across 190 nations from various political systems and different economic structures across the world. The second point I would make in response to the deputy leader’s question is this: we—that is, the gathering of nations at Copenhagen—for the first time agreed in a global accord that temperature increases should be kept within two degrees Centigrade. That is the first time that that has happened. It therefore provides guidance for the future. In the past that did not exist; it now exists. The second change which occurred in Copenhagen was that for the first time there were developed and developing countries indicating that they would submit targets and commitments of action. In the past this was exclusively seen as a developed country task. That is no longer the case. The third achievement at Copenhagen was that, as a result of Copenhagen and the discussions which went on there, a global monitoring system would be developed to ensure that those who commit actually do what they say they are going to do. These are three changes to the world subsequent to December as opposed to what occurred prior to December. The other part of the deputy leader’s question goes to Australia’s own efforts. I simply say to her—and I think it is consistent with the position which has been adopted by various people opposite in recent times—that our government’s position is that we will do no more and no less than the rest of the global community. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Can I say to those opposite as they seek to interject: their targets are five, 15 and 25. The government’s targets are five, 15 and 25. That is our position and that is the opposition’s position. We have developed a credible mechanism to achieve that target. What we have seen from the proposal put out today by the Leader of the Opposition is something which, frankly, looks as if it simply does not add up or stack up in achieving that environmental outcome. 9 Distinguished Visitors 9 14:38:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —Before giving the call to the member for Leichhardt, I inform the House that we have present in the gallery this afternoon the President of the Senate of Chile, His Excellency Mr Jovino Novoa, accompanied by His Excellency the Ambassador of the Republic of Chile. On behalf of the House, I extend to them a very warm welcome. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I also indicate to our Chilean amigos that they are the first occupants of our new gallery, which means that members can actually see our distinguished visitors. 9 Questions Without Notice 9 9 14:39:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 Mr TURNOUR —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister outline why the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is the best way to tackle climate change? 9 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Leichhardt for his question, because he represents a part of the Great Barrier Reef which, if we were to see temperature rises go through the roof, would ultimately be destroyed. That is not just an environmental catastrophe; it is also an economic catastrophe because we have tens of thousands of Queenslanders employed in the tourism industry on the Great Barrier Reef. I noticed the other day, by the way, that the Leader of the Opposition said that, if the worst case scenario put out by scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change were to come to pass and we were to see global temperature increases of the order of four degrees Centigrade, it did not represent any big moral challenge for the future. Can I say that, if we saw temperature increases like that, as far as the Barrier Reef is concerned, frankly, it would be destroyed beyond recognition. That is why I welcome the question from the member for Leichhardt. We all sat there today in anticipation of what alternative plan would be put forward by the opposition on climate change. It has been a long time coming. The government put forward its proposal at the end of 2008, and until about five weeks ago it had the majority support of those opposite, and then they removed the then Leader of the Opposition. When we listen to what was put forward today, it was a pretty interesting presentation indeed. The Leader of the Opposition has described climate change as ‘absolute crap’. Those are his words, not mine. He said that climate change is absolute crap and he has confirmed that view today in that the proposal he has put forward is nothing more than a climate con job. This is a climate con job, absolute and final. It does less, it costs more and, by definition, it will mean higher taxes. Let us go through these in order. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —Those opposite seem to guffaw about costs. If you go to the budget papers, which we have produced, you will find the impact on budget of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is something like $3.3 billion across the decade. Those opposite in their own costings, which have yet to be tested, admit to a budget impact of $10 billion—three times that which has been advanced by the government—and they say over there that this is therefore proof positive that their proposal will cost less than ours. Let us go to the entrails of the climate change con—the climate con job put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today. There are three big problems with it. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The first is that it does not work and the reason it does not work, as the member for Sturt knows by his embarrassed interjection, is that the Leader of the Opposition puts no cap on carbon; he puts no cap on carbon pollution. On the one hand you say you are going to reduce carbon pollution but on the other hand you say, ‘I’m putting forward a plan which doesn’t actually put a cap on how much carbon pollution you allow out into the atmosphere,’—failure No. 1. Failure No. 2 is this: what he does through this plan is leave the big polluters alone and slug taxpayers instead. Not only does it cost more than the government’s scheme; he leaves the big polluters to one side and says, ‘You’re okay, don’t worry about that,’ and then goes on to say, ‘For you taxpayers who will be copping extra taxation as a result of this and possibly extra prices as well, we will work that through.’ Those individual taxpayers and consumers will not get one dollar of compensation. That is problem No. 2—in other words, let the big polluters go free and slug Australian working families as taxpayers. That is the second problem. The third problem with this plan, this proposal, this climate con job is this: it is totally unfunded. We have been waiting for this alternative plan for—how long? They costed it at $10 billion but cannot even summon the collective honesty to put forward how they would offset that in their own budget numberings. This is the absolute core set of problems with what those opposite have advanced in terms of their alternative climate change plan. It does not work, it puts no cap on carbon, it lets all the big polluters go absolutely free, it slugs taxpayers and working families as a result and it does not even bother to attempt to fund the policy. That is the core of what has been put forward today. It all comes off the back of a Leader of the Opposition who does not believe any of this in the first place. If you go out there and publicly say that climate change is absolute crap, what do you think people conclude when you put out a piece of paper saying that you are actually serious about it? That is why people do not trust the Leader of the Opposition on climate change: because he does not believe that it is actually happening. If you look at the evolution of his positions on this, he supported an emissions trading scheme when he was a member of the Howard government. He said then that climate change was absolute crap. He said that the Liberals should support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme unamended. He then said they should support the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme amended. He then said he totally opposed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On top of all that, he said to the former Leader of the Opposition, ‘Don’t worry about me, Malcolm, I am just a political weathervane when it comes to climate change.’ The Leader of the Opposition has changed his position on the emissions trading scheme probably more often than he has changed his undies. It has gone on and on and on. One day after another we have a different position. Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition: if you are going to come up with a policy, fund it, cost it, make it environmentally credible against these three most basic tests—fail, fail and fail. 11 11 14:46:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr HUNT —My question is also to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the recent COSBOA small business survey which shows that the majority of small businesses are concerned about the government’s $114 billion emissions trading scheme, described in three lines and one dot point in their pre-election policy, pushing up their costs. In light of his massive gas and electricity price rises, will the Prime Minister tell the average dry-cleaning business how much more it will cost them to run their business with the addition of his new tax on everything? 11 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —We have had a spectacle of policy consistency today—those up on their feet today attacking the emissions trading scheme, five weeks ago out there supporting it, cuddling up. Why is it that those opposite cannot figure out that, if you are going to be believed on climate change, you actually have to stand for something and stick to your views? Half of those opposite voted for the position put forward by the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth; half of them didn’t. But when more than half of them eventually got behind him, what did they do? They rolled the leader. What do you think that says to the Australian community? SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, a point of order on relevance: I note your comments with regard to preambles and questions, but even your liberal interpretation cannot save that pathetic answer which is in no way relevant at all. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The thing that I can agree on with the member for Mackellar is that it is important that we take into context the preambles. It does give the opportunity for a wide debate, but I think that the Prime Minister will relate his material to the question, and the Prime Minister has the call. 11 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. The honourable member asked a question about the impact of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme on electricity and gas prices. Those I can refer the honourable member to are of course contained in Treasury’s documentation. On electricity it is projected that electricity prices would rise by seven per cent in 2011-12 and gas prices would rise by four per cent in 2011-12. That has been on the public record for a long, long time. I also draw the attention of those opposite to two things. The first is the compensation regime which is contained within the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for households, a compensation regime which those opposite do not seem to match by one single dollar. The second is the broader support measures that we put in place in our response to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme for business. I am so glad that the member for Flinders has asked this question as my attention has been drawn to something which I think the House might be interested in. It is along these lines. I quote from a university thesis: Underlying any analysis of an appropriate response to controlling pollution is a philosophical choice as to which party should ultimately bear responsibility for the cost of waste minimisation. It will be our contention throughout the paper that in contrast to the current Victorian legislative structure which still perceives environmental controls as essentially a community responsibility and burden the market system is a preferable regime as it better ensures that the polluter bears full responsibility for the cost of his or her conduct. The university thesis has an author and the author is Greg Hunt—the considered intellectual philosophical work of the member for Flinders arguing for a market based system which ensures that the polluter pays. Where lies consistency, Greg? Out the door, out the window, right outside and down the gurgler. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Prime Minister will refer his remarks through the chair and refer to members by their titles. The member for Throsby will get the call for a question, but the Leader of the Opposition has risen for the call. 12 Motions 12 14:51:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —I seek leave to move the following motion: That this House calls on the Prime Minister to be upfront with the Australian people and small business about the impact of his great big new tax by: Accepting the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition to debate the so called “greatest moral challenge of our times”, namely the impact of climate change and the benefits of the Opposition’s policy of direct action on climate change rather than the Governments great big new tax on everything as envisaged by its Emissions Trading Scheme; and Allowing the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to be allocated thirty minutes each a total of one hour, to have that debate immediately in the House of Representatives. Leave granted. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —If this, as the Prime Minister says, is the greatest moral issue of our time, it deserves to be debated. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Before the Leader of the Opposition gets underway, could he move the motion formally and then we can get onto the debate suggested— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I move: That this House calls on the Prime Minister to be upfront with the Australian people and small business about the impact of his great big new tax by: Accepting the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition to debate the so called “greatest moral challenge of our times”, namely the— Government members interjecting— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I have been asked to move the motion and I am doing it. Government members interjecting— Opposition members interjecting—He was given leave! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. I understand that people are a little bit testy about this. I am trying to clarify where we are at. The Leader of the House. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —We on this side of the House are just after some clarity. The opposition leader asked for leave to move a motion. We have granted that. Opposition members interjecting— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Well, move it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —In fairness to the Leader of the Opposition, I interrupted him. If leave has been granted for the motion to be debated with the time limits outlined by the Leader of the Opposition—that is, 30 minutes for two speakers—then that is now clarified. I call the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion. I apologise to the Leader of the Opposition. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I am moving that so much of the standing and— Government members interjecting— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Is that the motion you want me to move? Let’s have the debate. Let’s have him speak for 30 minutes and then I will speak for 30 minutes. That is the debate we want. That is what you gave leave for. Come on, let’s have him speak for 30 minutes and I will speak for 30 minutes. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! To clarify, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition: when he rose to his feet, he sought leave to— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I sought leave to move that this House calls on the Prime Minister to be upfront with the Australian people and small business about the impact of his great big new tax by, amongst other things, giving the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition 30 minutes each, a total of one hour, to have that debate immediately in the House of Representatives. That is what I have sought leave to move. That is what has been accepted by the government. I now call on the Prime Minister to speak for 30 minutes on this topic. Honourable members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I will again seek clarification from the Leader of the House. I want to indicate to members that the standing orders allow one person to deny leave. I think that I need to clarify that there is general agreement about whether the leave that has been indicated is about the full proposal that was put by the Leader of the Opposition. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Leave is being granted for the Leader of the Opposition to move his motion. That is what I was asked to do. He can move his motion. That is what the standing orders allow for. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —This is the problem that the chair has, because it would appear that there is a desire to proceed with a motion but there is not an agreement about the proposed time limits. Therefore, if the motion were moved, it would then be debated with the time limits for a general debate. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Come on, Prime Minister, stand up or not! 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Dickson! The Manager of Opposition Business has the call. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, for the sake of clarity, the Leader of the Opposition sought leave to move the motion, which is his proposition. We understood that proposition was being agreed to, but if that was not the case—which was unclear at the time—the Leader of the Opposition now simply seeks to move the motion as he read out to the House, in which case he would speak for 20 minutes, the seconder would speak for 15 minutes, et cetera. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I think it would suit the convenience of the House that it be noted that leave was sought to move a motion and leave has been granted. I call the Leader of the Opposition. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Thank you. The motion that I am moving today calls on the Prime Minister to have the debate that he has been squibbing for so long. The change that the Prime Minister wants to impose upon this country— R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition still has not moved a motion. Can he move the motion and then we will debate it. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, for the third time, I move: That this House calls on the Prime Minister to be upfront with the Australian people and small business about the impact of his great big new tax by: Accepting the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition to debate the so called “greatest moral challenge of our times”, namely the impact of climate change and the benefits of the Opposition’s policy of direct action on climate change rather than the Governments great big new tax on everything as envisaged by its Emissions Trading Scheme; and Allowing the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition to be allocated thirty minutes each, a total of one hour, to have that debate immediately in the House of Representatives. This is the motion that I move, and I am grateful for the government giving leave for it to be so moved. If this really is the greatest moral challenge of our time, why won’t the Prime Minister stand on his feet in this House—not tomorrow, not next week, but now—and defend his policy for 30 minutes? Let there be no mistake about exactly what this government wants to do. What this government wants to do is to impose on the Australian people the greatest single policy induced change in Australia’s history. It is the greatest single policy induced change in Australian history, and this Prime Minister consistently squibs debate. He squibbed debate back in December on the grounds that the opposition allegedly had no policy. We now have a policy. It is a very good policy. It is a better policy than the government’s because it is a simpler, cheaper and more effective way of addressing this issue than anything this government can do. But this Prime Minister will not debate the issue. Instead, he is into defaming people about what they may or may not have said—distorting what they said—at public meetings many months ago. I call on this Prime Minister to stop defaming people and to start governing. I call on this Prime Minister to stop quoting from 20-year-old masters theses and to start debating and defending a policy. I say to this Prime Minister, in the immortal words of his predecessor, Paul Keating: ‘If you don’t understand it, don’t vote for it, and if you do understand it, you would never vote for it.’ That is the spectre that is haunting this Prime Minister now. All he had in his manifesto at the last election was about six lines on this subject. He is now demanding modelling, costing and chapter and verse from the opposition. And we are giving it to him. But what we gave him today was 30 pages more than he gave to the Australian people before the last election. It seemed so easy then—everyone appeared to be in favour of an emissions trading scheme. But do you know what happened? Copenhagen happened. That is the one thing that this Prime Minister cannot accept. The rest of the world has moved on and the coalition has moved on, but this Prime Minister is stuck in the pre-Copenhagen past. He is stuck with imposing on the necessities of life of the Australian people a great big tax that the rest of the world does not want and will never impose. What we on this side of the House are trying to do in this fortnight is to do again what we did so magnificently in December last year. We are trying to save the Australian people from the Prime Minister’s great big new tax—a tax that we do not need and that will not work. As I said, this is the biggest policy induced change in Australian history. It is the biggest change in Australian history because it raises the cost of energy, it raises the cost of power, it raises the cost of transport and, because it does all those things, it raises the cost of life. You cannot have modern life—the way of life that Australians have become used to—without energy, without power, without transport. The Australian public do not deserve this massive whack on their cost of living without the fullest possible explanation from this Prime Minister, and the reason he is so reluctant to give us the explanation is that he knows no-one will be convinced by it once it has been offered. We all saw the Prime Minister floundering in this parliament a few moments ago when he was asked to explain the impact of his great big new tax on the price of milk. He just cannot do it. We all saw the Prime Minister floundering on the Today program this morning when he was asked the impact of his great big new tax on the price of bread. A Prime Minister who does not know the price of milk, who does not know the price of bread and who cannot explain the impact of his policies on the price of milk and the price of bread is no fit person to be the Prime Minister of this country. A policy that this government want to foist on the Australian people before they explain to them its impact on the necessities of life is not a policy that we should have to accept. I think the Australian people are sick of being treated like mugs by the Rudd government. The Australian people are good people, idealistic people, people who want to do the right thing by the environment, but you cannot ask them to accept a policy that they do not understand and that its proponents cannot explain. Today we heard the Prime Minister say that the cost of his policy on families would be $660. That might be the cost for some families, but the briefing which the government provided to the Daily Telegraph on 24 November last year said that the cost for middle-income families would be $1,100. That was published on the front page of the biggest-selling newspaper in New South Wales and there were no denials from the government. Silence is agreement. They know that their policies will cost $1,100—a $1,100 hit on the pockets of middle-income families in Sydney. This is just the start: $660 now for some families and $1,100 now for other families. Imagine what the cost will be if it is not a five per cent reduction by 2020 but a 10 or 20 per cent reduction by 2020. If it is $1,100 for a five per cent reduction, imagine what it would be to give us a 60 per cent reduction by 2050. And this would be a 60 per cent reduction not for 21 million people but for the 36 million people whom this Prime Minister wants to welcome to our country without putting the preparations in place to keep it the country that we know and love and that we want to be sustainable far into the future. The Prime Minister talked about our policy allegedly costing more than his. This is a Prime Minister who is pretty loose when it comes to going public with big figures about cost. This is the Prime Minister who went on national television on Sunday and made airy claims about something costing $100 billion. It is not a green faced Mr Rudd but a red faced Mr Rudd, because he does not understand figures and he does not know his own figures. Let us be absolutely upfront with the Australian people: yes, the coalition’s strong and effective climate change policy will cost $3.2 billion over the forward estimates period, as opposed to the $40 billion money-go-round envisaged by the Prime Minister’s great big new tax on everything. If we look forward to 2020, yes, our policy will cost a little over $10 billion. It is a lot of money. It is an enormous amount of money, but it pales into insignificance compared to the $114 billion churnaround which this Prime Minister wants to hit the Australian public with. I want to make two points. The first point is that I accept that $3.2 billion is a lot of money and that it is going to require a big effort from my distinguished colleagues the shadow Treasurer and the shadow minister for finance to find the savings to generate that kind of spending. The shadow Treasurer has broad shoulders, he is a very capable person and he is up for the job. I want to pay tribute to the shadow Treasurer, the member for North Sydney, for the diligence with which he approaches this task. But I tell you what: when you are faced with a government that spends $17 billion on school halls and wants to spend $43 billion on a national broadband network white elephant without even a business plan, surely it is not too much to spend $3.2 billion on the greatest moral challenge of our time, and that is what we will do. We will spend $3.2 billion on the greatest moral challenge of our time, in the Prime Minister’s words, and we will find that money out of the budget. It is incumbent upon the government to explain what its policies will do to the Australian public. We heard today from the Leader of the National Party that modelling shows that the Rudd government’s emissions trading tax will impose $9,000 on the costs of the average dairy farm. Those costs do not just disappear into the ether. Let us say I am a dairy farmer. I am under a lot of pressure from the bank. I am under a lot of pressure from the unions, who want to impose modern awards on me, with penalty rates for Saturday work and Sunday work. Then I get an extra $9,000 cost imposed on me courtesy of the Prime Minister’s great big new tax. What am I going to do? I am going to pass those costs on to the Australian consumer with higher prices for milk. You ought to be able to explain it, Prime Minister. You cannot just hide behind a whole lot of waffle about 2050. The Australian people want to know the impact of your policies this year, not your intentions, good or otherwise, for 2050. The Prime Minister said in answer to the first question that I put to him this afternoon that the biggest polluters are let off scot-free in the coalition’s policy. Let us just think about who those evil villains are that the Prime Minister so lightly dismisses as the biggest polluters who are being let off scot-free. They are the power generators who give us the necessities of life. They are the power generators who keep the lights on in this parliament and in the great cities of Australia. He wants to whack on them a great big tax that will put up their prices, that will put up our prices, that will reduce their maintenance budgets and that quite possibly will render some of them financially insolvent. What will it do to the people of Melbourne if the great power companies that are supplying that city are no longer solvent? That is the risk that the Prime Minister’s policy imposes on the Australian people. By contrast, our policy directly tackles emissions without imposing new costs on business and consumers or presenting a new threat to Australian jobs. That is why our policy makes sense and his policy does not. Let me, for the benefit of the Prime Minister, explain the essence of our policy. It is a very good policy and it is a policy that does not require legislation to get it through the parliament. It is a policy that the Prime Minister could introduce tomorrow if he wanted to. It is a policy which means we actually have a policy now—unlike the Prime Minister’s policy, which is dependent on legislation getting through the parliament, which he cannot guarantee. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner —When is your first saving coming? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I appreciate that the Minister for Finance and Deregulation has made great strides, but I really think that if he calmed down we would have a better debate in this country. Our policy will deliver the same emissions reductions as the government’s without the government’s great big new tax. Our policy is cheaper, simpler and more effective than the government’s because it relies on incentives, not penalties. That is the essential difference between our policy and the government’s. At the heart of our policy is an emissions reduction fund that will do precisely what is said to be necessary; namely, purchase the most efficient and effective ways of reducing emissions at the lowest cost. That is exactly what it is said we need and that is exactly what our policy will deliver. There are many ways to reduce emissions. We can improve the carbon content of our soil and, in so doing, improve the productivity of our farms. There are many farmers who are already doing this, and I think those farmers deserve an incentive, not a penalty. Those farmers deserve a fair go, not a great big new tax, and to the extent that they increase the carbon content of our soil they can be helped under our policy. Under our policy we can then help fund the innovative technology for which Australians are famous. In my first week in my new position I visited MDB Energy in Townsville. They are using carbon dioxide, waste water from power stations and sunlight to produce algae which can become biofuel and stock feed. I had the decency to visit that great innovative Australian company. The Prime Minister was 100 metres down the road and he would not take 10 minutes out of his schedule to visit this groundbreaking Australian company. I have more respect for the Australian people than to walk away from an example of world-beating Australian technology. I call on the Prime Minister to put in place a policy, as we have done, that will directly fund emissions reduction by paying Australian businesses to do what they do best: to farm more effectively, to innovate more creatively, to grow more trees and to do exactly what is needed to improve our environment. I am a great supporter of the market. We in the coalition are going to the market and saying to all of the creative people out there, ‘You give us your best ideas for reducing emissions at the lowest cost and in the most effective ways and we will fund them.’ What we will not do, though, is fund a bunch of speculators to rip off the Australian public through a giant emissions trading scam. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Is the motion seconded? 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —I second the motion and reserve my right to speak. 17 15:18:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —I welcome the opportunity for this debate on climate change and I am always taken when the debate begins with an intervention from the member for Sturt, who is on the record as saying that the coalition is the party of an ETS. This was not 20 years ago, not 10 years ago, not one year ago—it was just six months ago. That was last year, not this year. I move: That all words after “That” be omitted with a view to substituting the following words: “this House: condemns the Leader of the Opposition for: being a weathervane on climate change policy; presenting today a climate change plan that is nothing more than a climate con job; and a con job which does less, costs more, and will mean higher taxes; and reaffirms its commitment to take action to avoid dangerous climate change in the interests of this and future generations of Australians.” If the Leader of the Opposition was going to engage in a debate about climate change policies and if you are planning a tactic like he has been planning today, you would have thought he would have been ready for the debate and engage in an exchange about his policy versus our policy, why his stacks up and why ours does not stack up. I listened carefully to his description of his own policy and, amidst everything else that the Leader of the Opposition said, there were about three, maybe four, minutes which were directed towards the plan he has released for the nation today as an alternative course of action. The rest was, let us call it, political rhetoric. If you are going to plan to engage in a debate in the House and if you are going to suspend standing orders to debate his plan versus our plan, let us have a debate about those alternative plans and their content. On the future of climate change, three questions need to be asked. The first is: what is the science and do you accept the science? The second is: what are you going to do about the science, does it work, how much does it cost and who pays for it? And the third is: are you fair dinkum about the above or not? That is the absolute core of this debate. Let us go to the question of being fair dinkum and belief first. What underpins our entire discussion in this place is the fact that six weeks ago we were engaged in a debate in this place—and in the case of those opposite in their joint party room—where they were split right down the middle on this question. The majority of them voted for an emissions trading scheme. When it came to support for an emissions trading scheme, Mr Howard himself in May 2007 said: It is fundamental to any response both here and elsewhere that a price be set for carbon emissions. This is best done through the market mechanism of an emissions trading scheme. That was John Howard, Prime Minister, May 2007. That was the position of the Howard government. That was the position of the environment minister of the Howard government, the former Leader of the Opposition. That was the position of ministers of the Howard cabinet, including the current Leader of the Opposition. That was the position of the former Treasurer, Mr Costello. That was the position also of many other senior frontbenchers, who are now currently pretending they have a different position. It was absolutely clear-cut that Mr Howard as Prime Minister, Mr Costello as the Treasurer of the Commonwealth, Mr Turnbull as the environment minister and Mr Abbott, when he was a member of that cabinet, all supported an emissions trading scheme for one reason: it was the lowest cost and most effective way of dealing with the challenge of climate change. Then it all changed. The reason it changed had nothing to do with policy. As the former Leader of the Opposition said of the man who succeeded him, ‘The political weathervane’—the current Leader of the Opposition—‘decided that the politics of this had gone wrong’, from his point of view. Having executed and supported every position on an emissions trading scheme known to man, suddenly he arrives on the Damascus road of having concluded it was wrong all along. Underpinning this is the question of whether you accept the science. On the first test on the question of the science, we have the defining statement from the Leader of the Opposition, the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, that ‘climate change is absolute crap’. That is what he said—his words, not mine. He also reflects a view of Senator Minchin, a person of some influence within the Liberal Party, who was asked this: ‘What proportion of the Liberal Party are climate change sceptics and what do you derive from your discussions with them?’ Minchin said, ‘If the question is do people believe or not believe that human beings are causing or are the main cause of planet warming then I would say a majority do not accept that position.’ On the question of the science in this defining debate, let us be very clear about it: the Leader of the Opposition does not accept the science. He says it is absolute crap. Senator Minchin says the majority of Liberals think that it is absolute nonsense. It does get worse, because this goes to the underpinnings of the science. The current Leader of the Opposition, having become Leader of the Opposition, said: It seems that notwithstanding the dramatic increases in man-made C02 emissions over the last decade, the world’s warming has stopped. Can I just say that if that is the position of the alternative Prime Minister of Australia, we are in deep trouble. It goes on. The Leader of the Opposition earlier said: … as you know, I am hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. As if these views had not been consigned to the past but actually were part of his own view of the science now, in his speech the other weekend in Adelaide he said, ‘A temperature rise of four degrees Centigrade does not represent any great moral challenge for the future.’ I find that absolutely unbelievable. What would happen to the Murray-Darling? Ninety per cent of the agriculture would be wiped out. What would happen to the Great Barrier Reef? It would be utterly despoiled. What would happen to the number of days in excess of 35 degrees in a city like Adelaide? They would double. These are the questions and the consequences which flow from climate change in Australia. But the Leader of the Opposition says this is not any sort of moral challenge for the future. Therefore, on this question of whether you are fair dinkum and what your fundamental beliefs are, I submit as the first point in this debate that the Leader of the Opposition does not, on his own admission, accept the climate change science. That is the first point of contrast. We in the government accept what the IPCC has said. We accept what the Bureau of Meteorology in Australia has said. We accept also what the Australian Chief Scientist has said. We accept therefore that it is too great a risk for Australia, for our economy, for our businesses and for our kids to ignore the science on the hope and belief out there at the extremes that somehow it simply will not happen. Let us go to the second point of this debate: the actual content of an emissions trading policy versus that plan—that climate con job—that was released today. How does an emissions trading scheme work? It puts a cap on carbon. If we are going to reduce 138 gigatonnes of carbon from the atmosphere, we have to have a mechanism to do it. If we are going to act on capping carbon emissions then it follows that we must have a cap. That is the bottom line. An emissions trading scheme by definition is a cap-and-trade scheme. That is what we will do: we will place a cap on emissions. That is the reason in part that the previous Liberal and National government accepted an emissions trading scheme. The second element of this is: who will pay for this scheme? Australia’s biggest polluters will pay—about 1,-000 of them. As a result of their payment, they will have incentives through permits to reduce their carbon emissions over time. That is the way it will work. It is called a market mechanism, which the member for Flinders, in his considered university thesis, saw as the only means by which you could do it. The third element is how it is funded and what its consequences are for families. You will see in the government’s white paper and in our statements through the course of 2009 an absolutely clear exposition of what the impact will be for each category of family and each category of good and service relevant to those families, and the compensation scheme which applies to each of those families—what happens with low-income earners, what happens with middle-income earners, what happens with pensioners and what happens with those on other forms of benefits. As far as the compensation arrangements are concerned, they are along the following lines. We have for 2.9 million low-income households an average annual price impact of $420 and average annual assistance of $610, with a net outcome of plus-$190; for middle-income earners—number of households 3.7 million—an average annual price impact of $650 and average annual assistance of $700, with a net outcome of $50; and for all households who receive some assistance—8.1 million households out of the 8.8 million households in Australia—an average annual price impact of $600 and average annual assistance of $660, with a net outcome of plus-$60. In summary, all low-income households will receive full assistance; 50 per cent of middle-income households will receive full assistance; practically all middle-income households will receive some assistance; and, in fact, 92 per cent of all households will receive assistance. On average, these households will receive $660 in compensation or be about $60-plus in terms of the implications of the CPRS in one year. Those opposite ask: what is the detail of our policy? That is it. It is, first of all, a scheme which caps carbon pollution. Secondly, it does so by making the largest polluters in the country pay. Thirdly, it uses those funds to compensate the working families that I have just described. How does the alternative that has been put forward today—this phoney plan, this climate con job, by the Leader of the Opposition—go against those three measures? As to the first measure, are you credible about putting a cap on carbon pollution? No, you are not, because there is no cap. The reason there is no cap, ultimately, is that the Leader of the Opposition does not believe that the science is valid in the first place. The second is: who pays for the overall scheme? An incident having occurred in the gallery— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —When it comes to the question of putting a cap on carbon, the Leader of the Opposition says, ‘Not interested’. In their scheme there is no cap on carbon. Therefore, how can you know whether it is going to have the cumulative impact that you need to have in order to have a real impact on the global reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, which our nation—one of the hottest and driest continents on earth—needs for the future? Secondly, who pays for their scheme? This is where it gets really interesting, because the Leader of the Opposition lets all the major polluters off the hook. They have been through his door and said, ‘Whatever you do, don’t charge us; charge the taxpayer instead.’ But here is a question: who are the taxpayers? They are working families—and they get slugged as a consequence of what this Leader of the Opposition has put forward. Thirdly, on the compensation for families—having been slugged through extra tax—is there $1 of compensation? No, there is not. Against these three measures, this climate con job is a fail, fail, fail. That is the bottom line when you contrast the two schemes. Their scheme does not work. It slugs taxpayers instead of big polluters and, on top of that, it is unfunded. I go back to what I thought was one of the intriguing conclusions by the Leader of the Opposition: that this was still a market system. We had the supreme irony in this parliament that the Labor government supports a market approach to dealing with climate change and the Liberal and National opposition support a command and control system by doing it through red tape and regulation—something which I think would appeal to the sense of irony of those opposite. But I conclude with the immortal words of the former Leader of the Opposition, who said: Tony himself has in just four or five months publicly advocated the blocking of the ETS, the passing of the ETS, the amending of the ETS and if the amendments were satisfactory passing it, and now the blocking of it. His only redeeming virtue in this remarkable lack of conviction is that every time he announced a new position to me he would preface it with “Mate, mate, I know I am a bit of a weather vane on this, but…” Can I just say to the Leader of the Opposition, and I conclude where I began: where is the conviction? There is no belief in the science, and that is why this policy simply is without any foundation at all. (Time expired) 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The original question was that the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition be agreed to. To this the Prime Minister has moved as an amendment that all words after ‘That’ be omitted with a view to substituting other words. The question now is that the amendment be agreed to. 21 15:34:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —Obviously I do not agree to the amendment moved by the Prime Minister and I do support the motion moved by the Leader of the Opposition. The Prime Minister has run from this debate since 6 December last year, when the Leader of the Opposition first called on a public debate at the National Press Club or another venue on the supposed ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’. The Prime Minister in fact disappeared from the battlefield altogether after Copenhagen. On 21 December he returned to Australia—that was the last time he said anything—and then he disappeared until 21 or 22 January, when he returned from a month off, after a month of hiding in Kirribilli House. The Prime Minister disappeared from the debate because he knew that the whole debate had changed because of the failure of Copenhagen. The Leader of the Opposition’s offer to the Prime Minister to debate him remained open all that time. From 6 December to today, the Leader of the Opposition has been prepared to debate the so-called ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ referred to by the Prime Minister. He has referred to it as the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’ on at least 22 occasions that we can find, dating right back to 7 August 2006, when he said to Australia’s Christian Heritage National Forum these words, dripping in sanctimony: Finally, there is the challenge of global climate change. It is a fundamental ethical challenge of our age to protect the planet—or, in the language of the bible, to be proper stewards of creation. Of course, the Prime Minister cannot say anything without over-hyping and over-egging the omelette. On this occasion he was invoking the Bible for the ‘greatest moral challenge of our time’. More recently, on 28 October 2009, the Prime Minister said at the Prime Minister’s Prizes for Science: Perhaps the most “wicked” problem facing us as a nation and a world at the moment is climate change. It is the one of the greatest scientific, economic, and moral challenges of our time. He has said a very similar thing on at least 20 other occasions going back to 2006 and yet he would not debate the new Leader of the Opposition; he would not seek to take the opportunity, which you would have thought he would have taken, to put his case to the Australian people about why his great big new tax on everything is so critically important to Australia today. Copenhagen was a failure. He returned from Copenhagen, licked his wounds and sat quietly at Kirribilli House for a month, trying to avoid any public scrutiny. He has come back to the parliament today and, in fact, said that he thought this was the place to debate the great issues of the day. In fact, in answer to the first question he said: So, Mr Speaker, the honourable gentleman asks: ‘Shall we have a debate?’ I thought that that was one of the reasons the parliament was here assembled—to debate the big challenges. …            …            … … let us have the debate in the people’s house. On that basis, the Labor Party will support the Leader of the Opposition’s motion to have 30 minutes of debate each from the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition in the people’s house. If the Prime Minister was genuine about the remark he made at the beginning of question time, we would allocate an hour to debate this subject here and now: a full 30 minutes each on the policy of the emissions trading scheme itself—the great big new tax on everything—versus the coalition’s direct action plan on climate change. The Australian public are wising up to this government and wising up to the Prime Minister in particular. Members of the Labor Party could not have helped but notice over the summer, over the barbecue test, how many people—average Australians—are saying to us: ‘When is this government going to start doing and stop talking? Why is the Prime Minister all talk and no action—commitments made but commitments not kept; commitments made to win the 2007 election but not kept?’ The public does not remember a commitment for a great big new tax on everything before the November 2007 election. They also do not remember the new line of the government, which is that the government will not act before the rest of the world acts on climate change. But how does that fit with the fact that we were asked to vote an emissions trading scheme into place before the Copenhagen conference in December 2009? If that had occurred, of course, we would have been acting before the rest of the world and, as Copenhagen showed, that was a fiasco and a disaster. And yet we return to the parliament and the first thing that the government is introducing today is the emissions trading scheme—the great big new tax. Yet again it is asking the public and asking Australia to move before the rest of the world does anything. Is this emissions trading scheme going to come into place before China and Brazil act, before India acts, before the former Soviet Union, Russia, acts and before South Africa acts? The government is saying one thing out of one corner of its mouth and acting in the other way out of the other corner of its mouth, and the Australian public are awake to it. We have given the Labor Party the opportunity today to debate this issue for a full hour, putting both sides of the debate. I assume the Labor Party will vote against it; the government will vote against that opportunity. They will squib the debate. I ask the question: will the Prime Minister be speaking to the emissions trading scheme legislation—will he introduce it if it is such an important part of the government’s agenda—or is he backing away from it? Is that why over the last couple of weeks he has tried to create distractions about a whole lot of other issues, whether they were his seven speeches across the nation—as with the seven days of our Lord creating the world, Kevin Rudd travelled around Australia, giving one pearl of wisdom each day, one in seven— HWD Hale, Damian, MP Mr Hale interjecting— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr PYNE —I am sure the member for Solomon, when he is not arguing with people in nightclubs, would have been putting that down for his reading when he got back to parliament. The Prime Minister has spent seven days trying to shift the debate from the emissions trading scheme to any other issue. On the weekend he tried again to shift the debate to the private health insurance rebate. He does not want to talk about the emissions trading scheme anymore, because he knows what the coalition knows: that the tide has gone out on the government’s great big new tax on everything because of the failure of Copenhagen. What the public want is direct action. The public want practical programs that will achieve something. The member for Flinders, the shadow Treasurer, the Leader of the Opposition and others have come up with a direct action plan that the public will endorse because Australians like practical action—direct action that brings about change. They are sick of people talking about things that will happen in 2050 or 2046 or 2032. They want to know what the Prime Minister is going to do this year about the issues that concern them. And they know, instinctively, that a great big new tax, coupled with rises in interest rates, is leading to an increase in the cost of living which they find is squeezing their household budgets. Particularly people with mortgages but also self-funded retirees, pensioners and people on fixed incomes are finding the cost of living very difficult to cope with. So will the Prime Minister speak on the emissions trading scheme bill and debate the issue here? I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will. He should debate it today, for an hour. This is, apparently, the most important moral challenge of our time, and yet for six weeks he has avoided any real debate on this issue. The coalition’s plan for direct action will do many things. It will deliver practical environmental benefits and it will achieve the same five per cent target at a lower cost than the government is committing to. We will have a five per cent target for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, but without the tax that the Labor Party is foisting on the Australian people—every small business, pensioners and other households across Australia—without the compensation that they are promising, as the minister knows. It will deliver direct incentives to reduce CO2 emissions, it will do so at no additional cost to households and it will protect Australian jobs: there will be no net job losses through the coalition’s policy. Electricity prices will not be forced up. We will not try to penalise people and reduce greenhouse gas emissions by forcing up the price of electricity, which is the core of the government’s emissions trading scheme. The way they wish to bring about their reduction in greenhouse gas emissions is to say, ‘If we force up electricity prices out of this world then people will cut back on their energy consumption.’ That is at the centre of the government’s policy. It will not push up the cost of groceries. We have seen recent indicators that grocery prices are going through the roof, and people in my electorate of Sturt know it full well. Electricity prices have risen 14½ per cent in the last 12 months, public school fees have risen 7½ per cent, gas prices have gone up nine per cent and water and sewerage have gone up 14 per cent. People out in the street know that the cost of living is going up, especially for the consumables they use every day. The great big new tax will only add to the woes of households, whereas the coalition’s direct action policy will not push up the price of groceries. We will deliver a climate action policy that is easily implemented but does not involve the money-go-round which is the government’s policy. We will deliver better water efficiency for our farmers and we will protect Australian small businesses from a sudden and massive rise in costs. The direct incentive that we will put in place will deliver better soils for Australia. It will create incentives to plant 20 million new trees and for more productive farming practices, and it will reduce emissions through using solar technology. We will aim to create another million solar homes across Australia over the life of the coalition’s policy. We will put incentives into place to allow Australian households to make a practical contribution to reductions in CO2 emissions. One of the great failings of the government’s policy is that it does not bring the Australian people with it. It punishes them, it penalises them, but it does not say, ‘If you take practical, direct action yourselves in your own households and in your own local community, you will be rewarded for that.’ The coalition is all about reward. It is all about choice. It is all about incentive. That is what we did for 11½ years in government, and if we get the chance again this year, if the Abbott government is elected, that is what we will do again. There will be choice, incentive, opportunity and reward—not the penalty, the punitive taxes and the punishment of small business that we see coming from the Rudd government. Most importantly, the benefits of reducing these emissions will stay in Australia. We will not be exporting the benefits of reduction in greenhouse gas emissions to countries overseas. We will be using them here in Australia, and we will continue the commitment to solar rebate. We will extend that, whereas the government scrapped it. In electorates like mine, a very important part of the policy is that we will fund a study into undergrounding power lines, which are a blight on the urban environment. I think all Australians would support their burial. That also has, of course, the benefit of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The Prime Minister’s amendment is another study in spin from a Prime Minister who only really specialises in spin. He will do everything now to try and destroy the coalition’s direct action policy, because he would prefer, amazingly, to have a $114 billion new tax rather than $3 billion of spending over the next four years that will actually reduce greenhouse gas emissions. His amendment is a desperate snatch for a straw in the wind to try and turn the debate back on the coalition. But the Australian people are waking up. The Australian people know that in the Leader of the Opposition we have a man of action who supports direct action, as opposed to a former bureaucrat in Kevin Rudd, who is now the chief bureaucrat in charge of all aspects of government policy. That is why he believes that discussion is decision. It is why he believes that a review, an inquiry, a summit or more consultation—endless consultation—is actually making a decision in the interests of the Australian public. The Australian public want to see a reduction in our greenhouse gas emissions. They want to see action on climate change. But they do not want a great big new tax. They do not want to export the benefits from our reduction in emissions. They do not want to get so far in front of the rest of the world that Australia suffers economically as a consequence and we lose jobs. That is what the government is offering the Australian public. The coalition stand for reducing our greenhouse gas emissions but without the punitive rising in costs and without the punitive taxes that the government envisages. If the Prime Minister had any guts, he would vote for this motion. He would suspend the standing orders to allow a full hour to debate our policy versus his policy without having to clutter it up with a debate about who will and will not have the debate. That is what this motion is about: allowing a full debate with the Prime Minister first, followed by the Leader of the Opposition, to put the cases of their political parties on what is apparently the greatest moral challenge of our time. We will be voting against the Prime Minister’s amendment and in favour of the opposition leader’s motion so that we can have that debate here in the people’s house and tease out all the issues that the Australian public want to hear about. 24 15:49:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —We are having this debate in the House because the climate change sceptics—the people on the other side in this place who do not believe and who do not accept the climate science—have gained control of the coalition. The member for Warringah, supported by Senator Minchin and others in the camp of the climate sceptics, tore down the former leader, the member for Wentworth, supported at that time by the member for Flinders, who we know to believe in the climate science, over this issue. The member for Warringah—as the Prime Minister pointed out a short while ago—is, of course, on the record, when he had his seminal moment in Beaufort, Victoria, and really laid bare his beliefs about this issue—or lack thereof. I repeat what the member for Warringah said on that occasion, because it is an important insight into the policy position that has been announced today. On 2 October 2009 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. That is an insight into what the Leader of the Opposition thinks about the climate science. He opportunistically went about using that issue to gain the leadership of the Liberal Party and to tear down the former leader, the member for Wentworth. Why was that the case? The member for Wentworth, as leader of the coalition, did what was responsible as a senior political leader in this country: discussed it with the government and negotiated an agreement to secure passage of legislation that would bring about reductions in Australia’s greenhouse gas emissions. Like Mr Howard, the former Prime Minister, the member for Wentworth had a very clear view about the most efficient way of going about reducing greenhouse gas emissions, and this is what Mr Howard, a mentor to the member for Warringah, said on 27 May after considerable consideration by the then coalition government of the climate science and the best and most economically efficient way to go about securing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions: It is fundamental to any response both here and elsewhere that a price is set for carbon emissions. ‘Fundamental,’ said Mr Howard. He went on to say: This is best done through the market mechanism of an emissions trading system. And, of course, it is an emissions trading scheme that the Rudd Labor government has proposed in the form of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, because it is the most economically efficient way of securing reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. What we have from the other side here is political opportunism, a recognition on the basis of their lack of acceptance of the science—their lack of respect for internationally peer reviewed science in the IPCC fourth assessment report. They recognise it is a political problem, so they have to pretend they have a policy response to it. What we have seen today is a pretence. The policy response announced by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon immediately before question time is a con job, and people will recognise that when they have a look at it. What are the key elements of it? What are the key weaknesses in it? Let me run through them for the House. It is a lame con job and it will not work. It is about using a fund to pick winners. It is about government interfering in the marketplace to identify favourites. I notice that in the material that was released today there is a guaranteed proportion of the fund that has been put aside for particular activities in the rural sector—and I bet the National Party were pleased with that. We will see a repeat of the regional rorts before you know it if these people get control of this policy issue with this particular policy. It is about picking winners. We have already heard the suggestion from the Leader of the Opposition at his press conference: we are going to have algae fired power stations. There is no business case for that one. They will be picking winners using this fund, and none of it can guarantee reduction in greenhouse gas emissions that allow us to meet what will be international obligations. They have gone for the most economically inefficient way of going about a climate change policy. There are no market forces operating in this. It is a position completely contrary to what they espouse as their traditional philosophy of allowing the market to determine the most efficient allocation of resources. Here we will have the Leader of the Opposition, if he ever gets his hand on the treasury bench, picking winners with algae fired power stations. It will be a more costly scheme, it offers no compensation to households, it involves no cap on emissions, we cannot achieve targeted reductions in carbon pollution, it will not link with international efforts and it shifts the cost burden from the organisations which are emitting carbon pollution in our economy to households and small businesses. The underpinning element of any public policy response in this area of climate change is respect for and acceptance of the science. There is no point having a policy such as has been enunciated by the opposition today, of course, if there is no acceptance of the science—and there is no acceptance of the science by those who now control the opposition. Let us not forget some of the things stated by members on their own side. Senator Minchin, on the ABC Four Corners show on 9 November, said on the issue of the science: If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings are causing, are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority— of the Liberal Party— … don’t accept that position. That is, those who now are in the leadership positions in the coalition do not accept the science, and yet the scientific case for action on climate change is absolutely clear. Human induced emissions are increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2007 were nearly 40 per cent higher than those in 1990. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said in its 2007 report that the world has already warmed as a result of human emissions of carbon pollution. Some of the key findings are important to bear in mind because they are absolutely pertinent to any public policy debate about this issue. Average surface temperatures have risen by 0.74 degrees Celsius in the last 100 years. Globally, contrary to the assertion of the Leader of the Opposition some months ago that we have experienced cooling, the fact is that 14 of the 15 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2009. The projected global average surface warming is around 1.1 to 6.4 degrees Celsius. Those are the projections in 2010. No government, no major political party and no political leader of any responsibility or credibility can afford to ignore these warnings, and yet we know—and you will hear it time and time again—that in that seminal moment in Beaufort, Victoria the member for Warringah said what he really thought: ‘Climate change is absolute crap.’ No-one of responsibility and political leadership in this country or anywhere else can afford to ignore the science that is compelling. We need to respect it and we need to act with appropriate public policy responses. Australia is extremely vulnerable to the impacts of climate change. This is the driest inhabited continent on Earth. We face huge environmental and economic costs from climate change impacts, including on our water security, our agriculture, our energy supply, our health, our coastal communities and our infrastructure. Water availability is already being affected: a 15 per cent decline in rainfall has been experienced in south-west Western Australia, for example. If there is no action taken—if we cannot adequately address climate change and its impact on this country—irrigated agriculture and jobs in the Murray-Darling Basin may well disappear by the end of this century. Again I emphasise that these are the facts. These are the peer reviewed scientific findings. How can any person of responsibility and public leadership not respect it and take responsible action as a consequence? However, the Leader of the Opposition in a speech only days ago, on 30 January, said: … even if dire predictions are right and average temperatures around the globe rise by four degrees over the century, it’s still not the “great moral challenge” of our time … So it is all okay. It is going to be okay. They are not serious about it. It is ‘absolute crap’. They do not need to do anything. It is only a political problem, so you only have to put forward an ineffective policy response. The four degrees C temperature rise that the Leader of the Opposition referred to in that quote would be both an environmental and an economic disaster for this country. Under that four degrees C temperature rise—and this is not any moral challenge, according to the member for Warringah—Australia would face very serious threats. The Murray-Darling Basin would be beyond salvation. Eastern Australia would have 40 per cent more droughts and there would be a fall in irrigated agriculture of 90 per cent in the nation’s food bowl. This is not any problem, according to the Leader of the Opposition. The number of very hot days—that is, those over 35 degrees C—would increase dramatically. In Adelaide they would double. The Great Barrier Reef—and the billions of dollars of tourism, of course, and all the jobs and the welfare of families that rely on tourism—would be devastated. A rise in global mean temperature would cause irreversible change in the average state of the Earth’s climate. The government accepts the science and the importance of acting and taking responsibility. An emissions trading scheme, as I pointed out earlier, is well recognised internationally—and there has been enough debate about it—as the most economically efficient mechanism of achieving targeted reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It works quite simply. An emissions trading scheme such as the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme requires emitters to buy a permit for each tonne of carbon pollution they produce. It is a pretty simple concept: a permit will be required for each tonne of carbon pollution. The government will determine the number of permits that will be available each year and, by setting that level, will set a cap on pollution levels. The cap each year allows a targeted reduction in emissions to be achieved over time. That is how the government can with confidence put forward the targeted reductions in emissions we have articulated in association with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which, of course, we have now submitted to the international community in accordance with the Copenhagen accord. A carbon price is established by the auctioning and trading of permits, and the carbon price creates an incentive for polluters to reduce their emissions in the cheapest, most efficient way. What an emissions trading scheme will achieve is to price the cost of pollution into the cost of production. It establishes a carbon price. Importantly, as the Prime Minister alluded to earlier, under the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme the revenue raised from the auctioning of permits will support households and jobs. The overall cost of living for households has been indicated by the Prime Minister in this House repeatedly today, and the government has well taken account of it. Emissions trading scheme arrangements are clearly the most economically efficient method to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to achieve targeted levels. It is a market based concept. What has been put forward today by the opposition is about the most inefficient, ineffective option that could have been considered. I was sitting in my office watching the press conference that the Leader of the Opposition held, and I have to admit that I could not believe it when he got to the word ‘finally’, because there was nothing of substance put forward—nothing to achieve the sorts of reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that we need to commit to if we are to play our part internationally to address climate change. The policy announced today by the Leader of the Opposition is a con job—nothing more, nothing less. It will not achieve the changes that we need in our economy. It will not establish a carbon price. It is not a market-efficient mechanism for achieving reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. It will not link internationally to efforts by other nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It is economically inefficient. It is more costly. It will involve picking winners. It is just about the worst way to go. We could have no confidence about setting caps on emissions and achieving targeted reductions. That policy, only two or three hours old, is already a complete failure. Already it is seen as a con job. (Time expired) 28 16:04:00 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 0 Mr HUNT —Let me begin with words from the Minerals Council of Australia not one hour ago: The Coalition’s climate change policy strikes at the real intent of pricing carbon—providing an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without negatively impacting on jobs, investment, exports and growth. The Minerals Council of Australia welcomes the shift to a policy designed to use incentives as a driver to reduce emissions rather than an approach that is pre-occupied with penalising business to raise revenue. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme places a $120 billion impost on the Australian economy—returning about $75 billion to households and motorists in partial compensation for price rises in electricity and consumer goods—with not a single cent to be invested in the research and development of low emissions technology. It is not just them; the NGF, ACCI and others have already spoken out today. This is the moment and this is the day Australia looks to an alternative to a $114 billion tax on the Australian economy that does not achieve real emissions reductions. Let us run through how the government’s scheme operates. Firstly, between now and 2020 there will be $114 billion raised. That money is not coming from business, as is presented by the government. That money is coming from mums and dads, from pensioners, from small businesses and from farmers, because the costs of the government’s scheme will be passed through. Have no doubt about that. So by 2020 $114 billion will be raised. Over the next four years we will see $40 billion raised, as opposed to the coalition’s $3.2 billion scheme. That is a lot of money but it is not $40 billion, and that is the difference. In the single year 2012-13 there will be $11½ billion raised. It will be $16 billion a year by 2020. That $16 billion is designed to make savings of 140 million tonnes of CO2 and is, in reality, a carbon price of $110 per tonne. That is the problem. As one of Australia’s leading business groups today said, the real intention of carbon pricing must be to provide an incentive. We provide an incentive; they provide a penalty. The costs of the ETS in Australia are $114 billion. Let us deal with what this means for Australian families. The government is in denial of its own figure of $1,100, which it fed to the Daily Telegraph, but that figure has been confirmed through a number of ways. Let us do the basic maths. In 2012 and 2013 the government’s own figures show that there will be $11½ billion ripped out of the pockets of Australian households. There are 8.7 million households in Australia. If you allow $1,100 each, that is $9.6 billion, and we will assume that business will wear the gap. There is no question that, with 8.7 million households at $1,100 a household, that is $9.6 billion before we even get to the real target of $11½ billion. So that is the problem for the government. They must make it clear that they are charging Australian families a minimum of $1,100 for power and water. How do we know this? New South Wales IPART predicted price rises of electricity in the order of 60 per cent over the coming three years. The ETS is the major component of that. What we see all up is that the price of electricity—the price of heating and cooling—will go up. If you are a dry cleaner or a baker, all of these prices will go up. The government are making a claim about the big polluters. They say that the big polluters will be punished under them. In fact the big polluters will get $40 billion for no action. The biggest emitting companies in Australia will get money taken out, they will claw that money back from the community and then they will get $40 billion for no further action. The Prime Minister’s claim today is that in some way they are hurting the companies, but they are giving $40 billion for not one iota of emissions reduction. Our system gives no money to anybody who does not make an emissions reduction. Compared with the government’s system costing $114 billion over the next nine years, which is about $1,100 to families and impacts on bread, milk and butter—things which the Prime Minister could not even cope with today—and is a system which offers $40 billion simply for business as usual as well as being a traders’ paradise and a derivatives market, what we have is a simple system of direct action which Australians want. Again, it is not just our view. By the end of the day, I say to the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, there will be many others who will have made it clear. What we are promising is to achieve 140 million tonnes of reduction, the same target in the same time frame beginning at the same time, but instead of $40 billion over the next four years we are talking about $3.2 billion. Instead of $114 billion over the next nine years, it will be $10.5 billion. We are up front. There are no free rides here but there are dramatically easier options. What is at the heart of the flaw in the system that the government has? It relies on penalising normal operations for every unit of emissions. What it means is that, if there is a business that is producing 10 tonnes of CO2, it will be taxed on each of those tonnes even though we only want to get them down to nine tonnes. The government is going to make sure that electricity and gas price rises flow through to households. There is a better, simpler way: the European system has four per cent of business activity that is going to be dealt with, and our system is going to deal with incentives as opposed to punishing people by trying to drive the price of electricity as high as possible. The heart of the government’s system is to drive the price of electricity as high as possible. The problem is that it takes a lot of pain before people reduce their electricity consumption and for businesses that rely on electricity it also takes a lot of pain. On the other hand, we will provide incentives to power companies to reduce their emissions. When the government say that we would be leaving power companies alone, there are two great fanciful statements in that. Firstly, they will be rewarding business with $40 billion for doing nothing. We will only be dealing with emissions reductions. Secondly, there are real incentives. What we have is letters from business which say, ‘We will reduce emissions, we will take up this opportunity and we can do it at a dramatically lower cost than that which is offered by the government.’ There is a big difference here. We are making the guarantee that our system will not change prices because it is going to incentives that businesses adopt voluntarily for which there is an incentive payment. The difference here is that on 16 November 2009 the Treasurer was asked whether he would give a guarantee that no low-income family would be worse off and his statement was very simple. He said, ‘We cannot guarantee that no-one will be worse off.’ Let us look at what the government have said about our system. They have said it is not a market and the Prime Minister brandished around my thesis from 20 years ago. I know a little bit about markets in this space. What we have created is the lowest cost abatement market. There is no question. If they understood how their own water purchasing scheme works, they would understand that the same principles are in place here. The government buy back the entitlement to water by seeking bids for the lowest cost water. We will be buying back entitlements to emissions by seeking the lowest cost bids. They may have messed it up royally, but let us be clear: they do not even understand that they have a water market. We are adopting the same principles in the same format. That is also what is done under the New South Wales GGAS system; it is also what is done in other jurisdictions around the world. So we have a very different approach. It is a system which we have seen support for from ACCI today. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry has said: Given the uncertainty now existing after Copenhagen over what other nations will do, a domestic policy approach that provides more carrot than stick tends to reflect the temper of the times. We have a market that complains about the big polluters. There will not be one dollar from us for people who do not take action. There is $40 billion from the government for people who do business as usual. Picking winners—again, false. We will use lowest cost abatement, so picking winners is just a sheer, absolute falsity. We will use lowest cost abatement in the same way that the water market operates. No caps—again, false. There are penalties for businesses that breach their caps. Let us be absolutely honest here: you can challenge our system but you cannot fabricate elements of it. What are we bringing to make this happen? We are bringing an emissions reduction fund. It is a fund of $2.5 billion—$2.55 billion to be exact—over four years and approximately $10.5 billion over the nine years. It will be complemented by an additional $700 million of other activities. What does that give us? A once-in-a-century replenishment of our soil carbon; a chance to clean up the oldest and most inefficient power stations in a way that protects the jobs of workers and the price of electricity for consumers; and one million solar homes by 2020, one million solar roofs—whether it be from solar hot water, from solar panels or from the emerging technologies such as ceramic cells—capped, accounted for and costed. We have 20 million trees to be planted by 2020 to be involved in the great challenge of regreening our urban areas. We also have the extremely interesting proposition of looking to see whether we can use the new technology, the high-voltage DC underground cables of the future, to replace the transmission lines which cut through the heart of many of our cities. That will free up dead land right in the heart of our cities. It will give us a chance to use that land for parks and housing and to use what we can reclaim from the dead land in the heart of our cities. If we can free that up, that will make a difference to the policy of people’s lives. What else do we have? We have a solar towns program and a solar schools program on top of that, which is in place. We have renewable energy changes, which provide opportunity for emerging technologies and larger renewables projects, which have been frozen under the mess-up that this government has made of the renewable energy target. We are offering 6,000 gigawatt-hours—two out of the 20 per cent of the renewable energy targets—to give certainty and a future to the great solar mirror fields, to geothermal, to tidal and wave and to other emerging technologies, to give Australia a real solar sunrise in the renewable energy future. The last thing that we have is the idea of green corridors through our cities, of working to return the greenery to our cities as opposed to what we see in Ku-ring-gai, as the new member for Bradfield will give testimony to: the ripping apart of many of these things under a state Labor planning system which has been a disaster. Ultimately we have a choice that is facing Australia. As the business groups are already beginning to say, what we see here is that this is a system of incentives. This is a system of carrots, not sticks. This is a system of incentives, not penalties. We compare the $114 billion tax, which will come from mums and dads and from pensioners, with a system that will cost $10.5 billion over the next nine years, and we look at what that will mean for ordinary families—$1,100 per family. In the first full year alone this system will cost $11.5 billion—for 8.7 million Australian families, $1,100 each. That is $9.6 billion and still leaves $2 billion to be made up from businesses. There is no doubt that, if anything, our figures are low. The government’s system will hurt mums and dads in a much greater way. At the end of the day there is a better way than a great big tax: it is direct action to reduce our emissions—one million solar homes, one million solar roofs, 20 million trees and a vision of an Australia which is productive, which is clean and which is built on a clean energy and green energy future. (Time expired) Opposition members interjecting— 31 16:19:00 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 0 Mr GARRETT —I note that immediately I am on my feet those on the other side of the chamber, who have consistently and vociferously opposed any action on climate change, are already shouting abuse across the dispatch box. I wonder, if the opposition leader is serious about having a real debate on climate change, whether he will silence the ignorant loudmouths on the other side of the chamber and allow this debate to continue. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Order, the member for Canning! The minister has the call. HV4 Garrett, Peter, MP Mr GARRETT —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. Today the coalition had an opportunity to move forwards or backwards, and they moved backwards. They came down on the wrong side of the national interest and they will be seen, in time, to have come down on the wrong side of history. The fact is that the Leader of the Opposition, who does not believe that climate change is real and who thinks that climate change is, to use his own words, ‘crap’, has confirmed that again today in his first day in the parliament as opposition leader and in this debate. I listened very carefully to what the opposition leader said in the debate and I noticed that after about 10 minutes he simply ran out of puff. What he is doing is pretending to the Australian people that he understands this issue and has a solution to it, and he is producing an issue which he thinks is going to serve him politically and is going to be palatable in the short term. But when you actually look at it closely he does not, firstly, understand the real consequences of failure to act on climate change, because many on his side do not believe it, including himself. Secondly, it ignores the most necessary and fundamental measure if you are going to reform the market in a market economy, and that is a price for carbon. I cannot believe that the opposition parties, after having delivered the climate change LITE policy of this morning, are in the House this afternoon and have absolutely ignored and walked away from the market. The Leader of the Opposition said that he was a great supporter of the market. But this is where the opposition are most exposed: lack of belief and lack of intellectual rigour in bringing forward a policy because they are not providing any signal in the market whatsoever for carbon emissions to reduce over time. There are many economists and there is much modelling. There are schemes already underway in a number of countries which are designed to do just that. As I was listening to the debate, I was thinking about their fraternal colleagues in New Zealand, a conservative party that wants to have and is due to introduce an emissions trading scheme to have a price in the market so that investment decisions can be made rationally on the basis of knowing that it will cost more if you pollute more and that it is going to be a slow gradual evolving process over time. But that is how you transform the economy. That is the big challenge for any government around the globe at the moment. The biggest challenge is that we have to transform our economies so they reduce carbon emissions over time. What the Leader of the Opposition has delivered does not do that at all. The member for Flinders only weeks ago, until he was given the new job of coming up with the con job policy that we are debating today, was firmly arguing for an emissions trading scheme, supporting the former Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, who argued eloquently for an emissions trading scheme. So people listening to this debate and reading the Hansard should not be under any illusions that many of those coalition members opposite believe in the market. They talk about it all the time in here, except on this one issue. They have decided to go absent; they have decided to vacate the economic credibility field. That is what you have done today. You have vacated the field of economic credibility and I look forward to the response from economic writers and researchers on how we actually reduce emissions in the long term when we do not have a price in the market for carbon. How has it come to this? It has come to this in one simple way, and that is that ultimately the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, lacks conviction on this issue. He flags himself as a conviction politician but he has no conviction about climate change. In fact, so weak is his conviction on climate change that he has decided to reduce the one significant economic lever that those who are responsible for a national economy can bring to use, which is the price in the marketplace, and he has let it drift absolutely out the window with him downplaying the likely impacts of a four-degree temperature increase in our country, Australia, one of the first to be hit by climate change and one of the hardest affected by increasing temperatures. Let us reflect in this House on the impact of increases in temperatures which have been identified by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology. In their climate statement, they said Australia is clearly getting hotter. It is not going to go away. The Leader of the Opposition cannot wish it away because of some conspiracy on the part of those opposite to want us to do something about climate change. He cannot pretend that sea levels will not rise. Yes, there will be arguments about the degree of rise and the significant scale of impact in one region or another. I say to the Leader of the Opposition: go to the people of the Pacific and have this debate and see how they feel about quibbling about whether we should take real action on climate change and go to the farmers of the Murray-Darling Basin and be fair dinkum with them when you say to them that we are not going to do anything about a price in the market and, in fact, we are going to let those people who are polluting into our atmosphere and producing those carbon emissions not be dealt with at all. That is the position that the Leader of the Opposition brings into this House. What a travesty! He is on the wrong side of history on this issue and on the wrong side of history with this con job those opposite have dished up to us today. I think that the Australian public will see through it. I am confident that they will. I listened to the contribution of the member for Sturt and the chiding and the snide remarks about the greatest moral challenge of our time. Is it a moral challenge or isn’t it to consider the future of every single Australian in a world that is going to be warmer and likely to suffer significant impacts as a consequence of climate change? On this side of the House, we say it is a fair dinkum challenge and we are willing to do something about it. You just squibble over there, snidely making remarks in the House, playing the petty politics. I am afraid this issue is far too important for the approach that the new coalition, going back to the old coalition under the new Leader of the Opposition, has actually brought forward. I had a chance to look briefly, on the way into the House, at the policy that the coalition have brought forward. I want to make a number of observations about that policy. I am sure we will have the opportunity to subject it to some high levels of scrutiny over the coming days. You can expect this debate to continue in this parliament where the debate should be undertaken. We will put this particular policy that has been brought forward under the high level of scrutiny that it demands. Other than the fact there is no price in the market for carbon and there is no cap on emissions, I think everybody listening understands that in order to reduce emissions you need to cap them. But the coalition have decided they do not want to cap emissions at all. What are they going to do? They are going to play winners and losers in the sequestration arena in order to get around the issue of not having a price in the market on carbon. What else don’t the coalition have in this particular policy? They have no mention of energy efficiency in any significant way. Energy efficiency is often remarked upon as being the low hanging fruit in this debate. The sorts of programs that the government has out there that encourage people to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions, and at the same time their energy costs, are all about energy efficiency. None of the kind of information we have on websites—the kind of work we are doing with communities and businesses about reducing our overall use of energy, doing it in a smarter, cleaner and greener way and generating employment at the same time—is mentioned in this policy at all. There is no green employment, there is no employment strategy for sustainability; and there is no consideration, incidentally, of what additional energy efficiency measures might be worthwhile having a debate about. The member for Flinders said almost to the day a year ago—I will not be exact on the day—that the coalition were going to bring forward an energy efficiency policy. Now we have a content-light, con job climate policy with no substantial energy efficiency measures in it at all. While I am referring to the member for Flinders, I want to make two additional observations. The first is about the continuing misrepresentation by the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Flinders of the figure of $1,100 that is alleged to be a cost to the Australian public. I acted for Minister Wong in the first two weeks of January and I had a debate with the Leader of the Opposition on this issue, and it turned out that the opposition leader’s source for this particular number were reports that he had googled. He could not actually provide any specific evidence as to where that figure had arisen from. The member for Flinders continues that kind of misrepresentation by repeating the lie of this $1,100. The fact is that Treasury modelling shows that under the government’s scheme low-income households are, on average, better off under a CPRS. The price impact is around $420, but the assistance to low-income earners is over $600. So the figure not only is completely wrong but also ignores the fact that this government has done what any thoughtful, sensitive to the needs of the Australian community and policy intentional government would do—that is, it is providing for working families and for other people who are affected by any price increase that comes about as we deal with a difficult and serious problem like this. It is providing them with compensation to adjust to those price increases. That is what this particular scheme does. Before I conclude my remarks in this debate, I want to briefly amplify the other issue that is absolutely critical in this debate and that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change touched on. The world is on the cusp of a significant transformation of economies, whether it is happening in farm techniques and management, in agriculture, in manufacturing, in industry, in building, in automotive areas, or in the provision of energy. You can see it when you see wind power and wind turbines starting to pop up in the landscape in places where it is appropriate for them to be. That is what the future is all about: producing cleaner, greener energy and having cleaner, greener jobs to go with it. In order to have the investment from the banks and from businesses to actually build that economy and to transform the Australian economy from a big polluting, emissions-intensive economy to a sustainable economy that can build the jobs for the future and build industries for the future, you need to have a policy that gets you there. The fact is that today in the parliament the Leader of the Opposition has conclusively proven that he does not have a policy to get Australia into a low-carbon future; and the Rudd government does. That deficiency speaks to future jobs right around this country. It speaks to all young Australians who are coming out of schools, colleges and universities. Many young people want to work in the area of climate change. They believe that they can use their brains, their intelligence and their enthusiasm for solving the problem of climate change by coming up with the solutions to enable us to do that. That is what this debate is also about: delivering solutions and opportunities to Australia so that it can transform itself, just as we have in the past. That is why we are such a great nation. But the opposition leader wants to make us into a nation that looks backward and that is fearful of those changes, challenges and opportunities. He wants us to be a nation that does not recognise the kind of impact—and, in fact, does not believe the kind of impact—that not addressing dangerous climate change will have on the coastline, on the Great Barrier Reef, on the farming lands and on our children and their children as well. His policy is devoid of consideration of the national interest and the international interest. We are very, very happy to debate his policy in this parliament and to point out its shortcomings, but we would also say that, with the absence of a solid policy that has been brought forward on this issue by Mr Abbott, you cannot take him seriously on the question of climate change. He does not believe in it, and the policy that he brought forward today does nothing sensible or serious to address it for the future. (Time expired) 35 16:34:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —For more than two years now, the Labor Party has been telling the Australian people that there is only one way to save the polar bears, there is only one way to save the Great Barrier Reef, and there is only one way to fill the Murray River, and that is Labor’s great big new tax—a CPRS. I have never in my life seen a tax that can actually lower the temperature. I have never seen a tax that can save the Barrier Reef or the polar bears. I have never seen a tax that can perform that kind of miraculous turnabout. Labor’s CPRS has become friendless. Only Labor members and one Independent voted for it in this parliament. No other political party is prepared to support Labor’s CPRS. Increasingly, industry is deserting Labor’s CPRS. Increasingly the Australian public are deserting Labor’s CPRS because it will not work. It will not achieve its objectives. It will do nothing for the environment. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —It’s a con! GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr TRUSS —It is a con, as the honourable member interjected. It is a big new tax that will raise money to fill Labor coffers in government but will do nothing to make our climate different or to make our environment better. If the CPRS wanted one final humiliation, one final rejection, it was rejected by the world at the Copenhagen conference. Despite the Prime Minister spending tens of millions of dollars lobbying the world, despite sending a delegation of 120 or 140—or whatever it was—across to Copenhagen for the big talkfest, despite all the propaganda, nobody at Copenhagen was interested in the CPRS. I did not hear anybody talking about a CPRS. The final communique said nothing about a need to have a big new tax to reduce the temperature. Indeed, there was quite a bit of talk about how they could fund some kind of new world governing body to manage the climate into the future. There was talk about a global tax on financial transactions and the Prime Minister himself was party to discussions about a new tax on aviation and shipping. No-one was interested in the CPRS, but our Prime Minister was so desperate to have new taxes that he was even prepared to talk about a new tax on aviation and shipping. Last week, we had the Minister for Trade going to London to complain about the British Labour government having introduced a new tax on people travelling to and from the UK. The Minister for Trade, Mr Crean, rightly said that this was a penalty on Australians, a penalty on trade and a penalty on international movements in and out of the UK. Yet our own Prime Minister, only weeks earlier, was advocating a tax on all international movements, which would have been devastating for Australian trade and for Australian business. But no-one was interested in the CPRS. No-one in Copenhagen was the least bit interested in the tax that Labor say we in Australia have to have and if we do not have it then we do not believe in climate change. Labor believe that if we do not have their CPRS in exactly the form they want, we are somehow or other a climate change denier. I thought it was rather interesting that when President Obama wanted a handful of world leaders to draft a communique coming out of Copenhagen, he did not even invite the ‘friend of the chair’, Kevin Rudd, to participate in the drafting of the communique. In spite of the 100-plus people we had at the conference, President Obama did not think anyone from Australia had any role to play in drafting the Copenhagen communique. The thing was such a fiasco. Labor was so locked into a CPRS that they were not even relevant in the international debates in Copenhagen because the world knows that a big new tax will not deliver for the environment. How is a higher price for milk going to lower the temperature? How is putting up the cost of a bus ticket going to save the polar bears? How is making everything we do in life, including the education of our children, more expensive through a big new tax going to lower the sea level? Labor have never attempted, and they are not today attempting, to explain how their giant new tax is actually going to alter the climate. No-one has ever attempted to explain to me how having bankers and traders on the top of a multistorey building in Sydney, Copenhagen or New York selling one another pieces of paper is actually going to make the sea level go down. How are you actually going to reduce the sea level by selling paper to one another? That is simply a nonsense and that is the basis of Labor’s whole giant CPRS taxation scheme. If you actually want to reduce CO2 emissions and if you want to have less carbon in the environment, you have to take direct action. You have to do things. You do not sell paper to one another. You do not set up a massive new bureaucracy. If you had any doubt about what the real intent of the scheme was, you only have to look at a conference recently held in London that was publicised as being ‘aimed squarely at investment banks, investors and major compliance buyers and focused on how they can profit today from an increasingly diverse range of carbon-related investment opportunities’. The conference was entitled Cashing in on Carbon. So there are winners from a CPRS—the bankers and the traders and, through taxation, the Australian government’s treasury. It has been suggested that to support the $120 billion CPRS there might be $3 trillion worth of paper traded. So this is a scheme about selling paper. It is not about delivering anything by way of practical action. That is why the coalition have been able to announce today a scheme that will deliver at least as much in carbon reductions as Labor’s CPRS—I think we can do a lot better than the five per cent target—for just a small fraction of the cost, about one-twelfth of the cost. How can the coalition deliver the same CO2 reductions and meet exactly the same reduction targets on exactly the same timetable for one-twelfth of the cost? The reason is that we will get into it and do it. We use direct action. We do not just trade pieces of paper. We actually do things. The community can be involved in the lowest cost options. The market will decide what the lowest cost options are. We will actually deliver significant reductions and we will do it from the beginning. Our scheme will deliver practical environmental benefits by direct action—by actually doing things rather than putting in place a giant new tax. We will achieve the five per cent target at a lower cost. We will achieve the 140 million tonnes reduction that Labor is aiming to achieve by 2020, but we will do it at a fraction of the cost. There will be direct incentives. We will impose no additional costs on householders. We do not have to have a compensation scheme because the cost of electricity and the cost of food will not go up. Labor need such a gigantic taxation scheme because they are putting up the cost of everything we do. The cost of milk and bread will go up, so people will have to be compensated for that extra cost of living. The power stations will become nonviable, so they will have to prop them up in order that we have enough electricity to keep going. But, if you do not put up their costs in the first place and you actually reduce their emissions through direct action, you do not need that great big new tax—that increased cost on all Australian consumers. If you are not going to impose those costs, then you can keep the jobs in Australia rather than having manufacturing move to other parts of the world. I was appalled in question time today to yet again hear the Prime Minister vilifying Australian industry and Australian manufacturers, accusing them of being dirty and a blot on the environment, and criticising power producers, even though they are amongst the most efficient and environmentally friendly in the world. He criticised and vilified those people—the demons that have to be taxed. They have to be persecuted in order to protect Labor’s emissions trading scheme. But these manufacturers, these power stations, will respond to this new tax in one of two ways. If they can afford to, if they are able to, they will pass on those costs to consumers, so Australian consumers will pay. In some instances, though, they will not be able to do that; they will simply close. So the manufacturers will move to China or India, where there will never be a CPRS, where there will never be an emissions trading scheme. So we lose the jobs, we lose the Australian industry and we import the product from another country. So global emissions will actually go up. The savings we make by closing a power station or cement works in Australia will be more than offset by producing the same commodities in a country where there are no such rules or requirements, where they can export the product back to Australia at a lower cost. This government need to be honest with the Australian people. They cannot explain how the CPRS is actually going to lower the temperature. They cannot explain how it is going to do things for the environment. They do not even try. The moment anyone makes any criticism of the CPRS, they are immediately dismissed as a climate change denier, somebody who does not want to do anything to make our environment better. That is a very low standard of debate—name-calling rather than dealing with the facts or explaining them to the Australian people. Is it any wonder that they are deserting this scheme? They no longer believe that it can work for them; they just see it for what it really is: a great big tax. They want direct action. They want a program of measures that will deliver results, and that is what they have today—an agenda for real action. The second thing Labor need to do is explain it to the people who are going to lose their jobs. They need to explain it not just to those people who are going to have to pay higher costs for almost everything that they do but also to those people who will lose their jobs because an Australian industry has closed and will instead operate out of China or another country where there is no new tax scheme of this nature. We have already had the case of the cement works in Rockhampton—and I notice the member for Capricornia has chosen this moment to walk out of the parliament. Here is a case of an Australian factory closing. This factory closes and they say they are doing it because of Labor’s CPRS, that it is cheaper to import the cement from China. Then, on the other side, China’s emissions from producing cement are substantially higher than what that factory in Rockhampton would have produced. Those circumstances are an illustration of what is going to happen around the world—Australian companies will be taxed out of existence and other products will be imported from other parts of the world. We are delivering a scheme that will not increase electricity prices and will not increase grocery prices. It will protect Australian business from sudden and massive rising costs. It will actually deliver a more productive country. The work and the incentives we will provide—the work with carbon sequestration in our farms, the better use of biochar and a range of other soil technologies—will actually make our country more productive. Labor want to put farmers out of business. They want to make food processing uneconomic in this country. They want to withdraw water and other resources from Australian farms. We want to make them more productive. We want to be able to produce more food even though we are in a situation where the environment may be more trying than it has been in the past. And it can be done. There are many people around the country who have told the minister that it can be done, but he will not defend them. He will not stand up for them. He is not prepared to have these new technologies encouraged and implemented in Australia as part of a worthwhile direct action plan to deliver CO2 reductions in our country. We need to also provide direct incentives to reduce emissions through better use of solar technology and some of the other exciting new technologies that are around. In Labor’s CPRS there is not one dollar for extra research, not one new dollar for developing any kind of new technology. There is no hope offered in that scheme; it is just a taxation system. It is a way for the government to raise hundreds of millions of dollars which will be spent in buying permits from Russia and China and others, while our scheme will create Australian jobs and spend Australian money on abatement measures in Australia. The government would prefer to have people buying pieces of paper from the Russians or the Chinese or anybody else who will sell them and be involved in this trading scheme, which will simply put up the cost of everything we do in Australia. There is a way to address climate change issues without a great big tax. We have heard something of it today—a scheme that will deliver direct action and direct results and will do it better and faster. (Time expired) 38 16:49:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —When I was studying, there used to be people from one of the mad, Trotskyite, socialist-style groups—they were always very lonely people, about 40 years older than any other student—selling a newspaper called Direct Action around the university. I do not think anyone ever bought it, but Direct Action was being made available for sale. But, as we find today with Tony Abbott’s policy, no-one bought it. Today we have a debate initiated by the Leader of the Opposition in a brand new way. It is not uncommon for a Leader of the Opposition to demand a debate; it is very uncommon for a Leader of the Opposition to be given one and then look at the Speaker and say: ‘You mean I have to make a speech?’ That is exactly how it began today. The Leader of the Opposition was shocked that demanding a debate would lead to him beginning it with a speech. That is something you do not see. We just had a strange allegation from the Leader of the National Party. He made a whole lot of claims against any emissions trading scheme—ignoring the fact that he was in a cabinet that endorsed one and ignoring the fact that he was in the cabinet that agreed that this was the correct method to use. Now, the concept that the Leader of the National Party was asleep during cabinet is probably not a difficult conclusion for people to get to, but his willingness to front this parliament and run arguments diametrically opposed to everything he was arguing three years ago and everything that that side of politics was arguing not that many months ago is crazy. But there is a bigger problem with what has been announced today: it fails its own most basic test. The document that was released today by the Leader of the Opposition was meant to be his way of showing that you could still reach a five per cent reduction in emissions by 2020 under the international carbon accounting rules without the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is agreed across the board, and it is in the Leader of the Opposition’s document, that to get to five per cent you have to have a 140-million tonne reduction in CO2. Of the 140 million tonnes of CO2 reduction in this document, 85 million tonnes are in soils which are not counted under the international accounting rules. This document, by its own reckoning, only gets to a less than two per cent reduction. They have presented this as their argument, under international carbon accounting rules, to have a reduction of five per cent. Under the international carbon accounting rules, three-fifths of that relies on something which is not counted at all under those rules. In this document, 85 million tonnes of CO2 do not get counted towards the five per cent target they are taking on. Under their own benchmark that they have set today, where they said they would be able to provide a method of reduction in emissions that would give you a five per cent reduction under the international carbon accounting rules, what have they come up with? Less than two per cent is actually able to be counted under the carbon accounting rules. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Just plain wrong. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —The only way we get the member for Mackellar saying ‘No, but it will end up being counted’ is if you have complete faith that everything that we want in our negotiating strategy will become part of a binding international agreement. If you believe that is going to happen, then at that stage the opposition have committed to moving from five per cent to 15 or 25. So under the premises that they set— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —You’re wrong. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —I love the refutation from the member for Mackellar, ‘Oh, you’re wrong.’ There is a great level of intellect going on there. The cogency of the argument really shows that we have got someone who understands and is on the cutting edge of climate change. We are so glad you are back on the frontbench. You have no idea how happy we are about that. Of their 140 million tonnes, 85 million tonnes does not get counted under the international carbon accounting rules. They said they could get to a five per cent reduction by 2020 without a carbon pollution reduction scheme. At best, they have got two per cent of the way, but under the document they have released today they have no chance of making it even halfway. It is not the only problem with the proposals that the opposition have released today. There is no money for agricultural R&D. There is no cap. There is no penalty for continuing with business as usual if you are a big polluter. There is an increased cost for families but not one dollar of assistance for families. There is no surprise as to why they have landed in this sort of territory. The Leader of the Opposition has said previously that he reckons climate change is crap and he has confirmed that again today with this policy. His climate change plan is nothing more than a climate con job. It took about three hours from the time they released it to work out they have not even made it halfway to the benchmark they themselves said they would set today. No money for agricultural R&D is a big failing. Let us not forget that when we came to office we promised an extra $15 million for research and development into agriculture, fisheries and forestry. We then changed that $15 million to $46.2 million because of the importance of research and development in this area. Then, when we had the agreement across the chamber for the amendments, we added a further $50 million in agricultural R&D. Today, the opposition come back and turn that figure into zero—not one dollar for agricultural research and development. The R&D part of it is so important because, if you get this right, you can actually get an alignment between a lower emissions path and improvements in productivity. You can do that. You start to look at emissions as another form of farm waste. Anything that is being produced on a farm that you are not getting a return from is therefore a form of farm waste. If you reduce that, you improve your productivity and you improve your profit. That is why we have been engaging in research into methods of better feed efficiency in livestock. That is why we have been looking at methods of lowering nitrous oxide emissions in the use of fertiliser. With fertiliser prices going up again, as they have started to do in only recent weeks, if you can lower your nitrous oxide emissions farmers can also benefit by having production methods where they have to buy less fertiliser. These are real productivity gains and they are made possible through cutting-edge research and development and with our having some of the best agricultural scientists in the world. The government says, ‘We promised $15 million, we turned that into $46.2 million and then we added a further $50 million in this area’. The opposition’s response: zero—not one dollar for agricultural R&D. The next problem with the proposal that has come out today is that there is no cap. The coalition kept going on with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and talking about the trading of carbon permits, but at no point did they acknowledge that the starting point and first principle in any cap-and-trade scheme is not the trade. The first principle of cap-and-trade is the cap. That is the bit they forgot about because it is quite possible, under the proposal they have given us today, for emissions to go up. Under the proposals that have been put forward by the opposition today, there is nothing that prevents emissions from going up because there is no cap on carbon pollution. Of all the different ideas about how you deal with climate change, this is the first time I think we have seen a proposal that allows for more CO2 to be put into the atmosphere. That is what the opposition have given us. In terms of creative policy thinking, it gets a tick for the creative part, but that is about all. It is madness to think that they would come back with a proposal that allows emissions to go up. But then they say, ‘If the big polluters go any further than business as usual, at that point there will be a penalty.’ Might I remind the House: do the opposition think the big polluters will just absorb that penalty or do they think it will be passed on to consumers? The moment it gets passed on to consumers, that will mean increased costs for families being offered by those opposite but not one dollar of assistance for those families. They have managed to come up with a system where prices can go up but there is nothing to help working families—no assistance at all, unless they presume that no business will grow under their proposal. Maybe that is the presumption—it is consistent with how they approached the stimulus package. Maybe that is the way they want to work their economic theory. They have proposed a situation where the moment you go beyond business as usual there will be increased costs for families, unless the big polluters show an extraordinary level of goodwill and they just say: ‘Forget the executive salaries. Forget the share price. We’re just going to absorb the cost. We’re not going to pass it on to the consumers.’ Unless their level of fantasy has become that bizarre, the opposition have proposed a situation where there is no doubt that increased prices will get passed straight back to the consumer, straight back to households, without one dollar of assistance. A lot has been said in the parliament today about dairy, because dairy uses a tremendous amount of electricity. Let us not forget what was in the agreement about food processing that the government put to the parliament last year. We promised a five-year, $150 million stream of assistance for the food processing sector to be established within the Climate Change Action Fund. Where were we giving priority for that stream of assistance? Dairy processing, meat processing and malt production facilities. In those three areas, we had a $150 million stream of assistance. Under the proposal from those opposite, for any dairy operation that is business as usual, from whatever baseline they choose, there will be no penalty. But their message to every dairy producer is: ‘Don’t you dare expand because the moment you expand your business there will be penalties. There will be no assistance for you in moving to a low-emissions pathway. When you pass those prices on to the consumer, there will be no household assistance for all those consumers at all.’ SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —It is not right. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —Oh! We have moved from ‘wrong’ to ‘It is not right.’ At least now the member for Mackellar has discovered the sentence. I welcome her to the world of the sentence. We will move on to the paragraph maybe by the end of this year. Then there is the important issue of soil carbon, an area that we must do something about. In the agreement at the end of last year, the government put forward the national carbon offset standard. We never pretended the national carbon offset standard would count towards our international obligations. We were quite explicit about the fact that this was for sources not counted towards Australia’s international commitments—for example, for agricultural soils, enhanced forest management, non-forest revegetation and vegetation management. That was agreed at the end of last year. Under the national carbon offset standard, additional to our international commitments, we were creating an opportunity for farmers to be able to participate in soil carbon work, to enhance their productivity directly and to be able to do good work, not yet counted for internationally, in sequestering carbon into the soil. The opposition have taken that concept and are pretending it can be counted internationally. At the moment, it cannot. You cannot even get to two per cent under the opposition’s document before you get to a total reliance on agricultural soils. The document released today, from the beginning to the end, is a climate con job. It was meant to present reductions in emissions of five per cent. It does not even get you to two. It does not work. It does not require anything of polluters. There is no cap on pollution. It slugs taxpayers instead of big polluters. Unfunded, it can only lead to higher taxes. The climate con job does less, costs more and will mean higher taxes. 42 17:05:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP different approach to environmental and climate change challenges, so evident in the House today, is emblematic of the stark contrast between Labor’s policies and beliefs and the coalition’s policies and beliefs. It is the difference between the two parties. Labor stand for bigger and bigger government and higher taxes. Labor’s answer to any problem is to throw more money at it. If they have to borrow, they borrow more and keep handing it out. In the case of climate change, the government are talking about $114 billion over nine years to 2020—a tax on the Australian people. That is Labor’s answer to the challenges of the environment and climate change. Labor believe in megabureaucracies. Labor are addicted to debt—massive public debt to fund their vote-buying sprees. Their emissions trading tax represents bigger government, massive taxes, huge bureaucracies and vote buying in an election year, and every year thereafter. In contrast, the coalition believe and have always believed in smaller government, less government interference, innovation and enterprise, the creativity of the Australian people and lower taxes and fiscal responsibility. Labor invariably and inevitably leaves behind a mountain of debt and invariably and inevitably the coalition has to pay it off to ensure that future generations of Australians, those whom the Prime Minister professes to be so concerned about, are not burdened by profligate Labor debt. Remember what we did in 1996 when we had to pay off Labor’s $96 billion debt and had to find the $10 billion each year that was needed to meet the interest payments on that massive debt. That was the response of the coalition to the first Intergenerational report on the ageing of the population in 2002. That is what our response was: pay off Labor’s massive debt, the crippling debt that we inherited, so that future generations were not punished by having to pay off Labor’s debt. And the Labor government has done it again, except this time it will be a $120 billion debt, and rising. On climate change and the government’s approach to it, the government’s great big new tax is not about saving the environment. It has never been about saving the environment. The Prime Minister has never had an environmental agenda. It has only ever been a political agenda. The Prime Minister knows that a great big tax on everything in Australia will not reduce global emissions—he knows that—yet that is what he is seeking to foist on Australian families. This great big new tax is all about the Prime Minister’s desire to hand out bribes in an election year and every year thereafter. That is Labor’s claim to economic responsibility—borrow to the hilt and then hand it out. True to Labor tradition, the government has blown the budget and now needs to raise taxes, and the Prime Minister is cynically using the fig leaf of emissions trading. This is all about raising a massive tax on the Australian people for the government’s coffers. Members will remember that, before the Copenhagen conference, the Prime Minister described climate change as the ‘greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our generation’. ‘The bigger the cuts to emissions the better’, he claimed. He tried to scare the living daylights out of Australians with story after story of an environmental Armageddon that would come to Australia unless deep cuts were made to emissions in this country and that could only be done by a tax. That was what the Prime Minister said. And remember the government’s countdown to Copenhagen—‘50 days until the end of the Earth unless we pass the emissions trading scheme legislation’; ‘25 days to Copenhagen’. The coalition urged caution and repeatedly said that no legislation should be passed before Copenhagen. We pointed out that it was prudent to see what commitments were made by the rest of the world prior to locking Australia into a position. But, no, the Prime Minister insisted that Australia had to lead the world by being the only nation on Earth prepared to send jobs offshore and emissions offshore by a great big tax imposed on the Australian people. Australia is responsible for 1.4 per cent of global emissions. We could cut our emissions deeply and devastate our economy yet have no impact whatsoever on global emissions if the major emitters did not reduce their emissions. The nations of the world gathered at Copenhagen last December, and what happened? Well, the conference started very badly when a draft document was leaked—a document which had Prime Minister Rudd’s paw prints all over it—which infuriated developing countries and things went from bad to worse as the conference descended into a farce. There were reports of heavy-handed tactics, including by the Prime Minister of Australia, against smaller nations in the Pacific and others. India labelled Prime Minister Rudd as an ayatollah, such was his behaviour at Copenhagen. News back home broke of the Prime Minister’s entourage at Copenhagen—114 people at last count; a bigger contingent than far larger economies, far larger populations, far larger emitters. The Prime Minister’s entourage knocked up a carbon footprint you could not jump over—something like 1,800 tonnes of carbon emitted just flying his entourage to Copenhagen. But most distressing for the Prime Minister was the fact that the man who was so keen to lead the world on climate change, was so keen to be the friend of the chair and centre stage at Copenhagen, was locked out of the final discussions that led to the watered down accord—incidentally, basically requiring no country to do anything. After the failure of Copenhagen—the conference upon which this Prime Minister staked his leadership and his credibility; a conference universally seen as a failure by all but the Prime Minister of Australia—instead of admitting that he got it wrong, the Prime Minister hid in Kirribilli for a couple of weeks, no doubt licking his wounds, pouting and probably swearing at the staff and kicking his cat or dog or whoever features in his kiddies’ book, and then emerged to announce that, in the face of the failure of Copenhagen, he was still ideologically committed to a great big new tax on the Australian people which will do nothing to reduce global emissions. The government proposes to reintroduce its great big tax legislation today—legislation that has no friends. The Minerals Council of Australia, which represents a major sector of the Australian economy, said today in a media release: The failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks underscored the need to promote and adopt economically conservative climate change policies aligned with the rate of development of policies and actions across the rest of the world. It went on to say: There is no point trying to lead the world with aggressive climate change schemes if the major economies are not interested in following—or worse still, regard Australia’s initiatives as an example of what not to do. The Copenhagen fiasco amply demonstrated that the major economies and Australia’s export competitors have no appetite for radical CPRS-style economic re-engineering in response to climate change. The proposed CPRS— the government’s emissions trading scheme legislation—  remains the most costly emissions trading scheme in the world—while failing to deliver material reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. This government scheme is damned by all yet this Prime Minister insists on foisting this tax on the Australian people. So while the Prime Minister’s political strategy is evident, it also reveals his contempt for the Australian public by trying to lock Australia into a flawed emissions trading scheme. The Prime Minister is more than willing to sacrifice jobs. He has ignored all warnings to date about job losses. He is more than willing to cause serious and long-term damage to the Australian economy—and he is on track to do just that with his scheme—while having no impact on reducing global emissions. As the National Generators Forum said today in a media release: The NGF does not support the federal government’s CPRS in its current form. The CPRS badly damages the asset values of generating businesses, which creates serious risks for energy security and investment. That is a statement by the National Generators Forum. As we have noted, the Prime Minister has on numerous occasions described climate change as the ‘greatest moral challenge of our generation’. One would have thought that the ‘greatest moral challenge of our generation’ would have required one of the greatest debates of our nation. But the Prime Minister is still insisting that it is his way or the highway and refuses to explain to the Australian people how his emissions trading tax will work. We know that the emissions trading scheme will fundamentally restructure our economy over time. It will have a fundamental impact on the Australian economy. But, according to a recent poll, while a majority of Australians want action on climate change, only about five per cent said they knew what an emissions trading scheme was. The Prime Minister of this country is cynically trading on that lack of understanding of the complexity of his scheme. There has been no public education program from the government. There has been no information to the Australian public on what an emissions trading scheme is or what a carbon pollution reduction scheme is. There has been very little detailed analysis of Labor’s scheme. The Prime Minister refuses to answer questions in question time in the people’s house about what it will cost families. There has been virtually no information provided by the government on what it will cost Australians in terms of increased energy costs or increased electricity costs in particular—the increased overall costs of living for Australians. This is a deliberate Labor strategy to keep people in the dark—literally—and to suppress information that would reveal the failings of Labor’s scheme and the cynical politics behind the introduction again of an emissions trading scheme that has been rejected by all the political parties in this House. According to a recent international report, Australia is the country most likely to be disadvantaged by the transition to a low-carbon economy. That is because our economy has been built on cheap and plentiful energy, in the main from burning coal. So wouldn’t you expect the government to explain to the Australian people how this transition to a low-carbon economy will take place through the imposition of a massive tax? It is this lack of appropriate scrutiny, public discussion and debate on the government’s great big tax that is causing so much concern amongst the Australian people. If anyone questions the Prime Minister or challenges him on any of his assumptions to do with climate change, they are immediately denounced as a climate change denier or a climate change sceptic. It is this vicious, nasty suppression of debate that so concerns the Australian public. The coalition today has released a sensible, pragmatic environmental policy based on direct action. It is affordable, it is understandable and it is environmentally and economically responsible. It takes advantage of some of Australia’s greatest natural assets, the soil and the sun—and Australia has plenty of both. While it stands on its own as a responsible environmental policy, it shows unquestionably that there is another way, there is a better way, than the Prime Minister’s great big tax on the Australian people. It shows that the Prime Minister was trying to con the Australian people that there was only one way to tackle global emissions, and that was to slug Australians with a great big tax. Australians will welcome the debate that has been caused as a result of the release of the coalition’s sensible policy. As the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry said in its statement today: It is in the public interest for there to be a strong contest of policy ideas about climate change responses before we impose major or unilateral adjustment costs on our economy, and the Coalition statement— that is, the policy released by the coalition—according to the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, does just that. It contributes to that strong contest of policy ideas. The Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry went on to say: ACCI has consistently pointed to the fact that internationally there are a range of proposals which have been put forward to deal with this environmental and economic challenge. Business welcomes a debate on these and other ideas proceeding in Australia in the interests of finding the most effective and economically sustainable approach. Since the Copenhagen conference in December 2009 the global dynamic has shifted and it is clear the likelihood of international agreement with clear and binding targets will not be achievable at least in the medium term. Given the uncertainty now existing after Copenhagen over what other nations will do, a domestic policy approach that provides more carrot than stick tends to reflect the temper of the times. This Prime Minister is ignoring the temper of the times. He has got his head in the sand over the failure of Copenhagen, which so destroyed his credibility on the whole economical issue. He is ignoring the impost on the Australian people. He is contemptuously disregarding their concerns about how they can afford a great big new tax on top of having to pay back the great big massive debt that Labor has racked up in just two years in government. The coalition’s policy has been endorsed by a range of people, from the National Association of Forest Industries to the National Farmers Federation, because they understand that Australia cannot afford the great big new tax to be imposed on the Australian people by the Rudd government. The coalition stands for a sensible environmental economic policy that will reduce emissions but not slug Australians with a tax. (Time expired) 45 17:20:00 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 0 Mr TANNER —Today we are witnessing the logical outcome of the complete implosion of the Liberal Party that we saw in early December last year, with the replacement of the former leader, the member for Wentworth, by the member for Warringah as Leader of the Liberal Party. What we are seeing now is a direct return to John Howard by the self-confessed love child of John Howard, but unfortunately it is John Howard prior to his embracement of an emissions trading scheme. So it is John Howard in the original version of denial of the reality of climate change and seeking to put forward a smokescreen to pretend to the Australian people that he would do something about it were he elected to office. Like Louis XVI, the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, has learned nothing and forgotten nothing. We are witnessing today a direct return to the pre-2007 John Howard of pretending to do something about climate change, and the policy that has been put forward by the Liberal Party today is simply a cobbled together con job. What has been presented to the Australian people today is simply a list of feelgood spending programs with no clear link to reductions in emissions, no attempt to change behaviour, no strategy to do more if a stronger global agreement does emerge and, in particular, no source of funding. That, of course, in my role, is a matter of some interest to me. You might recall that the government, in the wake of the global financial crisis and the great damage that that crisis wreaked upon the budget, adopted a set of budget rules with respect to government spending. We are complying with those rules. I would remind the House what those rules consist of: first, that, when growth returns to trend average, which is a fraction above three per cent, we will keep spending growth to two per cent real per annum until such time as the budget returns to surplus; and, second, that new spending proposals over that period will be offset by savings. Members may wish to look at the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook which was published towards the end of last year. We did actually put forward savings in those papers which more than offset the new spending that inevitably occurred in the period from the budget to the publication of MYEFO. Now, in an election year, we have an opposition that is again repeating its claim that, if it is elected to government, it will have a lower deficit and a lower debt figure than is currently projected under the Rudd government. If this means anything at all, it means that they have to abide, at the very least, by the same rule that the government has put in place: namely, when they put forward spending proposals, they have to offset them with savings—they have to demonstrate where that money is coming from. If they are to have any credibility whatsoever on fiscal management, if their claims to produce a lower deficit and lower debt are to have any credibility at all, then, when they come forward with major spending proposals, they have to offset them—they have to indicate how they are going to pay for them. The state of play when the Leader of the Opposition took office only a couple of months ago was this: we had a number of unfunded big promises from the opposition hanging out there in the ether, like a commitment to reduce petrol excise by 5c per litre, a commitment to give capital gains tax rollover relief to small business and a commitment to reinstitute the Investing In Our Schools Program—all of which would cost, in total, billions of dollars, with not a single offset in savings initiative attached. On top of that we have the vandalism by the opposition in the Senate, knocking over government legislation designed to legislate savings in respective budgets. The most outrageous vandalism has been the defence of private health insurance subsidies for millionaires, which would cost the budget around $9 billion over the forthcoming 10 years, but there have been others. They are still blocking our attempt to reform the provision of Commonwealth dental services. They blocked the government’s attempt to reform the Medicare rebate for cataract surgery. There have been numerous instances of blocking government initiatives in the Senate, all of which have created or are creating costs to the budget. So far, none of these things have changed under the new Leader of the Opposition. None of the previous big-spending, unfunded promises have been repudiated; none of the vandalism against the government’s budget in the Senate has changed. Instead, we have had further unfunded commitments. Only a week or so ago the Leader of the Opposition was out there pronouncing a new strategy to save the Murray-Darling, saying that he would employ large numbers of people to go out there and do various things—‘Yes, this could cost up to $750 million per year, but, hey, it’s a really important objective so what’s a bit of money between friends?’ Now, of course, we have exactly the same approach being taken with respect to climate change. The announcement today envisages that the cost of the opposition’s proposals over a period of four years would be a little more than $3.2 billion. That, I remind the House, is more than the overall, net cost over 10 years of the original emissions trading scheme, the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the government put to this parliament. The net cost to the budget of that scheme when originally proposed to the parliament was about $2.5 billion. The proposal that the opposition has put forward today actually costs more than that in its first four years. The net cost of the government’s proposal over 10 years was $2.5 billion, and the bulk of that was up-front. Beyond 10 years it would have had no additional cost. There is a notable, very interesting section in the document that was circulated by the Leader of the Opposition today which I think says it all about the credibility of the opposition with respect to both climate change and also fiscal management. I would like to quote the document: Funding for these initiatives will be provided through normal budget processes as part of the coalition’s fiscal strategy. The coalition will release details of its overall fiscal strategy based on the budgetary updates to be provided by Treasury prior to the election. To me, this sounds awfully like, ‘We’ll tell you after the election.’ There are a couple of key giveaway phrases in those sentences. The first one is ‘normal budget processes’. Who is in charge of normal budget processes? I think that would be governments, not oppositions. So, in other words: ‘We will provide for these things somehow’—unspecified under normal budget processes—that is, ‘after you’ve elected us to government.’ The other giveaway phrase is ‘overall fiscal strategy’. In the second sentence that I quoted it says that the coalition will release details of its ‘overall fiscal strategy,’ not the clear details line by line, item by item, specific spending cut by specific spending cut, but an ‘overall fiscal strategy’. That will probably end up being half-a-dozen dot points of motherhood statements about how they are committed to reining in waste and all of those usual stand-by phrases that ultimately mean very little. In case honourable members do not think that we speak with credibility on this point, in opposition I as shadow finance minister announced, in an election year, about three billion dollars worth of specific opposition savings initiatives. That was in early March of 2007, only about a month further into the year than we are now. Some of those announcements were painful. Some of them attracted some flak and some controversy. But we wore that. Those commitments have been implemented, and of course we have subsequently implemented a much larger array of savings initiatives. So I would challenge the Leader of the Opposition to give an unequivocal commitment that, prior to the election, the funding that he has committed his party to today will be matched by specific savings. I challenge him to give an unequivocal commitment that prior to the election he will advise the Australian people of the detail of where that money is coming from. It would be interesting to speculate about what the rest of his party thinks about what has been announced today. How, for example, do the members for Tangney and the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate respond to the commitment of $3.2 billion of taxpayers’ money to do something that they think is a communist conspiracy, to do something that is directly at odds with their view about what is happening? A big proportion of the Liberal Party actually thinks that climate change is a giant fraud or a communist conspiracy, yet they are now standing here supporting the commitment of the Leader of the Opposition to spend $3.2 billion of taxpayers’ money on it. Of course, the opposition leader himself described in a meeting in Beaufort only late last year the whole concept of climate change as ‘crap’. Perhaps on the other side of the spectrum there is the member for Wentworth, the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, who has just spoken, the member for Sturt, the member for Flinders and the member for North Sydney—all leading figures in the Liberal Party—who supported an emissions trading scheme and who supported the ultimate compromise worked out between the government and the then opposition in their party room. What do they think about these proposals that have been announced today? It would also be interesting to know what the member for Goldstein thinks about them, given that not so long ago he was, if I remember correctly, the shadow minister for emissions trading. I do not recall him being the shadow minister against emissions trading, but it seems that that is his current position. We do know, though, that there is one group on the opposition benches that is absolutely cheering, whooping and hollering about what has been announced today. They are of course our old mates, the National Party. When you look at the detail of what has been announced by the opposition leader today, out of that $3.2 billion commitment, $2.5 billion—the vast bulk of it—is committed to something that is called the emissions reduction fund. When you actually look at the document that has been put forward by the Leader of the Opposition and seek an explanation about what this is, all you can find is a very vague, general outline and claims, for example, that this fund would involve ‘less complexity, less bureaucracy’—that is a heading—and, ‘It will not require a lengthy and complex development process.’ That is all code for giant National party slush fund. That is all that means. This is Regional Partnerships on steroids. This is yet again a return to the big spending, phoney, pretend-you-are-doing-something-while-you-are-stuffing-money-down-the-throats-of-your-mates Howard government political strategy. That is at the very heart of the announcement of the Leader of the Opposition today. This is pure John Howard: pretend you are tackling a problem, pretend you are dealing with the issue, but in the meantime waste lots of taxpayers’ money and hand it over to your mates. The giveaway is in this emissions reduction fund. The interesting thing that shows you what a fraud this all is is that in the emissions reduction fund section it says, ‘We are not going to be rewarding people or penalising people for doing things outside “business as usual.”‘ The message is clear: business as usual is okay. This misses the whole point. Business as usual is the problem. Business as usual is what is driving the increase in emissions both in this country and around the world. If we stick with business as usual, then we end up with all of the potentially extreme consequences of climate change both in this country and elsewhere. It is about changing business as usual that the whole exercise is dedicated to. This is the real giveaway. What a fraud, what a failure, this whole exercise is. It shows what a great con job it is. The Leader of the Opposition today has demonstrated why he is a giant risk and why Australians should be very concerned about the prospect of him becoming Prime Minister. He is a risk to the economy, he is a risk to the budget and he is a risk to addressing climate change. On 19 March 2008, in a statement as the member for Warringah while pursuing an issue in his electorate, he said in this place: We are all Australians. We all deserve a share of government largesse. Just like his big-spending, phoney mentor, Mr Howard, the Leader of the Opposition does not change his spots. The policy he has announced today is a giant con job and the Australian people will reject it as the fraud it is. 49 17:34:00 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 0 Mr ROBB —About 16 months ago when I assumed responsibilities for climate change within the coalition to examine the merit of a deeply flawed Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme put up by the government, the first call I got the next morning at 20 to seven was from a friend of mine who runs a cattle station in the Northern Territory. He has 10,000 to 12,000 head of cattle. He said to me, ‘Andrew, I see you have some new responsibilities and I just want to let you know what I have been up to and I want to make a request.’ He said that for the last four years he had been funding his own research at an institute in Alice Springs into the capture of CO2 in mulga. He said to me, ‘Andrew, whatever you do in the next 16 months, make sure you develop a scheme which will provide the incentive and the opportunity for me to develop the mulga on my place’—his hundreds of square miles where he can improve what has been a quite degraded arid region because of overstocking in the early development of the Northern Territory. He said, ‘There are huge productivity gains, but I cannot afford to do it unless there is some incentive. Whatever you do in the next 16 months, provide some opportunity because there is so much that can be done out here.’ When Professor Garnaut released his report, my attention was drawn to his comments about the opportunities for enhancing the very degraded areas of our arid region by encouraging the owners, the cattlemen. In this case, my friend, who is 68 years of age, had been funding it long before anyone had started really talking in Australia about the design of schemes. I saw in the Garnaut report that Professor Garnaut estimated that the restoration of mulga in the arid regions would contribute up to 250 million tonnes of CO2 per year for many, many decades. That is nearly twice our target for 2020. The Garnaut report also of course looked at other agricultural areas, such as crop land and high-volume grazing land, and the opportunity to apply good agricultural practice further than it had been to capture CO2 and rehabilitate or enhance the productive capacity of crop land and high-volume grazing land. His estimate was that there was another 354 million tonnes of CO2 for many decades in that part of the agricultural sector. This government has never mentioned the arid region. There is no focus on the arid region. That partly, I think, reflects the city based attitudes of those opposite. In the design of most of their policy they ignore the bush. They have ignored the opportunity out there in terms of carbon reduction. They have ignored the arid region and they have ignored other agricultural regions. We are talking about a total of 600 million tonnes—which is about equivalent to the emissions we produce across the nation now—just in agriculture. If we captured that opportunity, we could meet all of our requirements, I suspect, for decades. What it does confirm is that there is every common sense in having a focus on incentives and not a punitive tax. My friend who owns a cattle station has lived in the Northern Territory all his life. If he was taxed then he would have less ability to work with the mulga, to replant, to increase the productive capacity and at the same time to store many tonnes of carbon. What the Garnaut report and what my friend have crystallised is that there is every sense in having a focus on agriculture in the arid region and in other areas. The member for Watson has just sought in this House to suggest that it is not possible to do this. Well, of course it is possible. You could give incentives today. This government could be working today to give incentives in these areas without waiting many years to implement a scheme. It is certainly possible. He talked about the international carbon accounting rules. Of course, very disingenuously and selectively, he did not acknowledge what was said in the paper released today by the coalition. That paper quite explicitly states: … soil carbons are not recognised under existing Kyoto Treaty arrangements, any new global CO2 emissions reduction agreement is expected to include soil carbons. Our paper went on to say in particular: … draft US emissions reduction legislation specifically includes soil carbons, and without their inclusion it is unlikely that a global agreement will be reached. I went to Washington in the fortnight after the Waxman-Markey bill was passed by the lower house there. I went to see what was in the bill and what the attitudes were of people on both sides of the house and of industry. I met with nine industry groups. I met with senators from both sides of the house. What was very clear in what was said to me was that that US draft bill includes agriculture and provides an opportunity for agriculture to be very much part of the international carbon accounting rules. I was told in no uncertain terms that no global agreement would be agreed to by the United States unless agriculture was included. The member for Watson stood up here and sought to mislead the public in terms of what our paper said, what is likely to happen and the opportunities. If we ignore what is going on in the United States, in China and in other areas where big competitors exist then we will perpetuate the core problem with much of the government’s scheme in front of us—that is, it is too far ahead of the rest of the world. It does not accept what is taking place in the design of schemes or the progress in other parts of the world. Now the Australian people have a choice before them on the question of dealing with emissions abatement and emissions reduction. They have a choice between a practical, direct action approach to reducing emissions or a great big new tax which carries huge risks for jobs, for the cost of living and living standards, and for many industries. It carries huge risks. Not only that, the Australian people have a choice between a practical, direct action scheme which is understandable. This will be very clear to people. You give an incentive to a 68-year-old cattleman in the Northern Territory, he undertakes then to plant a certain quantity of new mulga across hundreds of square miles on his property, and that captures CO2. Try and explain to me how the ETS works. I bet the frontbench on the other side could not explain how it works. Certainly the backbench cannot. Certainly the Minister for Climate Change and Water in two years has not been able to, and nor has the Prime Minister. There were discussions at Christmas barbeques all over Australia where people scratched their heads and tried to work out what the hell the ETS was. How did it work? How does paying billions of dollars of taxes—and miraculously increasing the price of electricity by 25 per cent, increasing the cost of grocery bills each week by many dollars and increasing the price of everything in this country—reduce carbon emissions? They have not explained it. They have not stood up here in the House and explained it on any occasion. It is incomprehensible and should not be supported. People now have a choice between an incentive based scheme or a highly punitive penalty based game. What do you think will be the psychology of people in that regard? I think people will cooperate. If a 68-year-old cattleman who has been there all his life took an initiative at his own expense to do something about it nearly eight years ago, it does show where people’s heads are at. If you give them an incentive and give them some assistance to do what they can do, things will happen. People have a choice now between an affordable $10 billion scheme or an economically crushing $115 billion scheme. Our scheme is much, much cheaper while meeting the same targets in 2020. In the scheme that is being proposed by the government, they will auction 70 per cent of all of the permits in the second year. They will issue permits for all of the CO2 production in the country. They will auction 70 per cent and take that money. In the first year it is about $11 billion or $12 billion. The first year in taxes is the cost of our scheme over the whole period through until 2020. They will tax that money. It is 70 per cent of all permits being auctioned. Let’s look at what is happening elsewhere in the world, at what the EU put up as the beacon of emissions trading schemes. They auction four per cent of permits. They get a tax revenue of four per cent of all permits. The Prime Minister and the Labor government will get 70 per cent of all permits. This is massively ahead of the rest of the world. In the US scheme, which is in a draft form and still to be debated—and it could take two years before it ever gets through the House, if it does at all—15 per cent are being auctioned, not the Australian 70 per cent. We are so far ahead of the world that if we pass this ETS we will be absorbing enormous risks. That is why, if we do pass this scheme with those big risks, we will expose ourselves to the loss of tens of thousands of jobs, because industry here will be trying to absorb that tax and pass it on to consumers, where their competitors in other countries have none of that tax. We will export jobs and export emissions if we go along with the government’s scheme. People now have a choice: they can get the same target without that loss of jobs, without industries being put under threat and potentially investing overseas, without any of the fear, uncertainty and confusion that exists in regard to this emissions trading scheme—and, what is more, without a massive big tax of $112 billion or $115 billion coming off the balance sheets of Australian companies which have been the strongest in the world on resources and energy. We are good at it. We have had 150 years of resources and energy. Their balance sheets will be intact so that they can invest in low-emission technology, which we can export. We can lead the world with the technology. That is possible with our scheme, with a direct action scheme. It is impossible with the government’s ETS which is currently on the table. They are looking to choke the potential for industries to develop low-emissions technologies. We saw that today with the Minerals Council’s media release, where they said: The failure of the Copenhagen climate change talks underscored the need to promote and adopt economically conservative climate change policies aligned with the rate of development of policies and actions across the rest of the world. There is no point trying to lead the world with aggressive climate change schemes if the major economies are not interested in following—or worse still, regard Australia’s initiatives as an example of what not to do. The Copenhagen fiasco amply demonstrated that the major economies and Australia’s export competitors have no appetite for radical CPRS-style economic re-engineering in response to climate change. The proposed CPRS remains the most costly emissions trading scheme in the world—while failing to deliver material reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions. That says it all. This is a dog of a scheme that the government has put up. People now have a choice: they can either incur that massive tax, the risk, the uncertainty, the decrease in living standards, the increased cost of everyday living and the job insecurity that will come with that scheme, or they can have the choice of a direct action scheme which is affordable and understandable and which will provide an incentive for industry in Australia to reduce CO2 emissions. (Time expired) 52 17:49:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —The scheme that has been announced today by the new Leader of the Opposition is simply a continuation of the delay and denial that we have become accustomed to in this area from the opposition. To those elements of delay and denial the opposition has now added the element of deception. We had delay for 12 years. There was delay on the part of the former government to even truly engage with the fact that there is dangerous climate change occurring, delay on the part of the former government to ratify the Kyoto protocol, delay on the part of the former government to engage with the serious attempt that is being made worldwide to deal with what is accepted to be a grave problem that faces the entire planet. Throughout that period of delay during the term of the former government, we had denial always bubbling along in the background, denial by a good part of those in the opposition room, those on the other side of the House—denial of the climate change science, denial of the seriousness of the problem. Finally, right before the last election, the delay and denial seemed to lessen just a little as, desperate to shore up some position for the last election, the former Howard government accepted the need for an emissions trading scheme and announced as its policy in the middle of 2007 that it too—like some 32 countries around the world that as of now have either adopted an emissions trading scheme or are in the process of adopting one—would introduce an emissions trading scheme if it were returned to office. Yet, when the Labor government came to office, committed as we were and as we remain to an emissions trading scheme, the opposition returned to their calls for delay. We had: ‘Let’s wait for Garnaut to report.’ We had: ‘Let’s wait for the United States of America to legislate.’ We had: ‘Let’s wait for Copenhagen.’ We had: ‘Let’s wait for the rest of the world to take some more action. Let’s wait for China.’ Anything seems good enough for the opposition, rather than taking the action that they know they should take. Because of the knowledge that it is unsupportable for any responsible political party in Australia to go to the people without accepting that there is a need to take some action, we have now had the new Leader of the Opposition put forward his supposed grand scheme which, it is said, is going to do what all of these schemes need to do—that is, reduce greenhouse gas emissions by our country and, in doing so, persuade the rest of the world that Australia is putting its shoulder to the wheel in the task of reducing global emissions. What have the opposition come up with? What has the new Leader of the Opposition come up with in his first major policy announcement, because that is what this is? What the new Leader of the Opposition has come forward with, in his first major policy announcement, is a piece of deception. We have had delay, we have had denial—both of them continuing for 12 years—and to that we have had added deception. We have a climate con job, one that does not achieve the emissions cuts that are said to be the purpose of such a scheme and one that does not in any sense grapple with the problem that the world is facing. Australians should be in no doubt that the denial camp is running very, very strong on the other side of this House—running strong in the National Party, running strong in the Liberal Party. You can start with the new Leader of the Opposition’s statement at Beaufort in Victoria last year where he said that the argument about climate change was ‘absolute crap’. Those were his words. I am sorry to have to use those words in the House, but those were the words of the Leader of the Opposition, and that shows what he thinks of the serious work that has been done around the world now for some several decades—and that is even before I go to other senior representatives on the opposition front bench. One could start with the words of Senator Minchin, who told the Four Corners program in November last year: If the question is, do people believe or not believe that human beings are causing, are the main cause of the planet warming, then I’d say a majority— and he was talking about the Liberal Party— don’t accept that position. And has that ever been made clear since the change of leadership of the opposition! Senator Minchin is also, of course, a conspiracy theorist, and had this to say on the same program: For the extreme left it provides the opportunity to do what they’ve always wanted to do, to sort of de-industrialise the western world. You know the collapse of communism was a disaster for the left, … and really they embraced environmentalism as their new religion. That was Senator Minchin. Senator Joyce, the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate and the shadow spokesman on finance, a very senior position, said: If you believe what they say about global warming, chapter and verse, then you are way off the mark. Those persisting in serious denial are lurking on the opposition benches both here and in the Senate. That shows why nothing that is produced by the opposition can in any sense be believed in this area. The climate con job that has been produced today is a failure. It is a failure because it will not achieve its stated purpose, which is to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions of our country by the stated five per cent target. It will not even come close and, of course, it is a fraud because what is said in the plan that has been produced by the new Leader of the Opposition includes a large number of misstatements. It is as good evidence as one could want of why the new Leader of the Opposition and those he leads can in no sense be trusted by the people of Australia in this area or indeed in any other. The previous speaker, the member for Goldstein, said, wrongly, ‘We are so far ahead of the world.’ That is nonsense; Australia lags far behind the rest of the world. All of the European Union countries adopted a cap-and-trade emissions trading scheme back in 2004. The scheme has been operating for more than five years, and nobody could suggest—let alone the member for Goldstein in his comment—that Australia is in any way ahead of the world. It is simply nonsense. What we see in the plan produced by the Liberal Party are, first of all, false figures. We see again the recycling of the figure that the Leader of the Opposition has used so frequently over the last couple of months, his assertion of an increase of some $1,100 in Australian families’ bills each year. He was asked where this figure came from and admitted, back in December, that it was based on nothing more than a Google news search. The recycling of that figure here today in the Liberal material, the great Liberal plan that they announced today, demonstrates that they are not seriously engaging in the problem—they are not seriously engaging in the detail or in whether or not an emissions trading scheme is appropriate. Instead they are intent on a dishonest scare campaign. They must know that that figure is almost double the actual impact. They must know that there has been comprehensive and detailed Treasury modelling of the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that that modelling demonstrates that the price rise that is anticipated from the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in 2013 is some 1.1 per cent, on average costing households $624 a year. That cost is to be compensated, and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme contains that compensation, showing that more than 90 per cent of all households will receive assistance and, on average, they will receive assistance of some $660 in 2013. If the opposition were serious and the opposition were not simply peddling a climate con job, if they were serious about engaging with the problem, they would not be peddling this kind of dishonest and misleading scare campaign, particularly as to the potential costs. They know that it is not possible to reduce emissions without some cost. Every country in the world that is serious about reducing greenhouse gas emissions has understood that some cost is involved. What is also understood is that, whatever the cost now, the cost of not acting will be far greater, in two senses. The cost will be greater because the cost to our community of reducing emissions if we make a start only in 2015 or in 2020 will be greater because the need to reduce emissions will be greater and we will need to bring down emissions faster, so the cost will be greater in that sense. And leaving aside the cost of simply reducing emissions, the cost to our community will be greater if we do not act now. What we see in this scheme, this document that has been produced by the Liberal Party today, is no real acknowledgement of what the cost to Australia will be of not taking action on climate change. The simple facts of this matter are that if we fail to act there will be more severe climate events. There will be a decline in agricultural production across Australia. There will be, just to take the Great Barrier Reef as an example, a dramatic destruction of employment—the jobs of working families who live in North Queensland and who depend on the tourist industry for their livelihoods. That will be the effect on jobs in that part of Australia of failing to act on climate change; and of course it requires world action. There will be a massive destruction of employment and jobs in the agricultural industry if we fail to take action on climate change. There will be a threat to every low-lying coastal property throughout Australia if we fail to take action on climate change. The Australian people understand the need for action on climate change, and that is one of the reasons why they supported and elected the Rudd government to govern this country. We have a very clear mandate to introduce a carbon pollution reduction scheme and we are not going to give up, because it is essential that there be both a cap on carbon emissions and a price on carbon in order to get any of the actions that are hoped for by the opposition in their plan. What we see from the opposition is the same old approach that has been pointed out by the Minister assisting the Minister for Climate Change, who pointed out that this was picking winners by the opposition, where they are simply proposing to pour money towards their cronies, to pour money into selected companies, to pour money into perhaps selected industries and to pretend that that is going to achieve the kind of emission cuts that are in fact required. What they have not said in this plan that has been produced today is that the Liberal plan lets the biggest polluters off scot-free. What they have not said in this plan is that their plan has no hope of achieving meaningful cuts. It is not even costed as to the five per cent cuts they say are going to be achieved by the very limited range of measures that they have identified. They say nothing whatsoever about increasing the Australian target to the 15 or 25 per cent targets which the government has left open as a possibility in order to match action across the rest of the world. They do not say in any sense what compensation there will be. They fail entirely to grapple with climate change. Good intentions will not get us there. Directors of companies are bound by fiduciary duty to achieve profits for their shareholders. Their job is to maximise profits—and most Australians know this—not to look after Australians, not to look after people other than their shareholders. The victims of James Hardie know this very well, but those opposite have failed entirely to understand that good intentions are not enough, good intentions will not get us there. Young people say to me constantly that those who are denying the science of climate change—(Time expired) 55 18:05:00 Billson, Bruce, MP 1K6 Dunkley LP 0 0 Mr BILLSON —My contribution tonight tries to put a spotlight on what actually is going on. Speaker after speaker from the Rudd Labor government side have tried to create a false argument that there is some contest over the need for action. That is nonsense. There is no lack of will or want to take action from the coalition parties. What is at debate here is whether the action is wise, whether it is thoughtful, whether it is effective and whether it will bring about the outcomes we are seeking to achieve. My parliamentary colleague the member for Isaacs has been recorded as saying, ‘Support the CPRS and sea levels will drop.’ I give him the benefit of the doubt that there was a little dose of hyperbole at the doorstop, but we need to look at the statements that are being made by my parliamentary colleague the member for Isaacs and Labor members in this place just to see what substance sits behind them. There has been no effort whatsoever to engage on the specific policy details about the excellent plan that Tony Abbott and our team announced today. There has been no willingness to consider the endorsements and the encouragement from industry group after industry group that have been resulting from this excellent, constructive and costed plan. There has been no acknowledgement from the Rudd Labor government and their ministers and those that parrot the pre-prepared lines that nobody actually thinks their CPRS is much good. It is the most friendless and flawed policy proposal that I have seen dismissed so roundly by the Australian people in decades. What we have got instead is now an attempt to attack the opposition for a costed, considered and practical strategy to bring about actual outcomes. If you want to see any clear evidence about how disconnected, arrogant and out of touch the Rudd Labor government is, just reflect on the comments the finance minister made. The finance minister stood in here and talked about the cost of the CPRS. He did not talk about the cost to the Australian economy—no, because that is over $100 billion. He did not talk about the cost of Labor’s flawed and friendless ETS on consumers and small businesses. He did not talk about any of that. All he talked about was what the net impact would be on government revenue. That was what the Minister for Finance and Deregulation characterised as the cost of the Rudd government’s flawed and friendless ETS. This is clearly an example of just how narrow and limited the Rudd Labor government’s analysis is and how its concerns about the cost of its great big tax on everyone and everything, every bit of activity that goes on in our nation, are constrained to what the impact is on the coffers in Canberra. I did not come here just to worry about what the numbers may be in budgetary documents that are of great and gripping consequence for us and for those who are involved in public policy development. That is not the limit of my analysis. I am here to represent the people of my community, and for them the net cost in government expenditure terms is not a true reflection of the actual costs they will be forced to pay as a consequence of the Rudd government’s flawed and friendless ETS. These are households already feeling cost-of-living pressures at every turn. These are families that are struggling to make sure that their budgets balance and that they can provide for their families and prepare for the future. These are people running so close to their own household budgetary limits that they are anxious about job security and the risk that a loss of income for any period of time might be for their household budgets, for their lives, not about the net cost for the government in general revenue terms. These are real people in houses right across our continent, and they want to know what the cost is. We saw in the parliament today during question time an attempt to have Prime Minister Rudd turn his mind to the actual costs, the impacts of his flawed and friendless ETS, and he could not give an answer. We saw him on television this morning talking about a basket of goods and services but unable to answer very basic and specific questions about the cost impact on bread, milk and other essentials of life. When we talk about the cost of the Rudd government’s flawed and friendless ETS, the coalition parties, the Liberal and National parties, are focused on the cost impacts for Australian families, for small businesses, for enterprises in our country and what it might mean for their future, not on the narrow cost argument that the Rudd Labor government presents, where it is only the net impact on general revenue. What that line from the finance minister tries to hide is the enormous churn of over $100 billion of new tax revenue coming to the Commonwealth up until 2020, some of which gets redistributed as compensation for people who are feeling those cost penalties most starkly. But then you look at what sits behind this. I am flabbergasted, as the small business community across Australia is comprehensively flabbergasted, about just how blind, indifferent and uninterested the Rudd Labor government is to the impact of its flawed and friendless ETS tax on everything. The small business community has been crying out for a hearing from the Rudd Labor government. It has been urging government ministers to take action and understand that the impacts on small business are punishing. These are small businesses that do not have the benefit of a busload of lobbyists running around the halls of power here negotiating sweetheart deals with the Rudd Labor government. These are small business men and women, operators and employees in those enterprises right across our continent, who just want to get on with running their small business, and when they looked for support, interest and engagement from the Rudd Labor government they got nothing. Even this morning on Sky Agenda, when Senator Brandis was debating the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Dr Emerson, about the CPRS, do you think Dr Emerson, supposedly the minister for small business, could actually mention small business in his defence of the system? He could not. He could not even utter the words ‘small business’ this morning when he was being debated by Senator Brandis on the impact of this flawed and friendless great big tax on everything, the ETS of the Rudd Labor government. There is probably a reason why he did not mention small businesses. Small businesses are absolutely done over by this measure. They are done over comprehensively by these supposed compensation measures that do not apply to the vast majority of small businesses. In fact, for a small business to qualify for a little bit of largesse from the Rudd Labor government as it soaks up all of the tax revenue under its system you need to consume twice the amount of electricity that an average small business consumes. You have to be a big energy consumer in terms of the average small business to qualify for any of that compensation—that transient, uncertain and insecure compensation that is being waved around as the antidote to the financial pain of this great big tax on everything for small businesses right across our country. It is not as if the Rudd Labor government does not know this. They have been pleaded with by the small business community to take account of the impact on small businesses. There is example after example of COSBOA saying, ‘We have been having a look at this great big tax on everything. You seem to have forgotten small business. Your compensatory measures do not even kick in unless businesses consume twice the amount of electricity that the average small business in Australia consumes.’ And even if businesses are eligible for this transient and uncertain ‘compensation’, as the Rudd Labor government describes it, compensation that reflects pain imposed on those small enterprises, it is about their electricity. Anybody who knows anything about businesses and how they operate knows that they have input costs, items that go into what they might be preparing and producing—the costs of operating their enterprises, of fitting out their premises, of having their team move around and offer goods and services to the marketplace. The activity of being engaged in business is not limited simply to electricity costs. All of those inputs to small business activity will have this great big tax on everything carried through with it, pushing up the costs of those small businesses, every one of them. So not only are the input costs, the punishing financial penalty of the Rudd government’s great big tax on everything for every small business, not factored into the calculations for this so-called compensation that is going to make everything sweet, you then need to consume twice the average electricity consumption of an Australian small business to even get a look in. No wonder the minister for small business could not talk about the interests of small business in his defence of this flawed and friendless scheme. What we have before us are two starkly contrasting propositions. We could create a new bureaucracy and a new trading instrument or system where people will buy and sell permits. We are not quite sure what the outcome will be because the Rudd Labor government, which proposes it, is not certain either. We know that is going to cost an enormous amount of money that will be paid for by families and small businesses across Australia. Contrast that with the Abbott coalition plan. We are not offering funding for people having a go; we are not putting resources into creating some shimmy and shammy of a trading system in the hope that bits of those goings-on will produce an emissions reduction. No, we are not doing anything as indirect and obtuse as that. It is pretty simple: we are offering to purchase actual emissions reductions. We are buying outcomes to achieve our agreed national goals for emissions reductions. The goals are not up for dispute here; the targets are agreed. The need to act—that is agreed. The fact that we have opportunities to achieve abatement—that is agreed. The question here is whether you create a great big tax on everything and hope that the punishing impact of that great big tax on everything under the Rudd government’s flawed and friendless ETS will actually make people do different things. That is the idea: punish them into doing different things. That is the Rudd Labor model: at the heart is the government, huge and rolling in cash that it pulls off regular Australians through increased charges on everything to then make some money available to share the love as only the Labor Party can. That is the option. Or you back the Abbott coalition proposal, where we purchase abatement outcomes. The small business community will be largely excluded from the need to have any additional responsibilities on them other than to—as they all do—consider how to make their business operations as efficient and as effective as they can. The NGER scheme, the national greenhouse and energy reporting scheme, does not involve small businesses, so they are not faced with any new regulatory burden. But, if small businesses want to come together and opt into the scheme and can deliver verifiable, secure emissions reductions, they will be able to be rewarded for that. How practical and straightforward is that? The government will enter the market and purchase emissions reduction outcomes at the cheapest price. In the built environment, something Minister Garrett talks a lot about—he talks a good game, but does so little about it—an opportunity is here in the coalition’s scheme. Anyone with even a passing interest in international research would know that an ETS based or carbon tax based charge on energy needs to be extraordinarily high to bring about changes in the built environment, to see people bring about a change in their technologies in the building fabric and in the systems that they use. Yet we know—and anyone with an interest in the property industry knows through work that McKinsey, the Green Building Council of Australia, the Energy Efficiency Council of Australia and any number of professional groups have done—that there are very affordable, low-cost opportunities to reduce emissions in the built environment. But the Rudd government’s tax on everything—its flawed and friendless ETS—will not bring out those gains and opportunities because of demand inelasticity and the need for those price signals to be so high to bring about the change. Instead, in our proposal the built environment participants can engage. They can bundle up their abatement gains and enter the process where the government would purchase those delivered and secure gains. This is a good thing for the built environment. So we have got supporting claim after supporting claim and industry after industry coming out and talking about just how positive this is and a government that will not turn its mind to and address the fundamental issues of the punishing impact of its flawed and friendless scheme on the small business community. In the recent COSBOA and Telstra business survey, the single most significant concern was: While respondents were concerned about all of these issues, when asked which one issue was of the highest concern, the ETS /carbon tax and higher interest rates lead the pack by a significant margin. The opposition has understood the impact of this flawed and friendless ETS tax on everything and has acted. Our scheme provides relief and comfort for the small business community. We understand they are the engine room—(Time expired) 59 18:20:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise to debate this issue. The opposition called for a debate on climate change, and the government is ready and enjoying the ability that we now have to respond to what has been a very poor attempt to respond to what is a critically important issue for this nation: climate change. Climate change is not something nebulous. It is real and it is happening. That is what the science says and that is what communities in my electorate recognise. They want a government that can take action and they want an opposition that is going to work with the government, as they did last year, to develop a carbon pollution reduction scheme, an ETS that can actually take real action and put in place a real policy response to climate change. Last weekend we had king tides in the Torres Strait, and there has been some coverage around the nation on that. Climate change is real in local communities like mine. Because of rising sea levels, communities on low-lying islands—Saibai, Boigu and others in the Torres Strait—are facing the real risk that their communities do not have a future if we do not do something about climate change. It is real in Leichhardt and it is real in tropical North Queensland. We have Aboriginal communities living in coastal areas along Cape York Peninsula that also face the real risk of rising sea levels and the impacts that will have on their local communities and their way of life. In the northern beach suburbs of Cairns, such as Clifton Beach and Machans Beach, people have built right up to the water’s edge. We did not know 10, 20 years ago, when those houses were being planned and constructed, that climate change would be such a great risk to coastal communities. I see Jennie George in the chamber today. She worked on a report last year that highlighted that tens of thousands of houses across the country are at risk. Many of them are in my electorate of Leichhardt. We are facing a real threat to local communities, such as those in my electorate, and people want action on climate change. They want real action on climate change, and they do not want the con that the Liberal Party are bringing forward today in their attempt to deal with the problems they have in terms of climate deniers in their own party and in the National Party. They are trying to mash a policy together that deals with the divisions in their own party. That is what the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward today. It is not a policy that is about tackling climate change; it is about tackling the divisions in his own party, and that is the reality of the situation. The Rudd government are serious about this issue. We are bringing forward an emissions trading scheme, our Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is a scheme that we sat down and worked with the opposition on late last year, and we all came to an agreement. Those on the other side actually went to caucus and agreed that the deal that had been negotiated between Minister Wong and the opposition spokesperson was a good deal and that it would take action in the context of the international community response. We need an emissions trading scheme. There is no emissions trading scheme in the policy of the opposition. Why do we need an emissions trading scheme? We need it because it puts a real cap on carbon pollution. If we are serious about taking action on climate change then we need to put a cap on carbon emissions. The opposition’s policy has no cap on carbon emissions and no emissions trading scheme. Are there are any other developed countries that are going forward with this singular approach? No. Even conservative leaders overseas are not adopting policies such as the opposition are bringing forward, because regulations, picking winners and using taxpayers’ money in this way are recognised as no way to effectively respond to climate change. We need an emissions trading scheme; we need a mandatory renewable energy target. That is what we committed to and what we worked with the opposition on late last year. We have a target of 20 per cent by 2020. They are good outcomes, and that is what the Australian people want: for the opposition to work with the government to bring about real action on climate change. That is what the people in my community, and in communities all across the country, want. There has been a lot of talk about direct action by the Leader of the Opposition and by others on the other side. The Leader of the Opposition has been getting around in his budgie smugglers and looking the part. The next thing I will see is him putting his cape on for direct action and he will be like some superhero, flying around the country, trying to fix climate change. You do not fix climate change by wearing budgie smugglers and putting a cape on your back; you fix climate change by introducing an emissions trading scheme and a mandatory renewable energy target and by taking real direct action, which is what we have already done. If you look at last year’s budget papers, there is a whole series of direct action responses that we have put in place, as well as a series of actions that we have put in place through our economic stimulus strategy. One example is the Green Car Innovation Fund. I see that the Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry, the member for Corio, is here. I know that he is working actively with the car industry in his local community on direct action and innovation to develop green cars in this country so that in the future we can drive cars that are more climate friendly. As part of our Nation Building and Jobs Plan we have developed efficiency measures which include our ceiling insulation program. That has been very popular in my electorate, and I know it has been very popular in other members’ electorates around the country. I see that Mr Bradbury, who is in the chamber, is nodding in support for that. We have our green loans, which are another example of direct action supporting householders to make a difference in their local communities. These are examples of the direct action that the government have already taken. In my own electorate of Leichhardt I have a fantastic natural resource management organisation called Terrain, who are working in partnership with a group called Degrees Celsius. I have facilitated meetings between them, Minister Wong and members of her department to look at how we can work with local farmers and local community groups to sequester carbon and give soil carbon a real future in terms of action on climate change. That is not a slogan; that is the hard work that a natural resource management organisation in tropical North Queensland is doing. They are working with the government to develop a framework that will enable carbon to be properly accounted for and audited within an international framework. The opposition’s policy does not sit within any international framework. As I said, 35 countries, including the United States of America, have either adopted an ETS or have plans to adopt an ETS. We are working on and developing a framework that works with the international community. Businesses across the country want certainty, and they want a framework that will fit within those international obligations. If we go back and look at the risks in my community of Leichhardt in tropical North Queensland, the Marine and Tropical Sciences Research Facility, the MTSRF, and the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre have done a significant amount of work, pulling together the real threats of climate change to my local community. Their climate change projections predict that by 2030 the regional average annual temperature will increase by between 0.6 degrees Celsius and 1.2 degrees Celsius and that after 2030 the rate of increase will be highly dependent on the emissions levels. That is why we need to take action now. What we do now will take time to impact on carbon emissions, and we need to make sure that we do not have temperature rises like that because they will impact on the Great Barrier Reef and on the wet tropical rainforests. They will impact on communities all across my electorate and all across the country. The region’s average annual rainfall will be similar, but traditionally dry seasons will become drier and wet seasons will become slightly wetter. Cyclones will be stronger, more frequent and longer lasting, and the region of cyclone activity will shift southwards, affecting areas 300 kilometres further south than today by 2070. Local sea levels will be 13 to 20 centimetres above 1990 levels and 49 to 89 centimetres above 1990 levels by 2070. They are predicting sea levels and temperature rises in my local community, and these are very serious issues. Climate change is not nebulous. It is not—as Tony Abbott has described it—‘crap’. It is real, and we need to take action to tackle it. We need an emissions trading scheme, we need a mandatory renewable energy target to support renewable energy and we need the direct action measures that I have already spoken about. Some of the likely impacts of these projected changes that the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre has come up with include: increased vulnerability of fragmented forests to storm damage, which in turn limits the potential for animal and plant communities to recover via connective corridors; increased erosion, particularly when riparian vegetation is damaged or removed; decreased capacity of the coastal zone to act as a storm buffer; and reduced pollination rates of forest plants, caused by altered flowering regimes that no longer coincide with the presence of insects that are essential for pollination. The list goes on. The centre says that in the Great Barrier Reef there will be increased frequency and severity of coral-bleaching events, particularly in the central and southern parts of the GBR, which is predicted to suffer catastrophic bleaching events; coral mortality greater than 20 per cent once every five years by 2050; and greater sensitivity to coral bleaching caused by increased exposure to terrestrial runoff. Coastal and intracostal coral reefs are two to four times more sensitive to bleaching due to temperature stress and being subject to runoff. So climate change is real. It has real risks. This is the data of the Reef and Rainforest Research Centre. They are talking about the likely increases in temperature and ocean levels and the impacts they are going to have on the Wet Tropics rainforest and on the Great Barrier Reef. It is a real threat and it is no wonder communities like mine want action. And what do we have from the opposition? We do not have a policy. We have a grab bag of ideas that have been strung together to try to make sure that the divisions in the opposition are, effectively, papered over. That is what this is about. The approach that the Leader of the Opposition has taken to this issue highlights that this really is a political response rather than a serious response to climate change. As the former Leader of the Opposition, Mr Turnbull, wrote in his blog, the Leader of the Opposition, Mr Abbott, has been a bit of a weathervane on this issue. The reality is that last year he basically said that we needed to take action on climate change. Then he said, effectively, that we needed to do a deal. Then he flipped and said we did not need to do a deal. Then he said that he was going to be opposed to an emissions trading scheme. He has flipped and flopped on this issue, and today we have seen him come into this House, ask a series of questions and demand a debate with the Prime Minister after releasing a grab bag of policies. The hypocrisy of it is that the Leader of the Opposition has described climate change as ‘crap’ and yet is coming in and delivering what he said is ‘an important response to climate change through direct action’. How can he last year describe it as ‘crap’ and this year want to come in and argue that he is serious about the issue? I think the Australian people see that this is not a serious response to climate change. We need to recognise that Senator Minchin, Senator Joyce and others who supported Mr Abbott becoming Leader of the Opposition are in the background there. We all know that they are on the record as believing that climate change is not influenced by human beings and that it is not a real result of human activity on this planet. As I have said, according to the Tropical Forest Research Centre, the RRRC in my electorate and the intergovernmental panel, the science on this is settled. There is a real risk of climate change impacting local communities as a result of human activity if we do not take action. I go to a quote showing Mr Abbott’s real lack of understanding, considering the issues that I have already raised in my electorate. In a recent speech on 30 January 2010, he said: … even if dire predictions are right and average temperatures around the globe rise by four degrees over the century, it’s still not the “great moral challenge” of our time … So a couple of days ago he basically said that temperatures can go up four degrees and it really will not be a major issue. Tell that to the people of the Torres Strait. Tell that to tourism operators in my electorate who are taking action in their own businesses. Big Cat Green Island Reef Cruises are looking to reduce their carbon emissions. Quicksilver are looking to reduce their carbon emissions. Tell that to tourism operators who are taking tourists every day to the Wet Tropics rainforest. We have seen the RRRC say that the Wet Tropics rainforest and Great Barrier Reef are under real threat if we see just a small rise in temperatures in our region, yet Mr Abbott is saying a four-degree rise is not an issue. I think that climate change is not crap. The response of the opposition is, effectively, as Mr Abbott has described, crap, and we need to make sure that we act in the national interest. We need to work with the opposition. I call on them to work with us so we take real action to ensure that communities in my electorate have a long-term future, whether in tourism or in Indigenous communities in the cape and the Torres Strait. They want action. We are going to continue to act in the national interest. I support strongly the actions of the Prime Minister and others who are looking to develop and further advance our policies. 62 18:35:00 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 0 Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —I have listened with interest to the bleating of the Labor Party members this afternoon, and basically they just do not get it. There is not going to be an ETS tax. Perhaps I will borrow the words of Peter Hartcher, who commented in the Sydney Morning Herald this morning. He said: As today will noisily demonstrate, one of the big, futuristic ideas Rudd championed, the plan to tackle climate change with an emissions trading system, is no longer in the national future. … it’s now a lost prospect, rapidly receding in the rear-vision mirror. So Rudd needs a new future. He then goes on to comment that he has discovered the 10-year-old analysis that showed that Australia has an ageing population, that there is a demographic change. He said that perhaps Mr Rudd can latch onto this and that can be his big, new, future-championing issue. Terry McCrann, on the other hand, is very analytical and points out that the aim of Mr Rudd to have an ETS, which is a massive tax on everything and will do nothing to assist the growth in productivity, is deliberately at odds with the policy that Mr Rudd now wishes to champion, which is to have an increase in productivity. He points out very ably that the one thing that will allow us to have an increase in productivity is cheap energy, yet that is exactly what this government wants to tax, having that tax cascade right down through the community as a whole so that the impact is felt by ordinary mums and dads—ordinary families—to the tune of $1,100 a year. That is every year. The tax is forever—or it would have been forever. The so-called churned compensation payments are temporary—they are for three years—but the impost, the $1,100 per family, is forever and escalating. If you look at the response that has been received by the coalition to the announcement of its policy this morning, you will see that it is totally different from what is being said by Labor Party members in the chamber. I think it is useful to quote from a few of the releases that are being put out by responsible organisations who want people to know that they are supportive of the coalition’s approach. The Australian Retailers Association, the peak national industry body, has come out in support of Tony Abbott’s proposed climate change policy, acknowledging the key features being no impact on jobs and no new taxes. It says: Tony Abbott has today shown that there are options to support responsible environmental considerations without instituting a massive new tax and putting thousands of Australian jobs at risk. It further says: Australian small businesses, Australian jobs and Australian working families all want responsible and positive environmental solutions at a national level. What they don’t want and can’t afford is the Rudd ETS tax that will send us backwards as a nation. That is Mr Driscoll, who was making that comment on behalf of the Retailers Association. The Australian Food and Grocery Council says: The Australian Food and Grocery Council has welcomed the coalition’s approach to a carbon reduction scheme that provides incentives for business to reduce emissions while minimising the cost to industry and the Australian economy. What we have been saying from the beginning is that it is vital that any approach to climate change does not hurt the competitiveness of Australian businesses and industry. In the aftermath of Copenhagen, it is clear that a tax on business will result in jobs, investment and emissions being sent offshore to China, India and Indonesia. Any scheme that adds new cost to Australian manufactured goods and does not affect imports from countries like China and Indonesia will simply raise prices for families and increase unemployment in rural and regional Australia, jobs which are already scarce. The National Farmers Federation says that it: … welcomes the general principles outlined today in the Coalition’s climate change mitigation policy as it relates to the farm sector. It says that it is: … buoyed by the recognition of the positive role that farmers can play in reducing greenhouse gas concentrations and storing carbon. That, incidentally, was responded to by, I think, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who said it was just going to be a ‘mighty slush fund’. The National Farmers Federation has a much higher opinion of farmers. The NFF is encouraged that the Coalition has committed to an incentive based scheme for farmers to drive abatement from their sector … In addition, we are comforted by the Coalition’s commitment to no additional indirect costs to energy and energy related farm inputs, which can have a major impact on the profitability of our businesses and regional communities. …            …            … The Coalition is … right to acknowledge the need to consider potential impacts on agriculture … The Minerals Council of Australia, quoted earlier, said: The Coalition’s climate change policy strikes at the real intent of pricing carbon—providing an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without negatively impacting on jobs, investment, exports and growth. The Minerals Council of Australia welcomes the shift to a policy designed to use incentives as a driver to reduce emissions rather than an approach that is pre-occupied with penalising business to raise revenue. The Coalition’s proposal establishes an incentive for companies to invest billions of dollars in breakthrough technologies critical to reducing emissions. Without the commercial development and deployment of low emissions technology—such as clean coal—emissions reductions targets are merely a wing and a prayer. There is no point trying to lead the world with aggressive climate change schemes if the major economies are not interested in following—or worse still, regard Australia’s initiatives as an example of what not to do. The National Association of Forest Industries: … welcomes the inclusion of direct forestry measures as part of the climate change policy package announced by the Federal Opposition today. It says: These measures reflect the important role forestry can play in removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as well as the green energy that can be produced from wood wastes that are a byproduct of tree growing and processing activities … The National Generators Forum said it does not support the federal government’s CPRS in its current form. It says: The CPRS badly damages the asset values of generating business, which creates serious risk for energy security and investment. Finally, ACCI, the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, says: Given the uncertainty now existing after Copenhagen over what other nations will do, a domestic policy approach that provides more carrot than stick tends to reflect the temper of the times. What are we proposing? A direct, straightforward policy which is careful, cautious, considered and valuable. There are no regulations. There is no new tax. There is an outcome which is positive right from the beginning, with the aim to improve soils and land. It is a simple and direct action program. It is quite contrary to the plan that the Labor Party has to remain dependent on the pain of increased electricity prices to force down the use of electricity and force reduction in emissions, thereby shrinking the economy as well. In our proposal, put forward by the Leader of the Opposition this morning, business will be able to carry on business as usual. There is a cap. I heard speaker after speaker from the government side say that there is no cap—there is and it is accepted as necessary. The cap is the average of the emission level that particular business is emitting at the time. If that business wishes to expand, it will be able to expand at that same level; the cap will remain the same. If it wants to open up a new business, again it will have the same measurement for the cap. If that business decides that it can reduce its emissions and establish a new lower cap for itself, that will be the one that is accepted and binding but there will be compensation paid and they can sell those savings in emissions to the new emissions reduction fund. That is the $2.5 billion fund that has been established to see the lowering of emissions. But there is no fetter on business, there is no penalty for ordinary people and there is no harshness that says that you may not live in the 21st century in the way that you have come to believe is right for you and your family. It will mean that, with research being done, there will be the ability to utilise our coal, particularly the very clean coal in New South Wales, which is sulfur free, and black coal. There is a $2 million fund which has been allocated to investigate the burying of high-voltage overhead power lines underground, which would free up those corridors of land which are currently dead land and not used. They could be used for growing trees, and the land could be sold off or used for a different nature. The urban green corridors that are proposed mean that there is a positive way of seeing new trees growing which will again assist with abatement but without additional costs. The whole of the plan that has been put forward, which is one of incentives instead of punishment, is based on the fact that we can find the savings in the budget to pay for this scheme. I heard ministers across the table, particularly the Minister for Finance and Deregulation, demand calculations and costings and yet I found it quite extraordinary that he is a finance minister in a government where the Prime Minister could not answer a question in this chamber as to what would be the impact of the ETS on the cost of milk. He could not answer a similar question on television about bread and he could not answer a question, again in this chamber, as to what impact his additional tax on everything would have on a small business like a drycleaner. In every instance he ducks, weaves and avoids the question. LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr Baldwin —Cassius Clay. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs BRONWYN BISHOP —Yes. I must say I found it very interesting that the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, the member for Watson, began his contribution to this debate by once again making sneering remarks about older Australians which he thought were pretty amusing. But he too got it wrong, as I pointed out often through his address. He had not read the papers that had been produced this morning and simply came in here with his old rhetoric. I want to compare the 30 pages of information that we put out today with the so-called policy details that the Labor Party went to the last election on. It said: Labor’s plan for climate change and primary industries—‘Australia’s Farming Future’—is a key component of Labor’s overall strategy on climate change. A Rudd Labor Government will— ratify Kyoto and reduce emissions. But then it said it will: implement an emissions trading scheme in 2010 to provide the right market signals for industry and ensure our trade exposed sectors are not disadvantaged … That is it; that was the policy—no costings, no details on how this grand tax on everything would affect the Australian economy, no details of how it would impact on small business, no details of how it would impact on grocery prices, which are already going through the roof, no details still. We have had this debate which the Leader of the Opposition asked for, one on one with the Prime Minister, half an hour each, and we have been debating it ever since. The Prime Minister ran away, but we still have no more information from him about how the legislation that he is reintroducing into the parliament would impact on the people. We heard the finance minister talking about an attack on his budget but there was no mention about whether or not there was a bad impact on people. I might be old-fashioned, but I have a good old-fashioned view—that is, I think governments should be poor and the people should be rich, not the other way around, which is what the Labor Party always wants to happen. It believes it will always spend people’s money better than individuals will spend it on themselves. I thoroughly disagree. (Time expired) 66 18:50:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I was listening to the honourable member for Mackellar give her contribution in which she talked about the coalition’s plan. Even a cursory glance shows that it is not so much a plan but something that is cobbled together and a continuation of the con job on climate change. It is the continuation of the fear campaign that they are running in the community on this issue. Just to highlight some of the inconsistencies in the all-over-the-shop approach that they have to their climate change policy, if you could call it a policy, I would like to start with a few quotes. On 27 November last year the member for Warringah, Tony Abbott, said that if there is to be a carbon priced awareness of coal fired electricity and oil driven cars an ETS may be the most market oriented way to do so. He said: That’s why I think there is a strong case for an ETS but it’s got to be the right ETS. It’s got to be an ETS that protects Australian jobs and protects Australian industries … That is precisely what the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which contains the emissions trading scheme of the government’s policy, is. It is about protecting the economy. It is about protecting the environment. It is a major economic reform and that is what is required to tackle climate change. There are a whole range of things that need to be done to tackle climate change and the Rudd government is doing them. It is not just one measure, but an emissions trading scheme as part of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme is one of the key ways to do that. There has to be a cap on emissions. In whatever way you look at it there is no magic pudding answer that the coalition seem to keep coming up with. There has to be a cap and that is what the government’s policy to climate change is. There is a cap and it has to be costed. The biggest polluters under our scheme will pay. The coalition are saying that nobody will pay. They are in fairyland and fantasy land if they think that there can be no cost. Under our plan low- and middle-income householders will not have to pay and they will be compensated. I heard some of the opposition members at the doors this morning talking about the finances of the government’s scheme and they were saying that they were ‘crap’ too. We are talking about Treasury modelling. We are not talking about something that we cobbled together one weekend and said, ‘This is how much it is going to cost and this is how much people will get back.’ It was Treasury modelling done independently. That is what we are acting on and we have taken advice on some of those issues. I am not sure where the coalition are getting their advice from. I have some more quotes, and some of them are priceless and are absolute gems. The member for Warringah on 11 November 2009 in the Australian said: … if the government substantially accepts our amendments— to the CPRS— there is no reason why this legislation can’t be passed. In June 2009 the member for Warringah said: The point I made about an emissions trading scheme is that I don’t like it one bit. I think it is economically suspect and I think the science behind the policy is contentious to say the least. This flip-flopping that has been going on since last year, and in 2010 we are back in parliament with the same scenario. The member for Warringah said that our policy was absolute crap. He also said that he was like a weathervane on climate change. I made the comment that he may have said he was like a weathervane, and we know what that is, but he is more like the weathercock in my yard that spins around and changes daily, depending on which way the breeze is blowing and depending on how things are going. One day it is this and the next day it is that. I have read about so many different positions coming from the coalition on climate change that it would be hard for anyone in the public to make sense of them. It is also like having two bob each way: ‘One day I will say this and the next day I will say that. Then there is another audience so I will say this and with the other audience I will say that.’ It reminded me of a movie that I saw a long time ago. It was a Red Skelton movie so that dates it a little bit. I am sure, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, you might be familiar with it, given your interests. I have only ever heard one other person talk about it, Senator Robert Ray, which was when I decided that I would like him because he talked about that particular movie. It was about Red Skelton trying to play to both sides of the fence, to the Confederates and the Yankees. He had a uniform and a flag and was walking between them and playing to both sides. A gust of wind came, like the weathervane and the weathercock, which spun him around and he ended up with the wrong side of the flag facing the opposing parties. They all then started shooting at him. That is how I see the member for Warringah, the Leader of the Opposition, on his policy of climate change. He is playing to all sides, and I am talking about all sides within his own coalition to start with, because they are all over the shop on it and are divided. If they are divided on this, despite what they say they have come up with today, how can the public trust them on this issue? I think that they are going to get caught in the firing line, like Red Skelton did, with all sides firing at them eventually. They cannot continue to run a scare campaign without some facts. In absolute disregard of Treasury modelling, I heard the member for Warringah saying it would cost families $1,100 per year. That comment has absolutely no basis in fact whatsoever. He continued to peddle it in the face of the facts of the situation. The facts are that for an average family the Treasury modelling says costs will be around $624 a year, compensation will be $660 and the big polluters are paying. The big polluters paying means that money will go into a fund which is hypothecated. It is not going back into the coffers of consolidated revenue. It is hypothecated back to deal with the issue of climate change. You hear other comments from the coalition such as, ‘Copenhagen, nothing came out of that.’ One big thing did come out of that which was that major advanced economies agreed they would keep the temperature rises in their countries to under two per cent. I noticed that the small island countries asked for something lower and other countries asked for different things. But they agreed to one key thing and all countries have a variety of mechanisms to do it. Yes, we have laws, we have policies and we have lots of other actions that we can do, but it is always better if it can be in a legal framework. Another comment that the coalition has peddled about an emissions trading scheme, as part of the con job, is that ‘nobody is doing it’. That is not true. Thirty-five nations have either already introduced or are introducing emissions trading schemes. Why is that? It is because an emissions trading scheme has been proven to be the cheapest and most cost-effective way to limit emissions, and that is what we have to do. The nations and the leaders who say that they will have an emissions trading scheme are not limited to one side of politics; they are from all sides. We see the Prime Minister of New Zealand, who is from the conservative side of politics, adopting it; David Cameron, the Leader of the Conservative Party in the UK, is also adopting it. So it is not just one side. One of the most reckless and irresponsible comments I have heard the member for Warringah make was recently when he said that if the temperature rises by four degrees it does not really matter and it is not a moral challenge for us. It is a challenge on any front. We have agreed to keep it below two degrees and he is saying, ‘If it goes four degrees or beyond, that is not a problem.’ If there were a temperature increase of four degrees we would face serious threats. The number of very hot days, over 35 degrees, would increase dramatically. The Great Barrier Reef and the billions of dollars from the tourism industry that rely on it would be devastated. A lot of this is documented in the report that Professor Garnaut produced. The Murray-Darling Basin would also be beyond salvation. Eastern Australia would have 40 per cent more droughts and there would be a 90 per cent decrease in irrigated agriculture in the nation’s food bowl. All of this can be avoided, and that is what the Australian community and the people in my electorate of Page want to happen. They want us to get on with the business of tackling climate change, and that is what the government is doing; it is taking decisive action. The delay is coming from the coalition. We need to get on and do it. It is not beyond us; we can do it. The costs of inaction, though, start to be a real problem, and they can be sheeted home directly to the coalition with their delaying tactics, which are purely to seek some sort of electoral gain. There have been some priceless quotes from the coalition, and one of them comes from Senator Joyce from the National Party, who said on Lateline in December 2009: … man did not go to develop the wheel because they taxed walking and they didn’t tax horses to develop the automobile— I can see the member for Cowper at the table, laughing— So this idea that emissions trading scheme brings you carbon nirvana is ludicrous. How could you even comprehend what he is talking about when he makes statements like that? It is a bit beyond my comprehension— 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase —You’ve got to be a lateral thinker! HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —I am totally lateral thinking; I think that is totally myopic thinking! There are other gems like this. Maybe we should have them published in a little book called ‘gems of wit and wisdom of the National Party on climate change’ or ‘the thoughts of Chairman Barnaby Joyce on how to tackle climate change and how to help farmers’. This brings me to the issue of farmers. A lot of farmers see the daily impacts of climate change. They talk about it. They do want action on this. The government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, which now includes the amendments that were put forward by the coalition, incorporates a whole range of measures that farmers particularly wanted and were happy with. I was happy with it. I live in an electorate that has a strong agriculture industry, and I have talked with many farmers about it. They want some certainty about this and they certainly have not got it. I noticed a statement by ACCI commenting on the plan put out by the coalition today, and it says that they need to see the budget impact. That is a critical issue, because you cannot put something to the Australian public that is about a major economic reform without having it properly costed and budgeted. With those comments, I can say that it really is time for the coalition to be true to their word, to support the amendments that they put forward and that the government accepted, and to get behind the Australian public and seriously tackle climate change. 69 19:05:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —With all the rhetoric being delivered by the Prime Minister and his spin doctors on the issue of climate change and the need for an ETS, you would almost believe that he is in fact the oracle or that he is the font of all wisdom when it comes to the issues of climate change and an emissions trading scheme. There are two very different proposals being put forward with identical outcomes. The coalition’s proposal seeks to reduce carbon emissions by five per cent. Labor’s emissions trading scheme—or ‘emissions taxing scheme’—or CPRS, seeks to reduce carbon emissions by five per cent. That is where the similarity ends. The coalition’s proposal, over the four years of forward estimates, will cost $3.2 billion. By stark comparison, the Labor government’s emissions trading scheme, the tax that it wishes to impose on industry and everyday Australians, will cost $40.6 billion. That is $3.2 billion versus $40.6 billion. I need to explain, as you do in a debate, the analysis of each of the systems. Under the Prime Minister’s emission taxing scheme, you have a system in which everyone and everything will be taxed. Industries will be taxed, major emitters will be taxed, businesses will be taxed, farmers will be taxed, motorists will be taxed and plumbers and builders will be taxed. Everyone in the community will suffer at the hands of an emission taxing scheme—not forgetting the pensioners. The Prime Minister has asked: how can you have a system that does not penalise the major emitters? Yet, when I look through the government’s emissions trading scheme proposal, there is a whole raft of free permits for major emitters. So he is not directly affecting them from day one—there is a phase-in period. They get free permits to start with. But there is one thing which needs to be understood—and it is probably problematic for people in the Labor Party to understand. In business, when costs are put upon you, you work out the costs of your production—the cost of producing whatever it is you sell or trade in—and, if there are more costs, they go onto the bottom line and then you divide by the number of products, add in a margin for profit and that is what you sell your product for. The Prime Minister has been trying to hoodwink the community that, if businesses have these costs, this tax, imposed upon them, they will absorb it. That just does not happen. The costs are passed on. Whilst the energy industry might get hit with a tax, with all these costs, it is not going to sit back and absorb the costs. It will simply pass them on. And, if the coal industry in the Hunter Valley gets hit with all these taxes, it will just pass the cost on. All industries will simply pass the cost on. The aluminium industry, a major employer, will simply pass the cost on. In fact, everything and everybody affected by this tax will not absorb it; they will pass it on—unless, of course, you happen to be a consumer. At the end of this whole arrangement being put forward by the Labor government, the only people that will be paying for the ETS will be consumers, because industry will pass the costs on. That means every man, woman and child in this nation will be paying for the cost of an ETS. When you compare the $40.6 billion cost over four years of the ETS plan of the Labor government against the $3.2 billion plan over the four years—both with the same outcome of a reduction of five per cent—where are the stark differences? The stark differences are that you lead by incentive, you create the opportunities through incentive and you do not penalise. If somebody is already at world-leading practice, with emissions as low as can be achieved, why should they be penalised? Why should they have taxes placed upon them which, in addition, make them less internationally competitive? The policies that have been released today have a lot of detail. It is the comments of the industry people out there that I find most encouraging. A statement today from the National Farmers Federation said: “The NFF is encouraged that that the Coalition has committed to an incentive based scheme for farmers to drive abatement from their sector,” NFF president David Crombie said. “In addition, we are comforted by the Coalition’s commitment to no additional indirect costs to energy and energy related farm inputs, which can have a major impact on the profitability of our businesses and regional communities.” ACCI said today, in a statement by Peter Anderson: It is in the public interest for there to be a strong contest of policy ideas about climate change responses before we impose major or unilateral adjustment costs on our economy, and the Coalition statement contributes to that. An industry that affects my region dramatically is the mining industry. A statement today from Mitch Hooke, Chief Executive Officer of the Minerals Council of Australia, said: The Coalition’s climate change policy strikes at the real intent of pricing carbon – providing an incentive to reduce greenhouse gas emissions without negatively impacting on jobs, investment, exports and growth. The statement goes on to say: The Coalition’s proposal establishes an incentive for companies to invest billions of dollars in breakthrough technologies critical to reducing emissions. I draw the House’s attention to the front page of the Newcastle Herald from June 11 last year. The front page said, ‘Carbon plan: 17,000 jobs at risk in Hunter’. It was an article by Ian Kirkwood, the industrial reporter, and it said: THE Federal Government’s carbon pollution reduction scheme would severely affect the Hunter economy, a new report commissioned for the NSW Government reveals. The Access Economics report into the scheme’s impact on disadvantaged regions says that by 2025, it could cost the Hunter 17,000 jobs and cut its commercial output by more than $1 billion a year. Coal, predictably, would be hardest-hit with at least one in three Hunter coalminers likely to lose their jobs as industry output fell by 37 per cent “relative to the [no carbon scheme] baseline”. It would also be felt at Tomago Aluminium and Hydro’s Kurri Kurri smelter, with national aluminium output predicted to be at least 50 per cent less than without the scheme. The Hunter’s coal-fired electricity industry is also expected to suffer. Overall, Access Economics says the proposed carbon scheme will cut the Hunter’s output by 3.7 per cent and take 2 per cent from employment. Things become dramatically worse if Australia’s carbon permits are not part of an international trade. In this case, employment is hit by 7.8 per cent and output by 10.2 per cent. That is perhaps one of the most damning articles I have ever read about the impact of an emissions trading scheme on a region—an impact that would be hard for many to recover from. Compounding that, of course, is the rise in power bills. In October last year, IPART put out a report saying that the price of electricity would rise, and rise dramatically. In fact, the IPART report said: By 2013, the impact of the Federal Government’s emissions trading scheme would increase the average bill of EnergyAustralia customers by 23 per cent, Integral Energy customers by 25 per cent and Country Energy customers by 21 per cent. So we have two very different proposals to achieve the same outcome—an outcome of five per cent. You have the proposal by the Labor government that taxes everybody and everything, which, according to a report by Access Economics commissioned by the New South Wales Labor government, will see some 17,000 jobs go in the Hunter region. Contrast that with the proposal put forward by the coalition which will see no jobs go—no jobs go, no tax. One proposal is: 17,000 jobs go, a tax on everything and the average household electricity price will go up nearly $730 a year. Against this is: no increase in electricity, no increase in unemployment, no increase in tax and, therefore, no increase in grocery prices and no additional cost to households but still achieving that five per cent goal. So, for the life of me, I cannot understand why the government is not prepared to sit down and look at this. I cannot understand why the Prime Minister, with all his rhetoric, was determined to drive Australia into a position which the rest of the world was never going to pick up—Copenhagen displayed that—and which is going to financially disadvantage our industries that are internationally competitive. The people in this country, the industries in this country, have worked hard, invested a lot of money and been determined to be internationally competitive. And they have achieved that. They have done it well. They have done it very successfully. Off the backs of their efforts, this country rode through the global financial crisis without too much of a deep impact. So now this Labor government’s intent is to tax them out of existence. Mr Deputy Speaker, I put this proposal to you: if the Labor government’s ETS had been imposed on Australia prior to the global financial crisis, what position would we have come through the global financial crisis in? Let me tell you, the word ‘recession’ would have imprinted over the quarterly results for many, many terms. I say to this government: you are not the oracle. You are not the font of all knowledge. You do not have the only plan. And the problem is that you have trapped yourself into a corner where you have failed to accept any other ideas. I remember well when you first released your emissions trading scheme, your CPRS, and it was non-negotiable. You were not prepared to sit down at the table and talk to the coalition; it was your way or the highway. 00AMM Hartsuyker, Luke, MP Mr Hartsuyker —It had to be passed before Copenhagen! It was going to be the end of the world! LL6 Baldwin, Robert, MP Mr BALDWIN —It had to be passed before Copenhagen. And then, when you realised that you could not get your bill through the Senate, you decided to sit down and have some chats. But all the time there was this determination to have it through before Copenhagen. I am proud that we voted against it. I am proud that we did not arm the Prime Minister—with this penalty on Australia heading off into the international marketplace, saying, ‘Look what I’m going to do to my nation’—when his proposals and other proposals like that were resoundingly rejected in Copenhagen. So wisdom has finally come through. Now that people are starting to understand that ETS is a tax and nothing more than a tax, they have decided to start to reject it. As politicians, when the polls are going our way or not going our way, we say, ‘Oh, we don’t look at the polls,’ but let me tell you, I have been listening to the people. Since the vote on the ETS went through the House, it has been very clear through the contact to my office that people have finally woken up that this is a tax on everything and a tax on everybody. I say to the Prime Minister: suffer a little humility. Listen to the people. Look at the opportunities. Look at those 17,000 jobs that will disappear in the Hunter. Look at the fact that under your proposal electricity prices will increase. Look at the bureaucracy you will have to create as you process these permits, as you collect the taxes, as you then have to provide the compensation packages. With compensation packages and taxes being collected, who is going to end up paying for all of this expenditure? As I said, just over the next four years and the cost will be $40.6 billion. Who will pay? Let me tell you: it will not just be paid in money; it will be paid in lost opportunities, it will be paid in fewer jobs. So I say to the Prime Minister during this debate: listen to the people. Look at other opportunities. You have had two years in office now. You could have started a campaign of action over two years ago. You do not have to rely on a tax to provide that action. (Time expired) 72 19:20:00 Rea, Kerry, MP HVR Bonner ALP 1 0 Ms REA —In contributing to this debate, I would like to say to the opposition: unfortunately, most of the world, including the broader Australian community, already understand that there is no climate change policy that will not bear some cost to our community. We have heard speaker after speaker from the opposition talk about the fact that they are going to reduce emissions and produce this fantastic policy which will achieve all these wonderful environmental outcomes without costing anybody anything. I say to them quite clearly: that is not the case. There is a cost to dealing with climate change. There is a cost to acting on climate change. I also say to them that the cost of acting on climate change is nowhere near the cost of doing nothing. That is what we are faced with as a parliament, as a government, as a community and, indeed, as a global community. Today we saw the coalition release its policy on climate change. The coalition is commonly and most often referred to as a coalition between the Liberal Party and the Nationals. Today we saw a coalition of climate change sceptics and political opportunists quickly cobble together a policy that acknowledged that they had to have some public response to what is the most significant debate in our community at the moment. It was a knee-jerk political response that was not really serious about dealing with the very difficult challenges that we must face if we are going to do something about reducing emissions. This challenge, as I have already said, is being discussed and debated in parliaments, in communities and in households across the globe. The fact that world leaders have not necessarily come to an agreement at this point in time does not mean that it is not something that every government and community in the world is still discussing and trying to deal with. It simply demonstrates the complexity of the problem and the difficulty of the decisions that we must make. Nevertheless, I believe that we will get decisions and, as a result, we will get outcomes. What does the opposition give us? As the Prime Minister has already said, it gives us a magic pudding of a policy. It is not going to cost us anything. It is not going to cause any damage but it is going to solve some of these most difficult problems. It is a policy that talks about some fairly important but nevertheless piecemeal issues in addressing the issue of climate change. We all know that putting solar panels on houses is obviously going to reduce energy consumption and cost. We all know that carbon sequestration—the storage of carbon in soil—is one way of looking at reducing our CO2 emissions. We all know that planting more trees is also another solution. But none of these things can possibly address the amount of pollution that is being put into the air at this point in time and none of those initiatives will reduce emissions to the point where we will see our community become more environmentally and, therefore, more economically and socially sustainable. I was interested to see that one of the proposals is for underground power cables. The coalition’s policy talks about a $4 billion cost, roughly, over four years. In my previous job as a councillor on the Brisbane City Council, I was part of making decisions about underground power cables and I know how much that costs. In the particular area of Brisbane that I represented, it cost several million dollars to put power cables underground in one small shopping centre in one suburb in one city. They are talking about doing this across the whole country. First of all, in addressing the concerns that I have about this particular policy, I think the costs are unrealistic and probably not achievable. I think that they will be borne by the taxpayer. I say, ‘I think’ because I actually do not know. With the level of detail that has been released by the Leader of the Opposition, we actually do not know, as yet, where that money is coming from and how much that will cost. Because they have said that they will not support a cap-and-trade scheme. we can assume that it will not be borne by the big polluters. We can only assume, therefore, that it will be borne by the very people who we are trying to protect: those who are the most vulnerable to the impacts of climate change and who will bear the greatest social and economic costs if we do nothing. Fundamentally, they are large majority of working families in this country who contribute through taxes in trying to deal with this very issue. It is important that we acknowledge the effort that is already being made by those very people: individuals and domestic households across the country who are putting in water tanks, installing solar panels, turning off their lights and doing everything they can to reduce their personal carbon footprint. We all know that this problem is not going to be resolved until we start to deal with the very difficult issues around the major contributors to carbon emissions—that, of course, is industry. We all know that countries across the world, new and old economies, have been successful because of industrialisation and that over a century or more we have continued to acknowledge that industry has to bear some cost if it is going to succeed. They now pay decent wages and they acknowledge that they have to provide good workplace health and safety programs. They know that they have to provide hygienic and healthy workplaces, and make sure that their place in the community in which they operate does not have too much of an impact. There have been hard-fought battles but it has been accepted over the years that business must bear some cost in order to continue to do its business. This is yet another acceptance. We cannot just stop at the chimney or when we talk about our waterways or when we talk about environmental impacts. We have to accept that industry needs to bear some cost and acknowledge the cost of producing pollution. That is why the Rudd Labor government has introduced a cap-and-trade scheme. It has said to those people who are polluting that they must accept that there is a cost to that pollution. The government has said that it will put a price on that pollution, but it will enable those businesses and those industries through market forces to work out how best they can address those issues, reduce their emissions and continue to grow a successful business. What is also important about the coalition’s policy is what is not in there. It is not what is in there; it is what is not in there. The glaring omission, as I have already said, is an acknowledgement that the big polluters need to play their part in reducing emissions. A glaring omission is how we can get industry to address that problem and deal with it through a price on carbon. What is also not there is a cap. We have a policy here that costs billions of dollars, according to them. Who knows what the real cost is. It could be much more. But there is no guarantee, no commitment and no dedication in this policy to reducing emissions. They could do everything in this policy and emissions could still increase. Another glaring omission is the fact that they have not made a commitment to capping emissions—a significant and fundamental basis on which to develop a climate change policy. It is also important to note that there is no point in them committing these billions of dollars, taxpayers’ money, if they are not going to take it seriously and introduce important and significant changes that everybody in this community can contribute to. The only way that we can actually redress the wrongs of the past and the only way that we can ensure a reduction in pollution is to have everybody playing their part and contributing in a way that is fair and that genuinely shares the cost. I would like to emphasise once more how important it is that industry is involved in the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme and that the major polluters take their fair share of the responsibility. There is nothing in the coalition’s policy that does that. It is piecemeal. It is a knee-jerk political response and it puts the onus unfairly onto taxpayers who are already taking individual action in their communities to try and do the right thing. They are being asked by the coalition to not only do the right thing themselves but also contribute their hard earned taxes to support some form of government funded program that gives no guarantees. I have some real concerns about this policy. I do not think that it is workable. I do not think that it is realistic. I do not think it focuses on the need to ensure that the cost is borne fairly, because there will be a cost. As I said at the beginning, what is most concerning about the opposition’s comments is that they seem to think that this policy will develop out of thin air, that $4 billion will magically appear and never reduce, but will not actually be borne by anybody within the community. It is hard to take it seriously. It is also important to note that since the coalition believe they have come up with such a great response to the government’s proposal, you would think they must have consulted with those people they usually require for support—for example, ACCI, whom many opposition members have quoted today. You would think ACCI might have been a little more supportive and complimentary of the coalition’s policy. All ACCI have said in their press release is that they welcome a debate, that they welcome alternative options. They have certainly not said that this is the way to go. They have certainly not said that the coalition’s policy is the best way to reduce emissions. They have not said any of that. They have once again reinforced their need for some certainty about how to move forward. All they have said is that they welcome a debate—hardly a ringing endorsement. In conclusion, this policy talks a little around the edges about piecemeal changes. It does not go as far as some of the things that the Rudd government have already done when it comes to energy efficiency, promoting green jobs, promoting carbon storage and supporting agriculture, and a range of programs. In fact, $15 billion has already been committed by the government to programs that will see far-reaching results when it comes to agriculture, energy efficiency and support for domestic households. We cannot walk away from the fact that we have to move on and deal with industry in a way that is fair, that gives them some certainty but reduces the impact on taxpayers. The coalition’s policy is merely a con job. They have cobbled together a political response. The coalition have no real direction on or commitment to this issue. They have not made a considered, fair or genuine commitment to reducing emissions that would see all of the community take a fair share of the responsibility. 75 19:35:00 Jensen, Dennis, MP DYN Tangney LP 0 0 Dr JENSEN —We have heard some discussion that the only effective action that can be taken is through the introduction of an ETS tax. Let us look at ETS taxes. They certainly have not been a sterling success in Europe, where they have been in operation for a while. I do not see too many of the European nations that have had an ETS on their books for quite a while achieving anywhere near their Kyoto goals, for the most part. In fact, even the originator of the ETS—and remember that the ETS was originally for sulphur dioxide emissions—says that an ETS is not viable for reductions in carbon dioxide on a global scale. You are certainly seeing that in the European context, where $126 billion was traded on the carbon market last year. To what end? There were no reductions in carbon dioxide emissions and they certainly did not reach Kyoto goals. The member for Isaacs talks about denial of climate change. The reality is that this is typical scaremongering and resorting to holocaust type comparisons. The fact is that the member for Isaacs and the majority of people in this House would know that there is no such thing as settled science on this issue. So it is just typical nay-saying—‘We will call them climate science deniers,’ in an attempt at fearmongering. As I have said, there is no settled science and particularly in climate change science, but here we have the unquestioning acceptance of one side of an argument by a barrister. You would think he would have some idea about examination of evidence, but, no, it is: ‘That side are deniers and this side are purer than the driven snow.’ Let us have a look at the science that is ‘purer than the driven snow’. Let us have a look at the Climategate emails, for example, and Phil Jones, head of the East Anglia Climate Research Unit, one of the senior members on the IPCC and head of one of the major repositories of global climate data. There were a couple of papers that he did not like in the peer-reviewed literature and he wrote in an email: 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 the peer-review literature is! Boy, he was not kidding! The IPCC excludes genuine peer review—for instance, those papers—but now accepts, for example, with Glaciergate, a report in New Scientist based on a couple of telephone calls between a journalist and an obscure scientist working on glaciers. That New Scientist article was then regurgitated by the WWF in a propaganda piece, and that suddenly became peer-reviewed science that was accepted by the IPCC. Subsequent to this all blowing up, coordinating lead author Professor Lal—a seriously senior person in the IPCC—now admits he does not know much about glaciers. The head of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri, has a pecuniary vested interest and lied about the period he became aware of this glacier problem. In fact, this glacier problem was known at the time of the fourth assessment report but was included as the IPCC wanted to pressure governments in the subcontinent into action. This is IPCC scientists as activists. Scientists are supposed to be independent in examining the evidence, and all they are doing is acting as activists in this case. Then we have Africagate. Apparently, reduced rainfall will reduce African crop yields by 40 per cent by 2020—more peer-reviewed science, you would have thought. No; it was based on an article by the International Institute for Sustainable Development, an advocacy group, and it was based on a report on three countries. It was written in an article that was not peer reviewed, an article that was written by people who were not scientists. Then there was Amazongate. An advocacy group associated with the WWF, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, predicted ecological catastrophe in the Amazon. In the fourth assessment report of the IPCC, they stated: Up to 40% of the Amazonian forests could react drastically to even a slight reduction in precipitation; this means that the tropical vegetation, hydrology and climate system in South America could change very rapidly to another steady state, not necessarily producing gradual changes between the current and the future situation. And they refer to ‘Rowell and Moore, 2000’. Who are Rowell and Moore? One of them is an ‘expert’ on government legislation—not a scientist—and the other is a journalist associated with Greenpeace and the WWF. Interestingly enough, the report does not reference a 40 per cent reduction at all. Then there was Insurancegate, based on a paper by Muir-Wood which was not accepted in the literature when the IPCC report came out. But guess what? It was accepted anyway, despite the IPCC having ruled that papers be peer reviewed and accepted about six months prior to the closing date of review—and this was not accepted by the time that the full report came out. The full report that was accepted found insufficient evidence for the assertion of increased insurance imposts due to climate change. Roger Pielke Jr, one of the expert reviewers, questioned the assertion by the IPCC of increased insurance imposts, but this was basically ignored by the IPCC. Then you have Mountaingate, with reduced snow cover on mountains, according to the IPCC, already demonstrating climate change effects. But guess where that came from? It came from a magazine called Climbing, which was for rock climbers and mountaineers—certainly not peer reviewed—and a masters thesis that quoted mountain guides in the Alps and their anecdotal evidence of snow reduction. Then you have Antarcticagate, with the IPCC report saying: The multiple stresses of climate change and increasing human activity on the Antarctic Peninsula represent a clear vulnerability. But guess what? It was based on a paper submitted to the International Association of Antarctica Tour Operators. It was not peer reviewed and there was no discussion in the article about climate change. These are in the fourth assessment report—supposedly, the most thoroughly checked document in scientific history. It is absolutely unbelievable. But let us have a look at what has actually been occurring in the time periods and contrast that with IPCC projections. Temperatures have been dropping since 2001. One of the ministers was talking about 14 of the 16 hottest years or whatever, but the reality is that the trend line is down. It has been dropping since 2001. Let us talk about trends. We hear about this upward trend and human beings causing it. The reality is that, yes, there has been an upward trend over 150 years of measurement. Certainly if you go back through paleoclimatological data, it goes back a few hundred years. Basically, it is a bounce off the little ice age. But the fact is that the IPCC acknowledges that most of that warming is natural. They are basing it on a 23-year period from about 1975 to 1998, when they say, ‘Guess what: our models don’t kind of explain this warming without human activity.’ Well, guess what: their models all projected an increase in global temperatures this century, even for a case where carbon dioxide was held constant at year 2000 levels. We all know that carbon dioxide levels have increased since then. The IPCC said that the urban heat island effect is negligible. This was as a result of a paper by Jones—once again, the guy who said we will change the definition of peer review. This was accepted by the IPCC, despite the fact that evidence was fabricated by co-author Wei-Chyung Wang. In Northern Australia there was another falsehood: the IPCC report showed significant increases in temperature over the last century. The problem is that you get the raw data and it shows no increase at all. In fact, if anything, it shows a slight decrease. Lyman et al and Loehle et al show cooling of the global oceans, despite the IPCC projections all showing that the oceans should be heating up. In fact, we were given some evidence by Will Steffen and Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, referencing a paper by Church, amongst others, who said, ‘You should be referencing this, this is the latest one.’ The problem is that the data ended in 2003, which is when the Argo network was introduced. The Argo network has given us more data about ocean temperatures since 2003 than we have had in the rest of human recorded history combined. We need to have a full audit of the IPCC and include an audit by sceptics of data—including data from Australia. If everything is aboveboard, no-one should have any problem with this. Given the government’s history of spin and no substance, it is no wonder that they simply take at face value everything that the IPCC says and see it as beyond question despite evidence of significant corruption. The government’s ETS tax has no solutions for how to achieve cuts. Merely have a look at the lack of success of the ETS in Europe to see that the ETS tax in itself does not solve anything. The coalition policy makes sense, as it has benefits even if—as I have maintained for years—humankind are not having, and will not have, a major effect on global climate. The policy that we have is the responsible thing to do, particularly in light of the fraudulent science, the corruption and the collusion evident in the IPCC process. The IPCC process is supposed to be peer reviewed, but the reality is that the lead author can choose to accept or reject the reviewer’s comment. That is not peer review. I have written peer review papers, and peer review is where you actually have to directly confront the reviewer’s comments, not simply choose to ignore them. Let us think about another thing. Let us think about what happens if the consensus position on the science changes and they say that there is no longer global warming. Let us just assume that. The question then is: once you have introduced an ETS, how do you unscramble the damn thing? Should it be that many others and I are wrong, our policy has the benefit of reducing CO2 emissions, but if I am right then it has benefits in other areas—environmental areas. There has been scant discussion on environment in this—it has been discussion of carbon dioxide and tax. It does not lock us into a tax forevermore regardless of whether the consensus science is right or wrong. We had to go to Copenhagen with CPRS passed—an emissions tax imposed—because this was going to show the world. It shows how much authority the Rudd government has as far as the world authority is concerned. Just have a look at the countries that have decided that they do not want to act: India and China. Very shortly they will be the No. 2 and No. 1 emitters in the world. Bjorn Lomborg has pointed out that it is in China’s interest—if the IPCC position is correct as far as warming is concerned—not to have an ETS and to have that warming. It will give them a competitive advantage. Industry bodies used to go along completely with the government’s position, saying, ‘We accept a CPRS, and we need certainty’—but guess what—‘don’t hurt us.’ Now they have been given an alternative and, quite frankly, they prefer our policy. The member for Bonner was talking about underground power cables. Here we are talking about major high voltage—(Time expired) 78 19:50:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Leader of the House 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —I rise as the 20th speaker on this debate before the parliament today. I am pleased to take the opportunity to make a contribution on not just a significant issue facing this parliament but a significant issue facing the world and, in particular, one in which I believe we, as policy makers, have obligations not just for this generation but for generations to come. One thing that makes people disillusioned with politics is the tension between short-term political election cycles and the vision that is required for planning the long-term future. With climate change the problem and the solutions needed to address it extend not only beyond political cycles but beyond lifetimes. It is not just about whether children born today will ever get to see the natural splendour of the Great Barrier Reef. It is not just about ensuring that Kakadu maintains its splendour. It is not just about dealing with the water crisis which has particularly hit Australia now and will do so into the future. It is also about planning for our economic future, knowing that the costs of adjustment to a low-carbon economy will increase in direct proportion to the delay in action—and we know that that is the case. We have been advised as a government. But the previous government was also advised by Treasury and by every other serious economic body, not just in Australia but globally, including through reports such as the Stern report in the United Kingdom, which emphasised the cost of inaction. What we saw exhibited in this debate today was extremely disappointing. What I am disappointed by is not the view of the member for Tangney, who predictably put forward his views. He has, to be fair, consistently put them forward. Indeed, on 15 February 2007 he proposed in this parliament some sort of shade cloth being put into orbit to deal with climate change. He essentially has been a climate sceptic from day one, as have many of those opposite, including the member for Mackellar and others, who have been consistent in their views in opposition to climate change. What is extraordinarily disappointing is the fact that there are some opposite who know that climate change is real, who know that we need to take action and who believe that market based forces are the appropriate method of achieving that change and that dynamic, yet they have stood up here and contradicted the views that they argued throughout last year—the views that they held whilst being in a minority position in the Howard government. It is a travesty that they do not have the courage of their convictions, because they know that their position is a nonsense. They know this government’s position, which has essentially three prongs to it, and why we need a carbon pollution reduction scheme. Firstly, you need a cap. We propose one; they do not. Secondly, you need to ensure that the big polluters pay. Our system will do that; theirs will impose a cost on ordinary taxpayers instead. Ours, by using the payments of the big polluters to compensate working families, ensures that that protection is there. They provide no protection economically, let alone for the sustainability of our environment into the future. The market based system has not just come from nowhere. Indeed, what we are seeing now is that the climate sceptics of the Liberal and National parties have become market sceptics as well. They believe in a command economy solution that is not real. What we need to do is ensure that we use the push of the market as well as the pull of new technology to provide solutions to climate change. That is where the model comes from. Kyoto and its adoption followed the emissions trading model adopted in the United States for sulphur dioxide. It was agreed by Australia at the conference in 1997 that that was the way to go. Of course, this model came about through the Clean Air Act of George Bush Senior in the United States in 1990. This was hailed as being extremely successful in stemming the acid rain sweeping across the nation. Since then, we have seen a number of emissions trading models adopted and in practice—not just in Europe but also in the United States, particularly through the RGGI, the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, which is a cap and trade system covering states in the north-east of the United States. The debate has occurred within the global community about the nature of the way that we move forward, but it is important to recognise that Kyoto did not come about overnight. We had the Rio summit in 1992. It then led to the Kyoto protocol being signed, including by Australia in 1997, but it did not come into force until many years later. Indeed, in December 2005 I attended the conference in Montreal as Labor’s environment spokesperson. It took seven years of hard negotiation—and hard negotiation will indeed be needed on a global level. But all those opposite who, during the period of the Howard government, spoke about the need for international action are now walking away from that completely. They are walking away from that argument. If you look at what has occurred, we know that we do need to have a price set on carbon. It is obvious that failing to price carbon restricts the demand for zero- or low-carbon technologies. If you do not have economic mechanisms, existing and new technologies will simply not be rolled out to the extent that is required. That is why this government introduced its Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. That is why we negotiated in good faith with the opposition on amendments to that scheme. Those opposite, including the member for Goldstein, sitting there on the front bench of the opposition, now say that they are opposed to this. Just last year he was the shadow minister assisting the Leader of the Opposition on emissions trading design. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Climate change. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr ALBANESE —The member for Mackellar tries to rewrite history and say he was the shadow minister for climate change. I table for her benefit the list of the shadow ministry, indicating that indeed the Hon. Andrew Robb MP was the shadow minister for infrastructure and COAG and shadow minister assisting the Leader of the Opposition on emissions trading design. They are trying to wipe out their own history on this issue because the fact is there are three problems with their position that they have advanced today. Firstly, it does not actually require any action whatsoever by the polluters—no cap. Secondly, it slugs taxpayers instead of the big polluters. Thirdly, it is unfunded; it simply does not add up. They cannot say where the money is coming from. Indeed, it is time for some straight talking on climate change, as others have said. A member of this House said on 7 December 2009: Now politics is about conviction and a commitment to carry out those convictions. The Liberal Party is currently led by people whose conviction on climate change is that it is “crap” and you don’t need to do anything about it. Any policy that is announced will simply be a con, an environmental figleaf to cover a determination to do nothing. That was the member for Wentworth. What we have seen put forward by the Leader of the Opposition today is just that: an environmental fig leaf backed by the climate change sceptics opposite and backed in by what has now become a party not just of climate sceptics but of market sceptics. They do not believe that there should be a market based solution. Now they have gone back to their rhetoric of the Howard era, saying that emissions trading and market based mechanisms are a tax, whereas what we know is that, from their own words today, this unfunded scheme that they have put forward will require extra taxation from ordinary PAYE taxpayers. Those opposite simply do not understand what the business community has demanded, because they need for their interests the certainty that an emissions trading scheme would bring. But the member for Wentworth was absolutely right when he said that the plan would be a con job, because indeed the plan announced by the opposition is a con job that does less, costs more and will eventually mean increased taxes to be paid by Australians. The fact is we need strong, responsible national leadership. We can seize the economic benefits that are available from the worldwide push to clean, renewable energy. This is not a question of Right or Left; it is a question of right and wrong. That was something that was agreed by those opposite when they said they would have good-faith negotiations, but they walked away from it because they did not have the courage of their convictions and they chose to walk away from good policy outcomes. This is about old ways or new paths. We on this side of the chamber believe that we need to move forward in every way—economically, socially and environmentally—into this century. We have had 20 speakers on this debate. They said they wanted a debate. They then proceeded not to be quite sure whether they wanted a debate. We have given them one and we are happy to continue debates into the future. I move: That the question be now put. Question put. 20:09:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 79 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 58 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. * Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. O’Dwyer, K Oakeshott, R.J.M. Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 2 Crean, S.F. Somlyay, A.M. Irwin, J. Hull, K.E. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Question put: That the amendment (Mr Rudd’s) be agreed to. 20:18:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 79 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 57 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. * Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. O’Dwyer, K Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 2 Crean, S.F. Somlyay, A.M. Irwin, J. Hull, K.E. * denotes teller Question agreed to. Question put: That the motion as amended be agreed to. 20:22:00 The House divided.     (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 79 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Shorten, W.R. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Zappia, A. 57 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Bailey, F.E. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Forrest, J.A. * Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. * Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. O’Dwyer, K Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Robb, A. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Schultz, A. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 2 Crean, S.F. Somlyay, A.M. Irwin, J. Hull, K.E. * denotes teller Question agreed to. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr Rudd —Mr Speaker, I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 83 Auditor-General's Reports 83 83 20:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the Auditor-General’s Audit reports Nos 16 to 19 of 2009-10 entitled No. 16—Performance audit—Do Not Call Register—The Australian Communications and Media Authority; No. 17—Financial statement audit—Audits of the financial statements of Australian government entities for the period ended 30 June 2009; No. 18—Performance audit—LPG Vehicle Scheme—Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research; Centrelink; Medicare Australia; No. 19—Performance audit-Child Support Reforms: Stage One of the Child Support Scheme Reforms and Improving Compliance—Department of Human Services; Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs; Centrelink. Ordered that the reports be made parliamentary papers. 83 Documents 83 83 20:25:00 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 0 The SPEAKER —I present the report for 2008-2009 on the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s activities under Part V of the Australian Federal Police Act 1979. Ordered that the report be made a parliamentary paper. 83 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 20:25:00 —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: AusLink—Report for 2007-08. Australia and the International Financial Institutions—Report for 2007-08. Australian Customs and Border Protection Service—Report for 2008-09—Correction. Australian Electoral Commission—Reports—2009—Redistribution of New South Wales into electoral divisions. Redistribution of Queensland into electoral divisions. Funding and disclosure—Election 2007. Broadcasting Services Act 1992—Digital television transmission and reception—Report—February 2010. Coal Mining Industry (Long Service Leave Funding) Corporation—Report for 2008-09. Communications—Digital dividend—Green paper by the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, January 2010. Defence Force Remuneration Tribunal—Report for 2008-09. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations—Australian vocational education and training system—Report for 2008. Department of Finance and Deregulation—Certificate of Compliance—Report for 2008-09. Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts—Energy use in the Australian Government’s operations—Report for 2007-08. Department of the Treasury—Tax expenditures statement for 2009. Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999—Report of the independent review by Allan Hawke, dated October 2009. Family Law Council—Report for 2008-09. Finance—Consolidated financial statements in respect of the year ended 30 June 2009. Mid-year economic and fiscal outlook for 2009-10. Freedom of Information Act 1982—Report on the operation of the Act for 2008-09. Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Act—Great Barrier Reef—Outlook report—2009—Correction. International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament—Eliminating nuclear threats: A practical agenda for global policymakers— Report, November 2009—including compact disc of report and research papers. Synopsis, November 2009. Productivity Commission—Report No. 49—Executive remuneration in Australia. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 84 Ministerial Statements 84 84 20:26:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —by leave—Australia’s universities have a critical part to play in making this country smarter, fairer and more prosperous. Universities preserve, create and transmit knowledge. They are havens for reflection and engines of discovery. They produce new ideas and people with the skills to apply those ideas in the real world. If we are serious about the future—if we are serious about modernising the Australian economy, strengthening Australian communities and improving the lives of Australian families—then we have to be serious about lifting the capacity and performance of Australia’s universities. Last year, the government presented a package of higher education reforms worth more than $5 billion over four years to unlock the potential of the nation’s universities and open the doors of higher education to a new generation of Australians. Now it is time to report on the progress we have already made. Overall, this government will be investing $36 billion in university teaching and learning and more than $9.6 billion in research from 2008-09 to 2011-12, compared with $27.9 billion for teaching and learning over the last four years of the previous government (2004-05 to 2007-08) and around $5.8 billion for research over the same period. Higher education spending will jump from 0.82 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to one per cent in 2010-11. This government’s reform agenda places students, and their learning, exactly where they should be—at the centre of the higher education system. It promotes and rewards excellence in teaching and research. It will expand the sector and, through new regulatory arrangements and performance funding, drive improvements in the quality of our institutions. Our goal is to create a system that allows more students from across the community to achieve a higher education qualification and find a rewarding job in the knowledge economy—including jobs in research. These reforms will dramatically strengthen the national innovation system, which is so vital to building productivity, renewing the economy, and meeting the challenges of the 21st century. Demand Our move towards a student-focused system is already making a difference. In the past, caps have been placed on the number of publicly funded places. Our reforms mean that this year and next year, universities can increase their enrolments by up to 10 percent over their target allocation and receive government support for these new places. And in 2012 we will fund a place for every student who is accepted into a public university. As a government, we have recognised the compelling case for growing our higher education sector in order to meet Australia’s future economic needs and to expand opportunity across the community. Debate interrupted and progress reported; adjournment proposed and negatived. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Universities have already shown their willingness to respond to student demand. Preliminary estimates show that there will be up to a 7.5 per cent increase in Commonwealth-supported places across the sector in 2010—a potential increase of 45,000 full-time equivalent students since 2008. This means that thousands more students will achieve their dream of going to university this year. It is the first step towards realising our goal that by 2025, 40 per cent of 25- to 34-year-olds will hold a bachelor’s qualification or above. These reforms are vital if Australia is to take full advantage of the economic recovery following the global recession and if we are to build the productive, knowledge-led economy of the future. The reforms are delivering increased enrolments and places in areas such as engineering, science, nursing and health professionals—disciplines of vital importance to Australia’s future prosperity. Achieving this won’t just make Australia better educated and more productive; it will also make it fairer. Most of the growth will have to come from groups that are under-represented today. This is about including Australians who are now excluded. It is about nurturing talent that is now wasted. The Higher Education Participation and Partnerships Program furthers these aims by offering universities a special loading for enrolling students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and by resourcing them to encourage aspiration in disadvantaged school communities. The program is worth $433 million, starting with $56 million in 2010. It is extremely disappointing that the government’s reforms to student income support—which are so important to our most needy students, including those from the bush—have been blocked by the Liberals and Family First in the Senate. These reforms are critical to ensuring that all young Australians get a fair go in higher education. They have the support of every Independent in the House of Representatives, all university and student peak bodies, all state and territory ministers, the Australian Greens and Senator Xenophon. Only the opposition and Senator Fielding stand in the way. Until the new legislation passes there will be no new scholarships for over 150,000 students; the current inadequate arrangements for Youth Allowance, Austudy and ABSTUDY will remain in place; and students in their tens of thousands will continue to miss out on much-needed support. The government urges the opposition to reconsider its position and to support our legislation. Quality As well as helping more students get to university, the government is acting to ensure that all students receive a high-quality education when they get there. The government is using a number of mechanisms to promote excellence in the higher education sector and make universities more accountable for their performance. The first is the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency—or TEQSA. TEQSA will be established this year as an independent body with powers to regulate university and non-university higher education providers, monitor quality and set standards. It is critical that students can be assured they will receive a high quality qualification at any of our higher education providers. Responsibility for TEQSA will be shared by the Minister for Education and the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research in line with their portfolio responsibilities. There will also be a focus on giving students clear information about courses, campus facilities, support services and, most importantly, quality of teaching and learning outcomes. Students will be able to use this information to guide their choices, and their choices will in turn drive changes in institutional behaviour. At the same time, the government will reward institutions that work proactively to achieve higher standards in their teaching with performance based funding. This funding will favour universities that deliver quality student engagement and learning outcomes. We are already working with the sector on these performance indicators and guidelines for negotiating institution-specific targets, measuring performance, and allocating funds. University is about more than just attending class. That is why the government is seeking to improve student engagement by allowing universities to levy an amenities and services fee of up to $250 to fund services such as sporting clubs, child care, legal and counselling services. Unfortunately, the Liberals have blocked our change, despite overwhelming support from students and universities. This means that students right around the country will continue to suffer from inadequate services and support until this legislation is passed. Another mechanism the government will use to measure and promote quality is Excellence in Research for Australia—or ERA. ERA will evaluate research undertaken at Australian universities against international benchmarks. It will tell us exactly how well we are doing compared to the world’s best. Both universities and the government will be able to use this information to guide the allocation of resources. Australia is an incredibly productive research producer, but the funds we can devote to research are and always will be finite. It is therefore essential that we play to our strengths. ERA was trialled successfully in 2009 and comes into operation this year. It has been developed and will be administered by the Australian Research Council. Researchers If we are to lift the quality of Australian research and compete in a high-tech world, it is essential that we expand our research workforce. That is why the government is more than doubling the number of Australian Postgraduate Awards and why we increased the APA stipend by 10 per cent in last year’s budget—restoring in a single stroke the value that had been eroded over the previous 12 years. We have also created 100 Super Science Fellowships for young researchers and 1,000 Future Fellowships for mid-career researchers. These fellowships will encourage more gifted young Australian and international scholars to do their research in this country, where it will benefit Australia most. The government is also developing a Research Workforce Strategy to address Australia’s research workforce needs over the decade to 2020. This strategy will ensure that we have the skills in research to meet anticipated demand. Sustainability While we plan for the future, we are also repairing the damage of the past—including a decade of underfunding in higher education which threatened to put the sector’s very sustainability at risk. The government has committed $510 million over four years—and considerably more in the years beyond—to the Sustainable Research Excellence in Universities scheme, which will provide significantly increased funding for the indirect costs of research. In return for this funding, universities are required to increase transparency and improve reporting. All 41 eligible higher education providers have signed up to the scheme. And, despite recent troubles impacting on our international education sector, indicative data suggests that growth in international enrolments at universities is holding up. The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has reported that, while student visa applications for all sectors dropped by 15 per cent from October to December 2009, higher education applicants rose by 2 percent. The overall decline in student visa applications is expected to impact mostly on the VET sector. We are also putting our universities on a more sustainable footing by improving the indexation of block grants for teaching, learning and research. Universities will now have the funding certainty they need to make long-term investments in staff and programs. This landmark reform was announced in the 2009-10 budget, and implementation will be progressed this year. Collaboration Collaboration, both domestic and international, stretches our research dollars further, spreads risk, favours serendipity, propagates skills and builds critical mass. To promote collaboration between researchers and end-users, the government has developed a new Joint Research Engagement Scheme and refocused the Cooperative Research Centres program. Collaboration between universities will be supported by the Collaborative Research Networks Scheme, which will help Australia’s less research-intensive, smaller and regional universities forge alliances with larger, more research-intensive institutions. International collaboration is just as important. Australia, like almost all countries, is a net importer of ideas. We produce 3 per cent of the world’s research papers. This is a fantastic result for a country our size, but it still means 97 per cent are produced elsewhere. Accessing research capacity beyond our borders is therefore critical to lifting our innovation capacity and performance. That’s why the government is both internationalising mainstream research programs and providing dedicated support for international engagement. Most importantly, we are creating a more capable and more competitive university research sector—a sector that will command respect and attract collaborators worldwide. Infrastructure Australia’s higher education system will ultimately stand or fall on the quality of the people working in it—staff and students. Yet, no matter how bright and creative our people may be, they still need effective tools to work with and functional environments to work in. That is why the government has invested so heavily in university infrastructure over the last two years. We began with the $500 million Better Universities Renewal Fund to help universities rebuild their campus facilities after more than a decade of neglect. We have followed that up with $2.9 billion in new spending from the Education Investment Fund, including: $580 million for eleven EIF Round 1 projects in university teaching, learning and research $500 million for the Teaching and Learning Capital Fund—Higher Education $934 million for EIF Round 2 projects in university teaching, learning and research and in VET $989 million for infrastructure to support astronomy, marine and climate science, and emerging technologies through the Super Science Initiative—all of it accessible to university researchers. A third round of the EIF and an EIF Sustainability Round were announced in the 2009-10 budget. These rounds are under way, with successful projects to be announced early this year. Future EIF rounds will be announced in due course. Missions In addition to building a stronger system overall, the government is also encouraging each university to think about its place within that system. From 2011, each university will negotiate a funding compact with the government defining its unique mission and describing how it will fulfil that mission and meet the Australian government’s broader policy goals. Universities will be encouraged to focus on areas in which they have particular strengths and can make a distinctive contribution. All universities will be required to make a contribution to the government’s equity objectives. Interim agreements have been negotiated for 2010 as a forerunner to this game-changing reform. Interim agreements have now been signed with almost all universities, and a summary of the issues raised during negotiations will be published soon. The government is providing $400 million in structural adjustment funding—including $200 million for infrastructure—to help struggling universities make changes needed to refocus their missions, improve quality and foster better links with other providers and VET so that they can excel in the new system. We are also developing a more logical basis for funding regional universities, starting with a Review of Regional Loading, which will report later this year. Conclusion Enrolments driven by student demand and informed choice, performance-based funding, mission-based compacts—all of these reforms will give universities an entirely new degree of control over their own destinies. We respect and value the role of universities in Australian society and in our economy. They are active partners in the reform process, and the government would like to thank all higher education institutions for their contribution to date. There is still a great deal of work to be done, however, and the government looks forward to strengthening this partnership—a partnership so important to Australia’s future—as the education revolution continues in 2010. With those words, I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the member for Sturt to speak for 17 minutes. Leave granted. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Sturt has been so busy speaking throughout this whole debate, I am surprised he actually knows what is going on. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —I did somewhat suspect that the member for Sturt was going to grant leave to that and, with that leave, I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Mr Pyne speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 17 minutes. Question agreed to. 88 20:44:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I can assure you I always have an ear for Madam Deputy Speaker and an ear for my colleagues at the same time. There is a growing chorus of dissent about the obsession with branding that consumes this government, and this minister in particular. Everything under this minister is described as ‘revolutionary’. We have the education revolution, the digital education revolution and the Building the Education Revolution. Professor Ross Fitzgerald suggested in a column in the Australian newspaper last year that a renovation of a toilet block under this minister might be dubbed ‘flushing the education revolution’. Even the minister’s statement today was entitled the ‘higher education revolution’. The truth is that any examination of their record in higher, secondary or primary education shows that we simply cannot trust this government to actually deliver. While the Bradley review into higher education offered good ideas and highlighted the need for reform, Labor have proven themselves to be all spin and all branding but little substance. I will use this opportunity this evening to respond to the minister’s statement by weighing her lofty sentiment with what she actually delivered as the part-time minister for education. This part-time minister is responsible for workplace relations, employment and social inclusion in addition to education. She is also the regular stand-in for our jet-setting Prime Minister. Not surprisingly, as a result, education, one of the key areas of public policy that the Labor Party like to claim as their own, has been given less attention and care than our millions of primary, secondary and tertiary students deserve and expect. Far from being the great policy triumph—the education revolution, Labor’s pride and joy—education has become a latch-key kid, mostly home alone, left to fend for itself. Embarrassed and ashamed by the lack of care and attention they have given to education, Labor has done what some parents do to try and remedy a situation like this: they have tried to buy love. So education has been showered with money—borrowed money. But the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister still have not realised what most people know instinctively: you cannot buy love. Quantity is not a substitute for quality. If there is one thing that every Labor government, including this one, knows, it is how to spend money. But what every Labor government does not know is how to spend it well or how to spend it efficiently and effectively. Spending money you do not have will not get you out of trouble. Spending money will not compensate for the lack of care and attention given to education. The fiasco of the so-called education revolution could not be a clearer example of that. First, we had the digital education revolution—or ‘more computers in schools’ program. It sounded great as a sound bite from the Prime Minister—he was then Leader of the Opposition. Then the reality really hit. Now we know that the whole program has been ill thought out—no attention to detail, badly implemented, way behind schedule and way over budget, with the Commonwealth having to double the initial price tag and the states and parents having to dig deep into their own pockets to come up with another few billion dollars on top of that to actually make it all work. As of today, 2½ years after the then Leader of the Opposition’s initial brainwave, and more than halfway through the life of the program, only a fraction of the promised one million computers have actually been delivered and none of them have been connected to the very fast fibre broadband as originally promised by the Prime Minister. Then we had the Building the Education Revolution program—‘computers in schools’ on steroids. Instead of giving our schools what they actually needed and wanted, the government decided to give them what it wanted. And what it wanted was thousands of memorial school halls to which a plaque could be affixed and a sign erected to remind everyone how generous the federal government had been with taxpayers’ money. We know that the implementation of the BER has been as flawed as that of the computers in schools program—grossly overpriced, behind schedule and beset with examples of systemic waste and mismanagement. The government still has not been able to explain how building multipurpose halls will help our children improve their literacy, numeracy and school performance. It still has not been able to tell the Australian people how many jobs have actually been created by this stimulus spending. So here we have another cash splash, one to dwarf all the others, and another example that blindly spending money is not a substitute for well-thought-out and well-considered public policy. Instead, we have a $16 billion excuse for the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister to pop on their hard hats, don the high-visibility vests and smile for the cameras. This has been the most expensive photo opportunity in Australian history. Here is Labor’s education policy in a nutshell: nice sounding ideas, plenty of cash, appalling implementation, little value for money, but plenty of spin. This is what we have come to expect from our part-time education minister. If primary and secondary education sectors have been the neglected children of the Rudd government, largely ignored but showered with money, then tertiary education has become the forgotten and unwanted stepchild, mostly out of sight and out of mind. The funny thing about Labor’s education revolution is that we were supposed to have a revolution in our primary schools and a revolution in our secondary schools but Australia’s universities have been left out. Knowing now how the education revolution has turned out for Australia’s schools, it might actually have been a lucky escape for our universities. But this does not excuse the lack of thought, planning and foresight on the part of the Rudd government regarding the present wellbeing and future prospects of one million tertiary students and the wellbeing of the tertiary sector, which, as well as being one of our top export industries, is so important for the future prosperity of this country. The inconvenient truth is that Labor knows that there are votes in primary and secondary education but not as many in tertiary education, so Labor can afford to take the sector for granted—and it did. That is why Labor came to power without a coherent and consistent universities policy. What they presented instead was a hodgepodge of ideological knee-jerk reaction mixed with some half-baked ideas, all spiced with plenty of spin and nice-sounding rhetoric that in practice meant very little. So what has been Labor’s tertiary policy? It was the commitment to abolish by stealth voluntary student unionism and slug one million Australian university students with a $250 a year tax to finance services that an overwhelming majority of them do not, or cannot, use and are unwilling to pay for in any case. It was the commitment to abolish full fee-paying domestic places at public universities, denying Australian students who were willing to finance their own education the same opportunity we afford to tens of thousands of overseas students at our universities. Not only has this ideological crusade reduced the range of options available to young Australians but also it has deprived our universities of a fast-growing additional stream of revenue. The futility of the decision to abolish full fee-paying domestic places has now become quite apparent due to the global financial crisis. Universities lost a valuable revenue stream exactly at the time when they needed it most and they were not able to offer enough government supported places as demand for university places spiked recently. It was also the commitment to reform youth allowance. This fiasco is worth examining in some detail. The minister’s proposed changes to youth allowance, introduced last year, gave with one hand while taking away with the other. In this legislation the government proposed reform which would have retrospectively impacted upon thousands of Australian students who were nearing the end of a gap year they had decided to take in 2009 in an effort to qualify for youth allowance under the existing provisions. Had it passed the Senate last year, it would have crushed the higher education dreams of many, in particular some of our neediest rural and regional students. The Rudd government continues to state that students are its primary concern, yet the minister has made no attempt to prioritise the concerns of students or made no attempt to reason with the opposition last year to secure the passage of the student income support legislation. My door is always open, Minister. To make matters worse, the old Commonwealth scholarships were abolished by the minister in previous legislation, leading to the current catastrophic situation where there are now no new scholarships available this year. The coalition warned the government during the debate that they were putting all scholarships in jeopardy for 2010. We even gave the government the opportunity to split the bill and allow scholarships to be dealt with separately to avoid the disastrous situation we have now. Yet the minister made no attempt at any stage to pick up the phone and discuss the coalition’s concerns in an attempt to secure passage of this legislation. Students are wondering whether they can even attend university at all this year, having had no idea from the government about when they will finally negotiate. Then we have the university compacts. While the details of the policy are still sketchy, Labor seems to be committed to reorganising the government’s relationship with universities through compacts, or individual contracts, where funding is based on the different characteristics of each university. The problem with compacts is that they try to micromanage university funding based on a bureaucratic assessment of the strengths and weaknesses of each individual university. As Macquarie University’s vice-chancellor, Professor Steven Schwartz, has argued, this will have the effect of freezing the status quo, as money is allotted based on reputation, reducing flexibility and making it more difficult for universities to grow and compete with each other. As Professor Schwartz has written: The assumption underlying the idea of compacts is that government experts have the foresight, creativity and expertise to design better universities than those that evolve from the normal interplay of supply and demand. Once again, Labor’s penchant for central planning and micromanagement triumph over commonsense and the best interests of the tertiary sector. Last but not least, we have had the fiasco of the Education Investment Fund. The EIF has proved to be another case of the Rudd government promising big but delivering small. With great fanfare the Rudd government unveiled three nation-building funds as the centrepiece of their first budget. The Education Investment Fund, with $11 billion in assets, was designed to finance capital works in higher education. The EIF was to consist of $6 billion, first put aside by the coalition under its Higher Education Endowment Fund, with an extra $5 billion contributed by the Labor government from budget surpluses. The reality has been starkly different. Not only has the Rudd government grossly underdelivered on its promise to top up the fund but also it debauched the very idea of a secure, long-term funding source for university infrastructure. It did it firstly by opening up the eligibility criteria for access to the fund to not just universities but also vocational education facilities, thus increasing by hundreds, if not thousands, the pool of potential recipients and therefore vastly diluting the funds available to universities. Secondly, Labor decided that not just the interest but also the very capital of the fund itself would be available for distribution. This has turned what was meant to be a perpetual endowment into another political slush fund that was no different to normal recurrent expenditure under Labor and bound to be splashed around by the minister in the run-up to elections. This has been the sum total of Labor’s higher education policy: old ideological vendettas mixed with an interventionist drive and topped with a poorly thought out ride on the piggybank. To call this a higher education policy would be to insult the intelligence of Australia’s vibrant and successful tertiary sector, and Labor knows that. But it thought so little of the sector that, instead of bothering to come up with a universities policy either before or even after getting elected, it decided to wash its hands and outsource it to others. Hence, for more than a year after Kevin Rudd’s election we were witness to a sorry and bizarre spectacle of at least 25 inquiries and reviews being commissioned by the government into various aspects of higher education. The Bradley review has been the most prominent and comprehensive of all the inquiries and reviews carried out. The minister welcomed the report—with great relief, one suspects—because it put an end to the farce of the Labor government not having a higher education policy for more than a year after coming into office and because it absolved the government of the need to come up with policies themselves. And so the minister graciously accepted the Bradley review’s recommendations, but only selectively, because those recommendations cost money and the government no longer had any, having already plunged the budget into deficit. But it underlines very clearly once again what low priority the higher education sector has in this government’s thinking. Labor could find tens of billions of dollars to splash around on things like pink batts, but they could not find enough money to properly resource our universities—one of our very important engines of economic growth and productivity. In its response to the Bradley review, the government committed itself to a more student-demand-centred higher education system and to increasing participation and equity in higher education. Under the policy, all Australian universities will be funded on the basis of student demand from 2012. The government will fund a Commonwealth supported place for all domestic students accepted into an eligible accredited higher education course at a recognised public higher education provider. The government also committed itself to a target of 40 per cent of all 25- to 34-year-olds having a qualification at bachelor level or above from 2025, up from 30 per cent today. The coalition is broadly supportive of the government’s avowed commitment to a more student-demand-centred higher education system and, of course, to increasing participation and equity in higher education. But we remain sceptical, based on Labor’s past record, that the government will actually be able to properly implement such goals. Where we are different from the government is in our strong belief that the implementation of the Bradley review is not the be-all and end-all but merely a beginning of a long-term reform process that will see Australian universities and Australian students freer and more flexible to pursue future challenges and opportunities. The coalition is not encouraged by the government’s more immediate response to the Bradley review. The government claims that it is providing $5.7 billion of new money for universities in its last budget. But, of that, $2.99 billion has been taken in the massive raid on the Education Investment Fund. The real budget spending increases in higher education have been $1.2 billion for research, only $1½ billion for teaching and only an extra $246 million in new funding for teaching measures in the current financial year. Today, we are celebrating the first anniversary of the Rudd government acquiring a higher education policy. In wedding lore the first anniversary is known as a paper anniversary, and how appropriate that is because all we have seen from the government so far is plenty of paper, a lot of rhetoric and pious sentiments but not a lot of action. Where there has been some action it has turned out to be mostly wrongheaded and counterproductive. Education remains a neglected child of the Rudd government and higher education remains the forgotten, unwanted stepchild. (Time expired) 93 93 21:02:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—I wish to update the House on Afghanistan. Last week I attended the London Conference on Afghanistan. Australia was one of more than 70 countries and international organisations participating in the conference. The conference reaffirmed the international community’s resolve to work with the Afghan government to stare down international terrorism. There was a strong commitment on behalf of the Afghan government and the international community to transfer responsibility for security, development and governance in Afghanistan to the Afghan government. Australia is the largest non-NATO military contributor to Afghanistan, in the top 10 military contributors overall and one of the top 10 contributors to the Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund. By any measure, Australia makes a substantial contribution both militarily and through civilian and development assistance in Afghanistan, focused on Oruzgan province. The Australian government remains committed to international efforts to bring security and stability to Afghanistan as part of the United Nations mandated International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). The strategic objective which Australia and our international partners in the international community are pursuing in Afghanistan is clear: it is to ensure that Islamist extremists and terrorist groups are denied safe haven in Afghanistan so that Afghanistan does not remain a breeding ground or hotbed for international terrorists. International terrorism emanating from Afghanistan poses a grave threat to the region and to the international community. Australia is not immune from this threat. Attacks on Australian citizens have been perpetrated by terrorists trained in Afghanistan and the Afghanistan-Pakistan border area. More than 100 Australians have been killed in terrorist attacks over recent years. Australia made it clear to the Afghan government, both before and after the recent presidential elections, that we needed to see progress on a range of fronts. In this regard, Australia welcomed the undertakings made by President Karzai at the conference to improve governance, pursue electoral reform, take effective anticorruption and antinarcotics measures, and create social and economic opportunities for all the Afghan people. As I underlined in my address to the conference, this must include providing social and economic opportunities for Afghan women and girls. The first priority for Afghanistan has to be developing the capacity and capability of Afghanistan’s National Security Forces (ANSF). I welcome the Afghan government’s commitment to progressively take responsibility for security. Afghan forces will be critical to providing the conditions for stability and security that will enable development to take place and the effective transfer of security to Afghan responsibility throughout the country. Building the capability of the Afghan army and police aligns with Australia’s approach. When the Prime Minister announced in April last year that Australia would lift its military commitment from 1,100 to around 1,550 personnel, he made it clear that that commitment would be focused on training and mentoring the Afghan national army in Oruzgan province. Australia is the largest contributor to a trust fund to build the capacity of the Afghan national army, having committed $200 million over five years to the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. We welcome Afghanistan’s commitment to a substantial Afghanistan National Security Forces training target of over 300,000 personnel by the end of 2011 which will be supported by the disbursement of the Afghan National Army Trust Fund. Australia welcomes the announcement in London by other international partners of additional military and other contributions. Recent announcements have now seen an additional 39,000 troops committed; some 30,000 by the United States and 9,000 by other international partners. There was a broad and welcome recognition among the conference participants that military efforts alone will not be sufficient to achieve our objectives in Afghanistan. Alongside an effective military strategy there needs to be a more mature and concerted civilian and political effort, embracing development and capacity building and political strategies to consolidate and build on security gains. In this regard, Australia is committed to stepping up our civilian engagement in Afghanistan, including enhancing our diplomatic and civilian presence in Kabul and Oruzgan province, and increasing resources for development assistance and capacity building in Oruzgan. Australia’s development assistance program will continue to focus on strengthening the capacity of the government of Afghanistan to provide basic services and to better support economic and social development for all Afghans, with the focus on Oruzgan province. Australia will increase our assistance to build Afghan capacity to manage responsibility for security, governance and development. At the London conference I announced further Australian contributions for civilian efforts in Afghanistan: a $50 million contribution to the Afghan Reconstruction Trust Fund run by the World Bank and a $25 million contribution to the newly established Peace and Reintegration Fund, established by the government of Afghanistan with the support of the conference and the international community. I also announced $20 million for mine clearance activity, $4 million in assistance to the Afghanistan ministry of agriculture to deliver agricultural services, and $1 million for the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission to strengthen promotion and protection of human rights, including in Oruzgan province. The Afghanistan Reconstruction Trust Fund delivers some of the most effective programs in Afghanistan. It is helping Afghan children into schools, provides essential medical services and supports Afghans to find meaningful employment. It has seen school enrolments rise from one million to six million children since 2001. In Oruzgan, the Reconstruction Trust Fund is building 70 schools and supporting the construction of over 70 rural infrastructure projects and the rehabilitation of over 100 kilometres of road. The fund will play a central role in transitioning responsibility for basic service delivery and economic development to the Afghan government, through the strengthening of its ministries and its officials. Australia’s $4 million contribution through the Asia Foundation to support the ministry of agriculture reflects the fact that in Afghanistan 80 per cent of the population is reliant on agriculture as a source of income. Australia will support efforts by the Afghan Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation and Livestock to boost agricultural productivity by assisting farmers to improve their yields and create new economic opportunities. More than 40 Afghan people, most of whom are children, continue to fall victim every month to landmines. To help address this, Australia is also providing $20 million over the next four years to help alleviate the harmful effects of mines and explosive remnants of war in Afghanistan, including in Oruzgan province, through demining, mine risk education and victim assistance programs. Mine clearance plays an important role in opening up land for agricultural use and generating employment. Australia is providing $1 million to the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission to support the promotion, protection and monitoring of human rights, including in Oruzgan province. This builds on the $1.5 million provided by Australia since 2007. Australia has made a substantial contribution to the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund, as have other nations. The fund includes pledges from Germany, US$70 million; Japan, US$50 million; and Spain, US$14 million. Australia was one of the first countries to recognise that at some point there needed to be a political reconciliation and rapprochement in Afghanistan, started by the Afghanistan government. We believe there has to be an approach that includes political reconciliation and the reintegration into mainstream Afghan society of those people who are prepared to eschew violence and support for terrorism, lay down their arms and comply with the Afghan constitution. The contribution of $25 million to the Peace and Reintegration Trust Fund is subject to the establishment of appropriate governance arrangements and a role for substantial donors, like Australia, in the administration of the fund. The fund will help support Afghan-led reintegration initiatives aimed at showing those who fight with and support the Taliban that there are alternatives. They need to be provided with livelihoods and employment opportunities, a long-term secure future and health and education services that a nation-state can provide. I have seen the suggestion from some commentators both here and overseas that this fund amounts to paying the Taliban. I reject that suggestion, as has UK foreign secretary David Miliband, who said that the fund would ‘help the employment, the infrastructure and the organisation of a serious drive for political engagement that will offer long-term security’. Winning the peace cannot be done by the use of military force alone. It has to be done in a way that includes political rapprochement, reconciliation and reintegration back into mainstream society by many of those who currently support the Taliban. There is a qualitative difference between a hardcore al-Qaeda associated terrorist and someone who sees no alternative road for themselves and their family due to current circumstances in Afghanistan. As Australia and other international partners have said, we want the Afghan government and the Afghan people to take responsibility for security matters, to take responsibility for capacity building, to take responsibility for winning the peace. In the context of transferring responsibility for security, development and governance to the Afghan government, it will be essential to ensure a new focus on accountability. I welcome commitments that the Afghan government has made to tackling corruption, including: empowering an independent High Office of Oversight to investigate and sanction corrupt officials and lead the fight against corruption; during 2010, establishing a statutory basis for related anti-corruption bodies, including the Major Crimes Task Force and the Anti-Corruption Tribunal; enhancing the effectiveness of senior civil service appointments and vetting processes and revising the civil service code; and adopting comprehensive legislation agenda to make Afghan laws consistent with the United Nations Convention Against Corruption. The London conference has underlined the resolve of the Afghan government and the international community to moving forward on the basis of an integrated military, civilian and political strategy, bolstered with additional resources. The Australian government remains strongly committed to these efforts and is making a significant contribution. We look forward to the momentum of the London conference producing results on the ground in Afghanistan. Finally, I pay tribute to the excellent work of our troops, diplomats, development assistance officials and police officers working in Afghanistan in very difficult and dangerous circumstances. We again acknowledge the 11 Australian soldiers who have made the ultimate sacrifice for a stable and secure Afghanistan, free from the threat of international terrorism. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition to speak for 12 minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of the standing and sessional orders be suspended as would prevent Ms J. Bishop (Deputy Leader of the Opposition) speaking in reply to the ministerial statement for a period not exceeding 12 minutes. Question agreed to. 96 21:15:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —In historic terms, Afghanistan has been called the graveyard of empires, due in large part to the fierce resistance of the population to the presence of various international forces over the centuries. There are many examples where the forces within Afghanistan have refused to be subdued by the world’s great powers. In the 13th century Genghis Khan was reportedly forced to negotiate terms favourable to the Afghanis to ensure his armies could traverse the country. In the 19th century there were the Anglo-Afghan wars and the terrible story of more than 16,000 British soldiers and civilians killed while trying to flee Kabul. More recently, in the 1980s, there was the withdrawal of Soviet troops after years of guerrilla warfare. Therein lie the lessons for the current NATO-led mission in Afghanistan. It is very difficult to achieve a decisive military victory against a determined insurgent force that is able to find safe haven among the civilian population by hiding in the rugged terrain and in the neighbouring country. The stakes in Afghanistan are very high. It is unthinkable for the Taliban to once again rule the nation and provide safe haven for al-Qaeda terrorist training camps. The images of commercial passenger planes being deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon are as shocking today as they were on that terrible New York morning on 11 September 2001. Terrorists directly trained by al-Qaeda, or inspired by its sick ideology, have been responsible for many horrific attacks around the world, including against Australians. As the foreign minister noted, more than 100 Australians have been killed by terrorists in recent years. The decision taken by the partners of the International Security Assistance Force to intervene militarily in Afghanistan was to destroy the terrorist infrastructure and the training camps in which thousands of people have been trained to carry out attacks. This necessarily involved the overthrow of the Taliban, which had hosted the terrorist organisation of Osama bin Laden. Since that time, the International Security Assistance Force has been focused on providing stability and security to a nation shattered by decades of conflict. The task of reconstruction remains daunting and, while there have been great gains, much remains to be done. There is also the task of building the capacity of the local Afghan people to provide for their own security through armed forces and police. The Afghan government is also being supported to build the institutions to enable the nation to achieve long-term stability. I welcome Australia’s contribution to the Peace and Reintegration Fund, which will be used to support and negotiate a settlement with people who are willing to renounce violence and extremism and make a constructive contribution to Afghanistan. I note the foreign minister’s reassurances that the fund will be used appropriately. However, all Australians would expect to see strict guidelines for its use, to ensure there is no possibility of any funding being diverted to support the insurgency. The coalition also welcomes the further commitment of funds to such initiatives as mine clearing, agricultural development, reconstruction, the promotion of human rights and the increase in Australian civilian and diplomatic personnel. I note that, although the government set aside $3 million for a feasibility study into the construction of an embassy in Kabul last May, there has been no public statement on progress. I hope that, given the additional commitments, this will progress as soon as possible. I pay tribute to the work of Australia’s troops and civilians working in a dangerous environment in support of the Afghan people. However, despite their efforts the security situation remains fragile. Attacks have been launched against various targets throughout Afghanistan in recent weeks, including the suicide bombing which targeted CIA agents. Yesterday, militants in north-west Pakistan reportedly attacked and destroyed a tanker attempting to deliver fuel to the NATO forces in Afghanistan. Against this background, it is worth noting that Afghani president Hamid Karzai announced recently that he would seek to establish a council to support peace and reconciliation talks with militants. President Karzai has said that the national council for peace, reconciliation and reintegration will consist of government officials and tribal elders. He has called for an end to violence, with militants rejoining mainstream society. Importantly, President Karzai urged the Taliban leadership to drop the condition that NATO forces leave the country before entering peace talks. He reminded the Taliban that international forces were in Afghanistan to ensure extremists do not regain control of the country and that the international forces will remain until that objective can be met. It is vital that the Australian government not set artificial timelines for the withdrawal of troops. The Taliban would use any such timeline, regardless of how far into the future, to promote its cause among the Afghan people. As I have related previously, I was told during my visit to Afghanistan in July last year that a militant had said to a US soldier that, while the soldier might have the fancy wristwatch, the Taliban have the time. Putting an end date for withdrawal would greatly encourage the Taliban. Debate about artificial timelines for withdrawal is also damaging to the efforts of our people in Afghanistan, because the local people remain sceptical that the international forces will remain in the country for the long term. After all, they have seen others come and go over the years. Local people are naturally very concerned about their future security after the international force’s withdrawal. The Taliban use that prospect as a weapon to convince local communities to remain on their side. The ongoing evolution of this strategy in Afghanistan reveals the folly of the Labor Party policy in relation to Iraq in 2004 and the infamous Mark Latham line ‘troops home by Christmas’. The militants have been active in Afghanistan for a very long time and have many deep links with tribal leaders, so we should not give any comfort to the Taliban. Given the size of its commitment, the United States is the critical contributor to the International Security and Assistance Force. It is greatly encouraging to learn of the announcement by President Obama of an additional $33 billion this financial year, which will be used to fund an increase in troops from the United States. The surge is reportedly based on the successful surge of troops in Iraq, which resulted in a dramatic decrease in the levels of violence and attacks by insurgents. One of the keys to the decline in violence in Iraq was the successful promotion of awakening councils, which involved the local population in no longer harbouring insurgents and forming armed groups to battle militants within their midst. The challenge in Afghanistan is, if anything, greater than in Iraq because of the drastically lower standards of literacy and education. Afghanistan also lacks many of the institutions necessary for the functioning of a civilian government. The key to success in Afghanistan is, to use a well-worn phrase, to win the hearts and minds of the people. Part of this is to convince the Taliban that the international forces remain committed to the original task. It also involves winning the trust of the broader Afghan community that the international forces will not abandon them to the clutches of extremists and al-Qaeda or related jihadi groups. It involves building the trust of the people that corruption within the Afghan government can be reduced or, hopefully, eliminated. The Afghan people also need reassurance that other nations will not desert them after they take control of their own security needs. The Afghan people must be confident that they will be supported in coming decades as they slowly rebuild their shattered nation. The primary goal of the International Security Force is to enable Afghanistan to stand as an independent nation, responsible for its own affairs and with the capacity to provide a secure and peaceful environment for its citizens. The Afghanis are like people all over the world in that the vast majority want to live in peace and to have the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their families. Between the First World War and the Soviet war in 1979, Afghanistan, although very poor with a rudimentary economy, did enjoy decades of continuous peace under its then existing national defence forces. The ongoing development of Afghanistan was set back decades after the devastation that occurred during the Soviet occupation. National development was set back even further under the brutal medieval rule of the Taliban. Based on its harsh interpretation of Sharia law, women and girls were particularly disadvantaged during this time. Afghanistan has a long way to go in terms of meeting the challenges of being a robust, peaceful, independent nation. However, I remain confident that it can lift itself out of the quagmire of past misfortune if the nations of the world remain committed to long term support. 99 21:24:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: in the course of her remarks the Deputy Leader of the Opposition referred to our diplomatic presence in Afghanistan. Whilst I certainly do not propose to make public remarks about that, I am very happy to, in the usual way, make available to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition a briefing in respect of progress on those matters. 99 21:25:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP Deputy Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —Madam Deputy Speaker, on indulgence: I thank the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the offer and I will certainly take it up. 99 Matters of Public Importance 99 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have received a letter from the honourable member for Flinders proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The failure of the Government to take direct action to address climate change. I call upon those members who approve of the proposed discussion to rise in their places. More than the number of members required by the standing orders having risen in their places— Mr STEPHEN SMITH (Perth —Minister for Foreign Affairs) 21:25:00 —I move: That the business of the day be called on. Question agreed to. 99 Bills R4270 99 Bills R4269 99 99 21:26:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —by leave—I move: That the bills be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I indicate to honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the acting Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Ryan. Question agreed to. 99 Bills R4247 99 Bills R4248 99 Bills R4229 99 Bills R4224 99 Bills R4225 99 Message received from the Senate returning the bills without amendment or request. 100 Bills R4222 100 Bills R4223 100 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I inform the House that messages 272 and 273 of 25 November 2009 have been received from Her Excellency the Governor-General recommending appropriations for amendments to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2009 [No. 2] and the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Amendment (Household Assistance) Bill 2009 [No. 2] that were made by the House on 2 December 2009. The messages had been received but were inadvertently not reported to the House in accordance with standing order 181 at the time. The messages are now reported to the House. 100 Bills R4248 100 Bills R4247 100 Bills R4210 100 Bills R4160 100 Bills R4200 100 Bills R4194 100 Bills R4028 100 Bills R4067 100 Bills R4229 100 Bills R4010 100 Bills R4206 100 Bills R4233 100 Bills R4226 100 Bills R4202 100 Bills R4162 100 Bills R4228 100 Bills R4225 100 Bills R4224 100 Bills R4180 100 Bills R4183 100 Bills R4250 100 Messages from the Governor-General reported informing the House of assent to the bills. 101 Bills R4281 101 Bill, explanatory memorandum and regulation impact statement presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 101 101 21:28:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a second time. In the final hours of parliamentary sittings last year the government made the commitment that on the first sitting day this year, we would introduce into parliament legislation for the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS). Today I rise to do exactly that. We said the bill introduced would be inclusive of the amendments agreed to by the coalition party room less than 10 weeks ago. And that is what this bill contains. Let me make it clear on behalf of the government that our position on the CPRS is based on five strong foundations: Firstly, it reflects a scientific consensus, accepted by governments around the world, that climate change is real and happening now, and will inflict severe costs on this country. Second, the government’s target for emissions reduction is both responsible and achievable and the CPRS is the best mechanism to achieve those targets. Third, the CPRS is the lowest cost way to reduce emissions for Australian households. Fourth, the CPRS is the most globally responsible approach to the threat of climate change—it ensures Australia meets its emissions reduction targets. And fifth, the CPRS reflects the consistent policy of the government that formed a key element of our 2007 election platform that was supported by the Australian people. The alternative approach offered by the opposition is nothing more than a pretend policy and it cannot be trusted. Mr Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, thinks climate change is, in his own words, ‘absolute crap’ and he has confirmed that again today. The opposition leader’s climate change plan is nothing more than a climate con job. It does less, costs more and will mean higher taxes. There are three essential problems with the opposition leader’s climate con job. Firstly, it will not work; it does not require anything of emitters of carbon pollution and there is no cap on carbon pollution. Secondly, it slugs taxpayers instead of big polluters. Thirdly, it is unfunded, inevitably meaning higher taxes. The Tony Abbott climate con job does less, costs more and will mean higher taxes. This is the contrast that the Australian parliament faces today. Climate change science It is extremely important, of course, that we take account of the climate change science. Human induced emissions are increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Global carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels in 2007 were nearly 40 per cent higher than those in 1990. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) said in its 2007 fourth assessment report that: … warming of the climate system is unequivocal— and— very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations. Its findings are supported by the national science academies in all major developed and developing countries, including our own. No government can ignore these findings. No political party or political leader can responsibly ignore the science. The Australian government accepts that climate change is a reality and that we must act. Despite the claims of many in the coalition, there is no evidence warming has stopped. Globally, 14 of the 15 warmest years on record occurred between 1995 and 2009. The Bureau of Meteorology reports that 2009 was the second hottest year on record in Australia. The past decade was the hottest decade on record in Australia and globally. The current Leader of the Opposition is risking Australia’s economic and environmental future by saying he is: … hugely unconvinced by the so-called settled science on climate change. He made that statement on 27 July 2009. Every other responsible political leader in Australia—including the former member for Bennelong and the member for Wentworth—has previously accepted the global scientific consensus and resolved to act in Australia’s national interest. Impacts on Australia The science shows that in future, without global action, the earth will continue to warm and sea levels will continue to rise. Australia is already the driest inhabited continent on earth and is heavily exposed to the impacts of climate change. Australia faces huge environmental and economic costs from climate change impacts, including on water security, agriculture, energy supply, health, coastal communities and infrastructure. Climate change is already affecting water availability in Australia. If global emissions continue unabated, irrigated agriculture—and the thousands of associated jobs—in the Murray-Darling Basin may well disappear by the end of the century. Australia is a largely coastal society, with around 85 per cent of the population living in the coastal region. This means as many as 247,000 existing residential buildings valued at up to $63 billion are potentially at risk from a 1.1-metre sea level rise. The Great Barrier Reef is already showing impacts of climate change through mass coral bleaching and could be effectively destroyed by mid-century if there is not action. Climate change will affect the frequency and intensity of bushfires, heat waves and extreme tides in Australia. We know only too well the impact that these events can have on the lives of others in our community. Yet the Leader of the Opposition has rejected the science, mainstream conservative thinking and the best economic advice. And he has rejected, therefore, acting in Australia’s national interest. CPRS: the best mechanism Australia’s emissions challenge is clear and it has bipartisan support, as we understand it. In May last year the government set out its target range: a five per cent unconditional reduction, with up to 15 per cent and 25 per cent both conditional on the extent of action by others. This target range was supported by the coalition at the time and reaffirmed on 2 December 2009 by the office of the Leader of the Opposition: The Coalition is committed to the bipartisan targets as they currently stand. The challenge posed by those targets is clear: In 2020 Australia’s emissions are projected to be 664 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent; and At a five per cent target, Australia’s emissions reduction challenge is to reduce 2020 emissions by 138 million tonnes; at a 15 per cent target, the challenge is 194 million tonnes; and at 25 per cent, the challenge is 249 million tonnes. That is the challenge that both political parties—both sides of politics—have committed to on the grounds that there is a bipartisan position concerning the targeted cuts in emissions by 2020. The debate today, therefore, should fundamentally be about how best to rise to that bipartisan challenge. On this front, the Howard government’s Shergold report, the Garnaut review and the United Kingdom government’s Stern report all canvassed different approaches to taking action to achieve emission reductions and came to the same conclusion that an emissions trading scheme is the lowest cost and most effective mechanism to deal with climate change. Even the current Leader of the Opposition in his 2009 book Battlelines acknowledged that: The Howard Government— in 2007— proposed an emissions trading scheme because this seemed the best way to obtain the highest emission reduction at the lowest cost. That appears at page 171 of the book of the member for Warringah called Battlelines. The business community also recognises the value of the emissions trading approach. The Business Council of Australia has said: … the best way for Australia to transition to a low-emissions economy is through a market-based emissions trading scheme— and the international community accepts that view. Thirty-two countries around the world already have emissions trading schemes, and others, including the US, Japan and Korea, are developing such schemes currently. Virtually no other developed economy in the world agrees with the opposition leader’s more recent rejection of emissions trading. And there is a simple reason why, and that is that emissions trading is the most effective and lowest cost means to reduce carbon emissions. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme requires emitters to buy a permit for each tonne of carbon pollution they produce. The government will determine the number of permits that will be available each year and, by doing so, will set a cap on pollution levels. A cap each year allows a targeted reduction in emissions to be achieved over time. A carbon price is established, therefore, by the auctioning and trading of permits. The carbon price creates an incentive for polluters to reduce their emissions in the cheapest, most efficient way. After dismissing the CPRS, the current Leader of the Opposition has proposed what he calls a ‘direct action’ policy as an alternative—but it is a con job. His plan lets polluters off the hook and shifts the burden to ordinary families. The fact is no cobbled-together list of subsidies, as outlined in opposition leader’s policy announced today, could ever hope to match the effectiveness of putting a clear price and cap on carbon pollution across the economy because, unlike the CPRS, the opposition leader’s policy is less effective. It will not work. It will cost more because it does not create incentives to find the low-cost methods to reduce emissions. It is a ‘pick winners’ approach. It also has no cap on emissions; it therefore cannot guarantee to meet an emissions reduction target. The opposition leader’s position also cannot link to international markets to take advantage of cost-effective emissions reductions in other countries, and it will shift the cost of emissions reductions from big emitters of carbon pollution to households. Finally, the proposal does not provide compensation to pensioners, careers and low- and middle-income households, something to which the government has paid particular attention. Former Prime Minister John Howard’s own Shergold report found that relying on subsidies alone to reduce emissions will be more expensive than a market based approach like the CPRS. Likewise, Professor Garnaut concluded that without a carbon price, the cost of achieving emissions reductions will be much higher. Lowest cost way to reduce emissions The government, for its part, is determined to implement a scheme which tackles climate change at the lowest cost. Ultimately there is no cost-free way of reducing carbon emissions and tackling climate change. Any politician who tells the community otherwise is simply not telling the truth—and cannot be trusted. The Leader of the Opposition, in announcing the coalition’s policy, stated it would not cost the community and it would not cost jobs. It is a position that defies rational thought. It is not true. The fact is the CPRS is the lowest cost way of reducing emissions. It also imposes the lowest costs on Australian families. The impact on household costs will be just above a one per cent price rise. The average price impact of the CPRS on households is estimated at around $624 per year by 2013 for the average household. Around 90 per cent of all households under the proposals for the CPRS will receive assistance—on average that will be around $660 per year. All pensioners and low-income households will be fully assisted. That is because the money raised from emitters of carbon pollution, who have a liability to purchase permits, will be used to assist working families with the price increases under the scheme. The CPRS is globally responsible Any country that accepts the science, as I said before, and the threat that climate change represents has a responsibility to act. No country can address this problem alone—it will require an unprecedented level of international cooperation. The government has said that Australia will do its fair share as part of the global effort—we will do no more and no less than other countries. Last December, the world met in Copenhagen as part of the effort to forge a global agreement to tackle climate change. The outcome, called the Copenhagen accord, is less than we, and like-minded countries, wanted. But it is an important step forward towards coordinated global action on climate change. For the first time, leaders of both developed and developing countries have agreed to: specify emissions reduction targets or actions by both major developed and developing nations; limit global warming to less than two degrees; provide the finance necessary to support mitigation and adaptation action in developing countries; and measurement, reporting and verification by both developed and developing countries. However, the Copenhagen conference also left much work to do and Australia remains committed to achieving a comprehensive agreement under the UNFCCC. Countries are already acting and Australia is by no means going it alone. Thirty-two countries already have emission trading schemes and others are developing their own. Others including the US, China, and India have set targets and are taking climate action. In recognition that the Copenhagen accord did not deliver a final binding treaty, the government has said that we will not increase Australia’s emissions reduction target above five per cent until three conditions are met: the level of global ambition becomes sufficiently clear; the credibility of those commitments and actions is established; and there is clarity on the assumptions for emissions accounting and access to markets. The government’s aim and intention is to reach conclusion on these matters of course in partnership internationally as soon as possible. A consistent and responsible approach to climate change The CPRS is the principal mechanism by which we will achieve our targets and act on climate change in the national interest. It is the only fundamental foundational mechanism by which we will achieve the targeted reduction that I averted to earlier, 138 million tonnes by the year 2020 to achieve the five per cent reduction. But we have also put in place around $15 billion in complementary measures to assist the transition to a low-carbon economy and increase the demand for low-pollution jobs. These are very important measures. They include: increasing the renewable energy target to 20 per cent of electricity from renewable sources by the year 2020; support for energy efficiency, including $3.2 billion for insulation and solar and heat pump hot water systems; $4.5 billion for industrial scale carbon capture and storage and large scale solar power generation; the Australian Climate Change Science Framework to set climate change research policies; and $126 million Climate Change Adaptation Program to better manage climate change impacts. However, projections show that even with these measures Australia’s emissions will continue to rise, reaching 120 per cent of 2000 levels in 2020. That is why we need a substantial, economy-wide approach that reduces emissions in the most efficient lowest cost mechanism possible. For the last three years, Labor both in opposition and in government has backed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme as the most effective and lowest cost means to reduce carbon pollution. The current Leader of the Opposition has had five different positions on this issue. The government has been consistent and the new Leader of the Opposition completely inconsistent on this issue. He supported emissions trading during the Howard government period when the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, concluded and made absolutely clear that the science demanded a response from government and that the lowest cost most efficient mechanism for achieving targeted emission reductions was an emissions trading scheme. As part of that government the now Leader of the Opposition accepted that position. Then of course when it was opportune to afford him the opportunity to drag down the then Leader of the Opposition, the member for Wentworth, the now Leader of the Opposition claimed that climate change was ‘absolute crap’. Then he said at one point that the Liberals should support the CPRS unamended. Then he demanded amendments to the legislation last year when it was previously in a different form before the parliament. And now he opposes the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme in totality for his own political gain. Indeed, in his own words, the opposition leader has described himself as a ‘weather vane’ on climate change. He shifts around on the most important public policy challenge that we face. It is the responsibility of any political leadership figure in this country to adopt a credible position and he has already failed that test. His erratic approach now forms Liberal Party policy. And you cannot trust a leader on issues like this if he thinks the climate science, the subject of considered peer review work by many, many scientists around the world that have stood up to intense scrutiny, is ‘absolute crap’. His position cannot be respected. What we know is that the Leader of the Opposition does not accept the climate science and he is looking for a political fig leaf. Hence we see the policy position that has announced today and it cannot work. What will work is an emissions trading scheme in the form of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Conclusion The government respects the climate science and the need to act. Our position has been consistent for years. And we are acting in an economically responsible manner seeking the most effective and lowest cost means to achieve targeted emissions reduction. The bills before the House today establish a clear framework to tackle this great challenge. If the opposition still has any credibility, character or consistency, they will support this legislation based on the agreement that was endorsed by the coalition party room less than 10 weeks ago. That was a credible stance to engage responsibly on behalf of the Australian community with the government to negotiate amendments and agree to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to secure passage of the legislation. The responsible stance that the former Leader of the Opposition took on that issue on behalf of the community led to him being torn down as the Leader of the Opposition for politically opportunist reasons. What we now see from the opposition is a completely unrealistic, unworkable, incredible, economically irresponsible policy response. What this country needs to deal with climate change is an emissions trading scheme to achieve the least cost emissions reductions. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Coulton) adjourned. 107 Bills R4282 107 Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 107 107 21:52:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 contains consequential and transitional provisions relating to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The bill seeks to amend 12 acts and one set of regulations. National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act The most significant amendments relate to the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. That act provides the existing national framework for the reporting of information on greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and energy production. To maintain the government’s commitment to the streamlining of reporting of greenhouse and energy data, the act will be the starting framework for monitoring, reporting and assurance under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. A number of changes are proposed to strengthen the act and align it with the requirements of the scheme, as outlined in the government’s white paper titled Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s low pollution future, which was released on 15 December 2008. Under the amendments, one report will satisfy an entity’s reporting requirements for the scheme and current reporting requirements under the National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting Act 2007. Coverage of synthetic greenhouse gases The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme also covers synthetic greenhouse gases. As some of these gases are already regulated under the Ozone Protection and Synthetic Greenhouse Gas Management Act 1989, amendments will also be made to that act to align it with the scheme. Establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority The bill also contains a number of consequential amendments relating to the establishment of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority. As well as administering the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, the new authority will take over administration of both greenhouse and energy reporting and the renewable energy target. This necessitates a number of legislative amendments to replace two existing statutory bodies—the Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer—and transfer their functions to the new authority. The creation of the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority also gives rise to a number of other consequential amendments—for example, to apply financial management and accountability requirements to the authority. Measures to prevent market manipulation and misconduct Australian emissions units and eligible international emissions units are also to be financial products for the purposes of chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001 and division 2, part 2 of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001. The bill amends these acts accordingly. These amendments will provide a strong regulatory regime to reduce the risk of market manipulation and misconduct relating to emissions units. Appropriate adjustments to the regime to fit the characteristics of units and avoid unnecessary compliance costs will be made through regulations. The government has consulted on those regulations, which will be made shortly after passage and apply from commencement of this legislation. As required by the Corporations Agreement between the Commonwealth, states and territories, the Ministerial Council for Corporations has been consulted about the amendments to the corporations legislation and, to the extent necessary, has approved those amendments. Taxation treatment of emissions units Schedule 2 of this bill amends various taxation laws to clarify the income tax and goods and services tax treatment of emissions units. The main consideration in designing the tax treatment of units is that the tax treatment should not compromise the main objectives of the scheme. This means that tax should not influence decisions between purchasing, trading and surrendering units or alternatively reducing emissions. The preferred tax treatment will help implement the scheme and reduce compliance and administration costs for taxpayers and the Australian government. For income tax, the amendments establish a rolling balance treatment of registered emissions units which is similar to that for trading stock. The result of the treatment is that the cost of a unit is deductible, with the effect of the deduction generally being deferred through the rolling balance until the sale or surrender of the unit. The proceeds of selling a unit are assessable income with any difference in the value of units held at the beginning of an income year and at the end of that year being reflected in taxable income. Any increase in value is included in assessable income and any decrease in value allowed as a deduction. The bill also amends the goods and services tax law. It characterises a supply of an eligible emissions unit or a Kyoto unit as a supply of personal property right and not a supply of or directly connected with real property. The amendments will promote certainty about the application of the normal GST rules to scheme transactions. Conclusion The consequential amendments contained in this bill are important for the efficient and effective operation of the CPRS. The amendments seek, where possible, to streamline institutional and regulatory arrangements and minimise administrative costs with the scheme. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 109 Bills R4283 109 Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 109 109 21:59:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill would establish the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority—a new statutory authority that would be responsible for administering the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It is one of a package of bills to establish the scheme. The authority will be responsible for auctioning and allocating emissions units, maintaining a national registry of emissions units and ensuring that firms comply with their obligations under the scheme. The government’s intention is to establish an effective, efficient and independent regulator. The authority will be a body corporate headed by a chair and between two and four other members. Through the chair, it will employ Australian Public Service employees on behalf of the Commonwealth. It will have a modern set of information-gathering, inspection and enforcement powers, conferred on it by the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010. The authority will be at arm’s length from government. As with other independent regulators, the minister will only be able to provide directions on general matters and there are limited grounds on which a member of the authority may be removed from office. The authority will also be accountable. It will be required to produce three yearly corporate plans and annual reports, and comply with the Financial Management and Accountability Act 1997. The authority will take over the functions of the existing Office of the Renewable Energy Regulator and the Greenhouse and Energy Data Officer, so that a single regulatory body will have overall responsibility for administration of climate change laws. This transfer of functions is to be effected through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010. While it will have strong powers to ensure that scheme obligations are complied with, the authority will also have an important role in advising and assisting persons in relation to their obligations under the scheme—something that is formally reflected in the authority’s functions. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 109 Bills R4284 109 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 109 109 22:02:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, which is part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution. The Commonwealth does not consider that these charges are taxes for constitutional purposes. However, the government has taken an approach of abundant caution, with the charges bills providing safeguards in case a court reaches a different view on this question. This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or part, both a tax and a duty of customs by providing for the imposition of such a charge under this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 110 Bills R4285 110 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 110 110 22:03:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, which is also part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is another one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution. This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or part, both a tax and a duty of excise by providing for the imposition of such a charge under this bill. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 110 Bills R4286 110 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 110 110 22:05:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill, which is also part of the legislative package to establish the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, is one of three technical bills which anticipate the possibility that the charge payable by a person to the Commonwealth for issue of an Australian emissions unit as the result of an auction, or for a fixed charge, is a tax within the meaning of section 55 of the Constitution. This bill caters for the possibility that the charges I have mentioned are, in whole or in part, a tax. In those circumstances, this bill imposes the charge, but only to the extent the charge is neither a duty of customs nor a duty of excise. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 111 Bills R4287 111 Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 111 111 22:06:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to establish in legislation the CPRS fuel credit measure. It will provide transitional assistance to eligible industries and fuels that will not benefit from the cent-for-cent fuel tax reduction made under the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2010. The CPRS fuel credit will offset the increase in eligible fuel prices by an amount equal to the reduction in the fuel tax rate. CPRS fuel credit amounts will be adjusted automatically with adjustments to the fuel tax made under the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2010. The CPRS fuel credit program will give transitional assistance to the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014. For the period, that is the first year of the scheme, the government has fixed the emissions unit charge at $10 per tonne. Based on current taxation arrangements, this credit will equal 2.455 cents per litre. Activities incidental to the agriculture, forestry and fishing industries currently receive 50 per cent of the fuel tax credit under the Fuel Tax Act 2006 until 30 June 2012 after which they will be entitled to a full fuel tax credit. As these incidental activities will therefore receive a partial benefit from the reduction in fuel tax until 30 June 2012, they will be entitled to a partial CPRS fuel credit until that date. This CPRS fuel credit will be 50 per cent of the full CPRS fuel credit while the reduced fuel tax credit rate applies, and the full CPRS fuel credit thereafter until 30 June 2014. CPRS fuel credits will also provide transitional assistance to heavy on-road transport users for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. The industry will be entitled to a CPRS fuel credit of 2.455 cents per litre based on current taxation arrangements and the introduction of an emissions unit charge fixed at $10 per tonne. Liquid petroleum gas (LPG), liquid natural gas (LNG) and compressed natural gas (CNG) are alternative transport fuels and will face a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme emissions unit obligation. However, as LPG, LNG and CNG are currently outside the fuel excise system, they will not benefit from the fuel tax reductions applying to other fuels. The CPRS fuel credit program will therefore be extended to these fuels. To be eligible for a CPRS fuel credit for the supply of gaseous fuels, an entity must be the liable entity for that fuel under the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010. Suppliers will benefit from a CPRS fuel credit for differing transitional periods depending on the fuel. The CPRS fuel credit will be provided to LPG suppliers for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2014 as it is predominantly used for private motoring as an alternative to petrol. The CPRS fuel credit will be provided to LNG and CNG suppliers for the period 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012. This treatment is the same as for heavy on-road transport as LNG and CNG are predominantly used for this purpose. The government will review these measures upon their conclusion. As the volume of emissions from these fuels is substantially lower than the volume from petrol and diesel, the Australian emissions unit auction charge impact on them will be lower. To reflect this, these fuels will receive less than the full amount of the CPRS fuel credit. From 1 July 2011, based on current taxation arrangements and the introduction of the emissions unit charge fixed at $10 per tonne for one year, CNG will receive a CPRS fuel credit of 1.91 cents per litre which is 78 per cent of the full credit, LNG will receive a credit of 1.23 cents per litre which is 50 per cent of the full CPRS fuel credit. LPG, which has the three-year assistance period, will receive a credit of 1.64 cents per litre, which is 67 per cent on the full CPRS fuel credit, for the first year after which the credit will be adjusted in accordance with increases in the emissions unit charge. The CPRS fuel credit program will be administered by the Australian Taxation Office and claims will be made in the Business Activity Statement in the same manner as other fuel tax credits. Full details of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill 2010 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 112 Bills R4288 112 Bill—by leave—and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 112 112 22:14:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 will legislate amendments to the Fuel Tax Act 2006, the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 and the Taxation Administration Act 1953 necessitated by the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) Bill and the administrative arrangements announced by the government. The measures in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill are mechanical in nature. For example the existing formula in the Fuel Tax Act for determining the net fuel amount, which is the amount either owed to the Commissioner of Taxation or that the commissioner owes, is being replaced. The new formula includes the CPRS fuel credit and increasing or decreasing adjustments for CPRS fuel credits. Full details of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS Fuel Credits) (Consequential Amendments) Bill 2010 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 112 Bills R4289 112 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 113 113 22:15:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to amend the Excise Tariff Act 1921 to confirm in legislation the government’s commitment in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future White Paper. The government will cut fuel taxes on a cent-for-cent basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel of introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government recognises that people have limited flexibility to respond quickly to changes in fuel prices but that, over time, transport choices can respond to price changes. To give households and businesses time to adjust to the scheme, this legislation introduces a mechanism to automatically adjust the rate of fuel tax on all fuels that are currently subject to the 38.143c per litre rate of excise. Fuel tax consists of excise duty on domestically manufactured fuels and excise equivalent customs duty on imported fuels. Fuel tax is predominantly applied at a rate of 38.143c per litre across the range of fuels, including petrol, diesel, kerosene, fuel oil, heating oil, biodiesel and fuel ethanol. Different fuels emit different amounts of carbon when they burn and their prices will increase according to the volume of their emissions. To minimise compliance costs, the fuel tax cut will be made ‘across the board’ to currently taxed fuels. The fuel excise adjustment will be based on the expected rise in the price of diesel resulting from the introduction of the scheme. This will ensure there is cent-or-cent assistance for diesel users. Diesel emits more carbon than petrol on a per litre basis, so the fuel tax cut will provide more than cent-for-cent assistance for petrol users, which make up the majority of motorists. However, diesel use is becoming more common as fuel and vehicle standards improve. Basing the fuel tax cut on diesel will therefore ensure that the government’s cent-for-cent commitment is delivered for the most common fuels used by households. Any reductions will take place on 1 January and 1 July of each year, to harmonise with the business activity statement reporting period. The first fuel tax reduction will occur on 1 July 2011 with the commencement of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. On 1 July 2011, based on current taxation arrangements and that the emissions unit charge will be fixed at $10 per tonne, the fuel tax will be reduced by 2.455c per litre to 35.688c per litre. After the fixed emission unit price of $10 per tonne lapses on 30 June 2012, the need for further reductions, and the amount, will be assessed based on the average Australian emissions unit auction charge over the preceding six-month period. If the average unit charge at the time of the assessment is greater than the average unit charge that formed the basis of the previous reduction, then the fuel tax rate will be further reduced. This approach will apply to adjustments that occur from 1 July 2012. If the current average unit charge amount is less than the previous average unit charge amount then the rate of fuel tax will remain the same—the fuel tax rate will not be increased if the emissions charge has fallen. Information on the six-month average Australian emissions unit auction charge will be published by the Australian Climate Change Regulatory Authority in accordance with section 271 of the CPRS bill. The final reduction will be made, if necessary, on 1 July 2014. The fuel tax rate at that date will be the ongoing rate—that is, the fuel tax rate will not revert to the 38.143c per litre rate. At this time the government will review the mechanism introduced by these amendments. The amendments to the Excise Tariff Act will commence on 1 July 2011, assuming that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commences on that date. Full details of the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2010 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 114 Bills R4290 114 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 114 114 22:20:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill seeks to amend the Customs Tariff Act 1995 to confirm in legislation the government’s commitment in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme: Australia’s Low Pollution Future White Paper. The commitment is to cut fuel taxes on a cent-for-cent basis to offset the initial price impact on fuel of introducing the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. This amendment will introduce a new section into the Customs Tariff Act to ensure that the reductions made to the excise rates on fuels due to the introduction of the scheme also apply to the relevant imported products. Where a relevant excise rate, as defined in the Excise Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2010, is reduced, this amendment will substitute the same rate to the excise equivalent customs duty rates. The substitution will apply to the subheadings in schedules 3, 5, 6, 7 and 8 and item 50(1A) in schedule 4 to the Customs Tariff Act. Only the rate of excise equivalent duty—that is, the non-ad valorem component of the duty will be substituted. The amendments to the Customs Tariff Act will commence on 1 July 2011 assuming the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme Bill 2010 commences on that date. Full details of the Customs Tariff Amendment (Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme) Bill 2010 are contained in the explanatory memorandum. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 114 Bills R4291 114 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Combet. Bill read a first time. 114 114 22:23:00 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 0 Mr COMBET —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill delivers on the government’s commitment to assist low- and middle‑income households with the expected increases in the cost of living arising from the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. Climate change threatens Australia’s way of life and our future prosperity. Australians want action on climate change. That is why the government has moved to introduce the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. It will allow economic growth without growth in emissions. However, the introduction of the scheme will have a modest impact on the cost of living for households. That is why the government is providing low- and middle-income households with upfront assistance to adjust to the impacts of the scheme. Through a package of cash assistance, tax offsets and other measures, the government will help these households maintain their standard of living while moving to achieve emissions reductions. This bill delivers on the government’s commitments given in the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme white paper that: pensioners, seniors, carers, veterans, people with disability, the unemployed, students and other allowees will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme; low-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to fully meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme; and middle-income households will receive additional support, above indexation, to help meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the scheme. The assistance in this bill delivers on these commitments. The average overall cost of living for households is expected to be $624 a year higher once the scheme is fully up and running (by the middle of 2013), or about $12 per week. However, the average amount of assistance that the government will provide to help with this will be $660 per year. 8.1 million households, out of a total 8.8 million households will receive direct cash assistance. All pensioners, people with a disability, carers and low-income households will be fully compensated for cost increases they face. This bill takes account of changes to the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme announced on 4 May 2009 that introduces an initial $10 per tonne fixed carbon price in 2011‑12 and a flexible carbon price in 2012‑13. The composition of the household assistance package reflects this staged approach. The bill is also fully consistent with the amendments to the CPRS package agreed with the former opposition leader, Mr Turnbull, and introduced and debated in the parliament in November and December of 2009. The bill also takes account of other policy changes in the budget, principally the government’s Secure and Sustainable Pension Reform, which will affect how assistance is paid. The Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will see a modest increase in the overall cost of living as we start to recognise the costs of carbon pollution in our everyday lives. It is anticipated that the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme will result in increases in the cost of living of 0.4 per cent in 2011‑12 and 0.7 per cent in 2012‑13, resulting from an initial $10 per tonne fixed carbon price in 2011‑12 and a flexible carbon price in 2012‑13. For many households government payments only represent a share of their income. Therefore, increasing payments in line with headline consumer price index impacts alone will not fully restore their standard of living following the introduction of the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. To adequately compensate these households, compensation needs to go beyond the average household consumer price index impact. To ensure fairness, household composition has also been taken into account in designing the assistance. This household assistance will be funded from the sale of carbon pollution permits. The government has committed to use every cent raised from the introduction of the scheme and the sale of carbon pollution permits to help households and businesses adjust and move Australia to the low pollution economy of the future. Increases to pension, benefit and allowance payments The measures contained in this bill will increase the amount of certain social security and veterans’ affairs pension and allowance payments by 2.5 per cent over two years. This includes a one per cent increase from 1 July 2011 and a further 1.5 per cent increase on 1 July 2012, including upfront indexation. These payment increases include bringing forward the expected consumer price index related indexation increases that will automatically flow from the scheme’s introduction. These indexation increases are expected to be 0.4 per cent in 2011‑12 and 0.7 per cent in 2012‑13. The 0.4 per cent expected indexation increase for 2011‑12 will be brought forward and paid from 1 July 2011. The 0.7 per cent increase in the expected indexation increase will be brought forward and paid from 1 July 2012. Because assistance for the cost of living increase provided through certain payments will be brought forward, subsequent indexation arrangements will be adjusted to avoid duplicate assistance. These increases will apply to a range of income support payments, including the age pension, carer payment, veteran service pensions, disability support pension, Newstart allowance, Youth Allowance, parenting payments and the special benefit. A list of affected payments is included in the bill. Increases to family tax benefit Similar to pension and allowance increases, family tax benefit will be increased to help low- and middle-income families meet the expected overall increase in the cost of living flowing from the CPRS. The increases to family tax benefit will include the upfront payment of the expected automatic indexation increases that will flow from the scheme’s introduction. These automatic increases are expected to be 0.4 per cent in 2011-12 and 0.7 per cent in 2012-13. Subsequent indexation points for family tax benefit payments will be adjusted to avoid the duplication of assistance. The per child maximum standard rates of family tax benefit part A for under 16-year-olds and the family tax benefit part A supplement will be increased by 2.5 per cent over two years, in line with changes to pensions and allowances. Per family standard rates of family tax benefit part B and the part B supplement will also be increased by 2.5 per cent over two years. Additional increases are also being made to the base rate of family tax benefit part A to assist recipients of these payments. Adjustments will be made to indexation of family tax benefit part A and part B rates on 1 July 2012 and 1 July 2013, and over further indexation points if necessary, to prevent duplication of the amounts brought forward on 1 July 2011 and 1 July 2012. A new family tax benefit combined end-of-financial-year supplement will be created for families eligible for both family tax benefit part A and part B, where the main income earner has income above $58,000 per year. The value of the supplement will be up to $240 per family in 2011-12 and up to $620 per family in 2012-13 and later years. The supplement will phase in at 4c in the dollar when the primary earner’s income reaches $58,000 until the supplement reaches the maximum amount. The entitlement to this supplement will cease when a family’s entitlement to family tax benefit part A or part B ceases. Measures delivered through the tax system Assistance is also being provided through the tax system. These measures provide additional assistance to eligible low- and middle-income households through increases to the low-income tax offset and various tax offsets for taxpayers who maintain a dependant. Low-income tax offset From 1 July 2011, the low-income tax offset will increase by $150 from $1,500 to $1,650. From 1 July 2012, it will increase a further $240 to $1,890. This will increase the taxable income up to which a taxpayer is entitled to an amount of low-income tax offset to $71,250 for the 2011-12 income year and to $77,250 for the 2012-13 income year and later income years. Senior Australians tax offset These increases in the low-income tax offset will increase the income level above which senior Australians eligible for the senior Australians’ tax offset begin to pay tax. From 1 July 2011, eligible senior Australians will have no tax liability until their income reaches $31,474 for singles and $27,680 for each member of a couple. From 1 July 2012, eligible senior Australians will have no tax liability until their income reaches $32,737 for singles and $29,280 for each member of a couple. Adjustments will also be made to the Medicare levy thresholds for senior Australians. Dependency tax offsets Measures for households include assistance to eligible adults who maintain a dependant. These increases will apply to the dependent spouse offset, the child-housekeeper offset, the invalid-relative offset, the parent/parent-in-law offset and the housekeeper offset. From 1 July 2011, these dependency offsets will increase by $60 while, from 1 July 2012, they will increase by $90. These increases will be in addition to the annual increases in these offsets that occur due to automatic indexation. Transitional payments A carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will be payable for each of the 2011-12 and 2012-13 income years to independent adults in low-income households who can show they have not been assisted in line with the government’s commitments. The amount of the carbon pollution reduction transitional payment for the 2011-12 income year will be $200 per claimant and $500 per claimant in 2013. The carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will become payable to qualifying individuals for the first year from 1 July 2012 and will be assessed with reference to the individual’s income in the 2011-12 financial year. The person will have until 30 June 2014 to lodge a claim for the 2012 carbon pollution reduction transitional payment. The second year of carbon pollution reduction transitional payment will be assessed with reference to the individual’s income in the 2012-13 financial year and will become payable from 1 July 2013. A person will have until 30 June 2015 to lodge a claim to receive the 2013 carbon pollution reduction transitional payment. Conclusion Through the measures introduced by this bill, the government will provide upfront support to low- and middle-income households to help in adjusting to the emission reductions to be achieved through the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme. The government will update the household assistance package on the basis of any new information on the estimated carbon price before the scheme starts. Each year, the adequacy of this assistance will be reviewed in the context of the budget. Finally, as this is the last of the 11 bills associated with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, I would like to put on the record my thanks to the officers of the Department of Climate Change. It is exceptionally detailed work to prepare this legislation. They worked extremely hard over the Christmas period to ensure that the legislation was ready for presentation to the House of Representatives today. I would like in particular to thank all of those within the department who worked directly on it. I would also like to acknowledge the continuing work of my parliamentary and ministerial colleague, Senator Wong, the Minister for Climate Change and Water, who of course has also worked extremely hard to ensure that the legislation could be presented to parliament for further consideration and I also acknowledge the work of her staff in this regard. Finally, I would like to thank my own two staff who work in the climate change area in my office, Louise Yabsley, the departmental liaison officer, and my senior adviser, Jean-Bernard Carrasco, both of whom work under considerable pressure and have done so to ensure that this humble minister was in a position to present this material to the House this evening. I commend the bills to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 118 22:39:00 House adjourned at 10.39 pm 118 Notices The following notices were given: R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law in relation to the protection of the sea, and for related purposes. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott to present a Bill for an Act to protect the interests of Aboriginal traditional owners in the management, development and use of native title land situated in wild river areas, and for related purposes. HWR Parke, Melissa, MP Ms Parke to move: That the House: expresses its: deep sympathy for the people of Haiti following the 7.0 magnitude earthquake that struck on 12 January 2010 causing terrible devastation, including large-scale loss of life and injury; destruction of homes, buildings and infrastructure; and widespread hunger, thirst, homelessness and lack of security; deep sympathy for the United Nations as this disaster has caused the greatest loss of life of United Nations staff members in the organisation’s history; and strong appreciation for the critical work of the United Nations in Haiti, which it continues to perform under extremely difficult circumstances; strongly supports the actions of the Government in providing funding in the amount of $10 million for immediate emergency relief in Haiti, and $5 million for reconstruction, as well as technical assistance in the relief and reconstruction effort; urges the Government to consider the provision of further funding and assistance towards the reconstruction effort over the months and years ahead; notes its appreciation of the contribution of many United Nations’ member states and Non‑Government Organisations (NGOs) to the aid effort in Haiti; and recognises and welcomes the generous and compassionate contributions made by many Australians, and by Australian-based NGOs and charities to the relief efforts in Haiti. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr Briggs to move: That the House: notes that: archives are an important source of primary information for researchers, school students and the general public; and the South Australian National Archives Office provides South Australians with access to valuable and relevant Australian Government records, including but not limited to important information on migrant arrivals and residencies, government decisions and actions, High Court judgements and prominent people such as Governors-General and Prime Ministers; recognises that records, especially of the Australian Government, should be available in each State and Territory to ensure all Australians have reasonable access to these important documents; and calls on the Special Minister of State to reverse the decision to close the South Australian National Archives Office to ensure South Australians continue to have readily available access to national archive collections in South Australia. 119 Requests for detailed information 119 119 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt to ask the Speaker an amended question from 23 November 2009: What measures have been taken to save energy and water use in Parliament House. 119 119 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt asked the Speaker, in writing, on 26 November 2009: What water harvesting arrangements are in place at Parliament House, including where and how it is stored, and the storage capacity. What amount of water (a) has been harvested at Parliament House each calendar year since 1999, and (b) is currently in storage. For what purpose(s) is the water harvested at Parliament House used. Why is the water harvested at Parliament House not used to run the water features, and will it be used for this purpose in the future; if not, what plans are in place for running the water features at Parliament House in the future. 119 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: In February 2009, the Department of Parliamentary Services (DPS) installed a 45,000 litre water tank in the public car park below the building forecourt. The tank is used to store rainwater harvested from the forecourt. Water from the tank is then used to run the forecourt water feature which was reactivated in May 2008. The rainwater captured is insufficient to fully meet the requirements of the water feature. Any additional water required is obtained from the Lower Molonglo Treatment Plant and delivered to Parliament House by a tanker. The amount of water harvested from the forecourt is not measured. The water harvested is used solely for the purpose of providing water to the forecourt water feature. In addition to the recommissioning of the forecourt water feature, DPS is currently investigating the recommissioning of three additional high profile water features, namely those located in: Aussies Courtyard; the Ministerial entrance; and the Formal Gardens opposite the House of Representatives entrance. 120 120 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 Mr Hawke asked the Speaker, in writing, on 17 September 2009: How many (a) Members, (b) Senators, (c) ministerial staff, and (d) Members’ and Senators’ staff, are eligible to opt for voluntary internet content filtering. How many departmental staff, and other employees who work in Parliament House, are eligible to voluntarily have their internet content filtered. How many (a) Ministers, (b) Members, (c) Senators, (d) ministerial staff, and (e) Members’ and Senators’ staff, have opted to have internet content filtering. How many of those in parts (3) (b) to (e) are with the Government. Has the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy opted to have voluntary internet filtering. How many staff members of the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy have opted to have voluntary internet filtering. How does the default filtering system for Parliamentary and departmental networks differ from voluntary internet content filtering. 120 SPEAKER, The 10000 PO N/A 1 The SPEAKER —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: All Members are eligible to opt for voluntary internet content filtering. On 20 March 2008 the President of the Senate, following consideration by the Appropriations and Staffing Committee, agreed that internet content filtering as currently applied to Senate department employees would be extended to Senators and their staff (Attachment 1). Ministerial staff who have access to the Parliamentary Computing Network are eligible to opt for voluntary internet content filtering on that network. Ministerial staff generally have access to executive department computers that are outside the control of DPS. Members’ staff are eligible to opt for voluntary internet content filtering. Senators’ staff are covered by arrangements announced in the President of the Senate’s statement at Attachment 1. Internet content filtering is applied to all parliamentary department staff, unless exemption has been approved for business reasons. Exempted employees are eligible to request internet content filtering to be re-applied. to (c) The Presiding Officers have agreed that as the internet is an important reference tool for Senators and Members in the conduct of their parliamentary duties, internet filtering details about individuals, including Senators and Members, will not be released. Internet content filtering applies to the use of the Parliamentary Computing Network (PCN) by staff of Ministers that are Senators as per the President’s statement at Attachment 1. Note that ministerial staff generally also have access to executive department computers that are outside the control of DPS. No Members’ staff have opted to have internet content filtering (although staff of one Member have been blocked from the MySpace and Facebook sites). Senators staff are included as per the President’s statement at Attachment 1. The Presiding Officers have agreed that internet filtering details about individuals, including Senators and Members, will not be released. The Presiding Officers have agreed that internet filtering details about individuals, including Senator and Members, will not be released. The Presiding Officers have agreed that internet filtering details about individuals, including Senator and Members, will not be released. The default filtering system for the Parliamentary network blocks sites identified in the software that does the blocking. Further nominated sites can be blocked on request. Attachment 1—President’s (Senator the Hon. Alan Ferguson) statement 20 march 2008—internet content filtering for senators Following discussion in the Senate Appropriations and Staffing Committee, I have agreed that the internet filtering that currently applies to Department of the Senate employees on the Parliamentary Computing Network be extended to all Senators and their staff. Should a Senator require access to a web site that may be restricted by the filtering system, they can arrange temporary or permanent access through the Usher of the Black Rod. The Department of Parliamentary Services provides the internet filtering system on behalf of the Parliamentary departments. I understand that DPS is currently engaged in identifying a replacement filtering system in conjunction with Senate and House of Representatives officials. 122 Questions in Writing 122 122 682 122 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP SE4 Mackellar LP 0 Mrs Bronwyn Bishop asked the Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law, in writing, on 12 May 2009: By what date will the Government formally respond to the Senate Standing Committee on Economics report Australia’s mandatory Last Resort Home Warranty Insurance scheme, which was tabled on 13 November 2008. 122 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 Mr Bowen —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Home builders warranty insurance was placed on the agenda of the Ministerial Council of Consumer Affairs (MCCA) for its 8 May 2009 meeting. MCCA is currently undertaking a review of home builders warranty insurance and in addition, the Government is monitoring developments in the market and changes to the state schemes over recent months and will respond as soon as possible given these developments since the tabling of the Senate Standing Committee’s report. 122 122 718 122 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 12 May 2009: How many immigration cases are currently (a) subject to appeal before the (i) Migration Review Tribunal;(ii) Refugee Review Tribunal; and (iii) the Australian Courts; and; (b) being assessed for a Ministerial Intervention. For what length of time has each case been at points (a) (i) to (iii) and (b) above. 122 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: Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) and Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) As at 18 September 2009, there were a total of 7,119 cases before the MRT. Total MRT 0-30 Days 31-60 Days 61-90 Days 91-120 Days 121-180 Days 181-365 Days 365+ Days 7,119 852 767 739 544 880 2,435 902 As at 18 September 2009, there were a total of 593 cases before the RRT. Total RRT 0-30 Days 31-60 Days 61-90 Days 91-120 Days 121-180 Days 181-365 Days 365+ Days 593 179 151 82 50 66 60 5 Australian courts Before the Administrative Appeal Tribunal (AAT), the Federal Magistrates Court (FMC), the Federal Court (FC), the Full Federal Court (FFC) and the High Court (HC) as at 18 September 2009   Total 0 - 30 Days 31 - 60 Days 61 - 90 Days 91 - 120 Days 121 - 180 Days 181 - 365 Days 365 + Days AAT 117 19 20 22 13 15 22 6 FMC 384 78 86 58 46 65 41 10 FC 11 1 1 2 1 0 4 2 FFC 121 39 35 16 9 8 10 4 HC 111 42 5 11 13 15 19 6 Total 744 179 147 109 82 103 96 28 Ministerial Intervention - under s417, s501J, s454, s195A Cases on-hand, awaiting assessment by the Department against the Minister’s Guidelines as at 18 September 2009 (counted by persons) Total Days 0-30 Days 31-60 Days 61-90 Days 91-120 Days 121-180 Days 181-365 Days 365+ 182 125 43 4 1 0 6 3 Ministerial Intervention - under s351 The total number of cases on-hand, awaiting assessment as at 18 September 2009 was 53. Due to systems constraints, it is not possible to provide a more detailed breakdown of persons or days on-hand at that time. 123 123 752 123 Andrews, Kevin, MP HK5 Menzies LP 0 Mr Andrews asked the Minister representing the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research, in writing, on 13 May 2009: In respect of any intergovernmental agreements that exist in the Minister’s portfolio: (a) how many exist; (b) what are their, (i) names, and (ii) objectives and purposes; (c) what are the names of the parties to each; and (d) will the Minister provide a copy of each; if not, why not. 123 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: Please refer to the answer to Parliamentary Question on Notice 751. 123 123 779 123 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 15 June 2009: In respect of the Government’s proposed Paid Parental Leave scheme, to be administered by her department: Is it a fact that the Government estimates 148,000 parents will be eligible for Paid Parental Leave each year, but around 14 per cent of parents will not elect for this option, bringing the total estimated yearly figure to around 127,000 recipients. Is it a fact that in the Government’s booklet Australia’s Paid Parental Leave Scheme (2009, page 9) a claim is made that families will be on average $2,000 better off under the scheme than under the current arrangements; if so, does this mean that the cost of the scheme to the Government will be at least an additional $254 million a year—costing at least $889 million, as opposed to the Government’s estimated $721 million, over five years. 123 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government estimates that 148,000 new parents will be eligible for Paid Parental Leave (PPL) each year. Parents will be able to choose whether or not they receive PPL. Due to a range of factors it is estimated that around 14 per cent of these eligible parents will choose not to take up the scheme. The net administered cost of the scheme when it is fully implemented will be approximately $260 million per year. The five year cost of $731 million for the scheme includes a small amount of expenditure in the 2008-09 financial year and only two and a half years in which the scheme will operate (from 1 January 2011). 124 124 782 124 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 17 June 2009: In respect of section 417 of the Migration Act 1958: (a) how many requests for intervention has the Minister received since 3 December 2007, and how many of these has the Minister finalised; and (b) how many people who submitted requests for intervention in part (a) have been granted visas, and (i) what kind of visas did they receive, (ii) what were the reasons the Minister provided for granting visas in each case, (iii) what is the country of origin of each case, (iv) in which Local Government Area did those who were granted visas reside, and in how many cases were (v) tribunal, and (vi) court, decisions overturned. 124 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: Between 3 December 2007 and 1 October 2009, the Minister has received some 5566 requests for intervention. Of those, the Minister has finalised some 2051 persons requests and the Department has finalised some 1491 persons requests with the remainder remaining on hand for processing (including cases considered by the Minister and returned for further processing). Between 3 December 2007 and 1 October 2009, the Minister has granted visas to a total of 1040 persons, including from the residual caseload from previous Ministers. The types of visas that were granted to these persons consisted of: 136 (Skilled Independent) 151 (Special Eligibility - Former Resident) 155 (Five Year Resident Return) 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) 204 (Woman at risk) 457 (Business - Long Stay) 461 (New Zealand Citizen Family Relationship) 495 (Skilled-Independent Regional (Provisional)) 573 (Higher education sector) 676 (Visitor Visa Short Stay) 685 (Medical Treatment Long Stay) 786 (Temporary Humanitarian Concern) 801 (Spouse) 802 (Child) 804 (Aged Parent) 820 (Spouse) 835 (Remaining Relative) 836 (Carer) 838 (Aged dependent relative) 856 (Employer Nomination Scheme) 857 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) 858 (Distinguished Talent) 864 (Contributory Aged Parent) 866 (Protection) 880 (General Skilled Migration) Afghanistan Albania Algeria Angola Armenia Bangladesh Belarus Bosnia-Herzegovina Botswana Bulgaria Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia Chile China, Peoples Republic of Colombia Croatia Democratic Republic of Timor-Leste Ecuador Egypt, Arab Republic of El Salvador Ethiopia Fiji Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Gambia Gaza Strip Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana Greece Guyana Hong Kong (SAR of China) India Indonesia Iran Iraq Italy Jordan Kenya Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, Republic of Kyrgyzstan Laos Latvia Lebanon Liberia Libya Macau (SAR of China) Malawi Malaysia Mauritania Moldova Mongolia Morocco Nepal Netherlands Nigeria Pakistan Palestinian Authority Peru Philippines Romania PRE 1/2/2002 Russian Federation Samoa Sierra Leone Singapore Slovakia South Africa, Republic of Soviet Union Spain Sri Lanka Stateless/Other Sudan Syria Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Tonga Tunisia Turkey Uganda Ukraine United States of America Uzbekistan Venezuela Vietnam Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Zambia Zimbabwe                                                 The Department does not produce reports on visas granted to persons by Local Government Areas. The information provided below is based on a State Geographical area classification structure in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Standard Geographic Classifications (ASGC). Those persons who were granted visas resided, upon last contact with the Department, in the following ASGC areas: Adelaide Barwon Brisbane Canberra Darwin East Gippsland Fitzroy Gippsland Goulburn Greater Hobart Hunter Illawarra Loddon Mallee Melbourne Mid-north coast - NSW Moreton Murrumbidgee North west - QLD North western - NSW Northern - QLD Perth South eastern – NSW Sydney Unknown                                                 The Minister substituted a more favourable decision for that of the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) for 1040 persons. The Ministerial intervention process differs fundamentally from the visa determination process, in that the decision to substitute a more favourable decision for that of a review authority focuses on the extent to which the characteristics of the case raise the public interest, whereas a visa determination focuses on whether a person is able to meet the codified criteria for the grant of a visa. None. The power under section 417 is not enlivened where a Court quashes or sets aside a decision of the RRT and the matter is remitted to the review authority to be decided again because there is no longer a review decision to be substituted. 127 127 783 127 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 17 June 2009: In respect of section 351 of the Migration Act 1958: (a) how many requests for intervention has the Minister received since 3 December 2007, and how many of these has the Minister finalised; and (b) how many people who submitted requests for intervention in part (a) have been granted visas, and (i) what kind of visas did they receive, (ii) what were the reasons the Minister provided for granting visas in each case, (iii) what is the country of origin of each case, (iv) in which Local Government Area did those who were granted visas reside, and in how many cases were (v) tribunal, and (vi) court, decisions overturned. 128 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: Between 3 December 2007 and 1 October 2009, the Minister has received some 2245 requests for intervention. Of those, the Minister has finalised some 692 persons requests and the Department has finalised some 653 persons requests with the remainder remaining on hand for processing (including cases considered by the Minister and returned for further processing). Between 3 December 2007 and 1 October 2009, the Minister has granted visas to a total of 427 persons, including from the residual caseload from previous Ministers. The types of visas granted to these persons were: 115 (Remaining Relative) 116 (Carer) 117 (Orphan Relative) 121 (Employer nomination) 151 (Special Eligibility - Former Resident) 155 (Five Year Resident Return) 176 (Skilled - Sponsored) 202 (Global Special Humanitarian) 457 (Business - Long Stay) 562 (Iranian postgraduate student) 571 (School Sector) 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector) 573 (Higher education sector) 676 (Visitor Visa Short Stay) 685 (Medical Treatment Long Stay) 801 (Spouse) 802 (Child) 814 (Interdependency) 835 (Remaining Relative) 836 (Carer) 837 (Orphan Relative) 838 (Aged dependent relative) 856 (Employer Nomination Scheme) 857 (Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme) 880 (General Skilled Migration) 885 (Skilled – Independent) 890 (Business Owner) 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner (Residence)) Argentina Bangladesh Brazil Burma (Myanmar) Cambodia Canada China, Peoples Republic of Colombia Congo Czech Republic Denmark Eritrea Ethiopia Fiji Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia Germany, Federal Republic of Ghana Greece Hong Kong (SAR of China) India Indonesia Iran Iraq Ireland Jordan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Republic of Lebanon Malawi Malaysia Mauritius Nepal Netherlands New Zealand Nigeria Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Romania PRE 1/2/2002 Somalia South Africa, Republic of Spain Sri Lanka Stateless/Other Sweden Syria Taiwan Tanzania Thailand Tonga Turkey Uganda United Kingdom United States of America Vietnam Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of Zimbabwe The Department does not produce reports on visas granted to persons by Local Government Areas. The information provided below is based on a State Geographical area classification structure in accordance with the Australian Bureau of Statistics Australian Standard Geographic Classifications (ASGC). Those persons who were granted visas resided, upon last contact with the Department, in the following ASGC areas: Adelaide Brisbane Canberra Darwin Fitzroy Greater Hobart Goulburn Hunter Illawarra Mallee Melbourne Mersey-Lyell Moreton Murray Murrumbidgee Northern-QLD Perth Southern - TAS Sydney Wide Bay-Burnett Wimmera The Minister substituted a more favourable decision for that of the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) for 427 persons. The Ministerial intervention process differs fundamentally from the visa determination process, in that the decision to substitute a more favourable decision for that of a review authority focuses on the extent to which the characteristics of the case raise the public interest, whereas a visa determination focuses on whether a person is able to meet the codified criteria for the grant of a visa. None. The power under section 351 is not enlivened where a Court quashes or sets aside a decision of the MRT and the matter is remitted to the review authority to be decided again because there is no longer a review decision to be substituted. 131 131 784 131 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 17 June 2009: Which discretionary intervention powers has the Minister delegated to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship. 131 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: Ministerial intervention has been the subject of the Select Committee on Ministerial Discretion in Migration Matters (2004) and the Proust Review (2008) which provided advice on arrangements for the exercise of the Minister’s public interest powers. The Proust review made six recommendations in relation to management of the caseload and suggested enhancements for future action, including recommendation 3 of the report that “all delegable powers, currently exercised by the Minister, be delegated, either to the Department or to the relevant tribunal”. Progress against the recommendation is as follows: delegation of the 197AB power to senior departmental officers is part of the Detention Reform Bill currently being considered by Parliament. The Bill provides that there will be a Ministerial Direction under section 499 as to the exercise of the delegated power once a decision has been made to consider someone for residence determination. the exercise of section 501(1) and s501(2) to refuse to grant a visa or to cancel a visa where the Minister is satisfied that the person does not pass the character test has been delegated to a senior departmental officer. However, cases which are more sensitive or contentious in nature will be decided by the Minister and will not be delegated. section 33(9) which allows the Minister to make a written declaration that a person not be granted a Special Purpose Visa has been delegated. certain ministerial intervention powers have been abolished along with the Temporary Protection visa. These are Subclause 866.228(b) and 866.228A(b), Subclauses 866.222A(2) and 866.222B(2), Subclause 866.214(2), Subclause 866.215(2) of Schedule 2 of the Regulations –Subclause 866.229(b). Further, the Department continues to identify cohorts of the ministerial intervention caseload which would be appropriate to have their cases resolved within the Department’s visa framework. On 14 September 2009, the Migration Regulations were changed to allow certain partners of Australian citizens, permanent residents and eligible New Zealand citizens to apply for a partner visa onshore. Complementary protection legislation has been introduced in Parliament to provide a direct visa pathway for people for whom Australia has a non-refoulement obligation under the International Convention of Civil and Political Rights and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment as part of the Protection visa assessment process. In relation to other delegable powers, the Proust review recommended that it may be appropriate for the Minister to retain personal involvement in the exercise of a small number of other powers such as certain citizenship cases. Section 34 gives the Minister the discretion to revoke a person’s Australian citizenship for actions prior to the acquisition of citizenship by application such as false statements and fraud. Section 36 gives the Minister the discretion to revoke a child’s Australian citizenship where a responsible parent has ceased to be an Australian citizen in specific situations. There are no plans to delegate the powers under Sections 34 and 36 of the Citizenship Act 2007 due to the small and sensitive nature of these caseloads. 132 132 795 132 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 24 June 2009: For the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09: How many protection visa applications were (a) lodged with, and (b) refused by, the department. What number of those refused subsequently (a) appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal, and (b) requested to the Minister to intervene under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958. Of the decisions upheld in part (2) (a), how many applicants appealed to the higher courts and/or to the Minister under section 417 of the Act, and of these, how many were successful in obtaining a visa. 132 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: As at 24 July 2009, by persons for the financial years 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, and 2008-09: How many protection visa applications were lodged with, and Protection visa lodgements 2004-05 to 2008-09 Lodgements Count* 2004-05 3208 2005-06 3291 2006-07 3747 2007-08 4009 2008-09 5304 * The count of lodgements may contain a further Protection visa application by people who have been permitted to lodge another application. (b)   refused by, the department. Protection visa refusals 2004-05 to 2008-09 Refusals Count 2004-05 2302 2005-06 2838 2006-07 2721 2007-08 2413 2008-09 2995 What number of those refused subsequently appealed to the Refugee Review Tribunal, and Subsequent appeals to the Refugee Review Tribunal by refused Protection visa applicants 2004-05 to 2008-09 RRT Lodgements Count 2004-05 1555 2005-06 2423 2006-07 2620 2007-08 2317 2008-09 2930                                                 requested to the Minister to intervene under section 417 of the Migration Act 1958. Any person requesting Ministerial intervention must have first had the Department's refusal of a Protection visa affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal to enliven the Minister's powers under s417 of the Migration Act. There is no limit on the number of requests for Ministerial intervention a client can make. The Department's systems collate information regarding Ministerial intervention in accordance with the number of requests made for intervention counted by persons. It is not possible to distinguish within DIAC information systems multiple requests for intervention by the client. The Department is therefore unable to provide completely accurate data in relation to the number of clients who have requested the Minister to intervene in their case. Federal Magistrates Court Federal Court Full Federal Court High Court* Total 2004/2005 1,868 114 881 472 3335 2005/2006 1,818 12 915 358 3104 2006/2007 1,693 1 909 429 3032 2007/2008 1,193 4 890 441 2529 2008/2009 996 0 434 253 1683 Source: DIAC Legal Information System *High Court includes matters filed in the original jurisdiction of the court plus any special leave and resulting substantive applications The above table reflects the date the court application was entered on the Legal Information System. The court application may relate to an RRT decision made in a previous financial year. The application may include multiple clients, generally family groups. The figures will also reflect a small component of repeat applications filed by clients. For the period 1 July 2004 to 12 June 2009, the following applications were remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal by the courts. All courts – Cases remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal Department Loss Department withdrawal 2004/2005 100 171 2005/2006 143 590 2006/2007 140 411 2007/2008 107 137 2008/2009 95 134 Source: DIAC Legal Information System. *Does not include cases remitted following Ministers' appeals The table details the number of matters remitted by the courts to the RRT. Some matters will involve multiple clients. Protection visas are not granted as a direct result of the outcome of litigation. On withdrawal or a Minister loss, cases are remitted back to the Refugee Review Tribunal for reconsideration. DIAC systems cannot provide information on visas granted to litigation applicants where they are remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal. Ministerial intervention The Department's systems collate information regarding Ministerial intervention in accordance with the number of requests made for intervention counted by persons. The Department’s systems cannot provide information on visas granted to litigation applicants where they are remitted to the Refugee Review Tribunal. 134 134 842 134 Hunt, Gregory, MP 00AMV Flinders LP 0 Mr Hunt asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 25 June 2009: In respect of the Green Loans Program: Which major banks will provide funding or security for the Green Loans program. What other smaller financiers are contributing. Have sufficient financiers been contracted to provide funding. What sum of funding will the Government now commit to this program. If the figure is no longer $175 million, what is the figure and why has it changed. How many families are now expected to apply. What figure is the Government now saying will be saved in emissions under this program, and over what period. 134 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Westpac Banking Corporation and ANZ Bank have signed on as Green Loans Program Financial Partners. Fourteen other organisations have become Green Loans Program Financial Partners; being Australian Central Credit Union, AWA Credit Union, Berrima District Credit Union, Community First Credit Union, Heritage Building Society, Hunter United Employees’ Credit Union, Maleny and District Community Credit Union, MECU, New England Credit Union, Nova Credit Union Ltd, Old Gold Credit Union, Queensland Country Credit Union, Satisfac Direct Credit Union and the Victoria Teachers Credit Union. Yes. The Program funding is $175 million. The Program funding is $175 million. The Program will provide free home sustainability assessments to 360,000 households, and approximately 75,000 Green Loans. Actual abatement from the program will depend on the number of households that undertake energy and water efficiency actions following their Home Sustainability Assessments, and the nature of these actions, including those households who choose to apply for Green Loans. 135 135 872 135 Gash, Joanna, MP AK6 Gilmore LP 0 Mrs Gash asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 11 August 2009: How does the Government plan to fund its massive debt? From 1 January 2009 to 11 August 2009, what sum of money has the Government borrowed from other countries? For each month from 1 January 2009 to 11 August 2009, what sum of money did the Government repay? 135 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government borrows by issuing Commonwealth Government Securities (CGS) to financial market intermediaries, who make purchases on behalf of their clients. This process is undertaken by the Australian Office of Financial Management (AOFM). The Australian Government’s net debt position remains low by international standards. On current projections, net debt will peak at 10.0 per cent of GDP in 2013‑14, before falling to 2.2 per cent by 2019‑20. This compares to a projected net debt of 93 per cent of GDP in 2014 for the major advanced economies collectively. The market for CGS is open and transparent and there are no restrictions on who can purchase these securities. In the year to June 2009, the proportion of CGS held by overseas investors averaged around 59 per cent. This is around the same proportion as when the previous Government was last in office (an average of 60 per cent in the year to December 2007). From 1 January 2009 to 11 August 2009, the AOFM tendered $33.4 billion in Treasury Bonds and $21.9 billion of Treasury Notes. Government repayments on debt are for both coupon payments and payments upon maturity of CGS. No Treasury Bonds matured during the period 1 January 2009 to 11 August 2009. The figures in the table below are maturing Treasury Notes1 and coupon payments made on Treasury Bonds. 1 Treasury Notes are short term securities used to assist the within year financing task 2009 Treasury Note maturities ($m) Treasury Coupon payments ($m) TOTAL ($m) January 0 0 0 February 0 408 408 March 0 356 356 April 300 337 637 May 0 413 413 June 1700 265 1965 July 3600 0 3600 August* 600 0 600   * as at 11 August 2009 136 136 959 136 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 Mr Randall asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of recent changes to the flight path for international and domestic aircraft to and from Perth Airport: On what date did they come into effect. Were they made on the basis of Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) advice; if so, what was the advice. Did CASA have any safety concerns; if so, (a) what were they, (b) were they addressed in Air Services Australia’s (ASA’s) Western Australia Route Review Project in Perth, and (c) how have they been addressed with the introduction of changed flight paths. What were the recommendations of ASA’s Western Australia Route Review Project in Perth, and which ones were implemented. 136 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: 20 November 2008. Yes, CASA’s advice of 8 July 2003 complemented Airservices findings. The concerns were based on significant increases in traffic causing congestion and safety issues on routes out of the Perth terminal area. Refer to (2). and (c) The introduction of a linked STAR system was required to resolve the CASA RCA and this required the entire redesign of the former SID / STAR package. This work was undertaken in two stages, the latter stage included in WARRP.  Perth’s route structure now has runway linked SIDs and STARs, segregated flight paths for jets and non-jets, and a reduced number of reporting and crossover points.  CASA endorsed all proposed changes to the air route structure under WARRP prior to implementation. The reduction of incident reports since implementation is a positive indicator that the restructure of routes has helped address the identified safety issues. The Western Australia Route Review Project identified solutions to resolve airspace safety issues.  These solutions were adopted as part of the WARRP implementation. 136 136 960 136 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 Mr Randall asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of public consultation concerning the recent changes to the flight path for international and domestic aircraft to and from Perth Airport— Was a period of public consultation conducted; if so, what methods were used, and for what length of time; if not, why not. Were interested parties, including affected residents, given the opportunity to make written submissions. Were public meetings held; if so, (a) where were they advertised, and on what dates, (b) how many, where, and on what dates, (c) what are the names of the attendees, and how many of these were potentially affected residents, and (d) were elected representatives, including local councillors, State and Federal Members of Parliament, notified; if so, what are their names, which ones attended, and at which meetings; if not, why not. Were potentially affected residents notified in writing about the: (a) proposal to change the flight paths; if so, how; if not, why not; and (b) changed flight paths upon introduction; if so, how; if not, why not. 137 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Airservices Australia has advised that: The consultation model employed during the Western Australia Route Review Project (WARRP) is one the organisation has used nationally for airspace reviews for a number of years i.e. where proposals for change are safety driven. The process commenced in 2005/06 under the previous Government, using consultation processes established during the term of the previous Government. In Perth this involved the Perth Airport Aircraft Noise Management Consultative Committee comprised of community representatives, Federal and State MPs, local councils, community organisations and the Western Australian Government. These consultation processes included Airservices regularly updating the Committee on progress of the review, including detailed information on proposed new arrival and departure routes, so that Committee members could inform their respective organisations and constituencies. Information on the review was also posted on Airservices’ website. 137 137 962 137 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of Schedule C of the National Partnership Agreement (NPA) on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan: (a) is she aware that her department receives monthly reports from the States and Territories in respect of progress under this NPA; if not, why not; (b) has she received the July 2009 report (due August 2009) from all of the States and Territories; if not, which States and Territories are yet to submit their July 2009 reports; and (c) what is the total number of new social housing dwellings that have commenced construction under all elements of this plan as at 30 July 2009. 137 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. As at 31 July 2009 the total number of new social dwellings that had commenced construction under all elements of the Initiative was 1096. 137 137 968 137 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, in writing, on 7 September 2009: In respect of the Department’s Veteran Access Network office at Southport, Queensland What funds were appropriated to this office for the 2008-09 financial year. What funds have been appropriated to this office (a) for the 2009-10 financial year, and (b) over the forward estimates years. How many staff were employed at this office as at 7 September 2009, how many of these were employed on a full-time basis, and what is the total budgeted funding for salaries and wages of staff in the 2009-10 financial year. How many (a) clients were seen, and (b) counter enquiries were made, at this office between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009. 138 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 Mr Griffin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Southport Office is a shared arrangement between our Veterans Affairs Network (VAN) and the Veterans and Veterans Families Counselling Service (VVCS). One lease exists for the tenancy. Property costs are identified below. The amount expended for 2008-09 for salaries and associated administrative costs was $622,000. This amount includes that expended for property costs which was $126,000. The amount budgeted for 2009-10 for salary and associated administrative costs is $737,000. This includes the amount budgeted for property costs which is $201,000. Budgets for 2010-11 and beyond have not yet been finalised. As of 7 September 2009, six staff were employed (five fulltime and one part-time officer) with a temporary officer commencing on 9 September for a 10 week period. The amount budgeted for salaries for 2009-10 is $ $518,000. VAN Between 1 July 2008 and 30 June 2009 Southport VAN had: 3789 - Clients seen – (this includes seminars, outreach and counter enquiries) 2995 counter enquiries It needs to be noted that these figures do not equate to total number of people as there may be individuals who have had several contacts or who come into the office regularly. 138 138 979 138 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 8 September 2009: In respect of the Long term Operating Plan (LTOP) for the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport— Is the Ministerial Direction (Instrument M94/97) made under subsection 16(1) of the Air services Act 1995 still current; if not, why not. Has Air Services Australia complied with the terms of the Ministerial Direction in part (1) by requiring implementation of the flight paths in section 2 of the schedule; if not, why not. Does the LTOP contain jet tracks for arriving aircraft using mode of operation No.9 and do those jet tracks overfly the Pacific Ocean. Are jet arrivals to Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport during mode of operation No.9 and which appear inconsistent with the maps contained within the LTOP in breach of Ministerial Direction M94/97; if not, why not. Can he explain whether the Government’s policy is that aircraft movements over Sydney at higher levels to enter the approach and landing phase at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport do not have LTOP obligations and these flight paths are flexible for traffic management purposes. What is the altitude at which LTOP obligations for aircraft movements cease. Is any part of Sydney’s airspace available for aircraft overflights; if so, which part(s). 139 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: to (3) Yes. While the Ministerial Direction required Airservices to implement the general structure and layout of the flight paths shown in the Proponent’s Statement, it also provided for any adjustments necessary to meet the detailed design of the airspace arrangements and to satisfy safety requirements. & (6) As noted in LTOP documentation, LTOP procedures are applicable to aircraft departing or arriving from or to Sydney Airport whilst they are within the Sydney Terminal Area (within 45 nautical miles of Sydney Airport). Yes, subject to the Obstacle Limitation Surface (OLS) requirements. 139 139 980 139 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 8 September 2009: In respect of flight corridors under the Long term Operating Plan (LTOP) for the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport— Is he aware of the designated flight corridors under Regulation 4 of the Air Navigation (Aerodrome Flight Corridors) Regulations 1994; if not, why not. Is it a fact that (a) Flight Corridor A for landing approach to Runway 34L has statutory effect, and (b) jet aircraft, for the purpose of approaching to land on a runway, must fly within and not deviate from the appropriate designated flight corridor for the runway. Is it an offence not to use a designated flight corridor, unless otherwise instructed by an air traffic controller. Does regulation 7 of the Air Navigation (Aerodrome Flight Corridors) Regulations 1994 require Air Services Australia to monitor compliance with the regulations and investigate conduct in contravention of the regulations, including the designated flight corridors. Have there been any breaches of the designated flight corridors; if so, what action has Air Services Australia taken. Are jet arrival routes involving overflights in airspace above the electorates of Bradfield, North Sydney, Lowe, Grayndler, Watson, Barton and Cook contrary to the designated flight corridor stipulated in regulation 4; if so, why. 139 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: & (2) Yes. Potentially, subject to section 23 of the Air Navigation Act 1920. Yes. Yes. Where potential breaches have been detected, Airservices has referred the matter for independent investigation and possible subsequent referral to the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions. No. 139 139 982 139 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 8 September 2009: In respect of Standard Terminal Arrivals Routes (STARs) published by Airservices Australia under Regulation 4.12 of the Air Services Regulations 1995 — What are the procedures involved with the planning and approval of STARs for the Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport. What are the dates for implementation of the Boree Four STARs, and all predecessors. What the (a) daily, (b) weekly, and (c) monthly frequency of use of the Boree Four Arrival STAR for aircraft arriving at Sydney (Kingsford Smith) Airport Runway 34L for the (i) fourth quarter of 2008, (ii) first quarter of 2009, and (iii) second quarter of 2009. 140 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Airservices Australia has advised that: The process involves initial procedures design by Airservices conducted in accordance with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) requirements and the Airservices Australia design manual. The Long Term Operating Plan (LTOP) Implementation and Monitoring Committee (IMC) is notified of the proposal and advises the Sydney Airport Community Forum (SACF). After Airservices conducts environmental and safety assessments and consults with industry it prepares a submission to IMC – Airservices or IMC may elect to refer the draft design to SACF for consideration. The design is then finalised and published by Airservices. The Boree Four STAR became effective on 5 June 2008 with a minor revision (the current procedure) effective on 20 November 2008.  Boree Three, which was replaced by Boree Four, was established on 10 August 2000, with minor revisions occurring on 22 February 2001, 21 February 2002, 7 August 2003, 25 November 2004 and 17 March 2005.  Prior to 2000, aircraft arriving from the north were radar vectored to runways from points north of the airport. Boree Four provides two alternative approaches to Sydney Airport: either over the city on the western side of the airport or over the ocean to the east of the airport.  Airservices’ data does not specifically identify a Boree Four STAR flight path. 140 140 991 140 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 asylum seekers processed by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in Indonesia: How many were processed in (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09; and how many of these have had their refugee status confirmed. Of those granted refugee status by the UNHCR, how many did Australia offer permanent resettlement to during (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09. As at 10 September 2009, how many of those offered permanent resettlement had arrived in Australia. What subclass visa categories were granted to the new settlers, and how many were granted for each subclass. Can the Minister indicate how many asylum seekers granted refugee or humanitarian status were resettled in countries other than Australia during (a) 2007-08, and (b) 2008-09. 141 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: This is a question for UNHCR. In 2007-08, six refugees were granted Subclass 451 Secondary Movement Relocation (Temporary) visas and 83 persons of concern in need of international protection were granted Subclass 449 Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) visas; all 89 have either been granted or are undergoing processing for Subclass 851 Resolution of Status visas. In 2008-09, 33 refugees were granted permanent Subclass 200 Refugee visas and five persons of concern in need of international protection were granted Subclass 449 Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) visas; the latter five have either been granted or are undergoing processing for Subclass 851 Resolution of Status visas. In 2009-10 to 31 October, 56 refugees were granted Subclass 200 Refugee visas and one refugee was granted a Subclass 202 visa. Of the 33 refugees granted permanent resettlement in Australia in 2008-09, 30 had arrived by 31 October 2009. The five persons of concern granted temporary visas had also arrived by that date. Of the 57 refugees granted Subclass 200 or 202 visas in 2009-10 to 31 October, eight have so far arrived in Australia. Of the arrivals from the Indonesian intercepted caseload who were granted humanitarian visas in 2007-08 and 2008-09, six were granted subclass 451 Secondary Movement Relocation (Temporary) visas, 33 were granted Subclass 200 Refugee visas and 89 were granted Subclass 449 Humanitarian Stay (Temporary) visas. Of the arrivals who were granted visas in 2009-10 to 31 October, all were granted Subclass 200 Refugee visas. This is a question for UNHCR. 141 141 995 141 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: As at 31 July 2009, what total number of staff of the Department of Immigration and Citizenship were working on Christmas Island, processing or in other ways managing, unauthorised arrivals. As at (a) 31 July 2008, and (b) 31 July 2009, how many unauthorised people on Christmas Island were in detention. From 1 September 2008 to 9 September 2009, (a) how many unauthorised people on Christmas Island were granted permanent residence visas, (b) in which months were those visas granted, and (c) on what dates did these people arrive. By State and Territory, where have those in part (3) settled. From 1 July 2009 to 9 September 2009, what was the full cost of processing successful protection visa applications on Christmas Island. What psychological and health services have been made available to unauthorised people on Christmas Island. What additional accommodation will be provided on Christmas Island for unauthorised people. How many extra beds will be provided for unauthorised people on Christmas Island, and at what locations on the island. 141 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: As at 31 July 2009, there were 42 Department of Immigration and Citizenship staff working on Christmas Island processing or in other ways managing irregular maritime arrivals. As at 31 July 2008, six Irregular Maritime Arrivals were in detention arrangements on Christmas Island. As at 31 July 2009, 670 Irregular Maritime Arrivals were in detention arrangements on Christmas Island. From 1 September 2008 to 9 September 2009 516 Irregular Maritime Arrivals had been granted permanent residence visas. The visas were granted in each month from January 2009 to September 2009. These clients arrived on Christmas Island between October 2008 and June 2009. In relation to (3) above, Irregular Maritime Arrivals have been settled in: Australian Capital Territory New South Wales Queensland South Australia Tasmania Victoria Western Australia The Department is continuing to receive and process invoices for Christmas Island for the period 1 July 2009 to 9 September 2009. Key costs for this period were: Detention services, an estimated $6.68m; Interpreting services, an estimated $2.00m; Aircraft Charter and freight, an estimated $0.33m; Health Services, an estimated $1.30m; and DIAC staff costs and allowances of approximately $0.813m have been incurred. The above costs are based on invoices received and paid and are highly variable depending on the number of people on the island and the range of services provided. Delays in service providers submitting invoices for payment also affect the variability of these costs. (6)   The Department of Immigration and Citizenship has a duty of care to all people in immigration detention. Clients on Christmas Island have access to health and psychological services. All irregular maritime arrivals are screened for health issues including torture and trauma and mental health upon arrival into immigration detention. All clients are regularly offered subsequent assessments as part of their ongoing care. Clients who present with medical concerns at any time during their time in immigration detention on Christmas Island are assessed, and where possible, treated on Christmas Island. Where clinically indicated, clients may be transferred to the mainland for treatment and returned to Christmas Island upon completion. International Health and Medical Services (IHMS) provides health services to clients in the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre and alternative places of detention on Christmas Island, while Indian Ocean Territories Health Services (IOTHS) provides health services to people in community detention on Christmas Island and torture and trauma counselling services to all irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. (7)   The Department has recently installed an additional 288 beds in the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre. The Department is also constructing an extra accommodation compound at the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre, with an initial capacity of 200 beds. (8)   The works outlined in part (7) above will provide approximately 500 beds more than were available on 10 September 2009. 143 143 1004 143 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 Mr Hawke asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 14 September 2009: Is he able to confirm that there is a critical need to upgrade the infrastructure in North-West Sydney. What are the (a) Australian Government, and (b) joint Australian Government and New South Wales Government, proposals to fund (i) rail, and (ii) road, infrastructure in North-West Sydney between 2009 and 2015, and what are the cost estimates for each proposal. Given the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) Richmond is of economic importance to the economy of that area and North-West Sydney, does the Government have any plans to redevelop the RAAF Richmond for non-military purposes, including civil aviation; if so, what are the details and what sums of money are being allocated for this purpose. What is the Government’s position on the problems identified in the Second Sydney Airport: a proposal for the construction and operation of a second major airport for Sydney at Badgerys Creek, Environmental assessment report (Department of the Environment and Heritage, July 1999), that inhibit RAAF Richmond’s flight operations. Does the Government have any plans to allow non-military passenger services at RAAF Richmond, including those of Jetstar, Qantas, Virgin and Tiger Airways, and other small or regional operators. Are there any current reports, reviews, inquiries or other planning processes which have the potential to change the status of RAAF Richmond to include non-military passenger services; if so, what are the details, including the timeframes for their consultations, deliberations and reporting. 143 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government is committed to a major national infrastructure program, investing $35.8 billion over the next six years. The Government will also continue to work with the New South Wales Government to better integrate land use and transport planning in the future. Details of the Government’s infrastructure investment through the Nation Building Program, including projects in North-West Sydney, can be found on the Department’s website. I refer the honourable member to the Aviation White Paper released on 16 December 2009 and my media releases of 19 June 2009, 23 November 2009, and 16 December 2009 reference AA309/2009, AA500/2009 and AA539-2009 respectively, at www.minister.infrastructure.gov.au/. 143 143 1013 143 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 Ms Julie Bishop asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 15 September 2009: How many people are currently detained in the Christmas Island Immigration Detention Centre (IDC). How close to maximum capacity is the Christmas Island IDC. Between 1 March 2009 and 14 September 2009, how many detainees at the IDC were released into the Australian community. For this same period, did health checks detect any serious illnesses, and what was the cost of medical care over this period. For this same period, how many detainees at the IDC were transferred to the Australian mainland, and what proportion (a) are being held in detention, and (b) have been or will be released into the community. What is the forecast cost of the Ambassador for People Smuggling. How many people were apprehended and detained at the IDC between 1 August 2008 and 14 September 2009, and of these, what proportion has been granted (a) permanent protection visas, and (b) some other form of residence visa, and what was the average processing time from receipt of application to decision to grant a visa in parts (a) and (b). 144 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: On 15 September 2009, 556 people were detained at the Christmas Island IDC. On 15 September 2009, the Christmas Island IDC had a capacity of 800 at that point in time. Capacity has since been increased. For the period 1 March 2009 to 14 September 2009, 430 irregular maritime arrivals were granted permanent visas, transferred from Christmas Island to the Australian mainland and settled into the Australian community. Due to the regular, high number of client movements between facilities on Christmas Island, it is not possible to say how many clients were granted visas from the Christmas Island IDC itself. For the period 1 March 2009 to 14 September 2009, 45 irregular maritime arrivals were admitted to hospital with a range of medical conditions. The cost of medical care (including medical and hospital services, pharmaceuticals and mental health counselling) for all clients on Christmas Island for this period, based on invoices received and paid, for services up to and including 14 September 2009, was approximately $1.9 million. For the period 1 March 2009 and 14 September 2009, 430 irregular maritime arrivals were granted permanent visas, transferred from Christmas Island to the Australian mainland and settled into the Australian community. Furthermore, a small number of clients would also have been brought to the mainland from Christmas Island prior to security checks being finalised and visas granted. Reasons for these transfers have ranged from individual clients’ medical treatment or personal circumstances of their case, to transfer of some clients to Perth prior to their removal from Australia. All clients transferred to the mainland prior to their checks being completed remained in immigration detention throughout their time on the mainland. Due to the regular, high number of client movements between facilities on Christmas Island, it is not possible to say how many clients were transferred to the mainland directly from the Christmas Island IDC. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should be consulted for information on the forecast cost for the Ambassador for People Smuggling. For the period 1 August 2008 to 14 September 2009, 1278 irregular maritime arrivals were intercepted and then detained on Christmas Island. Due to the regular, high number of client movements between facilities on Christmas Island, it is not possible to say how many irregular maritime arrival clients were detained at the Christmas Island IDC during this period. Of those detained on Christmas Island: 40 percent had been granted a visa. For those that were granted a visa up until 14 September 2009, the average processing time from arrival on Christmas Island to visa grant was 104 days. None. 145 145 1017 145 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 15 September 2009: Is the Australian Government allocating $30 million to the development of information technology infrastructure to establish a national electronic development assessment (eDA) system. What is the allocation of the eDA system funding between the State and Territory governments. Has this funding already been given to the State and Territory governments; if not, which governments are awaiting funding, what sums and why. What conditions have been attached to this funding allocation; if no conditions apply, why. What role does the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council have in developing a nationally consistent eDA system. What timeframe has been set for the completion of the eDA system project; if no timeframe has been set, why not. Is further funding required to complete the eDA system project; if so, why, and what sum. Has the Australian Government allocated $3.6 million to develop and implement national standards for eDA information technology systems, if so, have they been completed; if not, by what date are they expected to be completed. What productivity benefits are expected to be gained from the implementation of a nationally consistent eDA system. 145 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: As each State and Territory has different planning regulations and processes, there cannot be a single “national electronic development assessment system”. Many State and Territory departments and local governments have existing eDA systems, and the electronic development assessment (eDA) “interoperability specification” (the eDAIS) establishes a national standard for how eDA systems will “talk to each other”. $29.6 million has been allocated from the Housing Affordability Fund to roll out eDA: $3.6 million to support a common protocol (the eDAIS) for the electronic lodgement and assessment of planning and development applications; and $26 million to assist States and Territories to implement eDAIS-compliant eDA systems targeting high growth areas. The table below shows each jurisdiction’s funding allocation which is based on their share of dwelling approvals over the five years to March 2008: State/Territory Funding recipient Funding allocated Funding paid (to 14 Oct 2009) New South Wales Department of Planning $5,920,000 $2,000,000 Queensland Local Government Association of Queensland $6,470,000 $1,900,000 Victoria Department of Planning and Community Development $6,500,000 $1,400,000 Western Australia Western Australian Local Government Association $3,820,000 $800,000 South Australia Local Government Association of South Australia $1,790,000 $620,000 Tasmania Local Government Association of Tasmania $500,000 $400,000 Northern Territory Department of Planning and Infrastructure $500,000 $400,000 Australian Capital Territory ACT Planning and Land Authority $500,000 $325,000 Payments are made on the basis of agreed milestones specified in the funding agreements. The funding paid to date is detailed in the answer to question 2 above. All eDA funding agreements require jurisdictions to implement end-to-end eDA systems, covering lodgement, referral, tracking through to determination, and complementary business processes; target implementations to high growth areas initially; and ensure all systems implemented conform to eDAIS. While each funding agreement specifies that payment is conditional upon delivering these three elements, the precise requirements for a particular jurisdiction vary depending on the extent and capability of existing eDA infrastructure in the jurisdiction and the amount of funding provided. The role of the Local Government and Planning Ministers’ Council is to make decisions on key strategic policy matters that can be addressed at a national level, including ensuring systems provide national consistency where possible. The Council also examines development assessment reforms and considers proposals to improve planning and development assessment processes. All jurisdictions with the exception of Victoria have committed to complete their eDA projects by June 2010. Victoria will complete their project by June 2011. Due to the extent of the IT changes required to implement eDA in all local governments and State and Territory departments and agencies additional investment may be required. Yes, $3.6 million has been allocated to develop, implement and refine the eDAIS, which will provide a national standard for eDA. The funds are allocated to the Western Australian Department of Planning, which is hosting a national project team (the eDAIS National Coordination Office). The eDAIS has been completed. Version 2.2.1 will be submitted to the Cross-Jurisdictional Chief Information Officers’ Committee for endorsement as a national standard. It expected to be finalised by the second quarter of 2010. While endorsement has not yet occurred, the eDAIS 2.2.1 is available online, providing eDA system software developers the information they require to build eDA systems which comply with the standard. Moving from paper-based systems to electronic systems is expected to deliver a range of productivity improvements for the development industry including reduced time-related costs through more efficient processes, reduced complexity when interacting with multiple government agencies, and reduced administrative costs through less paper handling. For local governments across Australia, which typically purchase their ICT systems from national software vendors, the common national standard will reduce the long term purchase costs or licence fees charged by the software vendors. 147 147 1019 147 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Treasurer, in writing, on 15 September 2009: In respect of the First Home Saver Accounts scheme— Does the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority monitor the number of accounts and the value of those accounts on a quarterly basis. What number of First Home Saver accounts were in operation at the end of the first quarter of 2009-10, and what value of funds was held in those accounts. From its conception to 15 September 2009, what sum of actual departmental expenses has been incurred under the scheme. In respect of his answer to question No. 786 (Hansard, 17 August 2009, page 8115), what savings benefits have been delivered to the Government in order for the administered expenses for this program to have been revised down. Does he expect further revisions to the budget estimates for the scheme; if so, why. When will the annual report into the operation of the First Home Saver Accounts Act 2008 be tabled in the House of Representatives, in accordance with section 126 of the Act. 147 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr Swan —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. The number at the end of September is not yet available. The number at the end of June was 13,946 with $41,534,000 in balances. Departmental expenses are not available to 15 September 2009. For 2007-08 and 2008-09 departmental expenses were $22.6m, which includes the capital cost of system upgrades. Administered expense forward estimates have been revised because the number of First Home Saver Accounts is lower than allowed for in the original costings. Parameter variations may be made as the program develops and statistics change. The Commissioner generally prepares a single annual report into the administration of all laws for which he has the general administration. It is a matter for the Commissioner to determine the manner in which he wishes to report. Although there is no fixed date, the Commissioner’s annual report is expected to be tabled towards the end of October this year. 147 147 1021 147 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 15 September 2009: In respect of the National Rental Affordability Scheme— Is there a requirement under regulation 17 of the National Rental Affordability Scheme Regulations 2008 for Statements of Compliance to be lodged with her Department. Were Statements of Compliance for the last year of the scheme required to be submitted with her department after 13 May 2009. Have all Statements of Compliance required after 13 May 2009 been received by her department; if not, why not, and what action is her department taking. Have any funding allocations under the scheme been revoked by the Secretary of her department; if so, how many and why. Has the Secretary of her department waived any special conditions of a proposal under the National Rental Affordability Scheme in relation to a dwelling provided under the scheme (regulation 23); if so, why. 148 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Under Regulation 17 Statements of Compliance are required to be lodged electronically with the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (the Department) for approved rental dwellings. Statements of Compliance for dwellings which were available for rent before 30 April 2009 were required to be submitted between 1-13 May 2009. No Statements of Compliance were required after this date. No Statements of Compliance were required after 13 May 2009. No allocations have been revoked. The Secretary has varied special conditions under Regulation 23 in two cases. The first was due to an incorrect special condition made in the letter of offer of NRAS Incentives from the Department, which was accepted by the participant. Following a request from the participant, the Department subsequently corrected this as a variation to the special conditions. The other variation was because the approved participant organisation sold four of its ‘adaptable dwellings’, proposing to replace these dwellings. The Department has followed up on the replacement dwellings with the participant and is awaiting their confirmation. 148 148 1027 148 Robb, Andrew, MP FU4 Goldstein LP 0 Mr Robb asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 15 September 2009: What is the (a) complete list of projects under the Nation Building Program, and (b) breakdown of the cost estimates and budget allocations for these projects for (i) 2008-09, (ii) 2009-10, (iii) 2010-11; (iv) 2011-12, (v) 2012-13, and (vi) 2013-14. 148 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Detailed information on projects funded under the Australian Government land transport infrastructure programs can be found on the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government’s websites. 148 148 1036 148 Markus, Louise, MP E07 Greenway LP 0 Mrs Markus asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, in writing, on 19 October 2009: When will the Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Member for the Electoral Division of Eden Monaro, the Hon. Dr Mike Kelly MP, deliver on his pre-election commitment concerning military superannuation, that he would ‘never stop campaigning on this issue until it is adopted and implemented for every Commonwealth superannuant in Eden-Monaro, and all of Australia’. Did Dr Kelly support the Government’s response to the ‘Matthews’ Review’ (Mr Trevor Matthews, Review of Pension Indexation Arrangements in Australian Government Civilian and Military Superannuation Schemes, 21 August 2009) that the indexation arrangements for military superannuation not be changed; if so, why. 149 Combet, Greg, MP YW6 Charlton ALP Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science and Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change 1 Mr Combet —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: and (2) In accordance with House of Representatives practice, I cannot answer in relation to another Member’s statements, for which I have no responsibility. 149 149 1038 149 Stone, Dr Sharman, MP EM6 Murray LP 0 Dr Stone asked the Minister representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, in writing, on 19 October 2009: In respect of overseas detention centres receiving funding from Australia: (a) what overseas countries receive this funding; (b) what total number of detention centres in each country receives this funding; (c) what total sum of funding was provided to these detention centres per country in (i) 2007-08 and (ii) 2008-09; (d) what standards of health, hygiene, human rights and security are required by the Australian Government in each of these detention centres; (e) what measures are in place in these detention centres to meet and maintain minimum standards of health, hygiene and security; (f) as at 19 October 2009, what number of detainees was held in each of these detention centres; and (g) what is the average length of stay of detainees in each of these detention centres. 149 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: Indonesia receives this support. In 2007, the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) funded the International Organization for Migration (IOM) to deliver a project to improve the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia. The decision to fund this project was made by the previous government. This project has supported three facilities in Indonesia. The project included the refurbishment of two Indonesian detention facilities (at Tanjung Pinang and Jakarta) and training for Indonesian officials. Refurbishment was completed in mid-2009. In addition, minor repairs have been completed at Pontianak to fix sewerage. A total of $6.9 million was paid for the project in 2007-08 ($7.7 million was allocated by the previous government but the final cost was lower due to a favourable exchange rate). Project activities enabled by this funding continued to mid 2009. An additional $1 million over two years was committed by the Rudd Government in the 2009-10 budget to provide ongoing support to improve the facilities, staffing and operations of these centres. Although both the previous government and the current government have provided funding to IOM to improve the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is responsible for detention facilities in Indonesia. Standards of health, hygiene, human rights and security in Indonesian detention facilities are matters for the Indonesian Government. Funding provided by Australia to IOM is directed at improving the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia. This includes the provision of a range of support services to irregular migrants in both community accommodation and detention in Indonesia, including access to medical support and social workers. In community accommodation the support also includes funded accommodation and the distribution of clothing, towels and bedding items as needed by IOM. Food and basic necessities are also provided. Further, IOM organises excursions and activities for people in community accommodation. In detention centres the support also includes regular IOM staff visits, referrals to the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) for assessment of protection claims, and support to the senior Indonesian Immigration officer responsible for the detention facility to cover food, clothing and additional bedding items. Although both the previous government and the current government have provided funding to IOM to improve the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is responsible for detention facilities in Indonesia. Standards of health, hygiene, human rights and security in Indonesian detention facilities are matters for the Indonesian Government. Although both the previous government and the current government have provided funding to IOM to improve the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is responsible for detention facilities in Indonesia. Although both the previous government and the current government have provided funding to IOM to improve the management and care of irregular migrants in Indonesia, the Indonesian Government is responsible for detention facilities in Indonesia. 150 150 1041 150 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 Mrs Mirabella asked the Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth, in writing, on 19 October 2009: In respect of allegations that some parents have been claiming thousands of dollars on the child care rebate for long day child care services despite not having paid their fees, and when services are withdrawn, continuing this practice at another child care centre–(1) What is the Government doing to ensure parents cannot fraudulently claim the 50 per cent child care rebate. (2) Is it a fact that proof of payment of child care fees is not required by the Government in order for the 50 per cent child care rebate to be claimed; if so, why. (3) Is it a fact that a parent/guardian need only incur a liability, as opposed to proof of payment, with a child care centre to qualify for the 50 per cent rebate from the Government; if so, why. (4) What investigations will she undertake to prevent such fraud; if no investigations will be undertaken, why not. (5) For 2008-09, what sum of money does she estimate such fraudulent practices costed the taxpayer. 150 Ellis, Kate, MP DZU Adelaide ALP Minister for Early Childhood Education, Childcare and Youth and Minister for Sport 1 Ms Kate Ellis —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5: As per the system established under the previous Government a fundamental tenet of Family Assistance legislation is that families are required to incur a liability for the cost of using child care. Payment of the Child Care Rebate is based on child care attendance information, as reported by the child care providers. Child Care Rebate is not paid when there is no child care usage. These arrangements are in place so that the vast majority of families, who pay their fees on time, are not disadvantaged and receive their correct entitlements in a timely manner. Many families use this assistance to pay any outstanding fees to their child care service provider. 150 150 1043 150 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 Mr Haase asked the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts, in writing, on 19 October 2009: Does he intend to declare, under the Marine Parks Act 1997, marine parks in Western Australia; if so, will the Government pay compensation to current Western Australian fishing licence holders adversely affected by the declaration; if not, what qualifying circumstances are different to those experienced by the fishing industry in Queensland in July 2004, when the Government paid compensation to stakeholders adversely affected by a fishing ban in the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park. 151 Garrett, Peter, MP HV4 Kingsford Smith ALP Minister for the Environment, Heritage and the Arts 1 Mr Garrett —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Government intends to declare marine protected areas in Commonwealth waters adjacent to Western Australia under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) as part of meeting the Australian Government’s 1997 national commitment to establish a National Representative System of Marine Protected Areas, and its 2002 international commitment to do this by 2012. The identification of new marine protected areas is being undertaken as part of the marine bioregional planning process. Representative networks of marine reserves are being identified based on the best available scientific information and extensive consultation with stakeholders. The Government is seeking to achieve robust and long-lasting outcomes for biodiversity conservation while at the same time minimising the impacts on marine-based industries and communities dependent on the use of marine resources. The nature and extent of any assistance for businesses impacted by the creation of marine reserves is being considered. 151 151 1044 151 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 Mr Haase asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 19 October 2009: Will the government provide Exceptional Circumstances (EC) assistance to rock lobster fishermen in Western Australia due to the recent low puerulus count and subsequent reduced catches; if not, what criteria for EC assistance do these fishermen not meet, that land-based farmers do meet. 151 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr Burke —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Wild catch fisheries are not eligible for EC assistance. EC assistance is administered in accordance with the Farm Household Support Act 1992, the Rural Adjustment Act 1992 and an agreement first signed by the Australian, state and territory governments in 1992 and updated in 1999 (the Agreement). The Farm Household Support Act 1992 and the Agreement define farming as comprising the ‘agricultural, horticultural, pastoral, apicultural and aquacultural industries’. It excludes aquaculture from ‘harvesting’ industries, where farming or cultivating is not an integral part of the operation. Applying EC assistance to the wild catch fishing industry would therefore require the support of all parties to the Agreement, including all state and territory governments. I do not have the discretion to overrule these arrangements. Furthermore, in consultations with the states and territories as part of the national review of drought policy, none has proposed extending EC assistance to wild catch fisheries in general or rock lobster fisheries in particular. The exclusion of wild catch fisheries reflects their ‘common property’ nature, which means one particular fisher can directly affect the production (output) of others. Consequently, government assistance to one fisher may be detrimental to another’s ability to compete. It may also be detrimental to the overall sustainability of the fishery. For exit packages to be effective in fisheries, the agency responsible for providing the assistance, in this case the Western Australian government, must also have control over the management arrangements. 151 151 1045 151 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 19 October 2009: In respect of Schedule C of the National Partnership Agreement (NPA) on the Nation Building and Jobs Plan: (a) has she received the August 2009 progress report (due September 2009) from all of the States and Territories; if not, which States and Territories are yet to submit their August 2009 reports; and (b) what is the total number of new social housing dwellings that have commenced construction under all elements of this plan as at 30 August 2009. 152 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. As at 31 August 2009, the total number of new social dwellings that had commenced construction under all elements of the Initiative was 1477. 152 152 1047 152 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr Abbott asked the Minister representing the Minister for Employment Participation, in writing, on 21 October 2009: Can the Minister confirm that the department is funding the Australian Services Union to conduct a survey of workers transferring from the Job Network to Job Services Australia; if so, what sum is the funding, what are the terms and conditions on which it was made available; and was the contract put out to tender? Under what circumstances can the department give contracts without first inviting tender applications? 152 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms Gillard —The Minister for Employment Participation has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: The Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations entered into a six month funding agreement with the Australian Services Union on 19 August 2009. The funding agreement is for $132 000 (including GST), and under the funding agreement, the Australian Services Union is undertaking a range of activities, to facilitate the transition of employment services staff to employers working in Job Services Australia. I am advised that as part of the project, the Australian Services Union is surveying workers within Job Services Australia regarding what measures they believe would assist in the retention and attraction of a skilled workforce in Job Services Australia. I am advised the survey closed on 16 November 2009 and participation was voluntary. The terms and conditions on which the funding agreement was agreed were from the standard form funding agreement used by the Department for all funding of projects of this nature. The funding was provided in compliance with Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines. I am advised that the Mandatory Procurement Procedures outlined in Division 2 of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines 2008 do not apply, as the Australian Services Union has been provided resources to assist the retention of these skilled workers as a Grant. Therefore a competitive tender process was not required to be undertaken to establish the arrangement. In relation to procurement activities, circumstances where an open tender process is not mandatory are outlined in Section 8.33 of the Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines - ‘Conditions for Direct Sourcing’, and Appendix A ‘Exemptions from Mandatory Procurement Procedures’. The Commonwealth Procurement Guidelines are publicly available and can be accessed on the Department of Finance and Deregulation website. 153 153 1048 153 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 Mr Slipper asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing, on 21 October 2009: Is the Government aware that both His Holiness the Dalai Lama and Chinese officials have conceded that seven years of talks have failed to bring progress towards a mutually agreeable resolution on the Tibetan issue. Is the Government aware that both parties have referred to the dialogue as having stalled. Is the Government aware of new conditions outlined by Zhu Weiqun, Vice Minister of the United Front Work Department of the Chinese Communist Party, for the restoration of the dialogue, including that the Dalai Lama must stop travelling abroad. Has the Chinese Government requested the Australian Government adhere to China’s position on Tibet and His Holiness the Dalai Lama in order to enable better cooperation between Australia and China on other issues. What steps does the Government intend to take to support the peaceful resolution of the Tibetan issue. 153 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Yes. Yes. Yes. China’s view, as put to Australia, is that both countries should respect and accommodate each other’s core interests and major concerns so as to safeguard the overall interests of bilateral cooperation. The Tibet issue is one such concern for China. The position of successive Australian governments since 1972 has been to respect China’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, including over Tibet. The Government continues to encourage both parties to resume dialogue. 153 153 1049 153 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 Mr Robert asked the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, in writing, on 26 October 2009: In respect of the research showing that family-type (i.e., two parent intact, step or blended) is a significant factor in the risk of child abuse, From 1 January 2006 to 26 October 2009, what are the statistics on confirmed cases of child abuse in each State and Territory, categorised by family-type and including distinguishing married couples from de facto couples. Is a review currently being conducted by the Performance and Data Working Group, as part of the National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children, of the nationally agreed definitions and counting rules for reporting child abuse; if so, and if the statistics sought in part (1) are not presently collected in a way that distinguishes married couples from de facto couples, will she propose that any data collected on the relationship between child abuse and family-type as part of the review makes this distinction; if not, why not. 153 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms Macklin —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare collects annual statistics on child protection in Australia from each state and territory department responsible for child protection. This data is then used to produce the publicly available Child Protection Australia Report. The Child Protection Australia Report is released annually at the end of January following the reporting period. Data relating to 2008-2009 will be available in the January 2010 publication. Data for the period of 1 January 2006 to 30 June 2008 on the number of substantiations of notifications received by family type in which the child was residing is publicly available and can be found as follows: Child Protection Australia 2005-06 page 19 Child Protection Australia 2006-07 page 34 Child Protection Australia 2007-08 page 36 The current child protection data collection does not distinguish married couples from de facto couples. (2)   One of the actions under the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 is the reviewing of data definitions for child protection to improve national reporting, with the aim of enhancing national consistency and continuous improvement in child protection services. The Performance and Data Working Group has responsibility for providing specialist technical advice regarding data issues on child protection to the National Framework Implementation Working Group. The current child protection data collection in Australia is complex due to system and legislation variations in each state and territory. The priority of work relating to child protection data is to improve the comparability of the data. 154 154 1050 154 Tuckey, Wilson, MP SJ4 O’Connor LP 0 Mr Tuckey asked the Minister representing the Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy, in writing, on 26 October 2009: In respect of a recent media report ‘Long wait for HD television’ by Dannae Synot (Manjimup-Bridgetown Times, 21 October 2009, page 10) on the unavailability of commercial high definition television signals to the viewers of the Bridgetown and Manjimup Shires in Western Australia (WA). Is it a fact that the reason for the delay is as reported – a failure of the appropriate Australian Government authority to issue the required approval to the commercial stations. Why has approval been granted to the ABC and SBS for high definition services in some regional areas in WA, but not to the commercial and community broadcasters. In addition to the Bridgetown and Manjimup Shires, what other regions in the new areas of the electoral division of O’Connor are similarly affected. What reasons exist for the delay in authorizing the commercial stations to commence making arrangements for high definition screening in the region. Will the Minister act immediately to instruct the relevant authority to speed up its administrative process to ensure the availability of high definition viewing in this relatively highly populated area of south west WA; if not, why not. 154 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The Minister for Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy has provided the following answer to the honourable member’s question: WIN Television has advised the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy that the comments in “Long wait for HD Television” in the Manjimup-Bridgetown Times of 21 October 2009 indicating WIN and GWN “were waiting on Federal Government authorisation before High Definition (HD) television screened in the region” do not reflect any public statements it has made about the provision of digital television services to regional Western Australia. The remote and regional Western Australian licence areas are not subject to mandatory HD digital television requirements, in common with several other areas where the commercial broadcasters plan to extend a third digital-only commercial television terrestrial service. However, GWN and WIN do not require any Government authorisation to provide HD digital television services and the decision to do so or not is a commercial one for the broadcasters. Remote and regional Western Australian licence areas cover the whole of the state outside the Perth licence area. On 18 June 2009, the Australian Communications and Media Authority announced that the commercial broadcasters would begin to roll out digital simulcasts of their services in remote and regional Western Australia from 30 June 2009. WIN has advised that TEN WEST service will commence June 2010. See the answer to (1) above. The ABC and SBS deliver the full range of their SD and HD multi-channels to all Australians capable of receiving their digital television terrestrial services, irrespective of where they reside. On 4 November 2009, the Government announced that it had determined a pathway for community television to make the transition to digital broadcasting and that a new community television licensee in Perth will commence digital-only broadcasts in early 2010. It is expected these will be in SD mode. The commercial broadcaster digital television arrangements outlined in the answer to (1) above apply to the whole state outside the Perth licence area. See answer to (1) above. See answer to (1) above. 155 155 1051 155 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs, in writing , on 26 October 2009: In respect of the United Nations 2006 resolution to commit Member States to working towards an Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), of which Australia was an original author: (a) what progress has been made; (b) is it a fact that 2.1 million people have died as a result of armed violence since work began on this treaty; (c) what has the Government done to instigate formal negotiations of the ATT and ensure it is part of a concerted effort with other Member States; and (d) will the Government consider increasing diplomatic resources towards the development of the ATT. 155 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 Mr Stephen Smith —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: On 30 October 2009, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) First Committee adopted a Resolution mandating formal Arms Trade Treaty (ATT) negotiations. The Resolution was adopted 153-1(Zimbabwe)–19. The Resolution sets out a timetable of Preparatory Committee meetings leading to a Negotiating Conference for a Treaty to be held in New York in 2012. It is expected that this Resolution will be adopted at an UNGA plenary session later this year. While it is not possible to be certain about the exact figure, it is a fact that a regrettably large number of people have been killed and injured as a result of armed violence since the 2006 Resolution. The Government is strongly committed to the negotiation of a robust and widely-supported ATT. Australia participated actively in the UN Group of Government Experts (GGE) established by UNGA Resolution 61/89 on an ATT in 2006. Australia also participated in the ATT Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG) established by UNGA Resolution 63/240in 2008. Australia was one of the seven co-authors of the 2009 UNGA First Committee Resolution mandating formal ATT negotiations. In New York, Australia chairs a group of ATT-supporting countries (the “Friday Group”) which seeks to build wider support for a Treaty among other Member States. Australia attended and chaired one of the sessions of an Asia-Pacific seminar on the ATT sponsored by the UN Institute for Disarmament Research in Kuala Lumpur on 13-14 October 2009. Australia promoted the ATT at a regional meeting on small arms and light weapons hosted in partnership with the UN in Sydney in June 2009. Australia’s diplomatic missions have advocated support for an ATT, with a particular focus on countries in the Asia Pacific region. The Government will ensure that sufficient resources are available for Australia to continue to take an active and constructive role in ATT negotiations. 156 156 1052 156 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 Mr Oakeshott asked the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government, in writing, on 26 October 2009: What efforts has the Government made to support and promote regional aviation, and what steps is the Government taking to rectify the lack of airports available with regular public transport services to regional Australia, particularly as part of the development of the Government’s Aviation White Paper. 156 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr Albanese —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The Australian Government recognises the vital role aviation plays in connecting regional communities to our major cities and towns. On 16 December 2009, I released the Government’s Aviation White Paper. The matters raised are dealt with at pages 51-69 of the White Paper which can be downloaded at : http://www.infrastructure.gov.au/aviation/nap/index.aspx. 156 156 1055 156 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 28 October 2009: In respect of the Government’s announcement on September 2009 about the establishment and membership of a new Principal Committee of the National Health and Medical Research Council—the Prevention and Community Health Committee (PCHC): (a) what sum of money is the PCHC forecast to cost the Government; (b) what criteria were used to appoint members; (c) who appointed the members; (d) what was the selection process; (e) where and when were the positions advertised; and (f) how many food or grocery industry experts are on the PCHC. 156 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: $125 000 has been budgeted for 2009/10 Prevention and Community Health Committee (PCHC) activities. The composition of PCHC is not defined under the National Health and Medical Research Council Act 1992 (NHMRC Act), with the exception that one of the members must be a member of the Australian Health Ethics Committee. Members were appointed based on an assessment of their capacity to contribute to the functions of the PCHC (Commonwealth of Australia Gazette, No. GN 11, 25 March 2009). Under Section 41(1)(c) of the NHMRC Act, I must appoint the Chairs and other members of the National Health and Medical Research Council’s (NHMRC) Principal Committees. I delegated the appointment of PCHC members to the Parliamentary Secretary for Health, The Hon Mark Butler MP. NHMRC wrote to 113 government, community and professional health and medical organisations seeking nominations for the PCHC. Nominations were also invited from persons who had served on previous NHMRC committees or the Council of NHMRC. Nominations were received from 119 individuals. A full and short list of nominees were provided to me for consideration. When considering appointments I assessed the capacity of nominees to contribute to the functions of the PCHC, including their breadth of expertise and experience in community, public, environmental and Indigenous health, and consumer advocacy. The positions were not advertised via the media. Nominations were sought as per my response to question (d). One of the ten PCHC members is a food and grocery expert. This person has expertise and interests in public health nutrition and improving population health through improving the nutritional quality of the food supply. This person was appointed for individual expertise and not as an industry representative. 157 157 1056 157 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 Mr Dutton asked the Minister for Health and Ageing, in writing, on 28 October 2009: What sum of money was spent on media monitoring services by her department in 2008-09. 157 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms Roxon —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Expenditure by the Department of Health and Ageing on media monitoring services in 2008-09 totalled $1,178,811. 157 157 1058 157 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms Parke asked the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, in writing, on 28 October 2009: In respect of the exemptions from animal welfare standards for at least four abattoirs to allow ritual slaughter of sheep for kosher and halal meat production without pre-stunning, is he and/or the Primary Industries Ministerial Committee considering revoking the exemptions on grounds of animal welfare; if not, why not; if so, what is the expected process and timeframe. Given the vast majority of halal meat produced in Australia involves electrical stunning and most Muslim countries accept this practice, what grounds were used for granting the exemptions in part (1) for halal meat production. Given the vast majority of kosher meat produced in Australia involves electrical stunning, what grounds were used for granting the exemptions in part (1) for kosher meat production. To 28 October 2009, what consultations has the Government had in Victoria with representatives of the Jewish and Islamic faiths and animal welfare groups on the issue of ritual slaughter without pre-stunning. 157 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr Burke —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: No. Compliance with current arrangements approved by AQIS and Primesafe Victoria meets the mandatory requirements, detailed in the Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS4696), to protect animal welfare during ritual slaughter. Ritual slaughter without prior stunning for Halal is permitted under clause 7.12 of the Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS4696). Ritual slaughter without prior stunning for Kosher is permitted under clause 7.12 of the Australian Standard for the Hygienic Production and Transportation of Meat and Meat Products for Human Consumption (AS4696). Up to 28 October 2009 government officers consulted with representatives of the Australian Islamic and Jewish communities as well as RSPCA Australia. The consultations included national peak bodies, the Executive Council of Australian Jewry and the Australian Federation of Islamic Councils, who represent the views of their affiliates in each state and territory. 158 158 1059 158 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 28 October 2009: In respect of the Social Housing Initiative under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan: Has Australian Government funding been allocated to construction project (a) BG2I8, Koonwarra Street, Albury, (b) BG2FU, Kiewarra Street, Kingsgrove, (c) BFFSK, Parkinson Street, Muswellbrook, (d) BG2M2, Mandarin Street, Fairfield East, (e) BG2M3, Jean Street, Fairfield East, (f) BG2M7, Prince Street, Canley Heights, and (g) BG2MU, Webster Road, Lurnea; if so, what is the total sum. Has the New South Wales Government contributed towards the funding of these projects; if so, what is the total sum. How many new dwellings are involved in each project. What is the number of existing dwellings that have been or will be demolished as a consequence of these projects. Has any construction work begun on these projects; if so, on what dates. Has the Government imposed any requirement on these developments to erect and display signage advertising the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan; if so, what was the associated total cost. 158 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: Total funding of $24.107 million has been allocated under the Social Housing Initiative to the projects identified. The NSW Government is not making any cash contributions to the identified projects, however, each project is being undertaken on land contributed by the State Government. In addition, the NSW Government is providing funding through a number of other programs to replace dwellings that will be in excess of the number of dwellings being demolished. The number of dwellings for each project are: Project New Dwellings BG2I8, Koonwarra Street, Albury  8 BG2FU, Kiewarra Street, Kingsgrove 15 BFFSK, Parkinson Street, Muswellbrook NOTE: Project BFFSK does not exist. There are two projects located at Muswellbrook on Parkinson Avenue, projects C-71712 and C-72783 19 BG2M2, Mandarin Street, Fairfield East 14 BG2M3, Jean Street, Fairfield East 20 BG2M7, Prince Street, Canley Heights 6 BG2MU, Webster Road, Lurnea 6 A total of 35 dwellings will be demolished that have been assessed by the NSW Government as being at or approaching the end of their economic life. As at the end of November 2009, construction has not yet commenced on any of the identified projects. No. 159 159 1060 159 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr Morrison asked the Minister for Housing, in writing, on 28 October 2009: In respect of the Social Housing Initiative under the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan: How many of these have commenced: (a) sixteen stage 1 projects in the Brisbane/Ipswich region; (b) six stage 1 projects in the Gold Coast region; (c) three stage 1 projects in the Sunshine Coast region (d) four stage 1 projects in the North Queensland region; (e) three stage 1 projects in the Mackay/Whitsunday region; (f) seven stage 1 projects in the Central Queensland region; (g) three stage 1 projects in the Wide Bay/Burnett region; and (h) one stage 1 project in the Darling Downs/South-West Queensland region; and on what dates. Has Government funding been allocated to the above projects; if so, what is the total sum. What is the number of existing dwellings that have been or will be demolished as a consequence of these projects. Has the Government imposed any requirement on these developments to erect and display signage advertising the Nation Building Economic Stimulus Plan; if so, what was the associated total cost. 159 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 Ms Plibersek —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: There are 12 Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Brisbane and Ipswich local government areas that will support the construction of 218 dwellings. Eight projects have commenced (relating to 182 dwellings) as at the end of September 2009. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Brisbane 54054 1/09/2009 8 $3,080,000 54886 31/07/2009 18 $3,579,357 BHC-01 1/08/2009 16 $3,180,000 BHC-02 31/07/2009 26 $6,200,000 BHC-03 1/08/2009 21 $4,900,000 BHC-05 1/08/2009 78 $12,450,000 55523 31/07/2009 6 $2,395,779 Ipswich 53578 1/08/2009 9 $1,723,514 There are seven Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Gold Coast local government area that will support the construction of 60 dwellings. Three projects have commenced (relating to 40 dwellings) as at the end of September 2009. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Gold Coast 54051 31/07/2009 18 $5,413,601 54889 1/09/2009 2 $664,700 54544 1/09/2009 20 $5,927,800 There are four Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Caloundra, Maroochy and Noosa local government areas (Sunshine Coast) supporting the construction of 40 dwellings. Two projects have commenced (relating to 17 dwellings) as at the end of September 2009. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Caloundra 54156 1/08/2009 12 $3,554,751 Maroochy 54168 31/07/2009 5 $1,699,088 There are no Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Cairns, Atherton, Mareeba and surrounding local government areas (North Queensland). There are two Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Mackay and Whitsunday local government areas supporting the construction of 8 dwellings. Both projects have commenced. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Whitsunday 54049 31/07/2009 6 $2,068,201 54200 1/09/2009 2 $719,730 There is one Stage 1 project in the Gladstone, Calliope, Miriam Vale and Banana local government areas (Central Queensland region). This project has not commenced. There are four Stage 1 projects in the Bundaberg, Fraser Coast, Gympie, North Burnett and South Burnett local government areas (Wide Bay/Burnett region), building 26 dwellings. Three projects have commenced (relating to 23 dwellings) as at the end of September 2009. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Bundaberg 54050 1/09/2009 6 $1,670,591 54197 31/07/2009 8 $2,029,081 54477 1/09/2009 9 $2,188,509 There are three Stage 1 projects that have been approved for funding in the Toowoomba, Goondiwindi, Southern Downs ,Western Downs, Maranoa, Balonne, Bulloo, Murweh, Paroo and Quilpie local government areas (Darling Downs/South-West Queensland region) supporting the construction of 16 dwellings. One project has commenced (relating to four dwellings) as at the end of September 2009. Local Government Area Projects Project Start Date Dwellings Commonwealth Funding Toowoomba 54262 31/07/2009 4 $1,068,940 The total funding that has been approved for the 33 projects in the specified areas is $64,513,642. This funding is subject to change and will not be finalised until the contracts for each of the projects have been negotiated and signed. The Queensland Government has advised that a total of two dwellings will be demolished to enable the Stage 1 Social Housing Initiative projects in the areas identified to proceed. These two dwellings are related to a project on a site located in Mount Gravatt East, in the Brisbane/Ipswich region, which is yet to commence. No.