2010-03-17 42 1 7 REPS 0 0 2010-03-17 The SPEAKER (Mr Harry Jenkins) took the chair at 9 am and read prayers. 2705 Business 2705 Mr CLARE (Blaxland —Parliamentary Secretary for Employment) 00:00:00 —I move: That notice No. 1, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 2705 Bills R4261 2705 Mr PRICE (Chifley) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That the bill be referred to the Main Committee for further consideration. I advise all honourable members that this motion enjoys the support of the Chief Opposition Whip, the honourable member for Fairfax. Question agreed to. 2705 Bills R4342 2705 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Ms Macklin. Bill read a first time. 2705 2705 09:02:00 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 0 Ms MACKLIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill is the government’s commitment to enshrine in law the Australian government’s national recognition of the exceptional contribution made by hundreds of thousands of carers across the country. Every day they sustain and support the people that they care for. And through their dedication and hard work they enrich community life and are an inspiration to us all. I am certain that every member in this place, representing electorates from the bush to the city, understands only too well the challenges and the sacrifices that come with the job of caring. It is a job where you cannot knock off at five o’clock—or six or seven. No public holidays. No annual leave, no time off when you are sick. This bill recognises in legislation the contribution made by the mums and dads, the grandparents, the sons and daughters, the brothers and sisters and partners who every day get on with the job of caring. We are determined to give carers the acknowledgement of their role that they have asked for—and which they so clearly deserve. Last year, carers told us that they wanted greater acknowledgement and increased recognition. This message came through loud and clear when the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Family, Community, Housing and Youth tabled its report, Who Cares … ? Report on the inquiry into better support for carers. Central to the government’s response to this inquiry was a commitment from the Commonwealth to lead the development of a National Carer Recognition Framework. This bill is the first element of that framework. It formally acknowledges the vital contribution that carers make to Australian society and complements carer recognition legislation already in place in some states and territories. There are several key elements to the bill. Firstly, the bill establishes a broad and encompassing definition of carer. This definition captures the diversity of carers and care relationships. Importantly, the bill sets out a Statement for Australia’s Carers. The statement contains 10 key principles that set out how carers should be treated and considered in policy development and program and service delivery. This includes the fundamental principle that all carers should have the same rights, choices and opportunities as other Australians. All Public Service agencies will be required to take all practicable measures to ensure their staff have an awareness and understanding of the principles in the statement. This includes a direction that all Public Service agencies should have due regard to the Statement for Australia’s Carers when developing human resource policies that significantly affect an employee’s caring role. Public Service agencies with responsibility for policies, programs and services that affect carers and the people they care for will have additional obligations under the legislation. These agencies need to make sure that their staff take action to reflect the statement’s principles when developing, implementing, providing or evaluating policies, programs or services directed to carers or the people they care for. These agencies will also be required to consult with carers, and the bodies that represent them, in the development and evaluation of relevant policies, programs and services. And they will be required to report publicly, in their annual reports, on their compliance with their obligations under this legislation. Critically, the legislation also extends to associated providers, people or bodies contracted or funded by Australian government Public Service agencies with responsibility for policies, programs and services that affect carers and the people that they care for, and their immediate subcontractors. These associated providers will need to make sure that staff and agents have awareness and understanding of the statement’s principles and take action to reflect the principles when they develop, implement, provide or evaluate policies, programs or services. The bill supports the work the government is undertaking to reform the system of supports for carers and the people for whom they care. It recognises that carers should have the opportunities and the capability to enjoy optimum health and wellbeing, and social and economic participation. Implementation of the bill will drive increased awareness and understanding of the role and contribution of carers, as well as a much-needed cultural and attitudinal shift so that carers’ interests are taken into account by Public Service agencies and service providers. Raising the status and profile of the caring role builds on the government’s practical measures to improve the lives of carers. We have delivered an increase of $60 per fortnight in the base pension plus an increase of $5 a fortnight in the new pension supplement for carers receiving the maximum rate of carer payment. With the indexation increases due from this Saturday, this is a total increase of around $100 a fortnight. As well, around 500,000 carers have received an annual, ongoing carers supplement for each person they care for. And carers under most financial pressure, who are on both carer payment and carer allowance, have received, and will continue to receive at least two payments of $600 annually. We know that carers desperately need these increases and the certainty of the ongoing supplement which replaces the ad hoc, one-off carer bonuses of the past. We have also reformed the overly complex and restrictive qualification requirements which previously denied financial support for carers of children with severe disability or severe medical conditions. And recognising the concerns of carers about adequate services, the government has significantly boosted funding to the state and territory governments for specialist disability services, including supported accommodation, in-home care and respite. And last year, the Prime Minister announced that the government had commissioned a Productivity Commission inquiry to examine the feasibility, costs and benefits of a National Long-term Disability Care and Support Scheme. This reform has the potential to transform the lives of people with disability and their carers. But we know there is still much more to be done to achieve our vision of a fairer Australia for carers. Which is why, as part of the National Carer Recognition Framework, we are developing the National Carer Strategy to be delivered later this year. Working with the states and territories, the National Carers Strategy will shape our long-term agenda for reform. It will guide policy development and the delivery of services by government agencies and non-government organisations that work with carers. The National Carers Strategy will include many of the issues raised by carers through the inquiry into better support for carers. We have already identified that the strategy will consider, among other things, the training and skills development needs of carers and the adequacy of case management and care coordination for carers. Addressing the needs of young carers will be also be a key priority under the strategy. This bill is the first part of a fundamental reform process for carers through the National Carer Recognition Framework. It recognises in law, the valuable social and economic contribution, as well as the many personal sacrifices, that carers make. And it delivers on our commitment to provide better support for carers so they have the same opportunities as other Australians to live healthy, happy lives and reach their full potential. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2707 Bills R4323 2707 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Burke. Bill read a first time. 2708 2708 09:13:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Amendment Bill 2010 is another step in the government’s plans to cut red tape and increase efficiencies in the regulation of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. When it comes to the use of chemicals, the overriding priorities are to protect human health and the environment. But we believe we can make the system work more efficiently without jeopardising these priorities. This bill makes a number of changes to simplify the administration of agricultural and veterinary chemicals. It gives effect to reforms agreed by the Council of Australian Governments, or COAG, and delivers on an early harvest reform identified in conjunction with the Productivity Commission research report in 2008. The bill amends the Agricultural and Veterinary Chemicals Code Act 1994 and will cut red tape in two areas. First, the bill will clarify what constitutes confidential commercial information when applying for certain types of permits for chemical use. It would allow the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority, or APVMA, to use information in a permit application that is not commercially sensitive when assessing that application. Currently, all matters about a permit application are deemed confidential commercial information, including the fact that an application has even been made. It is true that some permit applications to use agricultural and veterinary chemicals will include some commercially valuable information. However, clearly not all information needs to be protected in the same inflexible way. The current legislation forces the APVMA and industry to enter a complex and inefficient process. The APVMA must first seek the applicant’s approval before seeking information from the product registrant, or others, to inform its expert assessment of minor use or emergency use permit applications. This places an unreasonable burden on industry. It also limits the APVMA’s ability to engage openly with others who may be seeking similar permits at the same time. The paperwork, consultation or other aspects of these similar permits could be streamlined under these changes. This bill would allow the Authority to seek certain information where a minor use or emergency use permit has been sought. Allowing the APVMA to seek additional information is important because most minor use or emergency use permits authorise additional—or ‘off-label’—uses of products which are already registered. For example, a product originally registered to control a pest in apples may also be effective against the same pest if it affects pears. But, under the current system, such a use would be illegal without approval. To assess a permit application, the authority may need access to additional information—for example, information held by the original registrant of the chemical. This bill would enable the authority to seek relevant information and make more efficient decisions on minor use and emergency use permits, without compromising the integrity of the commercial parties involved. In general, applications for minor use or emergency use permits do not contain confidential commercial information. However, if they do, the bill foreshadows regulations to specify the types of information that the authority can release as it assesses an application. Other information—for example, product formulation details—will remain confidential commercial information. The regulations would draw on the disclosure requirements for product-registration applications, which are currently set out in regulations 8C, 8D and 8E of the Agricultural and Veterinary Code Regulations 1995. The amendments would only apply to minor use or emergency use permits. Details of research permits—which are commonly used by agricultural and veterinary chemical manufacturers during product development—would be protected. This includes the fact that a permit has been applied for. The bill also seeks to include trade issues as a consideration when determining whether product labels remain adequate. This will include instructions for proper use. It will be achieved by extending the definition of an ‘adequate’ label to include one that does not unduly prejudice trade by posing risks to our exports that exceed the benefits of the chemical use in Australia. Trade risks can arise where residues are below the Australian maximum residue limit but exceed the standards set by an importing country. These maximum residue limits are imposed to ensure chemicals have been used in accordance with good agricultural or veterinary practice. Production practices vary from country-to-country due to differences in climate, farming techniques and pests and diseases. Therefore, maximum residue limits can also vary. Of course, protecting human health and the environment will remain the overriding considerations. Under the current system, the APVMA must consider trade, among other issues, when products are first approved. The label instructions ensure that proper use of the product will not adversely affect Australia’s exports, by including the latest advice on importing country requirements. Those importing country requirements often change over time. The label may need to be updated to reflect new instructions for use. However, the authority lacks the power to take direct action to update the product label to address a trade issue. Currently it must first reconsider the entire product registration. This is an unwieldy approach and unnecessary regulation. It is time consuming for the authority and confusing for industry. The bill seeks to enable the authority to review a product label directly when significant trade concerns arise which may unduly prejudice exports by posing risks to Australia’s exports that exceed the benefits of the chemical use. The amendments will allow prompt action where necessary and reduce the risk of our exporters unwittingly breaching importing country requirements. These breaches—even if accidental—result in commercial consequences for the exporter and could jeopardise the clean, green image of Australian food exports. The key priorities for the government remain protecting human health and the environment. Nothing else is more important. But we will continue to look for ways to improve the efficiency of chemicals and pesticides regulation in Australia, without jeopardising these priorities. This bill gives effect to reform agreed on by COAG. It is a down payment on a broader set of reforms to the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority and the national regulation of agriculture and veterinary chemicals. We are working with industry and state and territory governments to develop a single national regulatory framework for agricultural and veterinary chemicals. This forms part of COAG’s initiative to achieve a seamless national economy and is an important reform agenda. As part of the Better Regulation Ministerial Partnerships initiative, the government is also looking at measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the APVMA. We are aware that the authority has a very difficult and important role, particularly in protecting human health and the environment. However, it is clear from industry and other stakeholder feedback that reform is needed. This bill marks an important milestone in the broader reform process. It will allow the government to begin to remove red tape affecting the work of the APVMA. The bill will benefit not only those who use agricultural and veterinary chemicals, but also the wider community, our food security and our export markets. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2710 Bills R4328 2710 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Bowen. Bill read a first time. 2710 2710 09:22:00 Bowen, Chris, MP DZS Prospect ALP Minister for Financial Services, Superannuation and Corporate Law and Minister for Human Services 1 0 Mr BOWEN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Insurance is vital for Australia’s community to function. People and organisations are able to participate in social and economic activities that they otherwise would not be able to engage in by using insurance as a means to price and transfer risks associated with those activities. The law governing contracts of insurance has a direct influence on the effectiveness and efficiency of the insurance market. In Australia, the primary source of laws regulating the rights and obligations of insurers, insureds and relevant third parties is the Insurance Contracts Act 1984 (the act). The Insurance Contracts Amendment Bill 2010 has been developed over a long period. In September 2003 a review panel was appointed comprising Mr Alan Cameron AM and Ms Nancy Milne to embark on a comprehensive review of the act. The review panel’s final report was released in 2005. The report noted that the act had generally been operating satisfactorily to the benefit of insurers and insureds. However, the review panel found that, given the passage of time, developments in the insurance market and judicial interpretations since its enactment, there were some changes that could be made to improve its operation. Further consultations on the details of the amendments were recommended. Subsequently, consultations on the details took place and the bill as introduced reflects many refinements to the initial proposals that have been made in response to stakeholder suggestions. In some cases, proposals initially included in the legislative package were ultimately withdrawn. The government appreciates the constructive and thoughtful feedback that stakeholder representatives from industry and consumer groups have provided during the consultative processes. The bill includes measures that will: remove impediments to the use of electronic communication for statutory notices and documents; ensure that failure to comply with the duty of utmost good faith is a breach of the act; make the duty of disclosure easier for consumers to understand and comply with, especially at renewal of household/domestic insurance contracts; make the remedies in respect of life insurance contracts more flexible and suited to modern life insurance products; clarify the rights and obligations of persons named in contracts has having the benefit of cover, but who are not parties themselves; and clarify what types of contracts are exempt from its operation. Although many of the changes are in the nature of technical adjustments rather than significant changes to the framework, as a package they will operate to streamline and clarify requirements while maintaining appropriate consumer protections. The amendments will make it easier for consumers to understand and comply with their duties, such as the duty of disclosure on renewal of a policy. This will help to avoid misunderstandings and disputes over any claims down the track. The amendments will give the regulator, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission, greater powers to bring and carry on actions on behalf of consumers, and to take action under the licensing provisions of the Corporations Act in relation to breaches by an insurer of the duty of utmost good faith. Full details are contained in the explanatory memorandum. One issue that is not addressed in the bill is the current carve-out under section 15 of the act for insurance contracts from the operation of the unfair contracts terms provisions of certain other laws. The government is aware of a range of views on the preferred course of action on this question. To provide an adequate opportunity to allow all relevant factors to be considered, I am releasing a discussion paper on the issue with proposed options for consultation with stakeholders. In conclusion, this bill provides for a package of improvements and efficiencies to how the act operates, while maintaining the balance that the act aims to strike between the interests of insurers, insureds and the wider public. A better functioning, more efficient insurance market ultimately benefits the entire Australian community. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2711 Bills R4336 2711 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Griffin. Bill read a first time. 2711 2711 09:27:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Today, I introduce a bill that rewrites five areas of income tax law. It removes 149 pages from the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936. The rewrite of that act began in 1993, when the Tax Law Improvement Project was set up in response to a recommendation from the Joint Committee of Public Accounts and Audit. In 1997, that project gave us a new act: the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. The original intention had been for the Tax Law Improvement Project to continue working until it had completed the rewrite. But, in 1998, the project was subsumed into other tax reform work being done at the time and has not resumed since. That has left us today with two income tax assessment acts. Having two assessment acts is undesirable. It is an unnecessary complexity, for taxpayers and for tax practitioners, in an area of our law that is already highly complex. Accordingly, we should strive to achieve a single income tax assessment act as soon as is reasonable. To that end, the government is pursuing an approach of rewriting the law into the 1997 act, or into the Taxation Administration Act 1953, whenever a particular area of the 1936 act is being significantly reformed, or as resources otherwise permit. Examples include the government’s reforms of the income tax law’s various foreign source income attribution regimes and the research and development provisions, both of which have been the subject of extensive public consultation. The provisions rewritten by the bill were selected because they were already drafted in a style that was close to the style used in the 1997 act, so would require less reworking than provisions drafted in an older style. The five areas the bill rewrites are: 1. Part VI, which contains rules about the collection and recovery of income tax, including rules about when income tax becomes due and payable, rules allowing the commissioner to make estimates of certain tax debts and to take recovery action based on those estimates, and rules imposing penalties on directors of a company that fails to pay certain types of tax debts, e.g. amounts withheld from an employee’s wages. One of the collection and recovery rules being rewritten gives the commissioner power to seek security from a taxpayer for an existing or future tax liability in certain situations. The commissioner may ask for security where he believes there is a serious risk of a tax liability not being paid or to protect the integrity of the tax system. Examples of such situations include: where necessary to protect the integrity of the tax system against schemes such as ‘fraudulent phoenix activity’, which broadly involves winding up a company (with significant unpaid debts) but continuing the same business through a newly ‘risen’ company, where a taxpayer plans to temporarily carry on an enterprise in Australia and leave without returning, where the taxpayer has a history of noncompliance (including by defaulting on their tax liabilities) and where the directors of a corporate taxpayer have a history of noncompliance, where the commissioner is granting a taxpayer the benefit of a payment arrangement. Consistent with current tax administration policy about having a single set of general collection and recovery rules for all taxes, the effect of security deposits rules has been expanded to cover all taxes administered by the commissioner. This will assist the commissioner in ensuring that taxpayers cannot avoid any of their tax liabilities and will limit the effectiveness of tax avoidance schemes like ‘fraudulent phoenix activity’. The rewrite of these provisions also includes new machinery rules and higher penalties for noncompliance. Incorporating these machinery provisions provides certainty for taxpayers about their rights and obligations. The current penalty has been largely untouched since 1936. The penalty no longer provides an appropriate deterrent for taxpayers who do not comply with a requirement to provide security. The penalty has therefore been increased to reflect changed circumstances since 1936. These changes to the security deposits rules, and a closing of loopholes in the directors’ penalty rules, will contribute to deterring phoenix activity while the government considers further policy options over the coming year (as part of a wider public consultation process) to address phoenix activity; 2. Schedule 2C, which contains the rules for the income tax treatment of the gain a debtor makes when one of their commercial debts is forgiven; 3. Schedule 2E, which ensures that a lessor and lessee of a luxury car get the same income tax treatment they would have got had the lessor sold the car to the lessee and lent the lessee the money for the purchase; 4. Schedule 2G, which establishes the farm management deposit (FMD) scheme that allows eligible primary producers to set aside pre-tax income in profitable years for subsequent withdrawal in low-income years. Primary producers claim a deduction when they make FMDs and include an amount in assessable income on withdrawal. This reduces the risk to eligible primary producers of income variability owing to factors such as drought. 5. Schedule 2J, which ensures that general insurance companies are taxed on premium income received, and can deduct liabilities for outstanding claims, over the period of risk under the policies to which the income and deductions relate. The rewrites do not make any major policy changes. However, they do make changes to the structure and the text of the 1936 act provisions so that they conform to the preferred drafting approach used in the 1997 act. They also simplify the expression of the provisions and remove some redundant provisions. Details of the changes made by the bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Government members interjecting— VU5 Griffin, Alan, MP Mr GRIFFIN —I thank my colleagues for their earnest interest in this very important legislation and for their encouragement as I detail to the House this very important proposal. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2713 Bills R4334 2713 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Griffin. Bill read a first time. 2713 2713 09:33:00 Griffin, Alan, MP VU5 Bruce ALP Minister for Veterans’ Affairs 1 0 Mr GRIFFIN —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill amends various taxation laws to implement a range of improvements to Australia’s tax laws. Schedule 1 amends the non-commercial loan rules in division 7A of the Income Tax Assessment Act 1936 to prevent a shareholder of a private company (or an associate of the shareholder) accessing tax-free dividends through the use of company assets, for less than their market value. This schedule also makes a range of other technical amendments to strengthen the non-commercial loan rules by ensuring that they cannot be circumvented by the use of corporate limited partnerships or by interposing entities between a private company and its shareholders. The government announced that it would tighten the non-commercial loan rules in division 7A as part of the 2009-10 budget. After listening to the community, particularly the farming and small business communities, the government has introduced a number of exceptions into this measure to cover the minor use of company assets, the use of assets for income-producing purposes where that use would otherwise be deductible and the use of certain dwellings for private purposes. These amendments will strengthen the operation of division 7A as an integrity measure, providing greater equity and fairness to taxpayers. Schedule 2 amends the taxation laws to extend tax file number withholding arrangements to closely held trusts, including family trusts. Generally, the new tax file number withholding arrangements will apply to the trustees of closely held trusts and family trusts where the trustee makes a payment of income to the beneficiary or the beneficiary is presently entitled to be paid a share of the income of the trust and the beneficiary of the trust has not provided their tax file number to the trustee. To allow the Australian Tax Office data matching and ensure the effective operation of the system, the new tax file number withholding framework includes various reporting and remittance obligations. This measure will improve the fairness and integrity of the taxation system by equipping the tax office with the information necessary to match amounts assessable to beneficiaries of these trusts, with amounts reported in the beneficiary’s income tax return and thus help ensure that beneficiaries of these trusts pay their fair share of tax. Schedule 3 exempts from income tax the value of the HECS-HELP benefit received by an eligible applicant. The HECS-HELP benefit, or Higher Education Contribution Scheme-Higher Education Loan Program benefit, was an initiative first introduced in the 2008-09 budget. The benefit gives eligible recipients a reduction in their HECS debt repayment and/or their HELP debt repayment or, in some cases where a repayment is not required due to low income, a direct reduction in their HELP debt. The benefit was initially introduced for mathematics and science graduates and early childhood education teachers. In the 2009-10 budget it was announced that the benefit had been extended to nurses and teachers generally. The amendments ensure that no income tax is payable on the value of the benefit received by eligible recipients. Schedule 4 amends the list of deductible gift recipients, or DGRs, in the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997. Taxpayers can claim income tax deductions for certain gifts to organisations with DGR status. DGR status assists the listed organisations to attract public support for their activities. This schedule adds two new organisations to the 1997 act, namely the Sichuan Earthquake Surviving Children’s Education Fund and the Bali Peace Park Association Inc. This schedule also extends the period that the Yachad Accelerated Learning Project Ltd can collect deductible gifts for another three years. Schedule 5 amends the Income Tax Assessment Act 1997 to make the Global Carbon Capture and Storage Institute Limited income tax exempt for a four-year period. The institute is a not-for-profit-organisation that aims to accelerate the development and global adoption of safe, commercially and environmentally sustainable carbon capture and storage technology. Carbon capture and storage technology aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels burnt during industrial processes, such as coal powered electricity generation. It involves the capture, compression, transport, long-term storage and monitoring of carbon emissions that would otherwise be released into the atmosphere. The institute’s purpose is to drive the commercial uptake and deployment of carbon capture and storage technologies, which would have significant positive consequences for the global environment. There may also be an economic benefit to Australia of investing in environmentally sustainable industries through carbon capture and storage technologies. Australia has the fourth largest coal reserves in the world, and is the world’s largest exporter of coal. The information and expertise developed by the institute is to be disseminated broadly and globally to the benefit of both the Australian and the global carbon capture and storage communities. Supporting the institute by making it income tax exempt is a part of the government’s strategy to mitigate the risks of climate change. Schedule 6 repeals over 100 provisions in the tax laws that provide the Commissioner of Taxation with an unlimited period to amend taxpayers’ assessments. Generally, under the current law, amendments to the taxpayers’ assessments may be made within specific time periods, including in certain circumstances time periods that are unlimited. The repeal of the unlimited amendment period provisions within this schedule include provisions where the standard two- to four-year amendment period would provide sufficient time for the commissioner to examine and make any necessary amendments to the relevant assessment. For these provisions, the standard amendment period will also retain an unlimited amendment period in cases of fraud and evasion. This will have the effect of reducing the volume of unnecessary and redundant provisions in the taxation laws, as well as assisting in providing more certainty to taxpayers in their taxation affairs. Full details of the measures in this bill are contained in the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2715 Bills R4332 2715 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Brendan O’Connor. Bill read a first time. 2715 2715 09:40:00 O’Connor, Brendan, MP 00AN3 Gorton ALP Minister for Home Affairs 1 0 Mr BRENDAN O’CONNOR —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Introduction The Territories Law Reform Bill 2010 implements significant reforms to improve the governance of Norfolk Island and strengthen the accountability of the Norfolk Island government. The bill does this by amending the Norfolk Island Act 1979 to reform the electoral system and establish a contemporary financial management framework to assist the Norfolk Island government to meet the expectations of its community and to plan for the future. The bill also amends administrative law legislation to strengthen the transparency and accountability of the Norfolk Island government and public sector. The amendments will extend the application of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975, the Freedom of Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1988 to Norfolk Island. In addition, amendments to the Ombudsman Act 1976 and the Norfolk Island Act will make the Commonwealth Ombudsman the Ombudsman for Norfolk Island. Finally, the bill will amend the Christmas Island Act 1958 and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act 1955 to provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied in the territories. Background to the Norfolk Island Reforms The Norfolk Island reforms were announced by the Australian government in May 2009. They follow in the wake of a large number of Commonwealth parliamentary and other reports recommending amendments to Norfolk Island’s governance system. Notably, the reforms implement a number of recommendations from the Joint Standing Committee on the National Capital and External Territories 2003 report which was entitled Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?: inquiry into governance on Norfolk Island. The report identified key features of good governance which have been adopted through the development of formal mechanisms by the Australian government and other western democracies. These include: ensuring public accountability through finance and performance audits, annual reporting and access to the Ombudsman; regulating accuracy and disclosure of personal information and providing access to public policies and guidelines of public sector agencies; and the availability of merits review of decisions which affect rights and entitlements. There are already informal mechanisms on Norfolk Island aimed to facilitate good governance. The report concluded, however, that ‘the absence of formal and effective mechanisms of accountability and transparency, seriously undermine the quality of governance on the island’. The report recommended a wide range of reforms, many of which have been adapted and incorporated into the reforms package implemented by this bill, including: reforms to the Norfolk Island electoral system; incorporation of designations of chief minister and ministers, and additional powers of dismissal; adoption of a comprehensive financial accountability framework, including auditing and reporting requirements; and the extension to Norfolk Island of the benefits of a comprehensive system of administrative law, commensurate to that available to other Australians. Machinery of Government and Electoral Reforms Parts 1 and 2 of schedule 1 of the Territories Law Reform Bill make general governance and electoral amendments to the Norfolk Island Act. The bill proposes key governance reforms including: prescribing a process for selecting and dismissing a chief minister and ministers, as well as determining their roles and responsibilities; establishing a no-confidence motion process for the chief minister; allowing the Norfolk Island administrator to access a greater range of advice when presented with bills for assent under schedule 2 of the Norfolk Island Act; and allowing the Governor-General and the minister responsible for the territories to take a more active role in the introduction and passage of Norfolk Island legislation. The bill also establishes the framework for the reform of the voting system for the Norfolk Island Legislative Assembly. These amendments will allow the Norfolk Island Chief Minister to enter into an arrangement with the Australian Electoral Commission in relation to general elections of members of the legislative assembly and the filling of a casual vacancy in the office of a member of the legislative assembly. The amendments will also provide Norfolk Island residents with greater transparency in electoral processes and certainty about when elections are held. The bill establishes the foundations for such a process, which will be supplemented by regulations to be developed in consultation with Norfolk Island. Financial Frameworks Part 3 of schedule 1 makes further amendments to the Norfolk Island Act to enable the implementation of a contemporary financial management framework. The bill establishes a customised and proportionate financial framework which provides for the responsible management of public money and public property, preparation of budgets, financial reporting, annual reports and procurement. The framework provided by the bill will be supplemented by subordinate legislation which will ensure that the financial scheme is adapted to the unique requirements of Norfolk Island and can be effectively implemented. The Commonwealth government is committed to assisting Norfolk Island in implementing this framework effectively and, to this end, the amendments also provide for the appointment by the Commonwealth of a Commonwealth financial officer for Norfolk Island should this be required. Additionally, the bill amends the Norfolk Island Act to provide for the appointment of the Commonwealth Auditor-General to conduct audits of the Norfolk Island administration’s financial statements. Administrative law reforms The last key part of the Norfolk Island reform package implemented by the bill is the application of Commonwealth administrative law accountability and oversight mechanisms to Norfolk Island. Part 4 of the bill proposes amendments to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act which will confer on the Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review jurisdiction for specified decisions under Norfolk Island legislation. In essence, the reforms will mean that, where specified under regulations, administrative decisions which are made under Norfolk Island laws can be reviewed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal on request by an affected party. The amendments in the reform bill will be supplemented by regulations. The regulations will specify which Norfolk Island laws may be subject to Administrative Appeals Tribunal merits review. This will enable a staged implementation of the reforms to be undertaken in consultation with the Administrative Appeals Tribunal and Norfolk Island. Part 5 of the bill proposes amendments to the Freedom of Information Act to apply that act to Norfolk Island. The scope of the application of the act to Norfolk Island will be consistent with its application to Commonwealth government agencies. The amendments will give individuals on Norfolk Island the right to: seek access to documents held by the public sector and to official documents of Norfolk Island government ministers; and to ask for their personal information in such documents to be changed if it is incomplete, incorrect, out of date or misleading. Part 6 of the bill proposes minor amendments to the Norfolk Island Act and the Ombudsman Act. The amendments will enable the Commonwealth Ombudsman to assume the function of the Norfolk Island Ombudsman under Norfolk Island legislation. Part 7 of the bill proposes amendments to the Privacy Act to apply that act to the Norfolk Island public sector. The bill will provide that the Norfolk Island public sector will be required to adhere to the Information Privacy Principles in the same manner as Australian government public sector agencies. It is expected that relevant Australian government agencies will play a significant and ongoing educative role about the rights and obligations established by the administrative law amendments in relation to the community of Norfolk Island and its public sector. Christmas and Cocos (Keeling) Islands reforms In addition to the Norfolk Island reforms, the Territories Law Reform Bill amends the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act. These amendments provide a vesting mechanism for powers and functions under Western Australian laws applied in the territories. Powers and functions are automatically vested in Western Australian officers and authorities where an agreement with the Australian government exists for those officers and authorities to act in the territories. Conclusion The Norfolk Island reforms included in the Territories Law Reform Bill are a first step towards ensuring high levels of transparency and accountability in Norfolk Island governance and financial frameworks, and in administrative decision making. This is an important part of providing Norfolk Island with the tools necessary to ensure ongoing stability and to sustain strong and effective self-government under the Norfolk Island Act. These reforms, together with the amendments to the Christmas Island Act and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands Act, represent the government’s ongoing commitment to fulfilling its obligations to provide the legislative frameworks for the future growth and sustainability of Australia’s territories. I commend the bill. Debate (on motion by Mrs Gash) adjourned. 2718 Business 2718 Dr EMERSON (Rankin —Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That business intervening before notice No. 10, government business, be postponed until a later hour this day. Question agreed to. 2718 Bills R4335 2718 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Emerson. Bill read a first time. 2718 2718 09:49:00 Emerson, Craig, MP 83V Rankin ALP Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy, Minister Assisting the Finance Minister on Deregulation and Minister for Competition Policy and Consumer Affairs 1 0 Dr EMERSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill (No. 2) 2010 is a bill to amend the Trade Practices Act 1974, the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 and the Corporations Act 2001 to implement decisions made in 2008 by the Council of Australian Governments to introduce a single national consumer law—to be called the Australian Consumer Law. This bill is the second legislative step to give effect to the most far-reaching consumer law reforms since the inception of the Trade Practices Act 35 years ago. It completes the initial text of the Australian Consumer Law, following on from the Trade Practices Amendment (Australian Consumer Law) Bill, which I introduced on 24 June 2009. This bill reflects the efforts and toil of many people, including my state and territory colleagues on the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs, which, on 4 December 2009, agreed to the content of the Australian Consumer Law. The personal commitment of my ministerial council colleagues has ensured that this landmark reform of Australia’s consumer laws will—at long last—happen, the Australian Senate permitting. The complex array of 17 national, state and territory generic consumer laws, along with other provisions scattered throughout many other laws, must be rationalised. While these laws may work well for many purposes, each of them differs and that is to the cost of consumers and business. Australian consumers deserve laws which make their rights clear and consistent, and which protect them equally wherever they live. At the same time, Australian businesses deserve simple, national consumer laws that make compliance easier. A single national consumer law is the best means of achieving these results. Rather than relying on nine parliaments making piecemeal changes, the Australian Consumer Law will ensure responsive consumer laws with a truly national reach. In developing the reforms contained in this bill, the Australian government, in close consultation with the states and territories, has also drawn on the views of many consumers and businesses, and those bodies which represent their interests. I thank those many people who have provided the government with the benefit of their views and expertise in preparing the legislation. I also thank the many state and territory officials who have contributed to the development of the Australian Consumer Law, as well as, of course the Treasury officials who have worked tirelessly on this reform. The reforms implemented by this bill represent one of the great successes of the Business Regulation and Competition Working Group of COAG—which I co-chair with the Minister for Finance and Deregulation—and are a great example of cooperation between Australia’s governments. Progress of the Australian Consumer Law The bill completes the initial text of the Australian Consumer Law. In July 2009, the government, with the states and territories, settled an intergovernmental agreement that will govern the future administration and development of the Australian Consumer Law. In accordance with the intergovernmental agreement, the Australian Consumer Law incorporates the current consumer protection and unconscionable conduct provisions of the Trade Practices Act. It creates national laws for consumer product safety and for statutory consumer guarantees, to reform and replace existing Commonwealth, state and territory laws. The Australian Consumer Law enhances the consumer provisions of the Trade Practices Act by drawing on existing legislative approaches to these matters in the states and territories. The bill also implements measures that complement, but do not form part of, the Australian Consumer Law and makes consequential amendments of a minor nature to other acts. It changes the name of the Trade Practices Act to the Competition and Consumer Act 2010—a name which is much more accessible and which reflects the focus of Australia’s main law which regulates markets. It also amends the consumer protection provisions of the ASIC Act and the Corporations Act to maintain consistency with the Australian Consumer Law concerning consumer protection for financial services. The bill enables the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission to impose infringement notices for specified civil contraventions of the Australian Consumer Law. It strengthens product safety enforcement and investigation powers to assist agencies in taking a proactive approach to consumer safety. It strengthens the enforcement arrangements for prescribed industry codes of conduct—like the Franchising Code of Conduct—by implementing the government’s response to the report of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Corporations and Financial Services into conduct in Australian franchising. The entire Australian Consumer Law is to be fully implemented by the end of 2010 by the Australian government and each state and territory government in accordance with the National Partnership Agreement to Deliver a Seamless National Economy. Key amendments in the bill I turn now to the key provisions of the bill. The Australian Consumer Law The first bill to implement the Australian Consumer Law provides for the application, administration and amendment of the Australian Consumer Law creates the national unfair contract terms regime and introduces new penalties, enforcement powers and consumer redress provisions. This bill that I am introducing today implements general and specific consumer protections, including prohibitions against misleading and deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct, and provisions covering unfair practices and consumer transactions. Many of these consumer protections are substantially the same as those in the Trade Practices Act—although they have been redrafted to reflect modern, easier to comprehend drafting conventions—and draw variously on the existing legislative approaches in the states and territories, and in New Zealand. The case law associated with the understanding and interpretation of these protections—and the equivalent provisions in state and territory fair trading laws—will continue to be relevant to the interpretation and application of the Australian Consumer Law. This bill also introduces a new system of statutory consumer guarantees which reform and replace existing Commonwealth, state and territory laws, and a new, standard consumer product safety law for consumer goods and product related services. General protections The Australian Consumer Law contains general consumer protections, including a national unfair contract terms law. It prohibits misleading or deceptive conduct and includes provisions prohibiting persons who are operating in trade or commerce from engaging in unconscionable conduct towards consumers or businesses. These prohibitions will operate on the same basis as those currently in the Trade Practices Act. In addition, corporations are prohibited from engaging in unconscionable conduct within the meaning of the unwritten law of the states and territories. I also recently announced that the government will make clarifying amendments to the unconscionable conduct provisions, which will be introduced in a separate bill. Specific protections The Australian Consumer Law provides for a wide range of specific consumer protections covering unfair practices, consumer transactions, the safety of consumer goods and product related services, information standards and the liability of manufacturers for goods with safety defects. Unfair practices Specific business conduct that is generally accepted as being unfair is prohibited under the Australian Consumer Law. These prohibitions are targeted at particular kinds of activities rather than the effect that more general conduct might have on a consumer. The Australian Consumer Law incorporates equivalents to all of the existing provisions of the Trade Practices Act dealing with false or misleading representations or conduct, unsolicited supplies, pyramid schemes, pricing, referral selling, and harassment and coercion. Changes to existing Trade Practices Act provisions which are based on provisions that now exist in state and territory consumer laws are also incorporated to improve the operation of the existing provisions by adopting best practice in state and territory laws. These changes were agreed by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs on 4 December 2009. Consumer transactions The Australian Consumer Law implements specific protections relating to consumer transactions, including consumer guarantees, unsolicited selling, lay-by agreements and other unfair practices. Consumer guarantees A single set of statutory consumer guarantees replaces the existing system of implied conditions and warranties in the Trade Practices Act under state and territory laws. Statutory consumer guarantees will give consumers clearer and more effective laws regarding their rights when buying goods and services. They will also make business obligations clearer. These reforms are to be supported by administrative changes and changes to enforcement regimes to make the law more effective, through greater coordination of enforcement and better provision of information to consumers and businesses. These reforms are based on comprehensive analysis by the Commonwealth Consumer Affairs Advisory Council, which examined all of these issues in 2009. Those well-considered recommendations were adopted by the Ministerial Council on Consumer Affairs on 4 December 2009. I thank the council for its excellent contribution to the development of this reform. The consumer guarantees law is closely aligned to the existing New Zealand law, and I also thank my New Zealand colleague the Minister of Consumer Affairs, the Hon. Heather Roy MP, on the ministerial council for the contributions that Minister Roy and her officials have made to the development of these reforms. Indeed, this reform reconfirms the commitment of our two nations to a single economic market. Unsolicited selling While unsolicited selling methods may often be convenient for consumers, bad conduct by unscrupulous operators can, in some cases, lead to serious harm. The Australian Consumer Law introduces a national law that deals with unsolicited sales practices, including door-to-door selling, telephone sales and other forms of direct selling which do not take place in a retail context. The provisions replace the current state and territory regulatory regimes that apply to unsolicited sales. They do not apply to matters already covered by the Commonwealth Do Not Call Register Act 2006 and associated legislation. The law contains express supplier obligations about the way in which consumers are approached and about the making of agreements, including permitted visiting hours; disclosing the purpose and identity of the supplier; duties imposed on suppliers to leave premises on request; and informing a consumer of their right to terminate the agreement. The Australian Consumer Law also contains express disclosure obligations for suppliers about the making of agreements, express consumer rights and obligations, including a 10-day termination right and the grounds for termination, and express supplier obligations about post contractual behaviour. Lay-by agreements and miscellaneous unfair practices The Australian Consumer Law applies some basic rules to lay-by sales transactions, including basic consumer rights and business obligations. This will replace the various lay-by sales laws that currently exist in New South Wales, Victoria and the ACT. Information standards Under the Australian Consumer Law, the Commonwealth will prescribe all information standards for goods and services. This will require suppliers to provide certain information or present information in a certain manner, when supplying particular goods and services. These standards replace existing powers in the Trade Practices Act and in state and territory laws. Safety of consumer goods and product related services The Australian Consumer Law also introduces a national consumer product safety law for consumer goods and product related services. This new product safety framework will replace the product-safety provisions in the Trade Practices Act, and the equivalent provisions of the state and territory consumer protection laws. Under the national consumer product safety law, the Commonwealth will be able to make safety standards for the supply of certain goods or services. The Commonwealth will have the power to impose interim and permanent bans on certain goods or services which pose a risk to consumer safety. All responsible ministers from the Commonwealth, states and territories can recall goods which create a risk of injury to any person, as well as publish safety warning notices to inform consumers about safety investigations or warn consumers of the potential dangers with using particular goods and services. Suppliers who voluntarily recall a good because of potential safety concerns are required to notify the Commonwealth minister about the recall. The minister may choose to publish details of the recall on the internet. These provisions include a new reporting requirement to assist regulators to proactively respond to emerging consumer product safety hazards. Suppliers must report to the ACCC if they become aware that a consumer good or related service has been associated with a death or serious injury. Businesses may become aware of incidents through consumer complaints, legal proceedings or other means. A business is not required to investigate, or otherwise make itself aware of an incident that they do not become aware of in the ordinary course of their business. A business does not need to report incidents where the product, design flaw or defect is clearly not the cause of the incident, such as when a consumer trips over a product in a store. Liability of manufacturers for goods with safety defects The new national consumer product safety law is supported by a national statutory liability regime to enable consumers to recover against manufacturers of goods that contain safety defects, for any loss or damage suffered as a result of the defects. It is modelled on the manufacturers’ liability provisions of the Trade Practices Act, and provides manufacturers with a number of defences against action that has been brought against them. Offences, enforcement and remedies The Australian Consumer Law provides for a national approach to enforcement which will mean that regulators can take effective and proportionate action against unprincipled operators. Contraventions of specific consumer protections in the law have associated criminal offence provisions. These cover unfair practices, unsolicited consumer agreements, lay-by sales, safety of goods and product-related services and information standards. Most of these offences exist in the Trade Practices Act and carry maximum fines of $220,000 for a person other than a body corporate and $1.1 million for a body corporate. Regulators can accept administrative undertakings, and will have the power to issue substantiation notices and public warning notices. A suite of remedies is available for contraventions of certain provisions of the law. These include civil pecuniary penalties, injunctions, damages, compensation orders, orders seeking redress for consumers not party to enforcement proceedings, non-punitive orders, adverse publicity orders and an order disqualifying a person from managing a corporation. Defences The Australian Consumer Law provides for a number of defences to contraventions of consumer protection provisions in certain circumstances relating to the publication of advertisements or the supply of certain goods or product-related services that were not compliant with a safety or information standard outside Australia. Remedies for consumer guarantees In addition to the general remedies available under the law, consumers can take action against suppliers of goods and services, and action for damages against manufacturers of goods, where a relevant guarantee is not complied with. The provisions cover rejected and replaced goods, and the termination of contracts. Amendments to the Trade Practices Act In addition to completing the Australian Consumer Law, schedule 2 of the bill creates an infringement notice regime for the ACCC, which is the same as in the first bill. The bill that I am introducing today strengthens product safety enforcement and investigation powers and amends the industry codes of conduct. Infringement notices The ACCC can issue infringement notices for most breaches of the Commonwealth applied Australian Consumer Law. Infringement notices provide penalties that can be paid to avoid further court action by the ACCC. However, unlike traditional parking fines, these notices are not enforceable by a court and non-payment means only that the ACCC may still pursue them for the original alleged breach. The infringement notice power in the law also serves as a template for the states and territories to apply to breaches of the Australian Consumer Law, if they choose to do so. Product safety investigation and enforcement Schedule 2 of the bill provides for enhanced entry, search and seizure powers for the ACCC in respect of product safety, as well as information gathering powers and the ability to apply to a court to order the destruction of goods that pose a risk of injury to any person. These powers assist the ACCC to take on a lead enforcement role in the national product safety system established by the Australian Consumer Law. Conclusion This bill marks an exciting and important development in Australia’s consumer protection laws. It introduces reforms that will significantly reduce regulatory complexity for businesses and takes Australia further towards a seamless national economy. It will empower Australian consumers and free Australian businesses to make our markets work better—delivering tangible benefits for all. I can also inform the House that the Ministerial Council for Corporations was consulted in relation to the amendments to the laws in the national corporate regulation scheme—namely the amendments to the ASIC Act and the Corporations Act—and has approved them as required under the Corporations Agreement. In introducing this bill, the Australian government has met its obligation to introduce a single, national consumer law, which is among the most important of the 27 regulatory reforms currently being pursued through COAG. The Australian government hopes to pass this legislation in the winter sittings to achieve, with further cooperation by state and territory governments, our goal of a single consumer law for Australia by the beginning of 2011. This will enable, for the first time, all Australian consumers to enjoy the benefits of consistent rights wherever they may be, and will allow all Australian businesses to obtain greater efficiencies through a single, simplified national law. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2724 Bills R4321 2724 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Kelly for Mr Tanner. Bill read a first time. 2724 2724 10:06:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. Section 66 of the Constitution prescribes the maximum annual amount that can be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the salaries of ministers of state, unless the parliament provides otherwise. The parliament has otherwise provided for the maximum amount payable in section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952, which currently limits that amount to $3.2 million each financial year. This amount needs to be increased to $3.5 million to pay ministerial salaries at current levels for 2009-10—and for future financial years—and to meet any additional expenditure, such as payment of additional salary for acting arrangements. There have been 29 amendments to the amount set under section 5 of the Ministers of State Act 1952, since its introduction in 1952. This averages one amendment every two years. This section was last amended in 2006 and is therefore well overdue for the regular amendment. This constant cycle of amendments is not the most efficient way of dealing with this matter. Enabling the maximum sum available for ministerial salaries to be provided for by regulation obviates the need for recurrent amendments to the act. As such regulations would be subject to disallowance, there will continue to be parliamentary scrutiny of any future changes to the amount. I commend the bill. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2725 Bills R4325 2725 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Dr Kelly. Bill read a first time. 2725 2725 10:09:00 Kelly, Mike, MP HRI Eden-Monaro ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Defence Support and Parliamentary Secretary for Water 1 0 Dr KELLY —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the bill is to address five separate measures: The first measure amends the Defence Act 1903 to establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal by legislation. In 2007 the Australian government, in accordance with an election commitment, undertook to establish an independent tribunal to consider longstanding defence honours and awards issues and identified a number of priority issues to be considered by the tribunal. In July 2008 the Defence Honours and Awards Tribunal—the current tribunal—was established administratively so that inquiries identified by government could commence. As an administrative body the current tribunal can inquire into and make recommendations relating to issues referred to it by government. The government has undertaken to be bound by the current tribunal’s decisions. The current tribunal has no authority to make separate decisions or to independently review defence decisions concerning eligibility for defence honours and awards. Prior to the establishment of the current tribunal in July 2008, there was no avenue of appeal open to Australian Defence Force members, ex-serving members, next of kin or others who had applied for medals and had their application declined. There was also no permanent body that could independently consider broader recognition issues relating to defence service. The establishment of the new tribunal as a statutory body under the Defence Act 1903 will strengthen the tribunal’s independence, make the defence honours and awards decision making process more transparent and formalise the government’s 2007 election undertaking. In this context, this measure inserts a new part VIIIC in the Defence Act 1903 to establish the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal and provides for the: functions of the new tribunal: what decisions are reviewable by the new tribunal; who may apply for review; referral of general defence honours and awards issues for inquiry and advice; general provisions relating to the operation of the new tribunal; constitution of the new tribunal and appointment of members; and transitional provisions for the continuation of business of the current tribunal and the automatic appointment of current members to the new tribunal. In particular the tribunal will have the power to review defence decisions concerning the eligibility of individuals for defence honours and awards. The tribunal will be able to hear appeals against a defence decision in relation to eligibility for a medal and replace it with a new decision or confirm the defence decision. Individuals will be able to appeal directly to the tribunal, which will be known as the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal, about their eligibility for defence honours and awards. The government will also be able to continue to refer defence honours and awards issues to the tribunal for inquiry and recommendation. The tribunal will not be reviewing eligibility to recommend a person for a defence honour or award that was made before 3 September 1939 or for service rendered before 3 September 1939. The tribunal’s recommendations back to the decision maker will be the final step in the review process. However, a person will be able to apply for review of tribunal decisions under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, and under section 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903. The establishment of the Defence Honours and Awards Appeals Tribunal in legislation formalises the government’s 2007 election commitment to establish an independent tribunal to consider longstanding defence honours and awards issues. It will give applicants an opportunity to appeal defence decisions concerning eligibility for medals and will make the decision making process more transparent and accountable. The second measure amends the Defence Act 1903 to ensure that there is procedural fairness in the termination and discharge process where a defence member has tested positive for a prohibited substance. Part 8A of the Defence Act 1903 provides for the testing of a person to determine whether they have used any prohibited substances. The act also sets out who can perform those tests and the requirements for issuing a notice to show cause and the termination process. The current provision does not provide for a step process between the issuing of the notice to show cause and the termination process—in other words, procedural fairness. In its report into Military justice in the Australian Defence Force in 1999, the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade recommended that the Australian Defence Force review its current procedural arrangements to ensure organisational separation between the initiating officer and the decision maker for all administrative action involving the termination or discharge of a member’s service with the ADF. This would ensure procedural fairness in the termination and discharge processes. The government accepted this recommendation and agreed to amend the act, as well as relevant defence regulations and defence instructions dealing with the termination of appointment of ADF members. The Defence Personnel Regulations and Defence instructions have been amended to take account of procedural fairness in the termination and discharge processes. This amendment completes the Senate committee’s recommendation in relation to procedural fairness in the termination and discharge process where a defence member has tested positive for a prohibited substance. The amendment will also address the delegation provisions in relation to the issuing of a notice and the termination process. The third measure amends the Defence Act 1903 to make it absolutely clear that section 58B determinations made under the act are subject to tabling and disallowance. Prior to the commencement of Legislative Instrument Act 2003 (LIA), determinations made under sections 58B of the Defence Act 1903 were subject to tabling and disallowance. With the introduction of the LIA determinations made under section 58B of the Defence Act were expressly exempted by the LIA from being subject to the new legislative instruments regime. However, that exemption did not make it clear that section 58B determinations were still required to be tabled and subject to disallowance. This amendment will provide that a determination under section 58B is to be subject to tabling and disallowance in accordance with section 46B of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The amendment will provide that a 58B determination will be gazetted and also made available to the public on the Defence website. The amendment will also provide that paragraph 46AA(1)(a) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901 applies to make clear that determinations under section 58B can incorporate, by reference, material from other 58B determinations, 58H determinations and determinations made under section 24 of the Public Service Act 1999, as in force from time to time or as in force at a particular time. The fourth measure amends the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 to ensure that it appropriately covers all Reserve members, regardless of the way they became a Reserve member. The Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme was introduced on 1 July 2008. The scheme encourages retention by providing home loan subsidy assistance that increases as a member passes specified career points. As at 31 January 2010, 18,363 subsidy certificates had been given to eligible ADF members. Of these, 10,273 members were in receipt of the subsidy assistance on a mortgage with a member of the home loan provider panel. ADF member feedback indicates that the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme is having a positive influence on retention. The minor amendment to the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act 2008 makes clear that members of the reserves who had transferred from the permanent forces are subject to the same treatment regarding their reserve service as members who were appointed or enlisted in the reserves from the beginning of their service. The amendment will not affect any person’s entitlements that have been recognised before the amendment takes effect. The final measure in the Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) amends the Defence Force Discipline Act 1982 to enable the appointment of chief petty officers and flight sergeants as discipline officers, to clarify the jurisdiction of discipline officers and to align the punishments available to be imposed in respect of certain ranks. The current discipline officer scheme allows certain Australian Defence Force unit personnel to enforce discipline for minor disciplinary infractions without having to resort to summary authority jurisdiction. This is a quick and effective method by which junior officers, non-commissioned officers and members below non-commissioned officers who have pleaded guilty are afforded the opportunity to learn from relatively minor disciplinary indiscretions. The discipline officers scheme was amended in 2008 to give effect to a previous military justice review to expand the scope of the discipline officers scheme to include ‘junior officers’, namely, lieutenant in the Navy, captain in the Army and flight lieutenant in the Air Force. It was also extended to allow warrant officers to be appointed as discipline officers. On 23 January 2009, the final report into the Health of the Reformed Military Justice System recommended that the discipline officers scheme be extended to allow the Navy and Air Force equivalents of warrant officer class 2 ranks to be discipline officers. This amendment will give effect to that recommendation to allow the appointment of warrant officers, chief petty officers and flight sergeants as discipline officers. The amendment will also clarify the jurisdiction of discipline officers and align the punishments available to be imposed in respect of certain ranks. The five amendments addressed in Defence Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) will enhance the accountability and transparency of certain programs and schemes and entitlements for all ADF members. I also want to place on the record the fact that one provision of this legislation directly affects me. The purpose of section 5 of the Defence Home Ownership Assistance Scheme Act is to ensure that a reservist can only obtain the benefits under the act where they provide sufficient effective service in a service year as provided in the act and associated regulations. The amendment to section 5 of the DHOAS Act closes off an unintended anomaly which made reservists transferring into the reserves under the Defence Parliamentary Candidates Act eligible for a housing subsidy even if they had not rendered the required 20 days effective service within two years of leaving the permanent force. As someone who transferred into the reserves under the Defence Parliamentary Candidates Act, in my case from the regular army, I happened to fall within the anomaly which this legislation seeks to address. As a former member of the military, because of the anomaly, I am entitled to Defence housing assistance on the basis of my 20 years of military service and three warlike service deployments to Somalia, Timor Leste and Iraq. My deployment to Bosnia was not warlike service and is so not relevant for the purposes of this scheme. I have not to date received any benefit under the scheme. Although this legislation is not retrospective, following advice to me that the matter it seeks to clarify is an unintended anomaly, I want to make it absolutely clear that I will not be seeking to rely on the anomaly which is being removed in these amendments. I will also not be seeking a waiver of the effective service requirement to qualify for the scheme. Any entitlements I may have had in relation to the scheme will therefore expire. I commend the bill and the explanatory memorandum. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2728 Bills R4327 2728 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Laurie Ferguson. Bill read a first time. 2728 2728 10:21:00 Ferguson, Laurie, MP 8T4 Reid ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs and Settlement Services 1 0 Mr LAURIE FERGUSON —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. The Rudd Labor government is committed to providing English language tuition to newly arrived migrants through a targeted, well-designed program that supports clients in their transition to life in Australia. Consistent with this commitment, this bill amends the Immigration (Education) Act 1971, which provides the legislative basis to the Adult Migrant English Program, AMEP . The purpose of the amendments is to implement the new AMEP business model, which forms part of the government’s broader settlement framework. The settlement framework provides a continuum from offshore to onshore to deliver long-term sustainable settlement outcomes, developing an integrated service delivery network that will support new arrivals to rebuild their lives in Australia. The government’s intention is that improvements to settlement programs will be client centred and achieve real and practical outcomes in line with the government’s social inclusion agenda. Research has demonstrated that English language proficiency is the single most important determinant of successful settlement. The AMEP plays a significant role in this regard by providing clients with settlement focused English language tuition and settlement support. A significant feature of the new AMEP business model is to provide greater support for clients whilst improving client retention and the English language proficiency of clients. A key initiative, announced in the 2009-10 budget, is an increase in the number of AMEP counsellors to provide clients with guidance to help them meet their goals. This includes guidance on pathways to further English language tuition, education, employment or vocational training. This support, combined with the reinforcement of client obligations and responsibilities in participating in the program, will play an important role in retaining clients and helping them gain the most from their involvement in the program. Improving AMEP client outcomes through targeted and agreed learning pathways is consistent with the goals articulated in the settlement framework. The new AMEP business model will also improve program delivery and administrative arrangements. The amendments in this bill will provide greater settlement support for clients, greater consistency and transparency in decision making and greater clarity in relation to the eligibility requirements for the program. Greater support for clients Firstly, the bill proposes to extend the three-month time frame for program registration to six months to provide clients with increased flexibility early in their settlement period. Clients currently find the three-month time frame difficult to meet because they are fully occupied with establishing themselves and their families when they arrive in Australia. This has resulted in a number of requests for waivers of the registration time frame, increasing administrative costs. Secondly, the bill proposes to amend the act to introduce a five-year time frame for program completion. A number of clients cease English language tuition soon after arriving in Australia without using the full number of hours of English language tuition to which they are entitled and without obtaining a functional level of English. Clients cease tuition in this way in the knowledge that they can return to complete the remaining hours at any time in the future. In reality, very few clients return to complete their tuition. A consequence of this can be migrants with limited English skills in the community and an ongoing liability for the Commonwealth. The introduction of the five-year time frame for completion of the English language tuition, combined with the support of AMEP counsellors and targeted tuition, will provide an incentive for clients to make better use of the program early in their settlement period. Early engagement with the program will allow clients to move on more rapidly to further education or employment, and to more fully participate in Australian society. This amendment will also eliminate the ongoing liability to the Commonwealth. Greater consistency and transparency in decision making It is also proposed that the act be amended to allow the secretary to extend the registration, commencement and completion time frames for the AMEP retrospectively. Under the current act, clients must apply for a waiver of the registration and commencement time frames before those time frames have ended. This has proven to be impractical, as most clients seek to defer registration or commencement after the time frames have lapsed. To provide greater consistency and transparency in decision making, the time frame and process for applying for an extension of the time frames will be prescribed in the regulations. As in the current act, the matters that must be taken into account when granting an extension of the time frames will also be prescribed in the regulations. One of the current matters that must be taken into account when granting a waiver of the registration and commencement time frames will be removed through these amendments. The matter in question concerns the prevention of a person from undertaking the whole or part of an approved English course by the action or inaction of an AMEP provider. The reason for removing this is that it has been exploited by clients who claim they were not informed of their eligibility for the program. All clients are provided information on the program and advised of their potential eligibility when they are granted their visas. This is reinforced for refugee and humanitarian clients through their participation in the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy. AMEP providers are also required to actively promote their programs to potential clients. The five-year time frame for program completion will only be extended for compassionate and compelling reasons. The extension may be applied before or after the five-year time frame has expired. This will provide the department with the discretion to extend the time frame when vulnerable clients present with difficult circumstances that have prevented them from starting or completing the AMEP within five years. Should decisions be made not to extend a time frame, clients will have access to an internal review process undertaken by senior departmental officers. Clarify program eligibility The provisions relating to eligibility for the AMEP in the current act are repetitive and complex to administer due to ambiguous phrasing. This is addressed by amending definitions and clarifying eligibility provisions in the bill. The eligibility provisions in the current act also create a situation of inequity between client groups. Clients may currently access the AMEP through one of two provisions, but only one of the two groups is subject to restrictions on their eligibility. In practice this means that approximately 60 per cent of all clients are subject to the registration and commencement time frames, while the remaining 40 per cent are not. To date this inequity has been addressed by applying the registration and commencement time frames to the second client group under policy. The proposed amendments will provide a legislative basis for this approach. This means that all clients—with the exception of those under 18 years of age—will be subject to the same restrictions on their eligibility. They will be required to register in the AMEP within six months, commence class within 12 months, and complete the program within five years of arrival in Australia. As noted earlier, clients will be able to apply for extensions to these time frames. Access to the AMEP for 15- to 17-year-olds who are not participating in school within the first year of arrival in Australia was announced in the 2009-10 budget. This measure was undertaken to encourage these vulnerable youth to remain engaged in education and to develop a pathway to further education and employment and continued social participation—otherwise these youth are put at risk. To implement this measure, the proposed amendments will ensure that clients under 18 years of age will not be subject to the six-month registration time frame, but rather will be required to register and commence the program within 12 months. The five-year completion time frame will also apply to them. The proposed amendments will also remove eligibility to the AMEP from New Zealand citizens who hold special category visas. Following the 2008 review of the Australian citizenship test, the Australian government gave a commitment to the development of a citizenship course as an alternative pathway to citizenship for vulnerable or disadvantaged refugees and migrants. The course will cater for the differing learning needs of clients who are likely to face significant difficulty with the citizenship test, in particular those with low or no literacy skills and limited prior education. The government is committed to ensuring that all people who have a commitment to Australia and have a strong desire to become Australian citizens have the opportunity to do so. The course is expected to be introduced in the first half of 2010 and will be delivered through the AMEP network in locations where sufficient demand exists. AMEP providers are well equipped to deliver the course given their expertise and experience in teaching and assessing the client group. The proposed amendments are designed to continue access to the course for those clients referred by the department to the course as an alternative to undertaking a computer based citizenship test. The amendments will separate the provision of the citizenship course from English courses to ensure that citizenship course participants are not subject to the registration, commencement and completion time frames. The client group who may have access to citizenship courses will be prescribed in the regulations. It is intended that only citizenship applicants will have access to citizenship courses. Conclusion In conclusion, English language tuition has been delivered through the AMEP to newly arrived migrants for over 60 years. It is Australia’s largest and longest running settlement program. As learning English is the most important contributor to successful settlement, the AMEP plays a vital role in helping newly arrived migrants transition to life in Australia and start on the path to further education and employment. This bill ensures that the AMEP continues to play this role whilst providing greater support and certainty for clients, enabling them to be more fully participative in Australian society at an early stage of their settlement. Debate (on motion by Mr Billson) adjourned. 2732 Bills R4333 2732 Bill and explanatory memorandum presented by Mr Butler. Bill read a first time. 2732 2732 10:33:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Health 1 0 Mr BUTLER —I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill makes a number of amendments to improve the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. As I have said before, the government is committed to maintaining the position of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration as a leading global regulator of therapeutic goods. This means we need to update the legislation under which the TGA works to meet emerging issues and to ensure that the act gives the regulator the necessary powers to exercise its functions fairly and effectively. This is the fifth in a series of amendment bills introduced over the life of this parliament to make much needed improvements to the act. As a government we have now disposed of the backlog of amendments to the act that had been stockpiled in the lead-up to the introduction of the now postponed joint regulatory agency with New Zealand known as ANZTPA. Schedule 1 of this bill will introduce measures allowing for the short-term exemption from the act of medical devices to serve as substitutes for devices that are registered by the TGA but are unavailable or in short supply, and medical devices that have no substitute registered in Australia. These provisions mirror those already included in the act at section 19A in relation to medicines. The existing section 19A provision is widely used to deal with disruptions to the availability in Australia of important medicines caused by supply chain problems, such as refurbishment of manufacturing facilities. While the unavailability of medical devices under such circumstances has not been a major problem, the government believes that including a similar provision in the act will allow appropriate flexibility in the medical device regulatory framework. Under the proposed amendments the secretary may grant a person approval to import, or import and supply, a device to act as a substitute for a registered device if the device is marketed in a country specified in the regulations or if an application has been made to register the device in Australia, and the secretary considers the approval is in the interests of public health. If the application is to import, or import and supply, a device where there is no substitute registered in Australia, the secretary may grant the approval only if an application has been made to register the device in Australia, and the secretary considers the approval is in the interests of public health. These provisions do not take away the ability of a doctor to supply an unapproved medical device in an emergency situation. Rather, they operate to deal in a systematic way with the unavailability of approved medical devices. Other amendments allow the secretary to gather information on the supply and use of devices covered by an approval, and allow for the recall of the devices under certain circumstances. The schedule also contains consequential amendments to the offence provisions relevant to medical devices. Schedule 2 of the bill includes a range of amendments to various provisions in the act. One of the more significant will include an explicit pathway for sponsors of medicines already registered or listed by the TGA to list an export only variant of the medicine. Although section 26 currently allows medicines to be listed for export, there is no link between these medicines and a medicine already on the register. The new provision will allow the secretary to list a variation of an existing medicine as long as the variant differs from the existing medicine only in respect of characteristics specified in a legislative instrument. The government intends that these characteristics will be colourings, flavourings and excipients. This provision will support Australian companies wishing to export medicines by allowing them to state to authorities in the importing country that the medicines are a minor variation on a medicine available on the Australian domestic market, and point to the provision in the act that allows the listing of such variants. Another group of amendments in the schedule improve the TGA’s ability to obtain information from persons who have registered or listed medicines. The act already includes powers for the TGA to obtain information on a wide range of subjects. However, while the secretary’s delegates in the TGA can impose conditions on the registration or listing of medicines, there is no explicit power for the TGA to obtain information relating to compliance with these conditions. The amendments include such a power. The amendments also add a power for the TGA to obtain information on whether registered or listed medicines have been imported into or supplied in Australia, or exported from Australia. While this information can be very important in assessing the risk arising from an identified deficiency with a medicine, sponsors have in the past refused to provide it. These amendments put beyond doubt the TGA’s ability to obtain the information. The schedule also amends the provisions relating to reconsideration by the minister of initial decisions by the secretary and her delegates in the TGA. Under the current provisions persons affected by an initial decision may apply to the minister for reconsideration within 90 days of the decision, and the minister must then reach a decision on the reconsideration within 60 days. It is not uncommon for persons to apply for reconsideration but not supply any supporting information at that time. They then supply additional information well into the 60 day period during which the minister must reconsider the decision. Indeed, there is nothing to prevent the provision of additional information on day 59. The amendments to section 60 address this by requiring persons applying for reconsideration to submit at the time they apply any information they wish the minister to consider. The amendments then preclude the minister from considering any further information provided by the person seeking reconsideration, unless it is information provided in response to a request by the minister or information indicating the quality, safety or efficacy of the therapeutic goods involved is unacceptable. These amendments will ensure that reconsideration by the minister is based on a deliberate analysis of all the relevant information, and avoid the need for hasty review of information supplied at the last minute. The schedule also amends the provisions allowing the minister to determine lists of permitted ingredients to be included in medicines. These amendments are essentially technical changes to improve the workability of the provisions by allowing the list of permitted ingredients to include ingredients with restrictions or conditions on them. Finally, the schedule clarifies that where a medical device is required to be audited before it can be approved the assessment fee for this audit is to be payable in accordance with the regulations. This will remove a loophole that some applicants have used to avoid paying the fee. Together with the earlier regulatory reforms introduced by the government, this bill ensures that the TGA can continue to operate effectively as one of the leading therapeutic goods regulators in the world. I commend the bill to the House. Debate (on motion by Dr Southcott) adjourned. 2734 Bills R4295 2734 Debate resumed from 16 March, on motion by Mr McClelland: That this bill be now read a second time. 2734 10:41:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 0 Ms BIRD —I thank you in several ways, Mr Deputy Speaker Sidebottom, for facilitating my participation in the debate today by taking my chair duty and allowing me to continue with the debate. It is greatly appreciated. I continue with the very brief comments that I made last night before debate was interrupted. I indicate to the House my support for the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. It is my intention, for the information of the House, to take about 10 minute to complete my comments. I want first of all to outline the provisions that are in this bill, then to put the bill within the context of the government’s actions on anti-people-smuggling measures and then to wrap up with some general comments about where the debate is at the moment. I should indicate to the House that this bill seeks to amend some other acts in order to increase the capacity to deal legally with people smugglers. It establishes a new offence of providing material support and resources towards a people-smuggling venture. This is contained in the Migration Act and Criminal Code. The offence will apply to a person who provides material support or resources to another person or organisation and to the provision of support or resources aids if there is a risk that the provision of support or resources will aid the commission of the offence of people smuggling. The offence applies if a person is reckless about whether the money or resources they provide will be used in or to assist with a people-smuggling venture. It would not apply to a person who pays smugglers to facilitate their own passage or entry to Australia or to a person who pays for another person in that venture. The maximum penalty for this offence will be 10 years, 1,000 penalty units—$110,000—or both. This bill also extends the mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act. The Migration Act currently contains mandatory minimum penalties for the aggravated offences of people smuggling. That is a five-year sentence with three years non-parole or, for repeat offenders, an eight-year sentence with five years non-parole. The bill extends the application of the mandatory minimum penalty to the new offences, which are people smuggling involving death, people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm, and providing support or resources for people-smuggling activities. The higher mandatory minimum sentences of eight years and the non-parole period of five years will automatically apply to the offences of people smuggling resulting in death and exploitation or danger of death or serious harm irrespective of whether it was a repeat offence. This is to reflect the serious nature of these offences. The bill will also extend the higher mandatory minimum sentence and non-parole period to a people-smuggling offence involving children and to a person convicted of multiple people-smuggling offences. The bill before the House also seeks to harmonise people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code. This is in order to strengthen the criminal framework and for greater consistency. There is also a section of the bill that improves the capacity for law enforcement and national security agencies to undertake the new tasks that become operative with the bill. The bill before us sits within a context of a wider range of border protection policies that the Rudd government has put in place. The framework clearly outlined by the Prime Minister—which received, I have to say, a fair degree of bipartisan support early on when the opposition was endorsing some of the measures that the government put in place—was to have a more humane framework for those who were seeking asylum and to take a much harsher position with those who were seeking to make profits out of the exploitation of those people. Within that framework, there have been a series of actions already taken to create a strong border protection policy within which the bill before us today sits. The Rudd government, for example, has maintained excision, mandatory detention and offshore processing of irregular maritime arrivals on Christmas Island. We have committed $654 million to a whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling. This is part of the Rudd government’s $1.3 billion strategy to strengthen national security and border protection. It includes $63 million for aerial surveillance to monitor a range of border threats, including irregular maritime arrivals and illegal foreign fishing. It also includes $42 million to better equip the AFP to stop people-smuggling ventures before they launch for Australia. This has involved ramping up the crucial partnership between the AFP and the Indonesian police to investigate and dismantle people-smuggling syndicates. It also involves funding to Customs and Border Protection to strengthen its international engagement in critical transit countries with people-smuggling activities, including new posts in Malaysia and Sri Lanka and boosting its presence in Indonesia. This has been backed up by a range of other actions, including the establishment of the dedicated Border Protection Committee of cabinet to ensure the whole-of-government strategy is driven in a coordinated way; a single point of accountability for matters relating to the prevention of maritime people smuggling within the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service; continued regional engagement and cooperation, including reinvigorating the Bali process at the ministerial level; working with Indonesian authorities to assist in arrests of key high-level people smugglers—and it was very good to see the Indonesian President addressing this parliament only last week; increasing maritime surveillance and patrolling by Border Protection Command; making sure we successfully prosecute people smugglers and extradite alleged people smugglers; and strengthening the offences and the penalties that apply. This is all part of an important coordinated whole-of-government approach to delivering on the commitment that we made to get tough with the people smugglers. This sits within an international context. I am going to give a bit of recognition here to someone who is known to many in this place by the pseudonym Possum Comitatus—otherwise known as the individual writer, Scott Steel, who only recently in the Crikey newsletter had a wonderful graphic representation. As a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and out of respect for our report on props in parliament, I have not brought it in with me, so I will paint a bit of a word picture for members. It was a black square that indicated the 161 boat people who arrived in Australia in 2008. That square was placed within a bigger square which was the 4,750 asylum applications that were received by Australia in that year. Then that square was placed within another square which was the 96,870 asylum applications received by France, the UK and Italy in the same year. That then was placed in another square. That square represented the 382,670 asylum applications received by all 51 countries in the UNHCR statistics program. Then in another square were the 827,000 asylum applications across the globe. The final square indicated the 15.2 million forcibly displaced refugees around the globe in 2008. The graphic gave a very, very strong visual concept to people about the size of the problem we are dealing with. It is a serious problem. The reason that we want to stop people smugglers is that they put at risk the lives of the vulnerable people that they are preying on. Nonetheless, it has to be kept within the context. I was very pleased to see that the period we had for a relatively short time in Australia where we took a strategic approach that said that you punish the vulnerable who are seeking asylum to send a message to the others has been replaced by a view that you punish those who prey on the vulnerable to send a message. That has certainly been a bipartisan position of this country since the 1950s. We had an aberration from it, but I was pleased to see that, when we came to government and introduced new legislation that would be humane with the vulnerable and tough with those who seek to prey on them, we had bipartisan support. Sadly, that does not always persist through to today, and I think that is a very regrettable outcome. The bill before the House is part of that sensible and balanced approach to what is a very difficult issue, and I endorse the bill. 2736 10:51:00 Slipper, Peter, MP 0V5 Fisher LP 0 0 Mr SLIPPER —No reasonable person could oppose the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, and the aims contained in the bill are clearly laudable. It is a bill to deter people smuggling, to expand the charter of the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation to include border security issues and to make related amendments to the Telecommunication (Interception and Access) Act 1979, the T(IA) Act. There does, however, appear to be somewhat of a contradiction with the provisions of this bill and the record of the Rudd Labor government, which has in effect opened the door and created a superhighway across the seas into Australia. What the Rudd government has done is to put out the welcome mat to people smugglers and those people who want to jump the queue to come here in contravention of the laws of Australia. This is of course in complete contradiction of and in contrast to the very strong position taken by the Howard government, which said that we would determine who crosses our borders and that it is really a matter for the government and the people of Australia to determine who is able to enter Australia. What this government has done by watering down the regime it inherited from the former government is essentially to send the green light out there to people smugglers. When one looks at the appalling record of this government in recent times as far as boat arrivals are concerned it is obvious that the softened, watered down, gutted policy that we have in relation to people smuggling has failed dismally. Really what the government should do is to keep faith with the Australian people. It should adopt the promise made by the now Prime Minister prior to the 2007 election—namely, that when boats were intercepted on the high seas they would be turned around and sent back. But the government’s reaction in practice has been quite the opposite of what the Prime Minister promised to the Australian people before they entrusted him at the November 2007 election with the keys to office. Unfortunately the government in office at the moment has as its hallmark all talk but no action. People refer to the Prime Minister and say, ‘Blah, blah, blah.’ It is starting to penetrate the collective mind of the Australian people that this government is big on noise but small on performance. I can see the minister at the table, the Minister for Resources and Energy, smiling somewhat. I am not sure whether he is privately agreeing with me. I did not want to verbal him by suggesting that. But if the government had more ministers of the calibre of the minister at the table I believe we would have less talk and more action. Unfortunately the government has to work with the material it has, and it does not have anywhere near as many effective ministers as it would like. Of course, the minister at the table is one of the best that the government actually has. Having said that, before you accuse me, Mr Deputy Speaker, of embarking on my own unity ticket with the minister at the table, let me say that I think the people of Australia are really disappointed with the approach of this government. This government has in effect set out the welcome mat for people smugglers and those people who want to jump the queue. This government has indicated that it is prepared to bow to pressure, that it is prepared to blink when confronted. What the government has to understand is that people smugglers only respect strength. They do not respect weakness. The now government criticised us while promising strong border protection, but what we have really seen is an open door policy. The government blinks, as on the Oceanic Viking. The unauthorised arrivals on that vessel held the government to ransom, and the government has given preferred treatment to people who have in effect been rewarded for thumbing their noses at the government and the people of Australia by seeking media coverage as they did. Their plight was highlighted and the government folded. I understand that there were some people on the Oceanic Viking whose security assessments were less desirable than one would have liked, yet the government has been extremely benevolent towards them as well. It is very important that this bill includes a provision to expand ASIO’s role. I am not suggesting that al-Qaeda is hijacking boats and bringing large numbers of people via the government’s boat people superhighway to Australia, but it is theoretically possible for people who are terrorists to get on a boat and to try and pass themselves off as genuine asylum seekers or refugees. ASIO and the other security organisations in Australia need an adequate capacity to vet those people otherwise they could enter Australia via the back door, particularly in view of the fact that, were they seeking to enter Australia through a more recognised, traditional and conventional process, they would be picked up by the very stringent checking that Australia quite appropriately does with respect to people seeking to join us. It would be terrible if we had some sort of terrorist incident because it was not possible to vet those people adequately. I notice that the government says that this bill will not include any extra outlays. That presumably means that ASIO is going to have to fund the additional responsibilities it is quite appropriately given in this legislation from its existing budget. The government really needs to tell the Australian people—and I hope the minister at the table notices this, although I presume he is not the minister who will be summing up this particular bill—whether it considers there is so much fat and slack in ASIO that it can afford to reallocate existing resources to vet people who arrive on boats organised by people smugglers. That is a fair question, because the government has given this responsibility to ASIO. It is quite right that that should occur; however, I have to ask myself whether ASIO can afford to do what the government is asking it to do without the additional resources that it would quite appropriately need. Is the government saying that ASIO has more money than it currently needs to perform its function? Does the government want ASIO to close down some of the functions that it already carries out to perform these new functions? ASIO simply will be unable, in my view, to carry out the excellent job that it does for Australia generally and then do this additional task, for which it is eminently suited, unless the government is prepared to provide additional resources to the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation. It is appropriate that we should focus on the criminals who organise these boats to Australia, the people smugglers themselves. To a certain extent people who board those boats are victims, but they do so in many cases quite knowingly. A few years ago, when the Woomera and Baxter detention centres were open and were being criticised, particularly by the then opposition, I organised to visit those two centres so that I could see with my own eyes whether the allegations of brutality and inappropriate treatment of unauthorised boat arrivals were in fact accurate. At the Baxter detection centre I was able to sit down with a lady whose religion was Sabian Mandaean. I had not heard of the faith before. Apparently, they are a group that emanates from Iran and they are followers of St John the Baptist. Water has a particular significance in their religion. I had a really good talk with this lady. She was really upset that she found herself in the Baxter detention centre. She felt it was a breach of contract because she and her family paid US$20,000 to people smugglers. They had bought an airline ticket from Amman in Jordan to fly to Jakarta. When they got to Jakarta they junked their passports and made their way overland to a port where people smugglers operated from, jumped on a boat and came to Australia. They felt they had a contractual arrangement to come to Australia and were really miffed not only because they lost their US$20,000, which is what they paid for their passage, but also because they found themselves in the Baxter detention centre. I am not sure what ultimately happened to that family, but I did have a sense of sympathy for them. They seemed to be decent people and it just seemed to me to be entirely wrong that people smugglers were able to treat these people as they did. I believe we should throw the book at people smugglers, but that does not mean that we ought to willy-nilly allow the victims of people smugglers into Australia. As a former Labor immigration minister told me once, more than a million people are knocking on the door of Australia to come here legitimately and join our Australian family. That was quite a few years ago, so maybe now we have 1½ million people wanting to come to join us in Australia. We have freedom, we have stability and we have a way of life that has made Australia the envy of people throughout the world. While we might disagree with the result of an election—we were very disappointed that we lost in November 2007 and I am sure you were not, Mr Deputy Speaker— 10000 Sidebottom, Sid (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr S Sidebottom)—Now that I reflect on it! LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson interjecting— 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —What was that, Minister? LS4 Ferguson, Martin, MP Mr Martin Ferguson —I will give you a visa. 10000 DEPUTY SPEAKER, The The DEPUTY SPEAKER —Please stay on the legislation. 0V5 Slipper, Peter, MP Mr SLIPPER —I am very interested by the admission of the minister that, as the Minister for Resources and Energy, he has the capacity to hand out visas. But thank you very much for your generosity. This minister is clearly one of the most effective and influential ministers in the government. If more than a million to 1½ million people seek to come to Australia, then it is important that we do have an orderly immigration policy—a policy that has integrity, respect, transparency and accountability. For people to be able to jump on boats, to be able to pay people smugglers to come to Australia, to be intercepted and to be taken to Christmas Island or somewhere else—we understand that large numbers are about to be transported to Darwin—and that that enables them to jump the queue, it sends a real message to the world that we do not have a policy of integrity. You have really got to feel for the million to a million-and-a-half people who want to come here legitimately while people who are seeking to come here illegitimately are given preferential treatment. People smugglers are amongst the worst type of criminals. They place many lives in danger, they prey on the desperation of those people who are needy and they will do almost anything to anyone who wants to come to Australia to seek a better life. It is clear that they are motivated by financial gain and what they can amass for themselves. They are not remotely concerned about the lives of those people they carry as passengers. This is demonstrated by some of the horrid conditions that passengers have had to endure on often unseaworthy boats. When these boats go down at times and lives are lost, one has to ask oneself whether the people smugglers who own these boats are able to claim for insurance on the boats that are lost in the country where those boats are registered and, if they receive funds from the insurance policies, whether they are able to buy new and better boats to transport even more people to Australia. The people smugglers who are more than willing to breach Australia’s immigration and arrival conditions and legislation have to have the book thrown at them. That is really important. People smugglers show complete disregard for the interests of the people they seek to transport to Australia. We are a compassionate country. Our refugee intake is amongst the highest in the world on a per capita basis. I understand that only Canada exceeds our effort. We are genuinely receptive to the needs of others. We are compassionate. We are sympathetic. However, one of the concerns of people in the Australian community is that the government now does have this open door policy which is encouraging increasing numbers of boats to embark for Australia. People smugglers know that the welcome mat has been put out for them. We now have a super sea highway where the government is drawing people smugglers and unauthorised arrivals like a magnet. Everyone knows that, when the boat arrives at or near Christmas Island or in other Australian territorial waters, it will be towed or escorted to Christmas Island. All the people on board know that they will receive medical attention, they will receive food and they will then be processed on Christmas Island or maybe Darwin and, ultimately, there is a pretty good chance that they will be settled in Australia or another country. What an incredible green light for people to breach Australia’s laws, to breach Australia’s borders and to come to Australia in this illegitimate way. I hold a series of public community meetings throughout my electorate every year. Last weekend, on 13 March, we had very good attendances at three community barbecues. One was held at Sippy Downs, another was held at Dicky Beach, Caloundra, and the third was held at Kawana Forest. I was impressed with the way that people were genuinely concerned at the arrivals of people in Australia. I think that is a major worry and the government needs to take on board what the community is saying. The community is saying that enough is enough. People who discussed this matter with me at those community meetings were genuinely concerned and they were very worried. They feel that the current Rudd Labor government has completely lost control of this issue. Since the government softened our border protection laws there has been an increasing number of arrivals and more boats on the sea. There is almost a flotilla on the sea and almost every day we have a boat arrival. Let us look at some of the statistics—and they are really quite scary—since the government watered down our border protection. From August to December 2008 we had seven boats and 179 passengers and crew members. In 2009, 61 boats arrived and there were 2,792 passengers and crew members involved, plus the four on Deliverance Island and another two in an esky. In 2010, so far, we have had 24 boats with 1,191 passengers. That is a total of 92 boats that would not be here if the government had not softened our border protection policies. Those 92 boats brought 4,162 people plus the four on Deliverance Island and the two in an esky. That is a total of 4,168 people. This indicates that the government has given the green light to those people who want to break the laws of Australia—people who are prepared to risk the lives of others who are prepared to pay passage to come to Australia. Of course, many of these people are not genuine refugees. They might be people who would prefer to live in Australia—and you cannot blame them for that. Australia is a very desirable country in which to live. We have equality of opportunity and anyone has a chance to achieve anything. The only thing that can stop people achieving things in Australia is the individual. There are boundless opportunities, so you can understand why people would want to come from right round the globe to join the Australian family. But if we have a situation where people are jumping the queue, breaking the rules and circumventing our transparency arrangements and laws then clearly what we are doing is sending a green light. The government have brought in a total of 4,168 people since they watered down our border protection policies. That is the number of people who effectively have been brought in because of that watered down policy. I find this personally concerning. I have lots of people in my electorate who have family members who have applied to come to Australia on spouse visas, parent visas or, in some cases, even business visas. It takes a considerable time for those people to progress sufficiently up the queue to be accepted in accordance with the provisions. Some of them have asked me whether it would be better if they went to Indonesia, bought passage on a boat and arrived into Australia’s territorial waters, where they would then be fast-tracked. I have to say to them that we obviously cannot recommend that course of action. However, the present laws encourage people to circumvent the rules and regulations of Australia. I do not think that is a good thing; I do not think it is healthy. I think it is wrong for the government to water down border protection. I think it sends the wrong message to people smugglers and to the world. The government stands condemned in the eyes of the Australian people. (Time expired) 2741 11:11:00 Hale, Damian, MP HWD Solomon ALP 1 0 Mr HALE —It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise today to voice my strong support for the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. It is important that members on this side talk to the bill that is before the House and not go off on a rant, such as those opposite have indulged in, about the so-called weakening of the laws. This bill is another example of the government’s commitment to strengthening Australia’s national security and border protection regime. The key elements of the bill will improve whole-of-government efforts to combat people-smuggling, including ensuring appropriate investigative tools are available to law enforcement and national security agencies and providing greater flexibility for Australia’s national security agencies to support anti-people-smuggling activities. This bill includes additional measures to strengthen the Commonwealth’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework by putting in place laws that further criminalise people-smuggling activities to enable prosecution of a broad range of conduct, including the consequences of that activity. The bill sees practical reforms in six areas. It establishes a new offence of ‘providing support for people smuggling’ in the Migration Act 1958 and the Criminal Code. The bill harmonises people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code to strengthen our criminal framework and provide greater consistency, including inserting into the Migration Act the aggravated offence of ‘people smuggling involving exploitation or danger of death or serious harm’. It extends the higher mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act for the new aggravated offence of ‘involvement in exploitation or danger of death or serious harm’ to offenders convicted of multiple offences. It makes associated changes to the Surveillance Devices Act 2004 and Telecommunications (Interception and Access) Act 1979 to enable law enforcement and security agencies consistent access under both acts to appropriate investigative tools. The bill also amend the Australia Security Intelligence Organisation Act 1979 to enable ASIO to perform a greater role in relation to people smuggling and other serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity. It also aligns the definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in the T(IA) Act more closely with the Intelligence Services Act 2001. People seeking asylum are not something new. In the 1970s, we experienced the arrival of the first wave of boats carrying people seeking asylum from the aftermath of the Vietnam War. Over half the population of Vietnam was displaced in these years. While most people fled to neighbouring Asian countries, some embarked on a voyage by boat to Australia. The first boat arrived in Darwin in April 1976 carrying five Indochinese men. Over the next five years, there were 2,059 Vietnamese boat arrivals, with the last arriving in August 1981. My electorate of Solomon, like so many communities throughout Australia, is a vibrant, multicultural melting pot of nationalities. Over 80 different nationalities make up our fantastic community. The arrival of 27 Indochinese asylum seekers in November 1989 heralded the beginning of a second wave. Boats arrived over the following nine years, mostly from Cambodia, Vietnam and southern China. In 1999, the third wave of asylum seekers, predominantly from the Middle East, began to arrive, often in larger numbers than previous arrivals and usually with the assistance of people smugglers. This is a global problem. There are over 42 million displaced people around the world. In recent years, global factors have meant a continued increase in the global numbers of refugees and asylum seekers. Figures published by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, UNHCR, reveal that at the end of 2008 there were some 42 million forcibly displaced people around the world. That is twice the population of Australia. This includes 15.2 million mandated refugees, 827,000 asylum seekers and 26 million internally displaced persons. On Afghanistan, in a recent report to the Security Council, the UN Secretary-General noted: … 2008 ended as the most violent year in Afghanistan since 2001. In 2008 there was an 85 per cent increase in the number of Afghan asylum seekers claiming protection in industrialised countries worldwide. From Sri Lanka, for the same period of time, the number of internally displaced people assisted by the UNHCR in Sri Lanka increased from 324,699 to 504,800—an increase of 55 per cent. Sri Lanka has just emerged from a decades-long civil war which cost tens of thousands of lives, uprooted hundreds of thousands of Sri Lankans and left an economic divide between the north and the south and between east and west. There are currently 250,000 Tamils from the north of Sri Lanka in camps for internally displaced people. This government takes the protection of our borders seriously. We have more assets patrolling our borders than the previous government had. We have retained mandatory excision of Ashmore Reef and Christmas Island. If a boat is intercepted, those on board are taken to Christmas Island where their health and identity are checked and they are checked for security risk. If someone claiming to be an asylum seeker is found not to be a refugee, they are sent home. People smuggling is not just an issue for Australia but a global and a regional issue. I certainly welcome the contribution made in this place by the President of Indonesia last week. He spoke of the way our two countries are working together to combat this most evil of trades—that is, the smuggling of the most vulnerable and marginalised people on the planet. The commitment of our neighbours, through the bilateral cooperation of the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime, is critical to addressing this most serious issue. The Australian government is highly supportive of the Bali Process, which was established by Australia and Indonesia to develop practical measures to help combat people-smuggling crimes in the Asia-Pacific region and beyond. The Australian government has an orderly and planned migration program and places a high priority on protecting Australia’s borders from irregular maritime arrivals by maintaining an effective and visible tactical response program of aerial, land- and sea-based patrols. Border Protection Command uses a combination of Customs and Border Protection and Defence assets to deliver a coordinated national response to security threats in Australia’s maritime domain. The global spike in people-smuggling activity around the world, including in Australian waters, means we need more resources and improved laws to deal with this global problem. That is why the government is funding a $654 million whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling and address the problem of unauthorised boat arrivals. The strategy includes the largest surveillance and detection operation against people smuggling in Australia’s history. The massive funding increase in the budget will provide: $324 million worth of funding to increase maritime patrols and surveillance, which will see an additional maritime surveillance craft in Australia’s northern waters and increased maritime surveillance time; an almost $63 million funding increase for aerial surveillance, which means two additional surveillance aircraft; around $93 million to strengthen our engagement with our regional neighbours and international organisations; and $13.6 million to strengthen our legal and prosecution capacity and enhance regional cooperation on people-smuggling laws. The Rudd government has also established a dedicated Border Protection Committee of cabinet, which will be supported by the newly established Border Protection Taskforce to drive the government’s response to the people-smuggling threat. Our government is determined to make the investments that are needed to protect our borders and strengthen Australia’s national security. In particular, there is clear evidence of a global spike in people-smuggling activity, which is causing an increase in people-smuggling activities in Australian waters. The government is determined to ensure we respond effectively and decisively to the global spike in people smuggling and other emerging threats to Australia’s national security. This bill demonstrates the government’s commitment to addressing the serious nature of people-smuggling activities and to targeting those criminal groups who seek to organise, participate in and benefit from people-smuggling activities. People smuggling is a serious and organised crime involving organised criminal syndicates which depend on enablers and facilitators. Targeting the organisers and financiers of people-smuggling operations is an important element of a strong anti-people-smuggling framework. People-smuggling activities involve significant risks and dangers, including the potential for loss of life and injury. Financial gain is a key driver for smugglers, who often have little regard for the safety and wellbeing of those on board the vessel. This bill puts laws in place to provide a greater deterrent to people-smuggling activities and to address the serious consequences of such activities. I commend the efforts of the Attorney-General on these amendments and the strengthening of these laws. As the Prime Minister of Australia said in his first National Security Statement address to the parliament in December 2008: The Government is committed to deploying all necessary resources to prosecute those criminals who seek to undermine Australia’s border security. We will work with our partners in the region to shut down the illegal operations of people smugglers and see them put in jail where they belong. I commend the bill to the House. 2743 11:23:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —I am really not surprised that the government has brought this bill, the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, before the parliament now. The government’s abject failure on border security is evident, and we are now averaging 10 boats a month. The government is stuck in a hard place on this issue, although it has abandoned any mention of a tough policy. Maybe that is because it is such a simply ludicrous term, given the current flow of boats. Nevertheless, the government cannot reconcile the divisions within the party. The left holds a total commitment to supporting illegal arrivals while the remainder cannot actually take any action of strength, because that would be a total backflip and clear evidence of the stuff-up that has been created. Instead, they are left with trying to stop the boats—or at least the adverse publicity—with special deals, such as the Oceanic Viking fiasco, trying to get transit countries to do the work, or even the presentation of this bill. Perhaps the Rudd government has not worked out yet that, if you promise no more than three months on Christmas Island and certainty of settlement in Australia after that, illegal immigrants will walk past our embassies, bypass the UNHCR and pay the people smugglers. It is a risk they see as worth taking and they consider the money well spent. Until the government addresses that reality, the government will continue to fail. It was previously the case that nowhere was the failure of the government’s policy more evident than in border control. Comprehensive as that failure continues to be, it is clear that in the last six months border protection failure has increasing competition across other policy areas, such as the bungled home insulation program with its and dangers and rortings, the green loans, the overpriced BER program et cetera. As concerning as the loss of border control is, I nevertheless welcome the opportunity to speak on this bill. I recall that at the end of 2008 I made a speech in this place against the failures of the government in this precise area. I recall the member for Maribyrnong interjecting repeatedly in support of the government’s alleged border control policy, and he did so again yesterday when I asked a question on the government’s border protection failure. This proves what an embarrassment the lack of border control is for the government. We fixed the problem in the past, and since the government was elected it has wrecked the integrity of our borders. Indeed, thanks to the Rudd government, the borders of this nation are as porous as the 2007 Labor Party election promises. This Rudd government policy failure represents yet another example of all talk and no action. Before going on to the bill, it is important to review what has happened leading up to this point. In this financial year there has been a $132 million blow-out in the cost of processing illegal immigrants. It is little wonder, because since 1 July 2009 there have been 67 boats and more than 4,000 people on those boats—a lot more than the 200 people the government planned on at the time of the last budget. That, of course, has also resulted in the need for $34 million to increase the number of beds on Christmas Island. It has been estimated that this financial year at least $230 million beyond what has been budgeted for will be required, and it will be required to deal with the numbers arriving as a direct result of the changes to the laws that this government said would not see an increase in arrivals. Indeed, if these illegal arrivals continue at this pace, the government may face up to $300 million per year in additional costs, with $1 billion being exceeded in the fourth year. This issue is very clear. Those with money are jumping the queue. Those without money remain in refugee camps, hoping that the numbers of illegal arrivals do not amount to enough to bump them beyond our humanitarian program numbers for the year, only to be reassessed for inclusion on the legitimate queue for next year. There are only around 13,500 on the humanitarian program list. What about these illegal arrivals? There are over 4,000. Surely this is not good news for those in refugee camps. Before going on I would also go over some previously covered ground in relation to these matters. I have in the past been critical of the validity of many of those who have arrived by boat. I have questioned how much they were in fear of their lives, when they bypassed several countries on their way here. I am often asked by my constituents how it is that we have had Afghani people arrive in Australia by boat when their country is landlocked. Clearly the facts are that these illegal arrivals have passed by many countries on their journey, and that has included road and air travel. This was always my understanding of the situation. Therefore, I thought I would confirm that understanding by putting questions on the Notice Paper back on 16 November last year. With reference to illegal arrivals by boat, I asked firstly about arrivals from Sri Lanka and how many had some form of identity document with them upon processing. I was informed by the Attorney-General that between 27 November 2008 and 9 December 2009 742 Sri Lankan nationals arrived by boat. Of those 742 just 20 per cent, or 147, had some form of identity document. I was also informed that 492 of the 742 are understood to have used air travel to transit via South-East Asia. It would be a reasonable assumption that the 492 as an absolute minimum would have had identity documents in order to use civil aircraft. This information would therefore suggest that a lot of identity documents were lost between getting off the aircraft and arriving at Christmas Island. I would question the motives of anyone who throws their identity papers into the Timor Sea. As part of those questions on notice, I also asked about those from Afghanistan who arrived by boat. I was informed that as at 31 December 2009 1,532 Afghan nationals had arrived by boat and that every one of them had used air travel to get to South-East Asia so that they could get on the boats. I will say again that I cannot reconcile a claim of a desperate fear for one’s life with firstly bypassing Australian embassies then bypassing UNHCR missions and transiting through airline departure halls before getting on a boat in Indonesia. So when those on the government side accuse my colleagues and me of a lack of compassion regarding those who arrive by boats, I would deny it. I say to them that I have compassion and regard for those in refugee camps. I have compassion for those who have done the right thing—not those who have paid for their airfares and perhaps even picked up their duty-free purchases on the way. There is no duty-free at the refugee camps on the Thai-Burma border. Clearly the opportunity exists to properly apply for entry to Australia under the humanitarian program, or for other visas, from Afghanistan, Sri Lanka and other points along the way. The fact that illegal arrivals have instead chosen to bypass opportunities to apply for legitimate entry to Australia suggests nothing more than a deliberate intent to illegally bypass Australia’s immigration law to gain access to Australia by jumping the queue. It used to be the case that when the Navy or Customs intercepted a boat of illegal arrivals it was bad news for the people smugglers and those on the boat. It used to be the case that this nation had border control systems with integrity so that there were no guarantees of staying—but that is all over. The interception of boats, as the minister calls it, is what the people smugglers call a successful delivery. The Navy or Customs taking a boatload of people to Christmas Island is mission accomplished for the smugglers. That so-called interception begins a stay of up to three months on Christmas Island with full use of the gym and unmonitored internet access, followed by a visa and permanent settlement in Australia. The only thing that can stop that certain resettlement is an adverse security assessment. I therefore ask the question: is the $10,000-plus that is paid to people smugglers a good investment for those who achieve a permanent visa? If they get intercepted or dock at Christmas Island then any observer would have to agree that it is. If your dark past is not detected, you are in and there is no doubt that you will get one of those places in our humanitarian program—much easier and certainly much quicker than applying at the Australia embassy in your homeland or dropping into the UNHCR station in your homeland or at any point along the way. Perhaps it is more expensive, but why be diverted to another less desirable country when you can ensure success with around $10,000? I would also ask the question about how this sort of money was generated in the first place. We know that these origin countries are of far poorer economic standing than our own. My question would be: how is the money generated? If it is generated legally then it would seem that they are not the desperate people that their advocates suggest they are. If the money is generated illegally, we should question their legitimacy and investigate that matter closely—perhaps that is a matter for ASIO. Since my election to this parliament I have always wondered why there is no accountability for those who pay the people smugglers to come here. Why is it not an offence to pay a people smuggler? Beyond those who can pay, the refugee camp occupants on the Burma-Thailand border—the Karen, the Chin and the persecuted Burmese people—have to wait in line. They do not have the money. They have to wait while those with money take what may prove to be 4,000 places out of the humanitarian program. It is little wonder that people in this and other countries are unhappy with this situation. Australia is a fair and tolerant country. This issue is not about racism. It is not about the colour of a person’s skin or their religion. It is about a fair go and whether we are still in control of who comes here. It is clear to me that what this nation needs is a return to the days when there were no guarantees about where you would end up if you tried to jump the queue. We need to get back to offshore processing, resettlement options beyond our shore, visas that are not permanent and a humanitarian program where we decide where the refugees will come from. That brings me to the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. I say at the outset that we will be supporting this bill. It does not, however, address the core problem and we will see if it helps the current situation in any way. The bill seeks to deter the people smugglers, whilst expanding ASIO’s charter and modifying interception powers. Specifically, the amendments will create a new offence of providing material support or resources toward a people-smuggling venture. It will establish in the Migration Act an aggravated offence of people smuggling which involves exploitation or danger of death or serious harm. There is also an amendment to apply mandatory minimum penalties to the new aggravated offences, and to multiple offences, of eight years imprisonment with a non-parole period of five years and a maximum penalty of 20 years and/or a $220,000 fine. I note that there is a specific element of this legislation that suggests that a payment to a people smuggler for one’s own travel, or for that of a relative, is not included as providing material support. In other words, this legislation attacks some of the income for people smugglers but allows other income. I again struggle to understand why there is such an inconsistency. Although the bill does not address this inconsistency—or, rather, promotes this inconsistency—fortunately it does seem to leave the door open for ASIO to make an adverse security finding upon those who seek to circumvent our immigration system. Therefore, I encourage ASIO to examine the intent to bypass legitimate processes and also the intent in concealing one’s identity by getting rid of identity papers. These should be considered strongly as reasons to make an adverse security finding. It is not my intention to speak to the intricate details of the sections of this bill. I see no point in restating the amendments line by line as I said that we would be supporting this bill, but I do say that the core of the issue remains a problem. Upon arrival at Christmas Island, they are as good as here, and that is wrong. The Rudd government changed the rules. The Rudd government ensures that they will come to Australia and that they will take up places on our humanitarian program. The Rudd government does not question their legitimacy or their intent to bypass legitimate application processes in order to come here, and the Rudd government, through their softness on this matter, ensures that those without the money for airfares or people smugglers will languish in refugee camps even longer. I appreciate the opportunity to make these comments today. I look forward to seeing how these amendments will assist the current situation. However, I do not hold out great hope because I do not see that they provide any form of accountability for those who bypass our immigration system. Until those who refuse to apply for entry at our embassies or through UNHCR missions are forced to do so, they will continue to see their actions as worth the effort—which means they are jumping the queue. There has been a tendency to see this whole problem as caused by the people smugglers. Of course, we object to and abhor their reckless risk taking with the lives of others but, if there were no market for their product, they would not exist. As I said before, I am not going to go through line items on this bill. The trouble with this bill is that it does not address the core problems of why people are paying to come here. It does not reverse the government’s changes from two years ago and it does not take away the surety of success that the government gave these illegal arrivals. Because it does not do these things it will not work and the government will find that their failure remains clearly evident into the future. I can see the future clearly: this problem will only be solved when the coalition again forms a government and direct action can be undertaken on this problem. 2747 11:37:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I am pleased to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and to support it. Until relatively recently, Australia had a bipartisan approach, in effect, to the treatment of refugees both onshore and offshore. As of 2001, in particular, those opposite, who were then in government, have used this for overtly political reasons, realising that the whole issue of immigration, particularly what is deemed to be unlawful immigration, has always been a psychological lever in Australia’s culture. Strangely enough, it is a culture that, apart from our Indigenous population, is a totally migratory population from our origins. So there has always been this psychological factor of the outsider in Australia if you do not come via the welcome mat that we set out—finely attuned and attested to by the former Prime Minister in 2001. What that has led to—and it is clearly indicated by many on the other side—is a divisive debate in this country. What is often forgotten, apart from the sheer misery, pain and persecution of those who seek asylum in this country, is that we are signatories to international conventions which obligate us to treat people fairly and humanely when they arrive at our shores or within our jurisdiction and under our sovereignty. But, if you listen to some members on the other side saying, ‘Turn the boats back,’ you hear language that not only defies practicality but defies our obligations as a civilised nation. The simple fact is that, yes, you can point out times in our recent history when the numbers of people seeking asylum, particularly boat people—most come by air, which is hardly ever mentioned in this place—go up and down. The simple fact is that they go up and down according to what we euphemistically call push factors. It essentially means that there are areas of trouble in our neighbourhood that force people, through persecution, to seek asylum elsewhere. Anyone with the means and the will will seek asylum in those places that are most safe. Anyone who is a parent or a guardian would understand that. You would do anything to find safety for your family and your children. It is natural, it is human, and yet many condemn people who would seek to do that. We hear people say, ‘They’re jumping the queue.’ What queue? Where are these queues—nicely ordered and lined up? There are something like 42 million people in camps throughout our region and throughout the world who are displaced and seeking asylum. What queue? Where are these magical queues? Of course there are people who will make formal application, and this country is comparatively generous in taking on humanitarian refugees, but this talk of queues and people jumping them is absolute, utter nonsense. In times of intense conflict—more recently in our region in Sri Lanka, in particular, and in Afghanistan—we know people are suffering and are displaced and that they will seek asylum and do whatever they can to get to safe places such as Australia. When they enter our jurisdiction and our seas, we are obligated as a humane nation and as part of the international community to take these people and to process them humanely. It is said by those opposite citing all the figures that, under the Howard regime—that tough old regime with the Pacific solution, Christmas Island and excising—the boats stopped coming. Okay, boats may have diminished in number but that does not mean it is cause and effect. When I was a history student there was a way of looking at history which was called the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy—that because one thing happens and then something else happens it must have been caused by the first. That is nonsense, but that is what they are perpetrating on the other side. The reason the numbers declined is that the points of conflict were diminished, but now the points of conflict are rising, and have risen more recently, and the numbers are increasing. It is a natural historical fact. Those on the other side would have us believe that it is not the push factors, it is not the conflict and it is not the persecution that surrounds us. Jack Hill the blind miner needs only to turn beyond the commercial channels to a bit of international news to see the misery and torment that goes on around us and to put himself in the position of saying, ‘What would I do about that?’ Well, people are doing something about it now, but you would have the mob on the other side saying that it is not those factors that are causing it, that what is causing it are the pull factors and that we have softened our stance on refugees. They say that the people smugglers and those people they are servicing are looking through our newspapers daily, running their fingers down the columns and looking at the changes in legislation and saying: ‘Ah, there’s a loophole. The pull factors have softened so we will increase our trade over there.’ That is absolute nonsense and anyone who really thinks about this for more than a couple of minutes can work that out. What I find very interesting, and it is not mentioned by those on the other side, is that when our legislation came into place to modify the system—not weaken it but modify it to make it more humane—those on the other side accepted it and voted for it. Their members as part of committees did reports on this and all of them supported it. But now they do not; now it is the problem. Basic logic says that is a nonsense. This government has gone about creating a comprehensive program to make our response humane but at the same time make it firm. We cannot do anything unless we have the assistance of our neighbours. The turnstile is not here; it is elsewhere. We have been working progressively since 2008 to create a whole-of-government national and international framework to make this work better. Many resources are being put into it. Those on the other side say they accept this legislation but claim it will do nothing to solve the real problem. What we ought to do to solve the real problem is to stop war and stop misery. We also need to do more in our region to support our neighbours. And we had better stop the effects of climate change, because if you think persecution has been the cause of a great proportion of those seeking asylum today, when we see the effects of environmental refugees throughout the world, we will really know something. This business of blaming us for an increase in the number of people seeking asylum here is a nonsense. We need to stop war, we need to stop persecution and we need to stop climate change and the negative consequences of that. This legislation seeks to tackle people smuggling more comprehensively. Some people argue that people smugglers might be involved in a terrible trade, but at least they are helping people to do something to offset their persecution. I do not support that, but the trade of people smuggling exists because there is a need. We have to do something about these people smugglers and particularly those who prey on the vulnerability of those who are persecuted. That is what this legislation seeks to do. I find it interesting that the 2004 United Nations Protocol against the Smuggling of Migrants by Land, Sea and Air, to which Australia is a party, defines smuggling of migrants in article 3(a) as: … the procurement, in order to obtain, directly or indirectly, a financial or other material benefit, of the illegal entry of a person into a State Party of which the person is not a national or a permanent resident … I understand that there have been 88 arrests and 25 convictions since September 2008 in Australia—that is, convicted people smugglers, crew members on vessels, who have received between five and six years imprisonment. We have been acting on this and we are seeking to strengthen our activities. How are we going about this? The legislation before us seeks to establish a new offence of providing material support and resources towards a people-smuggling venture in the Migration Act and the Criminal Code. It is worth noting what that means. According to the explanatory memorandum, the offence will apply to a person: … if that person provides material support or resources to another person or organisation and the provision of the support or resources aids the commission of the offence of people smuggling. The second reading speech says: The offence applies if a person is reckless as to whether the money or resources they provide will be used in, or to assist, a people-smuggling venture. So it attacks so-called ignorance in behaviour. It continues: It will not apply to a person who pays smugglers to facilitate their own passage to Australia or who pays for a family member on the same venture. According to the explanatory memorandum: The maximum penalty for this offence will be imprisonment for 10 years or 1,000 penalty units ($110,000), or both. Prescribing a maximum penalty still allows judicial discretion to take account of the circumstances of the case. The second thing it seeks to do is important and it is something that former legislation, particularly by those opposite, did not do. I do not want to go tit for tat on that stuff. All frameworks evolve, no matter who is in government, and that is what this legislation seeks to do. That is why those opposite are willing to support this legislation. The legislation seeks to harmonise people-smuggling offences between the Migration Act and the Criminal Code to strengthen the criminal framework and for greater consistency. It may or may not be surprising to learn that harmonisation of legislation, particularly acts, in our system is an ongoing process because in some senses they contradict each other. This seeks to harmonise acts so they will working with the same intent and for the same purposes and not working at cross-purposes. A third element of the legislation is to extend the mandatory minimum penalties in the Migration Act. This, of course, is to strengthen this to make it harsher in terms of and in relation to the penalties that are permitted and to improve the capacity for law enforcement and national security agencies to tackle their jobs not just in this but particularly in relation to people smuggling. People smuggling is a serious and organised crime. We know it involves criminal syndicates and they rely on a network of people associated with them. Targeting the organisers and finances of people-smuggling operations is an important element of a strong anti-people-smuggling framework and that is what this legislation seeks to do on a whole-of-government basis. Before I finish, I would like to return, if I may, to this issue of context and balance. You have those on the other side, and some of the conservative press, without a doubt, day after day putting the story out that we are being inundated by a peril. Some of the reporting is absolutely disgraceful and atrocious, happily taken up by many on the other side. I notice the member for Berowra—the so-called ‘father of the House’—is in a very sedentary mode at the moment. But he gets highly excited—in fact he bounces in his seat—as soon as you mention the question of boat people and refugees. He starts frothing at the mouth, recalling his enormous record of making the lives of those seeking asylum more miserable. I find it a strange thing to see, and a little disheartening for someone who has been in this House for so long. Let me just remind you, Mr Deputy Speaker, of some of the contextual facts that we should take into account when we consider this. I will quote from a new book, which was delivered to all of us just recently—Future Justice edited by Helen Sykes—from a section on refugees and human rights by Julian Burnside. You can imagine some on the other side would groan when they hear the name ‘Burnside’, but imagine having that record of humanitarian concern in your career and your lifetime. It is fantastic: Looking at global refugee flows misses the point that very few of them come here. Very few refugees come here: If numbers are a concern, here are some to consider: Australia’s population is 22 million. The number of visitors arriving in Australia each year (for tourism, business etc) is 4.5 million. The number of permanent new immigrants each year is 185,000. The refugee/humanitarian quota per year is 13,500. The number of asylum seekers who come here by air each year— air!— … is 5000. In 2009, for example, the number of asylum seekers who came to Australia by boat was approximately 2,800, or the equivalent of five days migration intake. Yet, if you believe the conservative press, if you believe those opposite and if you take any notice of the frothing of the member for Berowra, you would swear we were being inundated and that this country is at risk. It is an absolute nonsense. This government is working cooperatively with its neighbours, it has a whole-of-government approach and it has put considerable resources into creating a framework where we are fair, humane and carrying out our international obligations. I am very proud to support this legislation. 2751 11:56:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —It is always a privilege to follow the remarks of the member for Braddon, who is generally one of the more thoughtful members on that side of the House. I do rise to speak in support of the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. As the Liberal Party has said through its spokesman, the member for Cook—or the member for the Shire!—we do support the measures in this bill. However, it is of course a bill that is necessary because of Labor’s failures on this issue. While generally I enjoy the contributions of the member for Braddon, I thought that was one of his weaker ones in defending a very difficult policy issue for the Labor Party to defend. They always defend it on the basis that we on this side of the House are running some sort of fear or dirty under-the-radar campaign rather than actually arguing the real reasons why their policy has failed, which, of course, were the changes to the border protection laws in August 2008. Since that time, we have seen nearly 100 boats arrive in the northern part of Australia. The Christmas Island detention facility is so packed now that it is looking as if those seeking refugee status will need to be transferred to the mainland, a policy failure unlike any other from those on the other side, and probably up there with the insulation program. Yesterday, the campaign that is run by those on the other side about the motives of members on this side of the House saw one of its worst episodes, with the contribution by the member for Parramatta—as so rightfully pointed out by the member for Higgins who followed her—as recorded in the Hansard: There are people in my community—and I despair at these people—who, when the opposition starts to spread this fear, come out with lines like, ‘We should just push the boats back and let them drown.’ We should not accept that. We should not accept those statements and we should not be stirring up that kind of attitude in our community. Yet every time we have this sort of fear campaign on the other side, this demonising of these desperate people, I get that kind of response from some members of my community. I get other members of my community saying, ‘Send them back to where they came from.’ When I say, ‘When they arrive, they might get shot,’ I get the reply: ‘Not my problem.’ I do not think we should be accepting that attitude either and I do not think we should be stirring that up in our community. The very clear suggestion in that contribution from the member for Parramatta was that members on this side of the House are saying in a direct statement, ‘We should just push the boats back and let them drown.’ The member for Parramatta came into the House, after the member for Higgins quite rightly pointed out this absolute disgrace, and made a personal explanation in which she said: The member for Higgins said at the beginning of her speech that I had put words in the opposition’s mouth and said that they had suggested that people should drown. I did not. The Hansard quite clearly outlines exactly what the member for Parramatta said. It is a disgraceful campaign run by members of the government who are desperately trying to avoid answering the very real charge that we make on this issue, which is that their policy has meant that the people smugglers are back in business. The trade that people smugglers enter into is vile. No-one supports that type of activity. We certainly do not. We took action in government to ensure that the people smugglers were put out of business. The policy decisions made by this government have meant that they are back in business. No-one wants to see desperate people in these situations, and for the member for Parramatta to get that low into the gutter and play this sort of politics is a disgrace. She should be brought in by the Prime Minister and thoroughly rebuked and she should apologise to the House for what are disturbing remarks. I notice the member for Braddon was far less outrageous in his claims. He made the suggestion that there was a fear campaign going on and he is right to do that—in a political debate he is able to make those points—but to suggest that people on this side of the House want to see other human beings drown and die is an absolute disgrace. The member for Parramatta should be rebuked and she should be rebuked today. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary for Employment at the table, who is a decent person, will ensure that that actually occurs. This bill is a sensitive bill and we have very well-known splits on our side of parliament about this issue. It is a very difficult issue. People are very emotional about boat arrivals and illegal immigration. It is a sensitive issue in the community and it should be dealt with in a way and in a fashion which is above, hopefully, the low-rent stuff which from time to time does actually occur. However, we do make the charge and we make it very clearly—I think the shadow minister has articulated it very well in recent times—that the decisions of the Rudd government in August 2008 have meant that we are seeing an influx of boats in the northern waters. The Labor Party argue that is because of these additional push factors and the member for Braddon just argued then that war in our region has been the reason that there have been increased push factors. I presume the member for Braddon is talking about the recent conflict in Sri Lanka coming to an end and, certainly, that has added to the pressure. There is no doubt about that. However, to suggest that the Afghanistan conflict ended in 2002 and began again last year is simply wrong. The Afghanistan conflict—as the shadow minister for defence science and personnel at the table knows very well—has been going on since late 2001 and there have been push factors from Afghanistan since that time, as there have been from the Middle East and other parts of the world. WF6 Danby, Michael, MP Mr Danby —It was very quiet over the last five years. IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —Member for Melbourne Ports, I do not think it actually was. There was quite a deal of ongoing fighting in Afghanistan during that time. It was not as though our forces experienced reduced action in that time. There have clearly been push factors over the whole period. We accept that there are push factors, but what the government fails to accept is that there are pull factors. There has been a big pull factor, which was the change by the government in its border protection regime in 2008. The government refuse to recognise this. They know that they have made an error; however, they are not addressing the genuine mistake that they have made. That has led to an additional nearly 100 boats arriving since that time. This year we have seen a record number of arrivals. This week alone I think we have seen two boats—it is hard to keep up with how many are actually arriving on our northern shores through the wet season, which is highly unusual. Until the government can bring themselves to recognise that they have made a fundamental error in this policy issue, we will continue to see the massive number of arrivals occurring in the northern waters of Australia. That is putting additional pressure on our Customs service and defence services and it is a big problem for our border protection regime. I note in this bill the government are seeking to address some of the concerns in relation to security and they are right to do so. We need to protect our borders. We need to have a well-looked after system and ensure that there is a solid system of entry into our country. We are very generous in the number of people that we take into Australia and we should be. I support that. I do not support a reduction in the humanitarian intake; I think we have a very proud record as a country. As you know, Mr Deputy Speaker Georganas, being a son of migrants, we have a very proud record in Australia of taking in people from other parts of the world whether for economic opportunities or because they are fleeing situations which have become very difficult for them in their home countries. But we need to ensure that it is done in a well-managed fashion, and the problem with softening the border protection laws in 2008 has been that it is putting pressure on the management of this system. When the member for Braddon said that there are these accusations about there being no queue—‘Where’s the queue?’ I think he said, and then he said there are something like 43 million people in refugee camps around the world—that is exactly right; there is a queue. There is an application process. The department of immigration goes through a very detailed assessment of people to ensure that we are keeping ourselves secure, which of course is a major responsibility of people in this place, at the same time as taking in very high numbers of refugees—I think it is the second largest humanitarian intake of any country in the world, just behind Canada. We do do our bit. There is an argument about whether we could do more, but we certainly do do our bit. However, what we say on this side of the House is that you cannot undermine your migration intake by softening your border protection laws, because in the Australian community’s eyes it will question the value of the whole process of taking humanitarian refugees. That is a genuine problem that we have. As illegal arrivals increase, the community becomes increasingly concerned about the way that we are managing this system. I think they are right to be concerned, because the government has made a big mistake and it is high time they recognised that mistake. I think it is quite clear that we have a very proud record on this side. There was a problem in 2001 and the former government addressed that problem; the boats stopped coming. There was no problem in 2008, but the Prime Minister created a problem and the boats started coming again. That is the story of the border protection regime in Australia over the last 10 years. The coalition addressed the problem; the Labor Party created a problem. Unfortunately, until the Prime Minister is able to stop talking and start taking some action, we will continue to see the large number of boats arriving in our northern waters. It is unfortunate that this debate descends into personal attacks and gutter politics. Unfortunately, we have seen far too much of that in this debate so far. In addition to the softening of the border protection laws in 2008, the other mistake the Labor Party have made in government was to cut some of the Customs vessel inspections. They cut $58.1 million from the Australian Customs and Border Protection Service air and sea cargo inspection services in the 2009-2010 budget even though they promised in the election that they would not do so—in fact, they said they would increase it. The breakdown of the cuts is $17.1 million over four years cut from the risk based air cargo inspections, $8.6 million over four years cut from the risk based approach to first port boarding inspection program and $32.4 million cut from the risk based sea cargo inspections. The effect of the cuts is that, of Australia’s 70 major ports, 1,300 local port workers and millions of shipping containers, only five to 10 per cent are checked. The decision to cut vital funds in areas of customs will put strain on the staff. They have already been stretched, and this will inevitably lead to more illicit drugs, weapons and biosecurity threats slipping through our borders. Our front-line agency has had major cuts to its budget just at a time when it has increasing pressure put on it through measures introduced by this government’s softening of the border protection laws. I find it interesting that the Prime Minister just a few weeks ago was talking very loudly about ensuring that our passport system was protected and secure when there were stories about the illegal use of Australian passports. We should be making sure that our passports are used appropriately, but he equally seems to be quite comfortable with a huge increase in illegal arrivals in the northern parts of our country. This is an emotive debate. It is at times a difficult debate for the parliament. However, we need to handle it in a mature fashion. We need to be able to put our different perspectives. We on this side of the House put the perspective that the Labor Party in government has softened what were very effective laws. Those on the other side argue that it was not their decision and was not because of their changes; it has been purely push factors. I think there is clearly an uncomfortable position for those on the other side who can see this increase in the number of people coming. They see the correlation with the decision, but their Prime Minister refuses to take any action on it. It is high time he reconsiders this position. It is high time some of those opposite who are engaging in the gutter politics we saw from the member for Parramatta yesterday stop doing so and have a sensible and well-thought-through debate in this parliament. 2754 12:11:00 Danby, Michael, MP WF6 Melbourne Ports ALP 1 0 Mr DANBY —In speaking on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010, I am pleased to continue to speak for a consistent and coherent policy that this government has established since it has been in office. As chair of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration I have been closely involved with these issues, including those addressed by this bill, over the last two years. It is pleasing to hear remarks like those of the member for Mayo, who just spoke: relatively conciliatory and supportive of the humanitarian program that Australia has. Moreover, I listened carefully to the speech of the honourable member for Cook, who is now the shadow minister for immigration, and I am also pleased that he indicated the opposition will be supporting this bill. He expressed support for some of the measures the government has taken to combat people smuggling both by strengthening the criminal law and by further developing the framework of cooperation with our neighbours, particularly Indonesia and Malaysia. But the member for Cook spoiled his good start by repeating the opposition mantra that the reason we are seeing an increased rate of unauthorised boat arrivals along our northern coast is policy changes made by the Rudd government. Of course, he did not say what changes he was referring to. He did not explain how these changes caused the increase in unauthorised arrivals and he did not commit the opposition to reversing any of these changes if they win the election due later this year. Neither did he tell us what alternative policies the opposition was developing especially to deal with this problem. The opposition rhetoric is very puzzling for people like me, who go along to the immigration committee and listen to members of the opposition, who at various stages of this parliament have advocated that we abolish mandatory detention on Christmas Island. We had an enormous fight at the migration committee with the member for Kooyong and some of his supporters, who thought that the consistent policies of this government were too hard line. They are darlings of the press for their liberal views. They make one argument in the committee and then come into this parliament and make a different argument. I wish the members of the opposition would put the work into the inquiries that we have made into immigration at the very same time that they take to come into this parliament to bash the federal government’s consistent policies on immigration. I would have thought that the opposition wanted to hold the government responsible for the increased rate of unauthorised boat arrivals. Its responsible shadow minister should have been able to specify exactly what the government did to cause that increase. I would have thought the shadow minister would have been able to explain how those changes produced that outcome. I would have thought, most of all, that the shadow minister would have been keen to commit the opposition to bringing back the policies of the previous government which opposition members claimed were so successful in preventing unauthorised boat arrivals. We heard the member for Cowan, a member of parliament whom I think quite highly of, talking in his contribution about how some of these unauthorised arrivals get to use the gym, have unmonitored use of the internet and go duty-free shopping on their way here. He asked: where does the money come from for their arrival in Australia? These kinds of comments are very regrettable if you study the situation and they betray a lack of imagination about why people come to Australia in these kinds of circumstances and give effect to the kind of pub talk that leads to hysteria about unauthorised arrivals. I will return to some of those issues in a minute. Let me help out the honourable member for Cook and his colleagues. Let me tell them about some of the changes that the Labor government has made. Immediately after the 2007 election, we carried out our election commitment to end the Pacific solution, and by February 2008 the camps at Nauru and Manus were closed. In May 2008 we abolished TPVs. These were the policies we took to the election, the policies that were voted for by the Australian people. We carried out those commitments and we were right to do so. However, as I mentioned, despite a large lobby in the Joint Standing Committee on Migration by members of the Liberal Party urging that we abolish mandatory detention, the committee made no such recommendations to government. We did not suggest that the government open the floodgates, lay out the red carpet or any of the other colourful phrases the opposition likes to bandy about. We continued to argue for preventing the arrival of unauthorised arrivals reaching the Australian mainland by boat. I believe that in the more than two years of this current Australian government only one boat penetrated Australia’s migration zone—a much better record than the Howard government could boast. We continued to detain unauthorised people at Christmas Island where they are processed. We continued to send unauthorised arrivals home if they could not make a case to be considered genuine refugees. We saw that the other night on Lateline where the federal Minister for Immigration and Citizenship was criticised by one of the small ‘l’ liberal lawyers in Melbourne for sending a Sri Lankan unauthorised arrival in Australia home. He had no valid reason for being in Australia. His elderly mother had achieved permanent citizenship as she had other relatives who are here in Australia and, unfortunately, the recommendation of the minister was that, since this person had no authorised reason for being in Australia, he must go home. Let us look at some of the figures from Europe as to why people might be leaving. Let me just remind this House that, in 2006, Europe as a total had 227,000 people making refugee claims. In 2007, that figure was 256,000; in 2008, it was 289,000. Australia during that period had 3,800, 4,200 and 5,000. In 2007 alone, over 51,000 persons arrived by boat on the coasts of Italy, Spain, Greece and Malta. In 2008, 44,000 undocumented migrants were detained when crossing the Turkish border into Greece. The official number of foreigners living in Greece is 800,000, but this number does not include an estimated 200,000 undocumented migrants, often escaping conflict and instability in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia. The increase in unauthorised boat arrivals that began in 2006 had nothing to do with the Howard government’s policies. What it did have to do with was changes in the international situation, most noticeable being the deterioration in the situation in Afghanistan, the security situation in Iraq and the culmination of the civil war in Sri Lanka. The fact is that the opposition does not like to comment on or acknowledge the whole history of unauthorised boat arrivals over the past 15 years that has been, in my view, largely driven by international factors. The horror of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan caused an outpouring of about three million refugees, hundreds of thousands of whom tried to find asylum in Western countries. The liberation of Afghanistan in 2001 allowed millions of these refugees to go home and the flood of asylum seekers turned to a trickle. The member for Mayo who just spoke did not focus on the fact that it was during a period of relative peace in Afghanistan that the number of asylum seekers to Australia, particularly Afghan Hazaras, went down. There was another surge, though not nearly as large, following the invasion of Iraq in 2003. As conditions in Iraq improved after 2005, this surge also slowed. Then we had the final, extremely bloody phase of the civil war in Sri Lanka which displaced half a million Tamils from their homes and caused 150,000 Tamils to look for refuge or asylum in other countries. Figures from other countries bear this out. If we took a graph of the number of Afghanis seeking asylum in the United Kingdom, for example, we would see the same patterns as we have seen in Australia—a peak of arrivals in 2002, a sharp decline in the middle of the decade and rising levels of arrivals from Afghanistan in 2007. The number of Afghanis seeking asylum in the UK peaked at 90,000 in 2002, fell to 25,000 in 2006 and now has risen again to 35,000. I ask the opposition: did the UK have a Pacific solution? Did it have TPVs? Has it changed its asylum policies in a way which would explain these fluctuations? The answer is no. The pattern in the UK is the same as we see in Australia because the cause is the same—the changing number of people seeking to escape from Afghanistan and find refuge elsewhere. It is very disturbing to hear proposals from particularly the British government—which has understandable reasons for wanting to continue to receive intelligence information from the Pakistani government—that there should be arrangements made with the Taliban for peace between the international forces, the Karzai government and the Taliban. If I were a Hazara living in Afghanistan, those proposals would terrify me. The possibility that the fanatics from the Taliban regime may take over Afghanistan again, so eloquently explained to the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade by Professor William Maley a couple of nights ago, would understandably lead to a huge exodus of Hazaras seeking to flee for their lives in case those fanatics from the Taliban regime took over their country, given what we all know happened to the Hazara minority there when the Taliban were in control. Members opposite do not have to take my word on this comparison with other countries; figures from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees support the point I am making. UNHCR figures for 2009 show a rapid rise in the number of Sri Lankan asylum seekers in countries around the world: this year, an increase of 30 per cent in France, 14 per cent in Germany and more than double in Japan, admittedly from a very low base. Japan is a notoriously unwelcoming country for foreign arrivals, so the fact that Tamils are trying to beat down Japan’s door shows how desperate they are. Even New Zealand, which is a very long boat trip from anywhere, had an increase in asylum seekers last year. We see the same story with asylum seekers from Afghanistan. This is relevant because nearly all of the current wave of arrivals on Australia’s maritime borders are either Sri Lankans or Afghanis. This is a worldwide problem and not one that is much influenced in either direction by immigration policies in the countries to which these unfortunate people are trying to gain entry. Let us look at this issue from another perspective, and I am grateful to the blogger known as Possum Comitatus for posting these figures on his website recently. In 2008 Australia saw 161 unauthorised boat arrivals. In the same year the UK, France and Italy saw a combined 96,000 arrivals. The 51 industrialised countries participating in the UNHCR’s statistics program received 382,000 applications for asylum. Globally an estimated 827,000 people were seeking asylum, a small part of the estimated 15 million recognised refugees in the world that year. In other words, the 161 arrivals which the opposition tried to present as such a terrible threat to Australia’s security and prosperity were just a tiny part of a great global problem, the problem of millions of displaced people fleeing from civil war, terrorism, natural disasters et cetera. Australia’s problem with unauthorised arrivals is small compared to the problems being experienced in France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom, Canada and the US. Of the 150,000 Sri Lankans looking for asylum I mentioned, the great majority are trying to enter European countries. Only a small number risk the 4,000-kilometre trip across the Indian Ocean to get to Australia. It is so obvious to any reasonable person, such as the member for Braddon, who spoke before me, that the solution to Australia’s border security problems lies in doing several things. The most important is to work at the source of the problem in countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Somalia and Sri Lanka. We do that in cooperation with other countries and through the UN, our military presence in Afghanistan, our civil and military training assistance in Iraq and our international development program. It is in the Australian national interest that the scourge of terrorism in Afghanistan, as a base for al-Qaeda, is defeated. It is also in our national interest that waves of potential unauthorised arrivals be prevented leaving the country through peace being established there and through civil authority being established over as much of Afghanistan as possible. Therefore, I am greatly alarmed by proposals by the British foreign secretary, Mr Miliband, who insists on talks with the Taliban. For the British, getting information from their friends in the Pakistani intelligence service to prevent terrorism in London may serve the British national interest. But scaring the wits out of the people of Afghanistan that somehow the Taliban are going to be put back in office via their old mates in the British Colonial Office—sorry, the foreign office—does not serve the international interest or Australia’s interest. On another level, it was very disappointing to see Senator Joyce, presumably speaking on behalf of the opposition, calling only last month for Australia to cut its foreign aid program. No wonder Andrew Hewett, the Executive Director of Oxfam Australia, said that Senator Joyce’s comments were worrying and disappointing. He understands what an important contribution our development aid makes in stabilising the situation in the very countries which are the source of the asylum seeker problems that the opposition claims are such a terrible threat to Australia. The second leg of an effective policy is to work with our regional neighbours who must tackle the issue of the flow of asylum seekers to our borders. The opposition likes to make jokes about the ‘Indonesian solution’, but the fact is that the Indonesian archipelago lies across our northern maritime approaches and virtually all boats passing our northern coastline have come from or passed through Indonesia. The recent visit by President Yudhoyono showed relations between Australia and Indonesia are at an all-time high. Cooperation on asylum seeker issues, as with most issues, has never been better. I am going to Jakarta soon on what will be my fifth or sixth trip there. I regard it as a duty of any Australian parliamentarian interested in international affairs to have a primary interest in Indonesia, our closest and most important neighbour. Australia’s policy is clearly far more effective now than it was under the previous government, although I acknowledge we have a much more constructive negotiating partner now than in the days of President Megawati. The third leg of our policy must be to maintain an orderly and fair refugee program. At present we take about 13,000 refugees a year. With our very large immigration program I personally think that figure should be higher, but relative to our population it is a high figure when compared to refugee intakes in other wealthy countries. I have to again remind the House that when unauthorised arrivals come to Australia they become part of the humanitarian program. The impression of a huge surge of boat people is created by some people who want to exacerbate tensions for political benefit. The member for Cowan suggested the asylum seekers get free internet access and go duty-free shopping before they come to Australia. This is a program that is funded and part of our immigration program. There is a marginal extra cost to Australia in processing these people, who after all are judged by the relevant authorities in the department of immigration as to whether or not they fulfil the requirements to come to Australia. They are all evaluated very seriously with health and security checks, as they should be. But none of them just floats into Australia, as the impression being conveyed suggests. In order to make sure that our refugee program is both fair and orderly and that political support for our migration program as a whole is maintained, we need to take a firm stand against people smuggling. People smuggling puts people’s lives at risk, it undermines support for our refugee program and it encourages lawlessness and corruption in the countries where the people smugglers operate. The Australian government has taken a strong stand against people smugglers, and the measures in this bill are a reflection of that stand. They widen the legal scope of the offences for which people can be prosecuted in relation to people smuggling and they increase the penalties for those convicted. These are necessary measures, but we would be kidding ourselves if we thought law enforcement alone was sufficient to prevent unauthorised arrivals. The US spends $3.5 billion a year patrolling its borders. It does not stop 500,000 people crossing illegally from Mexico into the US, nor does it stop 6.5 million Mexicans living illegally in the United States. This is not because the United States has rolled out the red carpet to illegal immigrants; it is because, given the economic disparity between the US and Mexico, it is simply impossible to prevent the influx of people across a border that is more than 3,000 kilometres long. Likewise, our maritime border is long and porous, and no amount of law enforcement will ever entirely stop unauthorised boat arrivals—although, as I said earlier, our problem is insignificant when compared to problems faced by other countries. So long as there are countries like Afghanistan and Sri Lanka, whose political problems are driving people to seek asylum, we will have this problem. Measures like the ones in this bill can reduce it but I am afraid they will not eliminate it. That is why it is so silly for the opposition to boast that their Pacific solution and their TPVs succeeded in stopping the boats during the years of the Howard government. Those policies inflicted unnecessary cruelties on hundreds of hapless people, as even Liberal members of the Joint Standing Committee on Migration acknowledged when they signed up to our report on immigration detention. All of the members of that committee, including the then shadow minister for immigration, signed off on a proposal that did not soften our attitude to unauthorised arrivals but regularise it. The Australian of the Year, Professor McGorrie, explained why the changes to indefinite detention were necessary. He said that these people were being unfairly mentally tortured. (Time expired) 2759 12:31:00 Randall, Don, MP PK6 Canning LP 0 0 Mr RANDALL —I am pleased to speak on the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010. The purpose of this bill is to amend Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework. In particular, the bill proposes to harmonise the existing offences between acts, create new people-smuggling offences, enhance investigative tools and extend the application of mandatory minimum penalties for aggravated people-smuggling offences. The amendments are as follows. The bill amends the Criminal Code and the Migration Act to increase the sanctions applicable to people smuggling, the ASIO Act to include the protection of Australia’s territorial and border integrity from serious threats within ASIO’s statutory charter, and the T(IA) Act and Surveillance Devices Act to include people smuggling within the definition of a serious offence and thus permit the use of these tools to investigate allegations of people smuggling and to align the definition of ‘foreign intelligence’ in the T(IA) Act with the definition in the Intelligence Services Act 2001. The reasons that this is being done are all good, because both sides of the House want to see the end of people smuggling. We know the absolutely severe outcomes that you get when you have people smugglers taking to the waters with their precious cargo and we know what has happened in this country. We remember SIEV4, which disappeared with its total cargo of over 400 people. Today the Northern Territory coroner has reported on SIEV36, and he has stated that a crime did occur and that he is referring it on to the Northern Territory DPP. At least five members of the crew and cargo—human cargo—perished because, in his words, they deliberately sabotaged the boat by putting salt in the engine, spreading unleaded petrol around and putting a match to it. That was what they did to try and make sure that they were picked up at sea. That is the cruel trade of people smuggling, and both sides of the House want to see that this practice is stopped. However, we depart on a few other matters. I will make the point today that the reason why we are talking about this again and having to toughen these measures is that, since taking office more than two years ago, the Labor Party has sent out a very strong signal to those who would come here unlawfully that we are open for business. You do not need to look any further than the words of those seeking to come here themselves. We know now that the mentality is: if you can get to Australia, you are going to get a visa. So the attraction is to get to the Australian mainland. If you get to the Australian mainland, the history is that most of the people who get here by boat get a visa—it is about 80 per cent. And why do they want to come by boat? Because close to 80 per cent of those people who come by boat get a visa, whereas for the overstayers who come by air—and other means, but generally air—who flush their documents down the toilet before they arrive in Australia and then claim asylum it is only about 20 per cent. So why wouldn’t you try and come by boat? These people are paying $20,000 to people smugglers to do this and they are willing to take the risk because they know at the end is the golden orb of a visa to stay in Australia. We know, as I said, that people have lost their lives on the way here and I have referred to SIEVX. We now know even more from organisations like the International Organisation for Migration. An article in the Herald Sun on Friday, 16 October 2009 stated that the organisation’s Indonesian chief last year confirmed the fact: People smugglers have clearly noted that there has been a change in policy— this is in Australia— over the last year there’s been a considerable kick-up. For an organisation like that, an honest broker in this area, to observe that really sheets it home to the Australian Labor Party that they have changed the rules and now we know that it is a more attractive destination because, if you can get here, you get to stay here. Whereas the Howard government realised that—and it came to a head, as most people would know, with the Tampa incident of 2001—and we said, ‘This has got to stop.’ We had hundreds and thousands of people making their way here unlawfully. At the end of the day we said, ‘Well, you’re not going to get to stay here if you get here. You might actually end up in Nauru or Papua New Guinea or elsewhere. Even if you get a visa, you mightn’t get to stay in Australia. You might be sent to somewhere else in the world.’ As a result, it stopped. I would like to point out these figures. In 2002-03, there was one boat arrival after the Pacific solution. In 2003-04, there were three boat arrivals. In 2004-05, there were no boat arrivals. In 2006-07, there were four boat arrivals. In 2007-08, there were only three boats—even after the Rudd government came to power—because, up to that point, the coalition policies remained intact. So, for the last six years of the Howard government, there were only 18 boats in total, an average of three boats over the six years, every year, because of the border protection policies that were put in place. People have asked me, ‘What’s the story with these temporary protection visas? How do they work?’ Well, we know that the temporary protection visas allowed them to stay on the Australian mainland and they allowed us to, during that time, assess their suitability and genuineness as refugees. It did not allow them to have a whole lot of the entitlements that have now come with the change in Australian policy, which I will refer to shortly. It did give them protection until their status was found. At the end of the day, they were either deemed to be genuine refugees or they were sent back to their country of origin. So the fact is that, by changing the rules, the Labor Party has now shown Australia as an attractive destination. In April last year, Iraqis who had spent years in Indonesia told the ABC they would be sailing to Australia now that Rudd has softened our laws. One Iraqi told the ABC: Kevin Rudd—he’s changed everything about refugee. If I go to Australia now, different, different, … The Australian reported that the Rudd government’s changes prompted some to leave their homes in Iran and Pakistan and catch a boat to Australia. One refugee said: I know Kevin Rudd is the new PM, … He has tried to get more immigrants. I have heard if someone arrives it is easy. … Let us see what effect this has had. Mr Rudd decided he would try and do a deal with Indonesian President Yudhoyono. I was very pleased to see him here last week saying that he would try to toughen up. Unfortunately, my belief is not as strong as others’ that Mr Yudhoyono will follow through in any timely way, because he first of all has to get it through his parliament and he has some issues with that. The fact is that Mr Rudd said there was a boatload of asylum seekers at sea. Interestingly, it is not exactly clear whether they were in international waters or Indonesian territory. They got on the phone and they claimed to be in trouble. Where did they ring? Not the nearest landfall, which was Indonesia; they rang the authorities in Australia and said, ‘Please rescue us.’ So Prime Minister Rudd rang his mate Mr Yudhoyono and said, ‘Look, can you do us a favour? Can you grab these people, rescue them and take them to your nearest port? We have a detention centre that you can put them in.’ But it has backfired, because these same people are now holed up in Merak and they have been holed up in Merak for 157 days in squalid conditions. The Indonesians are saying, ‘It’s not our problem. It’s your problem. You asked us to rescue them but we didn’t say what we were going to do about it.’ So here we have a policy failure, where these people are holed up in Merak and unable to move. Interestingly, there were 255 people on that boat but there are only 254 now, because their spokesman, ‘Alex’, who has a Canadian accent, has disappeared into the ether. They could not find him. He has left the boat. They do not know where he has gone. We know Alex has a bit of form, because when he was in Canada he was in prison for fraud. This was a person who was endeavouring to come to Australia. I suspect he would not have passed the good character test. But, dare I say—and I note that the Attorney-General Mr McClelland is at the table—that we have a person in Australia at the moment, the Iranian Sheik Leghaei, who has been deemed not a suitable person because he has had adverse security assessments made against him. I note that in reports in the media today he has been given another month to stay here. Writing a reference for this particular person who has had adverse security assessments made against him is not terribly clever. It reminds me of the reference that was written for Mr Mokbel. Be that as it may— 10000 Thomson, Kelvin (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mr KJ Thomson)—Member for Canning, return to the bill. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr RANDALL —I will return to the bill. We are talking about character tests for people who come to Australia. At the end of the day, the character test that would have confronted Alex should have made sure that he was not the sort of person who could remain here. Let us put this into context. We hear the Prime Minister, the ministers and all of the Labor Party say, ‘Yeah, but look, we haven’t got a problem anything like what they have in Europe.’ And they mention Italy all the time. I am a bit of an expert on the Italian situation. I have been there to have a look at it firsthand. Recently I visited the detention centre in Sicily called Caltanissetta. I not only spoke with the deputies from the city of Caltanissetta, but once I got to the detention centre I spoke to the people involved in the administration of the detention centre, and it was all very revealing. They process them there very quickly and then they either determine that they are refugees and or they return them. What has been missed by most people in this debate is that in 2008 Italy initiated a formal agreement between the Italian and Libyan authorities to intercept and return unauthorised boats. It was concluded and ratified by the Italian parliament in February 2009. This has been called the push-back policy in Italy. You can think what you like about Mr Berlusconi, and his behaviour as Italian Prime Minister is well documented, but he was elected clearly and still has a clear majority in the Italian polls, from what I understand, and one of the reasons is that he has done something about the illegal arrivals into Italy. Italy, like many European countries, does have very porous borders. At one stage they used to give up and say, ‘Look, we will take you into our reception centres and we will feed you and organise for you to keep going north.’ They were sending them off to Germany because Germany had a very lax system. There was a good pull factor—once they arrived there they got welfare payments, they got housing and they got health care. What does that remind you of? The current situation in Australia. According to press reports in Italy, in 2008 there were 19,000 arrivals. Because of this push-back policy, in 2009 there were only 1,900—in other words, one-tenth of the arrivals because Mr Berlusconi was able to do a deal with Libya to intercept the boats making the journey across the Mediterranean. The Mediterranean has been the pathway to Europe, which has been a desired destination for political asylum. Here is something that might interest those who continue to use the Italian situation, saying we are nothing like Italy, which has these tens of thousands of arrivals. In proportion, we are. As I have said, so far this year, since Mr Rudd said in budget estimates last year there would be only 200 people, we know there have been over 3,100 people. So in Italy there have been 1,900 and we have had 3,100. We have had 68 boats in that period. So there is something going on that is attracting these people to Australia. There is a pull factor, and I will elaborate on that shortly. Believe it or not, there is an island off Libya which is much like our Ashmore Reef. Once they get there, they are deemed to be on Italian territory. That is like Ashmore Reef because even today it is being said that those wanting to come to Australia actually plot Ashmore Reef into their GPS and they go looking for our boats so that they can be intercepted and transferred straight to Christmas Island. As we know, the Labor Party keep saying to us, ‘Oh yes, but it is not full.’ You will recall that before the election they said that they were not going to use Christmas Island as they would not need it—it was a redundant facility; a waste of money as it only held 800 people. What have they done now? They have filled it up with tents and dongas. It can now potentially hold up to 2,000 people, and even now it is filling up. There are reports now that there are moves to bring people onto the Australian mainland before they are fully assessed. Why would you do that? The danger is that, once they reach the Australian mainland, they potentially get access to greater legal support and the industry that flows from that. So, as I say, the situation between Australia and Italy is very similar, but the Italians have dealt with it. As a result, they have now reduced the flow to a trickle. This was made very clear to me when I was in the Italian detention centre in Sicily. It certainly is a pull factor when if you can get here you can stay here and get a visa. That is why we have seen even more robust pushes of people from these countries who are trying to get to the mainland. We saw the group of Sri Lankans that got off the boat in Shark Bay, hundreds of metres from the shore. They swam ashore and then asked how to get to Sydney. That is how determined they are to get to the mainland. The other point that people continue to make is that the war in Afghanistan is one of the push factors. As was pointed out by the member for Cook yesterday, the Europeans have done an investigation of all those arriving in Europe and the increase in that period of time has been only one half of one per cent, and yet Australia in the same period of time has had an increase of 31 per cent. So what does that tell you? I was the chair and am now the deputy chair of the Sri Lankan Friendship Group in this place. The reports about Sri Lankans, the Tamils in particular, having to flee Sri Lanka because of the civil war are totally overblown. When you talk to their ministers and you talk to their government and you talk to their high commissioner in Australia, you see that this is absolute rubbish. They are resettling the Tamils into the conflict zone, and this is being monitored by international agencies. There are reports now that something like 80,000 Sri Lankans have appeared after the cyclone season to come to Australia. The Sri Lankans now know that you just get to Australia and you get your visa, so they are preparing on the shores around Trincomalee and places like that to get a fishing boat to come to Australia. This is a grave area of policy failure by the Australian Labor Party. As a result, we have seen unfortunate deaths and we have seen a situation where the males generally come on their own and when they get here they can apply for all the other entitlements such as spouse visas, et cetera. Finally, we know that this is costing Australia enormously. While pensioners are doing it tough, Centrelink benefits paid to refugees have increased 40 per cent in the last two years—one wonders why this has happened over the past two years—to an estimated $628 million. In the last financial year, 52,469 refugee visa holders received Centrelink benefits, including the age pension, the disability support pension, Austudy, Newstart and youth allowance, and more than $20 million was paid to these people in baby bonuses. No wonder Australia is a desired destination. These are entitlements that you would never get anywhere else. (Time expired) 2763 12:52:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —in reply—I thank members for their contributions to the debate. The government welcome the opposition’s support for measures contained in the Anti-People Smuggling and Other Measures Bill 2010 and we look forward to their assistance in ensuring its passage through the parliament. People smuggling is a pernicious trade which jeopardises the safety, wellbeing and security of those being smuggled. The government takes a hardline approach to dealing with people smugglers, their supporters and their financiers. The government is determined to maintain its strong message to people smugglers that they will face the full force of the law. Domestic efforts to combat people smuggling have yielded strong results. Since September 2008, there have been 117 arrests and 28 convictions of people smugglers in Australia. There are currently 87 people being prosecuted in Australian courts for people smuggling, four of whom are organisers. The government’s strengthened offshore approach is also working. In the same period, Australian government cooperation with regional countries has resulted in more than 130 disruptions involving more than 3,500 people otherwise bound for Australia. Our regional partnership has resulted in the arrest of more than 100 people smugglers overseas. The bill will amend the ASIO Act to enable ASIO to respond to serious threats to Australia’s territorial and border integrity, including people smuggling. This will support the government’s intelligence-led approach to combating people smuggling and is consistent with the all-hazards approach to national security. Can I make it clear: ASIO’s top priority will remain counterterrorism and counterespionage, and the bill will not change that. Further, the government remains committed to ensuring that national security agencies are appropriately resourced to fulfil their essential functions. For instance, in the 2009-10 budget, the government increased resources to our border protection and national security agencies by some $1.3 billion over six years. This included $685 million specifically for law enforcement and counterterrorism measures and $654 million to implement a comprehensive, whole-of-government strategy to combat people smuggling and enhance border protection. Within my portfolio alone, some $3.4 billion this financial year has been committed to funding our national security and border protection agencies. This is an increase of $186 million in this year alone. ASIO has received increased resources to fulfil its important national security role. ASIO currently has around 1,720 staff—1,639 equivalent full-time positions—and this is projected to increase to 1,860 staff by mid-2011. Indeed, ASIO launched a campaign for that staff recruitment program last Friday. ASIO’s operational funding from government increased from $359 million in the 2008-09 financial year to $409 million in the current year, 2009-10, and is projected to increase to $412.9 million in 2010-11. ASIO has undergone very significant expansion in recent years. It has proven itself to be a highly professional and competent organisation that is capable of rapidly adapting and responding to a changing national security environment. The government is confident that ASIO will continue to respond effectively to both longstanding and emerging national security issues. The government will continue to carefully monitor the resources of all Australian national security and intelligence agencies to ensure they are well equipped to protect our national security. The precise extent of ASIO’s people-smuggling role and the appropriate allocation of resources to support this role are, of course, matters for the Director-General of Security to determine, and we will rely on his expert advice. This bill complements the government’s plan to combat people smuggling by strengthening Australia’s anti-people-smuggling legislative framework. Measures in the bill will address the often serious consequences of people-smuggling activities, including the potential for injury and loss of life on maritime ventures to Australia. They will target enablers and financiers of people-smuggling activities, they will act as a greater deterrent for people smugglers, and they will enable law enforcement and national security agencies to play a greater role in support of whole-of-government efforts to combat people smuggling. The ability for law enforcement agencies to obtain evidence through telecommunications interception technologies and surveillance devices is also vital to combating people smuggling. The bill will make telecommunications interception available for the investigation of offences relating to people smuggling. The bill will also ensure that law enforcement agencies can make emergency authorisations for the use of surveillance devices for the new aggravated people-smuggling offence. These amendments will ensure that law enforcement agencies are equipped with the necessary tools to effectively combat people smuggling. The government maintains a hard line on people smugglers and a responsible approach to genuine asylum seekers, consistent with our international obligations. The bill is consistent with this approach. Whilst imposing new offences and strict penalties for people smugglers, the new offence of supporting people smuggling will not target persons who pay for their own passage or for the passage of family members on that same venture. It is important to recall that conflicts and turmoil around the world are driving a global surge of asylum seekers, just as they did in the period between 1999 and 2003. The bill is an important part of the government’s response to this surge, bolstering the government’s ability to investigate, prosecute and punish people smugglers. I thank the shadow minister for immigration, who has been in attendance during the course of the concluding stage of the debate. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. 2765 Mr McCLELLAND (Barton —Attorney-General) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2765 Bills R4253 Cognate bill: 2765 Bills R4254 2765 Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Butler: That this bill be now read a second time. 2765 13:00:00 Southcott, Dr Andrew, MP TK6 Boothby LP 0 0 Dr SOUTHCOTT —The parliament has been waiting for this bill, and its related legislation, for a while. Going back to 2002 the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference recommended a specific regulatory framework for tissue and biological therapies. This was developed in the context of a joint regulator with New Zealand—the proposed Australia New Zealand Therapeutic Products Authority. However, in July 2007 the enabling bill in the New Zealand parliament stalled and so the joint agency is currently suspended. However, the need for a specific regulation of biological therapies in the Australian context remains and hence we have this bill. Biologicals cover human cell and tissue therapies. Tissue therapies would be things like skin grafts after severe burns; transplantation of heart, kidney, lungs or pancreas; bone-tendon ligament grafts to repair injuries; heart valves to replace defective valves; and corneal transplants. The cellular therapies include things like making cartilage cells—chondrocytes—for cartilage repair, eyelet cell transplantation for diabetes and mesenchymal progenitor cells for musculoskeletal defects. Looking at the organisations that are involved in producing the human cell and tissue therapies, in December 2008 the TGA estimated the number of organisations who are undertaking work on human cell and tissue therapies. These included organisations involved in IVF and organ transplantation, and it should be pointed out that these will be covered by different regulations. The organisations that this legislation will have implications for are the 20 licensed tissue banks—one in the ACT, five in New South Wales, three in Queensland, two in South Australia, one in Tasmania, five in Victoria and three in Western Australia; these include bone banks, eye banks, heart valve banks and skin banks—and also organisations which are working in the area of cellular and tissue therapies. Of the latter organisations, there is currently one in New South Wales, one in Queensland, one in South Australia, one in Tasmania, four in Victoria and one in Western Australia. There are companies that are involved in this area: Verigen in Western Australia and the Australian Stem Cell Centre in Victoria are examples of businesses who are involved in the manufacture of human cell and tissue therapies. When we look around the world we see that in the United States, the European Union and Canada there is specific regulation for biologicals. In the United States, the Food and Drug Administration regulates biologics specifically. Somatic cell and gene therapy, which are a much more interventionist therapy, are regulated as a medicinal, or class III medical device, product, which is much more comprehensive. In the European Union there is a specific directive on human tissues and cells being used as therapies. In Canada they regulate HCTs, other than transplant and IVF, as class IV medical devices. The number of therapies that are going on is potentially enormous. In the United States, the FDA estimates that the number of tissue transplants went from 350,000 in 1990 to 1½ million by 2007. These would typically be bone, ligament and corneal transplants, and so on. The problem with the current regulation in Australia is the lack of clarity. There is no risk based classification. There is a lack of international harmonisation with the other countries I have mentioned. In the legislation the regulation impact statement outlined a number of approaches to regulation. Option 1 was to retain the status quo. Option 2 was to regulate all HCTs as medicines or therapeutic devices and remove the exemptions for transplant, assisted reproduction tissues and HCTs which have been prepared for a particular person. Option 3, which is the option that is being taken, is to regulate the HCTs as a discrete class of therapeutic goods—biologicals. Organs and assisted reproduction tissues are to be excluded as they already have a separate regulation which works well; to include them would be to add a further level of regulation and additional compliance cost. This is consistent with the approach in the United States, Europe and Canada. There is a remaining issue with this legislation which has not been addressed in the parliamentary secretary’s second reading speech or in the legislation. That is the situation of medical practitioners who are removing and then re-implanting tissues so that routine medical practice is not captured by the TGA. The opposition would appreciate a response from the parliamentary secretary to this to cover how this situation will be dealt with if it is intended to deal with it by way of regulations. In the legislation there are four classes of HCTs, each with a different level of regulation based on the level of risk. From the consultation it is apparent that stakeholders prefer option 3, which has been reflected in this bill. As I said, option 3 has regulation based on risk and clarity, has compliance costs lower than option 2, has improved consumer safety over option 1, which is the status quo, and is consistent with the experience in the United States, Europe and Canada. The parliamentary secretary has indicated that by way of legislative instrument organs donated for transplantation and assisted reproduction tissues will not be classified as biologicals for regulation under the act. Organs will continue to be regulated by the Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority and assisted reproduction tissues will continue to be regulated in the current way—that is, the status quo will remain. There is also a provision in the legislation for non-conforming biologicals to be used in exceptional circumstances when clinically necessary and when the patient or guardian consents. I have no issue with that at all. This bill is part of the overall ongoing regulatory reform being undertaken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration. This is the fourth in a series of bills to implement that reform. It seeks to build on the other reforms agreed to by the parliament over the last year. The coalition has been broadly supportive of these measures as they have been presented to the parliament by the government. The primary purpose of this bill, as I said, is to introduce a framework for the regulation of biologicals—human cellular and tissue based therapy products. This bill specifies what they are and provides for them to be regulated separately from other therapeutic goods and medical devices. HCTs have been primarily manufactured by not-for-profit tissue banks and major hospitals. However, with rapid advances in cell and tissue technology, there is an increasing involvement by private sector companies and clinics in the manufacture of HCT products, while medical device manufacturers may in fact in future incorporate HCTs into medical devices. Clearly, therefore, we do need an update of the Therapeutic Goods Act to reflect that these emerging technologies and HCT products can be regulated as a specific group. The government assures that under this legislation all biologicals used within Australia will be properly assessed and regulated, providing confidence for patients who hope to benefit from the outcome of these new technologies. As I said earlier, this is a bill that was first foreshadowed by the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference in 2002. Public consultations ensued through 2003 and 2004 and the Australian Health Ministers’ Advisory Council and Australian Health Ministers’ Conference agreed to implementation of frameworks for biologicals in 2006. Most of these reforms were agreed to in the context of the proposed Australia-New Zealand therapeutic products authority. When the New Zealand government decided not to proceed with the joint authority, the Australian government decided to implement these proposed changes in the Australian context alone. The framework for the regulation of biologicals is established in schedule 1 of the bill. The government has said that the amendments will ensure that the regulation of biologicals is consistent with the regulation of other therapeutic goods. The bill will create four classes of biologicals from low risk—class 1—to high risk—class 4. The TGA has said that a risk based approach will be adopted, with the stringency of the regulations and other requirements increasing with the risk level of the biological. Biologicals at a low-risk level will be subject to less rigorous evaluation and regulation. Biologicals will have to be included on the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods and only those that are so registered, or otherwise exempted, will be able to be supplied and used within Australia. Biologicals can be exempted from the TGA regulatory framework by regulation to deal with emergency situations, to allow for special experimental uses or where substitutes are not available. Criminal and civil penalty provisions are provided for in the bill to ensure compliance by those bodies and individuals involved in the making, supplying and use of biological materials. It is stated that all these penalties are consistent with other provisions of the Therapeutic Goods Act and can apply in the same way as penalties for the misuse of other therapeutic goods. The parliamentary secretary has assured the parliament that the legislation will provide flexibility to deal with urgent medical circumstances and that non-conforming biologicals will be able to be made available in exceptional circumstances. The parliamentary secretary has also assured the House that the legislation will ensure that sponsors and manufacturers of biologicals will not face unnecessary requirement and that they will be able to transition smoothly and easily to the new regulatory arrangements. Importantly, organs donated for transplant and assisted reproductive tissues, such as IVF embryos, will not be classified as biologicals for regulation under the act and will continue to be regulated under existing arrangements. In the main, the coalition notes that stakeholders are supportive of the need for these measures to regulate biologicals. Those stakeholders have, however, flagged some areas of concern. On the issue of immunity from prosecution for the Commonwealth and Commonwealth officers, the coalition notes that, while the Therapeutic Goods Act presently contains various immunity provisions, they will be repealed by these amendments. The provisions for immunity outlined in this bill provide greater breadth of the immunity conferred and to whom it is conferred upon. The coalition accepts that these provisions are consistent with other Commonwealth legislation and other regulatory agencies but notes the concern of some stakeholders that the TGA must remain responsible for its actions. The coalition also notes that, where information is sought under the provisions of these amendments, in some circumstances the right to avoid self-incrimination is void; however, the bill balances that by providing that any information supplied will be inadmissible as evidence against that person. Again, these measures are consistent with other Commonwealth legislation. There is also some concern about costs and cost recovery practices of the TGA in the context that any action that drives up costs could have an impact on the availability of particular therapies and their costs to the patient. Stakeholders believe that in this area, where rapid changes and advances are being made, there is great need for flexibility on the part of both the TGA and the government. Given that there will be a delayed commencement date for the amendments contained in this bill to allow for further consultation on various matters, the coalition would urge the government to heed some of the concerns outlined and to take up these matters with stakeholders during that consultation process. The coalition does not oppose the bill. 2768 13:15:00 Raguse, Brett, MP HVQ Forde ALP 1 0 Mr RAGUSE —I rise today to speak about the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2009. The Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 is the fourth in a series of bills to implement reforms to the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia through amendments to the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. The legislation reflects the government’s commitment to maintaining the position of Australia’s Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA, as a leading global regulator of therapeutic goods and to continue to strengthen and enhance this well-deserved position. It builds upon the other therapeutic goods reform bills approved by parliament over the past year, to further strengthen and improve Australia’s therapeutic goods regulatory framework. This legislation includes a new regulatory framework for cellular and tissue based therapy products, known as biologicals, so that these products can be regulated as a specific therapeutic goods group. Implementation of the biologicals framework was agreed to in 2006 by the Australian Health Ministers’ Conference and was among other improvements that were to have been adopted as part of legislation underpinning the proposed Australia-New Zealand therapeutic products authority, ANZTPA. The Rudd government is committed to moving forward to implement these improvements. We have delivered on that commitment, with the majority of improvements now implemented through the reform bills that were passed by the parliament last year, in this current bill and in another just introduced amendment that is before the House today. Schedule 1 of the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 will implement a new framework for the regulation of biologicals and will bring Australia’s regulation of these products into line with other leading therapeutic goods regulators around the world including, importantly, the United States, Canada and the European Union. Biologicals include things such as skin tissue for use in grafts following burns, and bone for grafting. It is envisaged that a legislative instrument will be made under the biologicals framework to declare that organs donated for transplantation and assisted reproductive tissues such as IVF embryos will not be classified as biologicals for regulation under the act. Instead, organs will continue to regulated by the Australian Organ and Tissue Donation and Transplantation Authority established by this government and assisted reproductive tissues will continue to be regulated under current arrangements. The new framework will enable the overarching regulatory principles that apply to all other therapeutic goods to be adapted and applied to biologicals by including a new part in the act. The principal benefit of the new biologicals part is its ability to apply different levels of premarket and postmarket regulation requirements based on the relative risk of each biological. It will also ensure that all biologicals used in Australia are properly assessed and regulated, as currently many are exempted and do not fit neatly under the medicines or medical devices frameworks. To enable this to occur, classes of biologicals will be set out in regulations to be made under this bill. The lowest class will include biologicals that are at a relatively low-risk level, while other classes will apply to biologicals of incrementally higher risk levels. For example, those biologicals that have been extensively manipulated or are intended to be used for a purpose that is not their usual or original purpose would fall under the highest risk class. The rigour of the application and assessment process and postmarket monitoring for biologicals will be aligned to these risk based classes so that higher risk biologicals will be required to provide a higher level of information to confirm their safety, quality and efficacy. This approach means that sponsors of biologicals in lower risk classes are not required to comply with unnecessary requirements that are relevant only to the higher risk biologicals. Only those biologicals that are approved and included in the Australian Register of Therapeutic Goods or otherwise given an exemption under this new part will be able to be imported, exported, supplied or used in Australia. This is consistent with all other therapeutic pubic goods, such as medicines. The new part will also apply criminal offence and civil penalty provisions to dealings with biologicals in the same way as they apply to other therapeutic goods. Were this not the case, the act would be inconsistent in its application and sponsors of biologicals or other therapeutic goods might have an incentive to frame the claims in relation to the nature of their product so that it would come under the more lenient offence and civil penalty provisions. A feature of the changes for biologicals is the ability to deal flexibly with urgent medical circumstances. Unlike medicines which may be readily mass produced, biologicals are produced from cells and tissues. As a result, the amount able to be produced and available on hand at any one time may vary. Also, there will always be minor differences between biologicals of the same product—for example, bone tissue from one donor will obviously not be exactly the same as bone tissue derived from another donor. The new part will require that all biologicals must meet certain standards and be manufactured according to good manufacturing processes and practice. However, there may be exceptional circumstances where a patient is critically ill and urgently requires a biological for treatment but none that conform to the requirements are available and no other approved therapeutic good is appropriate. This part will also provide that non-conforming biologicals can be used in such circumstances if, stringently, the patient’s doctor believes it is clinically necessary and the patient or their guardian consents. The decision to use non-conforming biologicals in exceptional circumstances would be made, as it is now, on a case-by-case basis by the doctor and the patient or their guardian. It is important that this bill reflects the limited but critically important role for exceptional release. The bill provides that details for exceptional release will be set out in regulations. The requirements will be similar to those for access to unapproved medicines under category A of the current Special Access Scheme where patients are critically ill and no other approved therapeutic good is appropriate. Implementing the new arrangement proves the government is committed to making sure that sponsors and manufacturers of these products will be able to transition smoothly and easily to the regulatory arrangements so that the supply of biologicals to those who need them will not be affected. As part of this commitment, the government has undertaken extensive consultation with the industry over the last 18 months, including explaining the proposed framework to sponsors and manufacturers, and setting out the steps they will need to take to comply with the framework. To further support the transition, the amendments in this bill establishing a framework will not commence until a date to be proclaimed within 12 months. This will ensure that the remaining consultation work on supporting details, such as the product-specific standards, can be finalised and in place to commence at the same time. Schedule 1 also includes specific transitional provisions for any applications for inclusion of biologicals in the register as medicines or devices that are under consideration by the TGA at the time the new biological arrangements commence. Those biologicals will continue to be assessed as either medicines or devices, depending on which group they are currently regulated under. Where an application is approved, the biological will then be included in the register and moved to that part for biologicals. This will prevent applicants needing to make a new application or having the application assessment process being restarted or protracted as a result of the application being transferred for consideration by the biological assessment area. However, input into these applications is routinely provided by the biologicals assessors to ensure they meet the necessary standards. The existing arrangements in relation to advertising of therapeutic goods, review of decisions and other general provisions in the act will be applied to biologicals in the same way that they are for other therapeutic goods. Through the cognate bill, associated amendments will also be made to the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Act 1989 to enable annual charges to be payable by sponsors to maintain the inclusion of their biological in the register. These charges apply to all therapeutic goods and reflect the work of the TGA to monitor products on an ongoing basis. The biologicals industry sector has waited for a long time for this new framework and has begun readying itself to implement the new arrangements. Schedule 2 of this bill replaces a number of currently somewhat inconsistent provisions that indemnify the minister, the secretary and others acting as required under the act with a single provision. The schedule does this by including a new section in the act to provide that the Commonwealth, the minister, the secretary, the national manager of the TGA and others empowered or authorised to do certain things under the act can do so without fear that civil legal action can be taken against them for doing so, as long as they do not act in bad faith. This is consistent with Commonwealth legislation for a number of other regulatory agencies such as the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority Act 1998 and others. In other amendments under schedule 3 of the bill there will be provision for greater flexibility to recall specific batches of therapeutic goods where there are safety, quality, efficacy, presentation or performance concerns about any affected batches. Currently, in some cases where there are safety, quality, efficacy, presentation or performance concerns, the entire entry for a good must be suspended or cancelled in order to enable the recall of batches to occur. This approach is unnecessary and excessive in some circumstances where only a small number of batches are affected. Consistent with the provisions included in the previous amendments, enabling information to be sought from a person who previously held a conformity assessment certificate for a medical device, schedule 4 of this bill enables information to be sought from people who previously had a medicine included in the register. Schedule 5 clarifies that unpaid annual charges are a debt due to the Commonwealth, to ensure that they are able to be recovered, as the TGA operates on a full cost recovery basis through the work it undertakes. Finally, schedule 6 of the bill includes a number of minor amendments. These include providing that, where a person asks to vary the conditions of registration or listing for a medicine, the application for this must be accompanied by the relevant fee, to enable the TGA to assess and respond to the request. This will principally support postmarket monitoring of those medicines that are required to have an approved risk management plan as a condition of their registration and where the sponsor may wish to make a change to the agreed plan. This schedule will also clarify what is meant by ‘new information’ in regard to reviews of decisions made under the act. So that now includes any information that a sponsor had at the time of the original decision but which was not provided to that decision maker. The amendments in this schedule support the minister or their delegate being provided with all pertinent information on which to make a decision, and remove a loophole that enabled such information to be withheld from that decision maker and lodged later for consideration by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. Further improvements to the therapeutic goods regulatory regime introduced to parliament today will further round out improvements which we had as a government implemented throughout 2009. I would like to make some comments—and to put at rest the mind of the member for Boothby—about the ability of the TGA to use discretion and to have flexibility in some of those processes. I would like to relate an anecdote about some pragmatic approaches that were recently taken by the TGA with its administrative allies—in this case, Medicare—in having appropriate flexibility to make regulatory changes while still being stringent as to the use of certain medicines and medical products. Late last year I was approached by two Gold Coast City councillors, Councillor Donna Gates and Councillor Jan Grew, about major concerns for their communities over the effects of diabetes on eyesight and that a certain medication, Avastin—used for retinal vein occlusions and severe diabetic retinopathy—due to a classification of use, was not being provided for certain ophthalmic procedures or for other uses in cardiac cases and other uses. After representations to our minister, and departmental discussions through the TGA, I am pleased to report to this House that the critical needs of diabetic patients have been recognised. The appropriate changes were made to secure the use of Avastin—and, by the way, at a much lower cost to the government—not only to provide critical sight-saving injections but at a much lower cost to taxpayers—in fact, at about a 20th of the cost. This, of course, affects the whole of Australia. This is, as I said, an example of the stringent but flexible approach that is appropriate when you are looking at some of the regulation. I would like to read an email from a retinal surgeon about this very issue. It goes: Dear Brett Please see attached re reversal of the TGA/HIC’s decision re item number 42740 as it relates to intravitreal injection of numerous important sight saving injections (E.g. Avastin for retinal vein occlusions and severe diabetic retinopathy, Triamcinolone for inflammation, antibiotics for serious intraocular infections … May I personally thank you for the great efforts that you have brought to bear with respect to this welcome decision. My patients have literally lived through a very dark era in the history of eye health care in Australia and the reversal of the November 2008 decision by TGA/HIC is very welcome. This had caused huge heartache for many and they are all glad that this era has passed. Once again, many thanks for your help with this issue. That is an example of that flexibility. I know that on both sides of the House we would be pleased at least to have legislation and a framework that allows certain decisions, particularly in the case of critical medical need, to be addressed in that way. So credit goes also to Councillors Gates and Grew from the Gold Coast City Council for bringing this issue forward for their community. This bill provides a substantial raft of improvements for all people, for Beenleigh and for all the seats in that South-East Queensland region. As the member for Moncrieff well knows, we do work very well together in the Gold Coast region and I see myself as the government member representing that whole region of South-East Queensland. I thank the member for his interjections and his support for the work we do collectively. I know the member for Moncrieff would have been frustrated in those 12 years under the previous government at the lack of ability of the previous government to support South-East Queensland. I am glad to see him here in the chamber today supporting what I am doing as the federal member for Forde and working for the Gold Coast region. On a serious note, it is clear that these councillors from the Gold Coast City Council brought forward an issue that has surfaced not only their community, which is my community, but every community in Australia. It is so important that governments, irrespective of their political flavour, understand the need for legislation and procedure that allows for these decisions that at the end of the day are very important for and critical to medical outcomes. In conclusion, this bill provides a substantial raft of improvements to the act and the regulation of therapeutic goods in Australia. Together with the wider regulatory reforms implemented last year, this bill will reinforce Australia’s international position as a leading therapeutic goods regulator. I therefore commend this bill to the House. 2773 13:31:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —It gives me great pleasure to rise and speak on the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 and the Therapeutic Goods (Charges) Amendment Bill 2009 that we have before us in the parliament today. As all members would know, the Rudd government is the government of health reform, be it in the total overhaul of the nation’s health system by the establishment of the National Health and Hospitals Network, be it in addressing the chronic work shortages that were addressed in The blame game report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing which was commissioned by the previous government or be it in amending the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989 in the way it is being amended here today. The primary purpose of this amendment to the Therapeutic Goods Act is to introduce a framework for the regulation of biologicals which is consistent with the regulation of therapeutic goods and medical devices under the Therapeutic Goods Act 1989. This bill is part of the overall regulatory reform to the act undertaken by the Therapeutic Goods Administration, the TGA. We believe that this is important legislation that positions the Therapeutic Goods Act to benefit the people of Australia. This is the fourth bill that is being considered by the parliament. In addition to the Therapeutic Goods Act amendment that we are debating today, the Rudd government has undertaken a large number of reforms to our health system. The first I touch on is the National Health and Hospitals Network reform that was announced by the Prime Minister at the National Press Club two weeks ago. It replaces eight separate health systems with the National Health and Hospitals Network combining all the hospitals and all GP and related services. It dedicates one-third of the GST revenue that currently goes to the states and territories so that the Commonwealth can make major financial changes to meet the needs of the Australian people. It is going to put in place small local hospital networks which will benefit the people of Australia. This legislation is the result of the Rudd government listening to the people of Australia. They are acting on the recommendations made in The blame game report after the inquiry on health funding. There were some significant and substantial recommendations made in that report but, unfortunately, they were not acted upon. The Rudd government has embraced that report and taken it a step further. The government has responded to The blame game report. The National Health and Hospitals Network is an answer to the report commissioned by this parliament which was never acted upon when the opposition was in government. I believe it was the current Leader of the Opposition, who was the Minister for Health and Ageing at the time, who decided that he would ignore the recommendations of the report. This system will deliver 60 per cent of funding responsibilities for public hospitals. It will take over full responsibility for GP and related services provided outside hospitals and it will pay local hospital networks directly for each service. Coming from an electorate like Shortland, I know the difficulties that have been experienced because of the chronic workforce shortage that existed and was allowed to escalate under the previous government. For 10 years in this parliament I have raised the issue of the workforce shortage with a series of health ministers, including the current Leader of the Opposition when he was the minister for health. No matter how often I spoke in the House and no matter how often I wrote to the then minister for health, my words were ignored. There was no response. There was no humanity shown by the previous government in addressing these issues that were so important to the Australian people and to the people in the Shortland electorate. When the opposition was in government I stood in this House and shared with members how people in the Shortland electorate would have to wait three weeks to get an appointment with their doctor. I have said in this House that a person was either dead or better by the time they could obtain an appointment with their doctor. Chapter 4 of The blame game highlights that there is a critical workforce shortage. It makes recommendations, it identifies all the issues and it emphasises how important it is to address workforce issues in relation to GPs, allied health professionals and nurses. Unfortunately, for 12 long years nothing was done—and it has been said to me that it was going to happen in the 13th year! This week we have had some fantastic announcements that will go a long way to addressing the chronic shortage of doctors. The only thing I am upset about is that that shortage will not be able to be addressed tomorrow. It takes time to train new doctors. Whereas the previous government was reluctant to invest in the health of the Australian people, the Rudd government has shown it is fully supportive of ensuring that each and every Australian can obtain the health care they need. This week the Rudd government has announced $622 million to train a record number of new doctors, which will be welcomed in the electorate of Shortland and throughout Australia; $339 million to increase GP training places to record levels; $148 million to ensure that more junior doctors can experience a career in general practice—and I know that the doctors in the Shortland electorate will be very supportive of helping those doctors gain that experience and training; and $145 million to train more specialist doctors. In addition to the issues that have been outlined, this bill implements a new framework for the regulation of biologicals; provides that civil legal proceedings cannot lie against Commonwealth staff members and others carrying out functions under the act; increases the flexibility of arrangements for the recall of goods to enable recalls of goods where there are concerns about safety; and enables information to be sought and clarified on unpaid charges. In addition to the amendments made in this bill, the Rudd government has an outstanding record in the area of health with its introduction of training and the health reform agenda. I recommend the bill to the House. 2775 13:39:00 Butler, Mark, MP HWK Port Adelaide ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Health 1 0 Mr BUTLER —in reply—I thank members for their contributions to this debate, particularly the member for Shortland. As I mentioned in my second reading speech, the Therapeutic Goods Amendment (2009 Measures No. 3) Bill 2009 amends the Therapeutics Goods Act 1999 in a number of ways. Firstly, and most importantly, it implements a new framework for the regulation of human cellular and tissue based therapy products, known as biologicals. Biologicals include such products as skin tissue for burn grafts and bone grafting. I discussed this in depth in my speech introducing the bill into the House, so I will just give a brief overview of the new arrangements. Australia’s current regulatory arrangements are not well suited to regulating biologicals because they were developed for medicines and devices, which are quite different from biologicals, not least because of the variability inherent in biologicals. This means that many biologicals are currently required to be regulated as either a medicine or a device. As a result, biologicals are unable to be regulated based on their varying risk level. For example, unmanipulated skin tissue which is to be used for skin grafting poses a lower risk than highly processed cells that are to be used for a purpose that is not the same as their original use. Schedule 1 of the bill addresses this by providing that biologicals be regulated as a distinct group of therapeutic goods. It also enables these products to be placed into classes depending on their level of risk. The higher the class of biological, the higher the regulatory requirements that will need to be met to ensure the biological is safe, effective and of a high quality. This is as it should be. Regulating biologicals as a distinct group will also bring Australia into line with other leading therapeutic goods regulatory agencies around the world, including the USA, Canada and the EU. The bill also adapts and applies to biologicals the broad overarching regulatory principles that apply to other therapeutic goods. The offence and civil penalty provisions are consistent with those for other therapeutic goods. They need to be; otherwise, there is potential that sponsors will characterise their therapeutic good as a medicine, device or biological, depending on which would provide the most lenient penalties. Therefore it is essential that the bar be set at the same level for all therapeutic goods. A key feature of the new part 3-2A for biologicals to be inserted into the Therapeutic Goods Act by this bill is a provision to enable the exceptional release of biologicals that do not meet the standards where there are no conforming biologicals or approved therapeutic goods available or that would be appropriate where a patient is critically ill and requires urgent treatment. The regulations will set out rigorous requirements that must be met before the biological can be used under exceptional release, and will require that the patient or their guardian be fully informed and give consent. Exceptional release is not a new practice; it has been used by doctors in Australia previously—such as during the Bali bombings in 2002 to treat badly burned patients when sufficient conforming skin tissue for grafts was not available. The bill better regulates this practice to ensure the safety of patients. The new arrangements for biologicals will be implemented over a period of three years. The biologicals industry is aware of this and has been awaiting these changes for some years now. Other amendments in the bill include consolidating the existing immunity provisions in the act into a single provision to ensure that civil legal action cannot be taken against a person acting under the act unless they do so in bad faith; enabling specific batches of therapeutic goods to be recalled without the need first to suspend or cancel the entire entry of the good in the register if there are concerns about the safety, quality, efficacy, performance or presentation, but only for limited batches; enabling information to be sought from past sponsors of medicines; providing that unpaid annual charges to keep a therapeutic good on the register are debts due to the Commonwealth to enable these to be recovered; and other minor amendments. The member for Boothby raised a couple of questions in relation to this bill which I will take a few moments to respond to. Firstly, the member for Boothby raised some questions about biologicals custom-made by doctors for their patients and the degree to which, if at all, this bill would impact on that. I can advise the House that, as with other therapeutic goods, medical practitioners will continue to be able to exercise their clinical judgment and custom make biologicals for their patients on an individual patient basis. As noted by the opposition, regulations will be developed for this bill and these will provide details for implementation of the biologicals framework. Among these regulations will be exemptions for medical practitioners from biological regulatory requirements. Consultation on these draft regulations will occur and the input of medical practitioners obviously will be welcome. The second point raised by the member for Boothby concerns patients’ own biologicals which, I am advised, are called autologous biologicals. The second issue raised by the opposition was that of use of a patient’s own cells or tissues for reimplantation—known, as I said, as autologous biologicals. These autologous biologicals will not be regulated under the framework introduced under this bill. This practice is currently not regulated by the TGA under the act and this exemption will continue under the new biologicals framework implemented by this bill. As indicated in the second reading speech, the changes made by this bill do not encompass all the reforms the government intends to make to the therapeutic goods regulatory regime. The amendments in this bill are the fourth instalment in an ongoing program of reform to the act. Australia has been served well by the TGA in the past and it is important that the regulatory regime the TGA administers is kept up to date so that the TGA and the industry it regulates can operate as efficiently as possible and so that Australian consumers can continue to have timely access to safe and effective therapeutic goods. Before concluding, I table a minor correction to the explanatory memorandum for these bills. Page 4 of the document has been updated by removing the reference to specific companies and organisations as being involved in the manufacture of HCTs. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 2776 Mr BUTLER (Port Adelaide —Parliamentary Secretary for Health) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2777 Bills R4271 2777 Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced. Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s requested amendments— (1)   Schedule 2, Part 1, page 24 (after line 33), at the end of the Part, add: 4A Transitional rule for student scholarship start‑up payment (1)   Subsection 592G(1) of the Social Security Act 1991 does not prevent a person from being qualified exactly twice in 2010 for a student start‑up scholarship payment if:             (a)   the person undertakes full‑time study in an approved scholarship course on 1 April 2010; and             (b)   the person becomes qualified for youth allowance on or after 1 July 2010 but before 29 July 2010; and             (c)   when the person becomes qualified for youth allowance, the person is not independent (see section 1067A of that Act). (2)   To avoid doubt, subitem (1) does not allow a person to qualify more than twice in 2010 for a student start‑up scholarship payment. 4B Transitional rule for relocation scholarship payment (1)   This item applies if:             (a)   a person qualifies for a relocation scholarship payment on or after 1 July 2010 but before 29 July 2010 because the person is not independent (see section 1067A of the Social Security Act 1991) but is required to live away from home (see section 1067D of that Act); and             (b)   the person undertakes full‑time study in an approved scholarship course on 1 April 2010; and             (c)   the earliest time at which the person was required to live away from home (see section 1067D of that Act) in connection with the course was not more than 6 months before the person started full‑time study in the course in 2010. (2)   Subsection 592L(2) of the Social Security Act 1991 does not apply to affect the amount of the first relocation scholarship payment to the person. Note:               The amount of that relocation scholarship payment to the person will therefore be $4,000 (under subsection 592L(1) of the Social Security Act 1991) unless subsection 592L(3) of that Act applies. (2)   Page 35 (after line 11), at the end of the bill, add: Schedule 4—Higher education assistance for rural and regional students Social Security Act 1991 1 After Chapter 2B Insert: Chapter 2BA—Higher education assistance for rural and regional students Part 2BA.1—Higher education assistance for rural and regional students 1061ZZFW Scheme for higher education assistance for rural and regional students        (1)   The Minister must, by legislative instrument, determine a scheme for paying $20 million, in the period starting on 1 January 2011 and ending at the end of 30 June 2013, for assistance for the undertaking of higher education by people under 25 years old who both:             (a)   have their main place of residence in a rural or regional area; and             (b)   would experience financial hardship in undertaking higher education without the assistance.        (2)   Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), the scheme may deal with the following:             (a)   the form of the assistance;             (b)   the circumstances in which payment is to be made, or assistance is to be provided, to particular persons;             (c)   the amounts of payments to, or assistance for, particular persons;             (d)   which persons qualify for payments or assistance;             (e)   administrative matters, such as determination of entitlement and how and when payments will be made or assistance will be provided.        (3)   The Minister may, by legislative instrument, vary the scheme, but not so as to reduce the total of payments to less than $20 million or delay the day by which that amount is to be paid. 2778 13:48:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —I move: That the requested amendments be made. This is the return to this House of the student income support legislation. We are now in a position to secure passage of this piece of legislation today, which is good news. It is good news for university students and their families who have been waiting anxiously for the outcome of this bill. It is good news for the 150,000 students who will now receive student start-up scholarships. It is good news for the 100,000 students who will receive youth allowance for the first time or more youth allowance. It is good news for students in country Australia because the old system of student income support was one in which the participation rate of country kids was going down. I would like to thank those who have played a constructive role in ensuring passage of this bill. First, I would like to thank members of the government backbench who have worked with me, reflecting the views of their community to me about the contents of this bill. I would like to thank the three Independents in the House of Representatives. Each of them represents a rural constituency and each of them worked with the government to secure passage of this bill because they understand what is good for country students. I would like to thank the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon. At all stages, they have been honest and straightforward in their dealings with the government. They have been clear on their objectives. They have been prepared to work with us constructively. Had the opposition taken a comparable approach then passage of this bill could have been secured at the end of last year, avoiding these many months of uncertainty and delay. However, finally, in the last sitting fortnight before we adjourn prior to the budget session, the opposition have managed to do something constructive. I thank the shadow minister for abandoning the opposition’s absurd amendments, where they sought to spend an extra billion dollars on student income support—a billion dollars they never saw fit to expend on student income support over 12 long years in government. I thank the shadow minister for abandoning a proposition which would have meant that a student from the home of a multimillion dollar family could have accessed full youth allowance if they had chosen to move from Melbourne to Brisbane to study. This was the original proposition of the opposition, costing more than a billion dollars. Finally, after all of these months of delay, that proposition has been abandoned in favour of the following very limited proposition which cost something less than $100 million. This limited proposition is that students who come from the outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia classifications under the Australian Standard Geographical Classification index and whose parents’ income is less than $150,000 per annum will be able to access the old independence test criteria. This is a proposition for change that applies to around 1,900 students around the country. Delay is bad enough but, despite the opposition having entered into an arrangement with the government to deliver this bill, today we have seen unnecessary continued politicking from the opposition, who have always been more concerned about the politics of this than the outcome for students. Despite having entered an arrangement with the government that this new change would apply to students in outer regional Australia, remote Australia or very remote Australia, today the opposition have gone through the farce of moving amendments in the Senate they up-front said they would never insist on to play politics with other country areas. This is a disgraceful thing to do. The final disgraceful thing done by the opposition is that they have now campaigned up and down the length and breadth of the country promising an extra billion dollars for student income support but, as the shadow minister has made clear, in government they have no intention of delivering it. Their only promise to Australian students is a review. It would have been better for the opposition to have taken a straightforward approach (Extension of time granted) and this could have been achieved last year. I will conclude in one minute’s time and then I understand the shadow minister will take equal time and we will be able to dispose of this matter before question time. GT4 Truss, Warren, MP Mr Truss —No, I want to speak on it too. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —Well, we will not dispose of it before question time and we can have an extensive debate if you like. I conclude with the following. I say to the students of places like Shepparton, places where the opposition went and campaigned, understand this: the proposition agreed to by the opposition does not change youth allowance arrangements for you. The amendments being moved by the opposition today that apply to places like Shepparton are amendments that they up-front said to the government today that they would not insist on—that is, they are a pure piece of political theatre. And the opposition are not saying to those students in places like Shepparton that if they are elected as the government they will provide youth allowance under the old independence criteria to those students. They are providing them with a review. Argy-bargy between politicians is one thing, but this is cruel expectation-raising around the country, only to then abandon those students, to move theatrical amendments they know that they are not going to insist on, to abandon them now and to abandon them as a matter of substance, because the opposition will not go to the next election promising those students extra money. This has been a cruel exercise in delay and ultimately it is a cruel exercise in substance from the opposition because they have raised the expectation of those students and their families. The opposition will do nothing today and, if they are ever elected as government, they will do nothing then to actually assist those students. I am not sure that the National Party leader actually understands this, but that is precisely what his shadow minister has agreed to. With those words I say: let us get this done and get some money into the hands of students, which is where it always should have been and could have been at the end of last year had the opposition taken a more responsible approach. 2780 13:56:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —In May last year the opposition first raised its very real concerns about the government’s reforms to youth allowance and the Commonwealth scholarships, which subsequently became a problem because of the mishandling of this matter by the Minister for Education in abolishing the Commonwealth scholarships before she had replaced them with the new scholarships. We raised these problems in May, we raised them throughout the last calendar year, and right through to the end of the year the minister refused to negotiate with the opposition. I think this was under the misapprehension that somehow the opposition was not committed to its decision and its position of supporting rural and regional students in particular and removing retrospectivity as a fundamental principle. We did stick to our guns throughout the entire year. The minister refused to discuss this with us, in spite of the many offers I made to meet with her. I told her my door was open and I would be happy to speak to her last year between about August and December. At no stage did the minister make any effort at all to speak to the opposition. That is why we are still here, in March, with students missing out on their scholarships and missing out on their improved youth allowance. It is because the government did not negotiate. We asked for three things. We asked for all retrospectivity to be removed from this bill. We asked for a pathway to higher education to be included in this legislation for people from rural, regional and remote Australia, who are already a disadvantaged group in terms of higher education and would have been more disadvantaged by the government’s changes. We also proposed a savings measure to pay for those amendments that was to reduce the start-up scholarships by whatever cost was necessary in order for this change to be budget-neutral. In February the minister said that that was impossible. All of those changes were utterly impossible. They were out of the question; they simply could not be done. Something changed between February and March—it might perhaps have been the new interest and heightened view of the Deputy Prime Minister as the replacement for the Prime Minister—and in March this year the minister decided that in fact these seemingly impossible changes were all utterly doable. We met twice last week and got impossible changes apparently accepted and now doable. As a consequence, this bill has been amended in the Senate to remove all retrospectivity and to ensure that there is a pathway to higher education for students from rural, remote and regional Australia in three of the categories that the ABS uses to determine remoteness, and we believe the government could have gone further and should have gone further. We have committed, if we are elected at the end of this year, to reviewing the entire youth allowance from the ground up to ensure that there is a proper pathway for students from regional areas. The coalition achieved this—not the member for Flynn, not the member for Dawson, not the member for Braddon, not the member for Capricornia, not the member for Bendigo, not the member for Ballarat, not the member for Leichhardt. None of the Labor members stood up for their constituents. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 2 pm, the debate is interrupted in accordance with standing order 97. The debate may be resumed at a later hour. The member for Sturt will have leave to continue speaking when the debate is resumed. 2780 Miscellaneous 2780 14:00:00 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 0 Mr RUDD —On indulgence, I have some remarks concerning the identification of soldiers at Fromelles. Members would be aware that the Battle of Fromelles in July 1916 left more than 5,000 Australian soldiers killed, missing or wounded in a 24-hour period. Since that battle, many families have been left with no certainty about the fate of their loved ones. Today I can inform the House officially that the remains of 75 Australian soldiers from that battle, recently buried at Fromelles, have been identified by name. Where there are registered relatives for the identified soldiers, one of those relatives has now been contacted for each soldier. After waiting for nearly 94 years, those families now have some certainty. Of the 250 sets of remains uncovered and recently reburied at Fromelles, 203 have been found to be Australian. The work to identify them by name is continuing and we are hopeful that more soldiers will be identified. I want to express the government’s gratitude to all of those involved in this Fromelles project: those who began the search, those who worked to excavate the site, those who worked on the reburials and those involved in the DNA identification process. It is only through the efforts of many dedicated people over many years that we have been able to locate and identify these remains. We hope that the certainty of a final resting place will be of comfort to the relatives of the fallen. All but one of the soldiers from the burial site at Pheasant Wood have now been reburied in individual graves. The final soldier will be laid to rest at a commemorative event on the 94th anniversary of the Battle of Fromelles on 19 July this year. The new cemetery at Fromelles will be a fitting resting place for those who have given their lives for Australia in a brutal battle, and will no doubt become a place of pilgrimage and a lasting reminder to all Australians of the sacrifices in war of earlier generations. 2781 14:02:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —On indulgence, I support the remarks of the Prime Minister and note in passing the good work of the member for Dunkley, who, while Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, helped to launch these efforts. It is good news that 75 of the 1,400 lost diggers have now been identified. I am sure that will be of much consolation to their families. This is a poignant reminder to the rest of us of the sacrifices that so many young Australians made in World War I. Their sacrifices should never be forgotten. 2781 14:03:00 Questions Without Notice 2781 14:03:00 2781 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister and it relates to the 106 house fires that have been linked to his disastrous home insulation scheme. I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to comments yesterday from the head of the fire investigation unit within the Victorian fire brigade, who said: It is a ticking time bomb, and the only way we’ll defuse it is … to get … up in the ceiling space, check everything’s OK and is safe. Given this direct warning, will the Prime Minister finally commit to inspecting all of the 1.1 million homes that are at risk as a result of his disastrous home insulation scheme? 2781 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. Concerning the causes of specific fires to which the honourable member refers, it is important that individual investigations are left to be concluded. Furthermore, I say in relation to the honourable member’s question that I am advised that the current rate of fire concerning insulation in houses is about one in 10,000 homes. I would also say to the honourable member in response to his question that, prior to this program commencing, there were some 80 to 85 fires which arose from 60,000 to 70,000 homes being retrofitted with insulation in the previous year. The honourable member goes to the question of the inspections regime. I draw his attention to the fact that, when it comes to all houses which have been installed with foil insulation, all of those homes will be inspected. I will also draw the honourable member’s attention to the fact that the government will undertake all inspections that are necessary— EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —Mr Speaker, on a point of order on relevance, I referred to the ticking time bomb, as identified by the Victorian fire brigade. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In terms of non-foil insulation, I advise the honourable member that the government thus far has committed to 150,000 inspections. I say in response to the honourable member’s question that, based on inspections to date, 92 per cent of those that have been concluded have had no safety issue related to them. I would also say to the honourable member what we said at the beginning of this matter—namely, that the government will undertake all home inspections that are necessary. We say to members of the public who are concerned about these matters: contact the government through the appropriate numbers, which have been indicated in earlier statements by the minister. 2782 2782 14:06:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —My question is to the Prime Minister. What action is the government taking to provide better health and better hospitals for working families? 2782 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for Braddon for his question, because, having visited his electorate on a number of occasions, I know that one of the top priorities in that part of Tasmania is the proper delivery of health and hospital services to his community. What I find right across the country is that people are crying out for national leadership to improve the health and hospital services of the nation, so that working families can have confidence in the level of services delivered by their local health professionals. That is why the government has put forward its plan for a National Health and Hospitals Network, one which is funded nationally, one which is run locally and, for the first time, one where the Australian government takes on the dominant funding responsibility for the public hospital system of Australia; the dominant funding responsibility for its recurrent costs; the dominant funding responsibility for its capital costs—that is, the building of new hospitals; the dominant funding responsibility for equipment costs—for example, operating theatres and the most expensive of the investigatory and diagnostic machinery that you see in modern hospitals today; and also, for the first time, the dominant responsibility for the teaching and training costs associated with hospitals as well. This morning, together with the health minister, I met GPs in training and medical students at the annual conference of the General Practice Students Network. It was here in the Great Hall in Parliament House. It was a great opportunity to be able to talk for a while with those young medical graduates about their future careers, possibly as GPs, and what they are doing is benefiting from support provided by government at present. But, most critically, what they are concerned about is their futures, as well—whether there will be enough GP training places in the community. That is why a couple of days ago the government announced its new plan for a record investment in the expansion of GP and medical specialist training places right across Australia. We are investing in 6,000 additional training places for doctors—for GPs and specialists—right across Australia. We need to act in this area, since we have been advised that, with the shortage of doctors in the decade ahead, simply to maintain things as they are would require an additional 3,000 GPs, but if we are to improve the level of services then we have to do much better than that. That is why within the program I have just referred to we are investing in support of 5½ thousand new GP training places. This will cost the government some $632 million, but we believe that this is an important program to get on with. Opposition members interjecting— 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I notice that some of those opposite are interjecting already about the fact that this is a program for the future, as if for two years the government has been inactive on this matter. I would say to the honourable members interjecting that, over the course of the last two years, the government has already increased GP training places by 35 per cent. That is in our first two years in office. In our first two years in office we have increased the overall Australian government investment in the public hospital system by 50 per cent. That is some $64 billion. For the first time the Australian government is out there investing in the nation’s cancer related infrastructure, a $1 billion-plus investment, not just in the big cities but in integrated cancer care centres right across the nation as well. Those opposite interject with ‘What have you been doing for two years?’ I say: a lot more than the previous government ever did in 12 years. When it comes to the future, we believe that properly funding a National Health and Hospitals Network is the right course of action for Australia. We need to ensure that we have a system which is properly funded nationally and that is properly run locally through local hospital networks, that we have sufficient hospital beds, that we have sufficient doctors and that we have sufficient nurses. You cannot do that if you simply stand to one side and say, ‘We just hope it gets fixed up in the morning,’ or ‘We’re gunna do something about it,’ on the eve of the next election, which is what a certain ‘gunna’-represented officer said he would do on the eve of the last election, having been health minister for four or five years. I say to the Leader of the Opposition and to the parliament at large: the government has put forward a plan, a National Health and Hospitals Network for the future, funded nationally, run locally and building on the record investments we have already undertaken in health and hospitals in our first two years in office. That stands in stark contrast to someone who, as health minister of Australia, reached in and gouged $1 billion out of the public hospital system of Australia. They can run— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that you ask the Prime Minister to withdraw that deliberately misleading statement to the House. It is provocative and it causes disorderly responses. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. There is no point of order and there is no action that can be taken by the chair. 2783 2783 14:11:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 Ms MARINO —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the confirmation by the Insurance Council of Australia yesterday that, under the government’s failed home insulation scheme, more than 61,000 homes have non-compliant, improperly labelled Chinese-imported batts installed in their roofs. Given the risk to homeowners from these potentially carcinogenic products, will the government now extend its inspection program beyond foil and fire to protect the households and families that may be at risk from these potentially dangerous imported batts and inspect all 1.1 million homes? 2784 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for her question. I would say in response to the honourable member’s question that the government stands by its commitment to undertake as many inspections as are necessary. We have indicated already that, when it comes to foil insulation in people’s ceilings, those will all be inspected in relation to non-foil insulation. We have indicated already that 150,000 will be inspected. The honourable member also referred to matters of insurance. I draw her attention also to the fact that, under the Home Insulation Program, all insulation installers were required to have insurance that covered property damage, including damage from fires. As a requirement to be registered under the HIP, companies needed to maintain for the entire period they remained on the register property damage insurance with a limited liability for occurrence or event of not less than $10 million. The government accepts responsibility for difficulties and problems which have arisen in the implementation of this program, and we stand ready to take further action as is necessary. 2784 2784 14:13:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 Mr TREVOR —Mr question is to the Minister for Finance and Deregulation. Will the minister advise the House of the implications of cutting the forward estimates for health spending? 2784 Tanner, Lindsay, MP YU5 Melbourne ALP Minister for Finance and Deregulation 1 Mr TANNER —I thank the member for Flynn for his question. The House will be aware of the Leader of the Opposition’s vehement rejection of the government’s assertion that he presided over a $1 billion cut to public hospital spending while he was minister for health. I would remind the House of evidence I put to the House yesterday—in fact, the Howard government’s 2003 budget papers—which showed progressive cuts to the projected spending on public hospitals of $109 million, $172 million, $265 million and $373 million and, of course, further advice from the department of health that the final year of the agreement saw a cut of $497 million, all of which was presided over by the then minister for health, now Leader of the Opposition. I reminded the House yesterday that in the 2003-04 budget papers of the Howard government it was explicitly stated that the reason these cuts were being made was the expected lower patronage of public hospitals because of a shift to private hospitals that would be driven by the private health insurance rebate that the then government was putting in place. All this is in black and white in very clear English on page 179 of Budget Paper No. 2 of 2003-04. The vehement rejection of this by the Leader of the Opposition, amplified today by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in her point of order on the Prime Minister’s answer a minute ago, raises a very interesting question—that is, when is a cut not a cut? We had cuts to the budget by the Howard government that the then minister for health, who was the person responsible for implementing those cuts, is saying were not actually cuts. It caused me to wonder how the opposition deal with equivalent issues of this kind when they are criticising cuts being made by the government rather than defending what they say were not cuts by their government. This is reasonably significant because the 2003 budget was in fact the last Howard government budget in which there were any significant savings. It is almost seven years since the last Liberal finance minister or shadow finance minister proposed any serious savings. In the 2008 budget there were substantial savings and in the 2009 budget there were substantial savings. We were criticised for making those savings and, indeed, the opposition has endeavoured to block some of those savings—for example, the cuts to the private health insurance rebate for higher income earners. I came across one interesting example of how the opposition handles these matters when the roles are reversed. It is a National Party press release of 13 May 2008 alleging that country Australia would take a $1 billion hit in Labor’s budget. It says: …Labor has stripped more than $1 billion from regional and rural Australia. The primary piece of evidence for this is the cancellation of the OPEL contract for wireless broadband—a $960 million contract that the former government entered into—and one of the key reasons this was cancelled was the Rudd government putting in place a much more comprehensive broadband strategy for all Australians. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Finance and Deregulation will resume his seat. Just so that it is crystal clear, the member for Bradfield is warned. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr TANNER —Not only is he warned but also he should remember that he does not work for Optus anymore. The interesting thing is that, according to the opposition, when they remove $1 billion from forward-spending projections that is ‘an adjustment to the forward estimates’ but when we remove $1 billion from projected forward spending that is stripping $1 billion away, that is vandalism. The Leader of the Opposition, in pointing out the facts to the Australian people that he presided over the stripping away of more than $1 billion from funding for public hospitals, alleges that the government is telling lies. Unfortunately, we have his own government’s budget papers, his own opposition’s approach to equivalent issues when the boot is on the other foot and, more than anything else, the ordinary meaning of the English language. Those all count against him. I would suggest that there is one party to this dispute that is not telling the truth, but it is not the government. 2785 2785 14:19:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS 0 Mr TRUSS —My question is addressed to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his promise on the day before the last election when he said in relation to boats seeking to enter Australian waters illegally ‘you turn them back’. Given that the government’s policy is to not turn the boats back, can the Prime Minister advise when the policy was changed? 2785 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —The government, in its response to the challenges of people smuggling, consistent with previous governments, always seeks to act in conformity with the principles and procedures of international humanitarian law. We have done so in the past, will do so in the future and we assume that those opposite would have done so when they were in government, but perhaps not. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Fadden is warned. 2785 2785 14:19:00 Collins, Julie, MP HWM Franklin ALP 1 Ms COLLINS —My question is to the Minister for Health and Ageing. Why is health workforce reform important and how does the government’s policy differ from past approaches? 2785 Roxon, Nicola, MP 83K Gellibrand ALP Minister for Health and Ageing 1 Ms ROXON —I thank the member for Franklin for this question because she is aware that in Tasmania getting the right mix of doctors and nurses and skilled workforce is very important, so I know that she wants to have the answer to this question. The Prime Minister has mentioned already in question time today the $632 million package to train a record number of doctors and to grow a strong health workforce. Our plan, as he noted, is going to deliver more than 6,000 new doctors over the decade. Importantly—and I think all members of the House will be interested to know this—those new doctors will deliver around five million extra services to families across the country by 2013. That is five million extra services for families, particularly those with young children, and elderly Australians who rely very much on our GP services and would not necessarily be able to access those services without this investment being made by the government. This is going to relieve pressure on existing GPs and also relieve pressure on busy hospital emergency departments. Yesterday was also a historic day for our nurses. Another critical part of our health workforce strategy has now fallen into place. The Senate finally passed legislation to boost the role of nurses and midwives and improve patient access to health care. We are working hard to build this sustainable health workforce into the future after a decade of neglect by the previous government and particularly the erratic then Minister for Health and Ageing. The Australian people clearly want to see this sort of change. A poll released today found that 76 per cent of voters agree with the Rudd government’s reforms to the health system to fund nationally and run locally. The community, of course, clearly does not share the view of the Leader of the Opposition, who said yesterday that the health system was working pretty well back when he was the health minister. They do not think the good old days when GP training places were capped, or when 60 per cent of Australians struggled to see a doctor, were that good. Of course, those good old days were the days when public hospitals were reeling from a billion-dollar daylight robbery by the current Leader of the Opposition. Interestingly, the member for Dickson actually does not believe that either. He told the Australian General Practice Network Conference in 2008: … we made mistakes in Indigenous health, in areas like workforce planning and in hospital management. So nobody except the shoot-from-the-hip opposition leader thinks that elective surgery waiting list queues are caused by nurses going to ACTU indoctrination classes, which was his view in 2007. I might just read that little gem to the House, because I think it does reflect the anti-nurse view that is dominant from the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow health spokesperson: No wonder the elective surgery lists are blowing out so badly in New South Wales’ hospitals—it is because the nurses are all at ACTU indoctrination lessons. What an offensive comment to make about our nurses. If he does not have a solution to a problem he just makes it up. Nobody, not even the member for Dickson, thinks our nurses or doctors should be treated badly. He took great offence yesterday when the message came back from the Senate that we suggested that he was anti-nurse. But then, of course, he was on the record only days ago saying that he did not think doctors and nurses should spend all their time on Facebook. This is the person who wants to be the health minister of this country going around slagging off at nurses and doctors when he should be supporting the investments that we are making in the health system. The opposition just cannot bring themselves to actually support our nurses, despite the opportunity yesterday to put their support on the record. Not all of us share the nostalgia of days gone by. The opposition leader thinks that the days of those doctor and nurse shortages or of cutting funding for hospitals were days of plenty. We just do not agree with him. But I do know that the Leader of the Opposition likes to push things to the extreme—whether it is on his bike, whether it is in the outback or whether it is the boundaries of good taste—but his claims to have a credible health record are really just pushing the limits of credibility way too far. 2787 2787 14:25:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to the findings of the inquiry into the explosion on SIEV 36 handed down today, and the naming of three individuals found to be ‘part of a plan to cripple the boat’ and ‘that crimes had been committed in connection with the explosion’ and the referral of the matter to the Northern Territory Director of Public Prosecutions. Will the government now cancel the permanent protection visas granted last October to these three individuals under section 501 of the Migration Act on the grounds that the minister reasonably suspects these persons do not pass the character test? 2787 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the honourable member for his question. His comments go to the release of the coroner’s report in the Northern Territory today. They also go to various contents of the report and actions which he argues arise from it. First of all, I go to the content of the report. Firstly, I am advised that the coroner’s finding is that crimes may have been committed in connection with the explosion. The coroner proposes to refer these findings to the NT Commissioner of Police and the NT Director of Public Prosecutions. The coroner noted that he only has to have a belief about a crime being committed and that the question of whether or not there is sufficient basis for further investigation and prosecution is a matter for them. Therefore, I would say in response to the honourable member that it is important to proceed cautiously in public comments on a matter which has been referred to the relevant legal authorities. The second point I would make is that the Northern Territory coroner has also concluded that the explosion was caused when a passenger or passengers deliberately ignited petrol which had collected in the bilge area below the deck of SIEV 36. I also say in response to this that in relation to certain other matters canvassed by the coroner I reiterate what I said earlier in this place: we should all remember that under these difficult circumstances our ADF personnel are working under very difficult and trying circumstances. I think all members of this House would agree with that. Furthermore, I refer to another element of what the NT coroner’s findings have contained. The coroner’s findings have said that the action taken by Navy personnel was appropriate, and more passengers may have died but for the action they took. In terms of subsequent action, that should be considered on a case-by-case basis by the relevant minister. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order!The Prime Minister has concluded his remarks. The member for Cook will resume his seat. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! I will come back to the member for Cook on that basis, but I just want to deal with another matter that has arisen. I accept his advice. There may be members of the frontbench on my left that have a crusade about matters. The major point of order that can arise during an answer is the matter of relevance. In this case, I can assure you that the remarks made by the Prime Minister related to the question. So there was nothing surprising in my actions. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —I seek leave to table section 501 of the Migration Act. It says: … the Minister reasonably suspects that the person does not pass the character test … It is a test of ‘reasonably suspects’. You have had a coroner say, ‘They committed a crime.’ 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! Member for Cook, don’t go too far. Is leave granted? Leave not granted. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Soft on crooks. R36 Albanese, Anthony, MP Mr Albanese —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would ask that that comment be withdrawn. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will withdraw. PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —Mr Speaker, saying ‘soft on crooks’ is not unparliamentary. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning will withdraw. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson interjecting— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall —I withdraw. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Dunkley will withdraw. 1K6 Billson, Bruce, MP Mr Billson —I withdraw. 2788 2788 14:30:00 Campbell, Jodie, MP HWC Bass ALP 1 Ms CAMPBELL —My question is to the Minister for Education, the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and the Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on the latest developments relating to student income support? 2788 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Bass for her question. I am in a position to inform the House that we are now on course to have the student income support legislation pass the parliament this week. This is good news for Australian students and for Australian families. This means that we can pay 150,000 start-up scholarships to students who are waiting for them and we can pay increased youth allowance—or youth allowance for the first time—to 100,000 students. This is good news indeed. I would like to acknowledge those people who have played a role in making sure that this beneficial legislation passes the parliament. As members of this House would recall, these changes were first heralded by the government in the May budget and, of course, there was an issue raised after the May budget on the question of transition from the old system to the new system. The issue about the question of transition was raised with me by a number of Labor members and I thank them for raising it with me. It was also raised with me by the Independents in the House of Representatives who represent rural electorates and it was raised with me in good faith by a number of members of the coalition. Then we worked here in the House of Representatives and in the Senate to address this issue of transition. Most particularly, we worked with the Australian Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon, and I thank the Australian Greens and Senator Xenophon for the mature and straightforward approach that they brought to dealing with this matter. In the legislation, what we ultimately agreed with the Greens and Senator Xenophon, the Independents here and members of the government was that there would be no retrospectivity—that is, any student who had made their arrangements before the legislation came into effect on 1 July and who had qualified for independence under the old criteria would qualify under those criteria. If anybody is in any doubt about that, I refer them to the amendments that were circulated in the Senate on 23 February when all transition matters were resolved. Where were the opposition while all this was going on? The opposition were out campaigning for a change which would have cost more than a billion dollars. They were campaigning for a change that would have meant that any student who chose to move would get full youth allowance. That means a student from a home of multimillionaires who chose to move from Melbourne to Sydney to study would have got full youth allowance. We said to the opposition very clearly that this was not fiscally responsible. They had not spent this extra billion dollars on student income support when they were in government and it offended against the principle of equity—that is, lower income Australians should not have to pay for full youth allowance for multimillionaires who choose to move from Melbourne to Sydney. It was not until last Tuesday, after months of hounding the opposition for an amendment that would pass the test of being fiscally responsible and equitable, that the opposition, for the first time ever, settled down to talk about something meaningful. I am glad that, following those two discussions with the shadow minister, we did agree on something meaningful. The billion-dollar amendment was gone. This inequitable costly proposition about anybody who moved was gone. What the opposition agreed on with us is that for 1,900 students who live in very remote Australia, remote Australia or outer regional Australia under the Australian Standard Geographical Classification, if they come from families with incomes of less than $150,000, they would continue to be able to qualify under the old independence criteria. This is an amendment costing less than $100 million compared with the more than billion-dollar claim that the opposition started with. Today we are putting the legislation with this amendment in place. We agreed this with the opposition and it went through their joint party room, but obviously there are those in the opposition who are now greatly embarrassed that, after months of campaigning in their communities, they are making no difference whatsoever from the agreement that we had struck with the Greens and Senator Xenophon. I am talking about, for example, the member for Murray in the area of Shepparton, where there is no change arising from the opposition’s amendments. There is Goulburn and the member for Hume, where there is no change arising from the opposition’s amendments. There is Gympie in the electorate of Wide Bay, represented by the National Party, for example, and Cowra in the electorate of the member for Calare; there is not one single change in those communities as a result of the amendments moved by the opposition. There is not one thing that they could not have had as a result of the agreement that we entered into with the Greens and Senator Nick Xenophon. So, in order to cover this political embarrassment despite having entered an agreement with us yesterday, what the opposition does today is move an amendment in the Senate to cover these places. And at the very time it is being moved the shadow minister says to me and the Liberal Party in the Senate says to Senator Carr, ‘If this happens to pass, we will not insist on it’—that is, ‘It was all politics; all theatre’. Delay all these many months, costing students? This amendment? All politics; all theatre. This could just be a dispute between politicians who are all about argy-bargy in the eyes of the community—except for this. There are students in Shepparton and there are students in places around the country like Gympie who have had opposition members say to them that they believe that they should get full youth allowance if they need to move. As an opposition, they might say they cannot achieve that from opposition, and that would be an honourable position. What is not honourable is to go and raise those expectations and then, in terms of your own political party’s promises, not promise to do that if you are elected as a government but promise to have a review. After all these months of campaigning, what the member for Murray, the member for Hume, the member for Wide Bay and the member for Calare have actually secured for their communities is a review if the opposition is elected. This is a cautionary and salutary tale for the Australian people about the nature of the opposition led by the current Leader of the Opposition, because what this salutary tale is telling you is that the Leader of the Opposition, if he sees a little bit of political advantage, will go and stand shoulder to shoulder with you, will expectation-raise, will campaign with you and then, when the politics shift and it suits him, will walk right away from you. He has walked away from a billion dollars in student income support. He has walked away from every promise given to every student in places like Shepparton and places like Gympie. This is the most disgraceful act—this from a man who says that he is full of straight talk. It is not straight talk to go around promising a billion dollars and then not deliver it. 2790 2790 14:39:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. It is simple, it is clear and it should not require him to read any briefing notes. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition will resume his seat. 8K6 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP Mr Fitzgibbon interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Hunter is warned. The Leader of the Opposition has the call. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —My question to the Prime Minister is concerning the passengers on SIEV 36. Will he now revoke the visas of those passengers who, according to the coroner, were found— Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Leader of the Opposition has the call, and if there is an expectation from both sides of the House that people be listened to, those on my right might sit in silence for at least 10 seconds. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —Concerning the passengers on SIEV 36, will he now revoke the visas of those three individuals who were found by the Northern Territory Coroner to be involved in a plan to set fire to the vessel? 2790 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I am glad the Leader of the Opposition repeated the question, because I would have asked him to read it again given the general hubbub! Let me answer his question in three parts: (1) the coroner has delivered his report; (2) it has gone to the NT Police to determine whether charges were made; (3) the immigration minister will make his determination once those decisions have been made. 2790 2790 14:42:00 Thomson, Kelvin, MP UK6 Wills ALP 1 Mr KELVIN THOMSON —My question is to the Treasurer. What role has business played in the success of our economy during the global recession and why is it important that government, business and the community work together to implement carefully considered policies during the recovery? 2790 Swan, Wayne, MP 2V5 Lilley ALP Treasurer 1 Mr SWAN —I thank the member for Wills for his question, because it is very important that government, business and the community work together—work together to make sure that stimulus produces jobs and work together to make sure that our recovery is successful and continues to support employment. Today I met with the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It is a group that is not usually associated with the Labor Party. It is strongly independent, but it is strongly supportive of stimulus—not just the stimulus that is in the system now but the future pipeline of activity that is so important to future confidence and the confidence of employers to continue to employ. So, generally, most of the major employer organisations in our community are supportive of stimulus, and they are supportive of the pipeline of activity that is in place now. The only group in the community that is not supportive of that is, of course, the Liberal and National parties in this House and in the Senate. But it is important, because confidence and leadership are required if we are going to maximise the possibilities that arise from the economic recovery. As we frame policies to go forward, there are two ways of going about it. We can do it in a considered and collective way or we can do it in a reckless, erratic way, which is the way in which the opposition is now going about framing public policy. We have a Leader of the Opposition who asks for forgiveness after he makes a decision rather than seeking permission before he makes a decision. Of course, nothing is more destructive of confidence, particularly when it comes to investment, than that sort of approach. We have a shadow Treasurer over there who says this ‘big new tax’ is, in reality, a windfall gain. We have the finance minister who described this big new tax as a ‘small rise’. Those opposite really do live in an alternative economic universe. This is what the Productivity Commission had to say about paid parental leave: ‘the actual burden of the levy will eventually fall on employees’ and will possibly make ‘some firms unviable’. That is what the Productivity Commission said. Here is what the other PC—Peter Costello—said about their big new tax. He said it ‘should have set alarm bells ringing’—ringing in the ears of the Leader of the Opposition and the worst opposition frontbench team that we have seen in the history of this parliament. He went on to say: … that alarm should have sounded like an air raid siren … That former Treasurer—the longest-serving Treasurer in the history of this country—has seen that they have so destroyed the economic credibility of the Liberal Party that he is prepared to bag them in public. But the Leader of the Opposition has done something that nobody else has succeeded in doing. The Leader of the Opposition is a miracle worker. He has united Peter Costello and Paul Keating. Nobody has ever succeeded in doing that before. They both think this is the dumbest idea they have ever seen. It is no mean feat for the Leader of the Opposition to have done that. Is it any wonder the business community is so terrified about the prospect of a Liberal Party coming to government? Those opposite have absolutely no idea about what is required to support investment and jobs in the Australian community. The business community is terrified about the lack of certainty and so too are the two longest-serving treasurers in our history. 2791 2791 14:46:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 Mr WINDSOR —My question is to the Prime Minister and relates to the Green Loans Program. Prime Minister, given that many applicants have been waiting since before Christmas to receive their acceptances and to be able to proceed, will you allow those who have made their application under the Green Loans Program up until the close-off date of 22 March to be assessed and be eligible to receive the interest-free component of the program? 2791 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for New England for his question. The Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, Senator Wong, as the member will be aware, is responsible for the implementation of this program. Concerning those who have already made applications under the program, the minister is now attending to how each of those applications is properly dealt with. There have been some problems of implementation here. We will deal with these in an appropriate manner. I would suggest that the member for New England also engage directly with Senator Wong on any outstanding concerns which members of his electorate have with the delivery of this program. 2792 2792 14:48:00 Bird, Sharon, MP DZP Cunningham ALP 1 Ms BIRD —My question is to the Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Minister, how is the government supporting families to make their own work and family choices? How confident can they be that support will improve in the future? 2792 Macklin, Jenny, MP PG6 Jagajaga ALP Minister for Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs 1 Ms MACKLIN —I thank the member for Cunningham for her question because she certainly knows that giving mums and dads more support when they have a new baby in their home is going to be very good for their children and will give them a much better start in life. That is why this government is delivering Australia’s first national paid parental leave scheme. It is our scheme that is going to be both fair for families and fair for business. It also lets families make their own work and family choices. One of the characteristics of our scheme is that parents are going to be able to transfer or share their leave so that mums and dads have more options about how they organise their work and family responsibilities. It is the case that families in Australia have been waiting decades for paid parental leave—12 years. We know that those opposite refused to introduce paid parental leave, and everybody here knows that it was this Leader of the Opposition who said that paid parental leave would happen ‘over his dead body’. Well, we know that the Leader of the Opposition has now come up with a sham of a scheme, a sham that will not let mums and dads actually make decisions themselves about how they organise their work and family choices, because he really does not support the work and family choices that so many Australian families make. We saw in the Australian newspaper where he was justifying his latest views by saying that paid parental leave will mean that more women are in what he described as ‘the most traditional role of all’. We know that this Leader of the Opposition is just so stuck in the past and just wants to preach to Australian families about their work and family choices. I know people on this side of the parliament will not be surprised to learn that he is not alone. Today we have an absolute gem from—you guessed it—Senator Barnaby Joyce. Barnaby Joyce was on ABC TV this morning trying to ignore Peter Costello’s scathing attack on the Leader of the Opposition. This is a real original from Senator Joyce. This is what he said: Unless we can figure out another way to create babies, then we have to realise that ladies have babies and we’ve got to make sure that we create the environment that gives them financial protection to go through the process of having that child. Thank you very much for the biology lesson, Barnaby, but I have to say it is not all about ladies. There are certainly men involved in the process too. This might be news to the Leader of the Opposition but, in most homes today, mums and dads actually decide what is best for their baby and what is best for their family. Of course, in the bizarre, old-fashioned world that this lot live in, they are demonstrating yet again just how out of touch they are with modern Australian family life. Peter Costello got it so right today when he said: Abbott undoubtedly thought he had to say something on International Women’s Day—he keeps being told he needs to appeal more to female voters. So he adopts the Crocodile Dundee approach. 2793 2793 14:52:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his previous answer, when he said he had to await the outcomes of the coronial investigation and the DPP investigation before deciding to revoke the permanent residency visas granted to the three men who were named in the report today. Last October, before the coronial inquiry had been completed, why did the government issue permanent protection visas and not temporary safe haven visas under subclass 449? 2793 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —In terms of the process for decision making on the matters which the member has raised, I refer him to my earlier answer. In terms of the new matters that he raises concerning the original decision on visas, I am advised by the immigration minister that that decision was made independently by his department through a careful and rigorous assessment of the merits of each individual case. 2793 2793 14:54:00 Parke, Melissa, MP HWR Fremantle ALP 1 Ms PARKE —My question is to the Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion. Will the Deputy Prime Minister update the House on recent comments about industrial relations and workplace participation policies and the need for certainty and clarity in such policies? 2793 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for Fremantle for her question. I know that she is a person of steadfast view about the need for fairness in Australian workplaces. Because we believe in fairness in Australian workplaces, we introduced the Fair Work Act and the Fair Work Ombudsman. We also provided economic stimulus to our economy so Australian people could have jobs under decent working conditions. This was opposed by the opposition. They opposed economic stimulus, they opposed jobs and, of course, they opposed our changes to get rid of Work Choices. The Leader of the Opposition is there harbouring a desire to bring back his own version of Work Choices. The Leader of the Opposition is not the only risk to Australian working families when it comes to decent working conditions. Today’s Hobart Mercury tells us that the Tasmanian Liberals are being challenged to come clean on their hardline Work Choices policies. The Liberals in Tasmania and the Leader of the Opposition are pining for Work Choices. What we know about the Leader of the Opposition is that he flip-flops. He says one thing and then he says another thing. There is no straight talk; he just flip-flops. He said, ‘The phrase Work Choices is dead.’ Then, when he was speaking to a business audience and thought he could get away with it, he endorsed individual statutory agreements that can rip away pay and conditions and he endorsed ripping away from Australian workers the ability to make unfair dismissal claims. When the Leader of the Opposition was in government, he said about paid parental leave that it would happen over his ‘dead body’. As Leader of the Opposition, when he thinks on International Women’s Day he needs to come up with a hastily cobbled together policy announcement to try and create some appeal for Australian women, there he is announcing a paid parental leave scheme. He says one week that he does not believe tax should increase, that if he were Prime Minister he would not increase tax. Then, a few short weeks later, he announces a great big new tax on everything that his shadow finance minister has helpfully confirmed would feed into the price of bread and milk and add to the cost-of-living pressures on Australian working families. It is no wonder that this was all too much for former Treasurer Peter Costello, who knows a fair bit about the Leader of the Opposition and who concluded that he was such an economic vandal, so economically irresponsible, that he was not even competent to serve as his deputy. There are those in the Liberal Party who still say that they believe in the brand of the Liberal Party, and Peter Costello says he has never been to a Liberal Party meeting where people put the case for more tax. I say to those people in the Liberal Party in this House: how much damage are they going to let the Leader of the Opposition do to the brand of what it is to be a Liberal, as he flip-flops from one thing to another, no taxes and then a great big new tax? Should we be surprised? Of all the things that the Howard government misled Australians about during its 12 long years in office, nothing will stand out more in the public imagination than when the Leader of the Opposition, as minister for health, gave a rock-solid, ironclad guarantee before an election, only to trash his promise after the election. It is happening again. It has happened today on student income support. It just goes to show that when the Leader of the Opposition is talking it is not straight talk anybody is hearing. 2794 2794 14:58:00 Morrison, Scott, MP E3L Cook LP 0 Mr MORRISON —My question is to the Attorney-General, representing the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship. Given the Prime Minister has just confirmed that the decision to grant permanent protection visas to the three individuals named in today’s inquiry report was made by the minister’s department, will the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship now use his statutory powers to intervene and revoke the visas? 2794 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 Mr McCLELLAND —The process is that these matters have now been referred to the Northern Territory Police, as has been indicated by the Prime Minister. Due process indicates that the police should be able to investigate these very serious matters. As all members are aware, the honourable member who intervened was a member of the Queensland Police Service. He would understand full well that prejudicial comments with respect to someone facing very serious criminal allegations involving the death of five individuals and serious injury to others may well result in that prosecution being aborted. Indeed, he would be well aware, from cases that he was involved in, of applications being made to set aside jury trials because of prejudicial comments that have been made. In circumstances where three individuals are potentially facing criminal prosecutions as a result of the death of five individuals and the serious injury of others, it is with the greatest respect quite outrageous for politically motivated comments to be made that could potentially prejudice a criminal trial. Having said that, in answer to the question about the role of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, his decisions are obviously matters for him, but he has indicated in the briefing that I have been provided with that after the criminal process takes its course he will unquestionably examine the use of his powers under section 501. 2794 2794 15:01:00 Zappia, Tony, MP HWB Makin ALP 1 Mr ZAPPIA —My question is to the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government and Leader of the House. Why is the passage of government legislation through the parliament important? What risks are there to this legislative program? 2794 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 Mr ALBANESE —I thank the member for Makin for his question. The adoption of this government’s legislative program is indeed important so that we can pursue our objective of Nation Building for Recovery, so that we can continue to put forward our legislative program that is about protecting jobs, so that we can continue to put forward our agenda for lifting productivity and for ensuring that development is sustainable. We currently have some 30 bills stuck in the Senate. We have a Leader of the Opposition who ripped a billion dollars out of the health system while he was Minister for Health and Ageing and who is determined to impose his extreme and out-of-touch views on the entire Australian community. There is a lot at risk as a result of the opposition leader’s position. At risk is our investment in national infrastructure, with some $36 billion in my portfolio in road, rail, public transport and ports. At risk is the Community Infrastructure Program that those opposite wrote to me and campaigned for, but voted against, and have said that they would look at withdrawing were they to return to the Treasury bench. At risk is the Building the Education Revolution program, with the rolling out of computers and the largest school modernisation program in Australia’s history. These are all at risk. We know that at risk is the Paid Parental Leave Scheme that has been put forward by the government. We know that those opposite, in an attempt to appear to be doing something—as Peter Costello who so effectively nailed the Leader of the Opposition this morning in the paper has indicated—on International Women’s Day had this thought bubble. Even when they have an alternative plan, it is not thought through, it is not costed and it is, in the words of the former Treasurer, Peter Costello, just ‘silly’. The fact is that this is an opposition leader who cannot be trusted. This is an opposition leader who would put at risk the recovery from the global financial crisis. During the Godwin Grech week I had a bit to say about the member for Wentworth. During that week I actually said that the member for Wentworth resembled the ghost of Mark Latham. I want to say to the member for Wentworth: I am sorry. It was quite clear that this was Mark Latham-like. What we have now is Tony Abbott, Mark Latham on steroids, being the bully boy standing at the doors of the Senate, happy for things to go in but making sure that no legislation comes out. The one policy that we know he will go back to is Work Choices, but he said that he will call it something else. I say good luck to him, because if he can get away with still calling it the Liberal Party I say maybe he can get away with anything. 2795 2795 15:05:00 Fletcher, Paul, MP L6B Bradfield LP 1 Mr FLETCHER —My question is to the Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations, the Minister for Education and the Minister for Social Inclusion. I refer the minister to the case of the Gordon East Public School, which in 2005 built a new and large specialised learning room for $170,000 at $920 per square metre. This year the school’s stimulus project has cost $2 million for four small classrooms and internal works in an administration block at $4,870 per square metre. Does the minister regard this as value for money? 2795 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 Ms GILLARD —I thank the member for his question. I say to the member that if he wants this example looked at I would be very happy to have the department look at it. As I indicated to the parliament as recently as yesterday, there is a dedicated audit squad in New South Wales that is looking at cases as they are referred. Indeed, even before this parliament was sitting this week or last week, the audit squad was out checking on value for money. It has already checked 102 schools, and that process to verify value for money goes on. Can I also say to the member that, when we investigate claims made by members of the opposition in this place, we often find that people are not comparing apples to apples in terms of cost. I understand how that can happen. When a local builder is asked to quote they might quote to fit-out stage, because that is what they are used to quoting, but not give a quote that includes all of the internal fittings in the way that the Building the Education Revolution program does. So we often find that the figures given to us are not ‘apples to apples’ quotes. The member obviously wants this looked at. L6B Fletcher, Paul, MP Mr Fletcher interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —If he stops yelling at some point and provides some information then we will ensure that the information is looked at by the department. If there are any issues arising from that look by the department, the matter will go to the New South Wales audit squad. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Herbert might cease interjecting and remind the member for Bradfield of his status. Government members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Minister for Trade and the Minister for Tourism! SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! If the member for Mackellar does not cease interjecting, there might be a job lot of three! The ministers will sit there quietly, and the member for Mackellar also. The member for Blair has the call. 2796 2796 15:09:00 Neumann, Shayne, MP HVO Blair ALP 1 Mr NEUMANN —My question is to the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister aware of concerns in rural communities about state native vegetation laws? How has the government responded to these concerns and how does this approach compare with other responses? 2796 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for Blair for the question. The state native vegetation laws introduced more than a decade ago have for a long time provoked a good deal of concern and anger among many farmers throughout Australia. When they were introduced we were in opposition and did not complain about them. Some of those opposite—including the former Treasurer—when they were in government took credit for them. This debate received publicity in a new way over summer when one particular New South Wales farmer climbed up a pole on his property and engaged in an action of self-harm. For a long time in this place both governments and oppositions have observed the principle that when someone engages in an action of self-harm neither would gain a political dividend from it. I saw this many times as shadow minister for immigration, and I have no evidence that the current shadow minister for immigration has behaved in a different fashion. We get calls from the media saying: ‘There has been an action of self-arm. This is a free kick for you. Why don’t you go out and do some media.’ The rule has always been that none of us in this place would engage in that way because we do not want to be the sort of country where self-harm is a way of getting political attention. There is no grey area in this. It has remained the situation that you do not say, ‘I’ll criticise the self-harm but I’ll give them some publicity anyway,’ because we know where that would lead. I do not know what level of self-obsession, erratic behaviour or twisted morality it would take for someone to view an action of self-harm as a political opportunity, but that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition did a few weeks ago. I do not know how you can trust somebody who is willing to do that. Opposition members interjecting— DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —Let us remember that the rally held outside Parliament House by a number of farmers was no ordinary rally; it was directly linked to an action of self-harm. Indeed, the publicity for that rally described the place where the self-harm was being committed as ‘a tower of hope’. And this was off the back of a situation in country Australia where issues of self-harm are well and truly alive, with men in country Australia at double the suicide rate of men in urban Australia. No-one from the government would have anything to do with that rally. The country Independents had nothing to do with that rally. Indeed, the National Farmers Federation— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. That diatribe is right outside the standing orders. If the minister wishes to make aspersions, there are proper forms of the House to do it, and question time is not it. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —I have listened carefully to the contribution by the minister. We are often in a predicament where things are said which are very robust and cause concern. There is an understanding that, regrettably, from time to time these types of comments and hard-hitting criticism are made, but there has to be care shown in the way they are articulated. 99V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, with the greatest respect to you, and in the interests of maintaining order in the House, the answer from this minister is embarrassingly over the top. It is offensive and he has gone too far already. I think you should sit him down for his own good and for the good of the parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Manager of Opposition Business has put a point of view, if not a point of order. The minister has the call and I hope he is coming to the conclusion of his answer. DYW Burke, Tony, MP Mr BURKE —The National Farmers Federation, against great pressure from many of their own membership, refused to have anything to do with that rally, based on good principle. The attendance there taught us nothing about the issue but a lot about the Leader of the Opposition—erratic, self-obsessed and with twisted morality. It is a lesson which will not be forgotten. 2797 2797 15:15:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP 0 Mr ABBOTT —My question is to the Prime Minister. I refer the Prime Minister to his confirmation in question time today that the decision to grant permanent protection visas, rather than temporary safe haven visas, to SIEV 36 passengers was made by officials. I ask the Prime Minister: why was such an important decision on such a serious matter, involving the deaths of five people, delegated to bureaucrats rather than the minister taking responsibility? Where does the buck stop for this decision? 2797 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the Leader of the Opposition for his question. In answering his question, I also ask him and his relevant shadow minister to reflect carefully on the answer given by the Attorney-General to an earlier question. That is one point. Secondly, in relation to the visas to which the Leader of the Opposition— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Sturt! 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —In relation to the matters raised just now by the Leader of the Opposition, I also draw his attention to the fact that the decision concerning those visas was also made after consultation with the NT police responsible for the investigation. I also refer the Leader of the Opposition to the following advice I have received from the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship—that is, that under section 501 of the Migration Act people convicted of serious crimes who were found to have failed the character test can have their visa cancelled. The minister for immigration also advises me to remind members—and in his case senators—that, as applies in all similar cases, assessments under section 501 are contingent on convictions for serious crimes. That goes to the heart of it. I refer to the advice which I have been provided with by the minister for immigration. I refer the shadow minister and the Leader of the Opposition to the earlier comments from the Attorney-General about the importance of ensuring that this legal process is properly protected. E3L Morrison, Scott, MP Mr Morrison —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: he has to be relevant. The Prime Minister cannot mislead the House. The section says ‘the minister reasonably suspects’— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member will resume his seat. 2798 2798 15:18:00 Melham, Daryl, MP 4T4 Banks ALP 1 Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Prime Minister— PK6 Randall, Don, MP Mr Randall interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Canning should be very careful about making reflections that are not so sotto voce that they cannot be heard by the chair—reflections which a chair, from time to time, could take as reflections upon the chair. I just give him that gentle reminder. 4T4 Melham, Daryl, MP Mr MELHAM —My question is to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister inform the House of any plans the government has to make amends for the damage done by the ripping out of a billion dollars from the nation’s health system? 2798 Rudd, Kevin, MP 83T Griffith ALP Prime Minister 1 Mr RUDD —I thank the member for Banks for his question. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, on a point of order: you give a lot of latitude to questions on both sides of the House, but I think that one is going so far outside the bounds—and the member for Banks knows it, too—that you really should rule it out of order as containing entirely irrelevant matter, hypotheticals, the casting of aspersions and so forth. It is full of lies and all of it should be withdrawn. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton interjecting— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Dickson and the Deputy Leader of the Opposition are warned. The member for Sturt will withdraw the remark contained in his point of order. 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I withdraw the word ‘lies’ and I replace it with ‘arguments, inferences, imputations, insults and other expressions and hypothetical matter’— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Thank you. The member will resume his seat. As an experienced member of the House, the member for Banks might have chosen his words a bit more precisely. But, on the point that is central to what the member for Sturt has put before me, I refer to my ruling earlier in the week on argumentative content of questions that has been allowed in the past. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I think the conclusion which people in this House are rapidly drawing is that, when it comes to health and hospitals, those opposite are very sensitive—indeed, exceptionally sensitive—because they are led by a leader who spent four to five years as the Minister for Health and Ageing, right up until the last election, and who has everything to be concerned about when it comes to his record, a record on health and hospitals which includes a billion dollars ripped out of the public hospital system. He says— Mr PYNE (Sturt —Manager of Opposition Business) 00:00:00 —I move: That the member be no longer heard. Question put. 15:25:00 The House divided.    (The Speaker—Mr Harry Jenkins) 60 Abbott, A.J. Andrews, K.J. Baldwin, R.C. Billson, B.F. Bishop, B.K. Bishop, J.I. Briggs, J.E. Broadbent, R. Chester, D. Ciobo, S.M. Cobb, J.K. Coulton, M. Dutton, P.C. Farmer, P.F. Fletcher, P. Gash, J. Georgiou, P. Haase, B.W. Hartsuyker, L. Hawke, A. Hawker, D.P.M. Hockey, J.B. Hull, K.E. * Hunt, G.A. Irons, S.J. Jensen, D. Johnson, M.A. Keenan, M. Laming, A. Ley, S.P. Lindsay, P.J. Macfarlane, I.E. Marino, N.B. Markus, L.E. May, M.A. Mirabella, S. Morrison, S.J. Moylan, J.E. Neville, P.C. O’Dwyer, K Pearce, C.J. Pyne, C. Ramsey, R. Randall, D.J. Robert, S.R. Ruddock, P.M. Scott, B.C. Secker, P.D. * Simpkins, L. Slipper, P.N. Smith, A.D.H. Somlyay, A.M. Southcott, A.J. Stone, S.N. Truss, W.E. Tuckey, C.W. Turnbull, M. Vale, D.S. Washer, M.J. Wood, J. 83 Adams, D.G.H. Albanese, A.N. Bevis, A.R. Bidgood, J. Bird, S. Bowen, C. Bradbury, D.J. Burke, A.E. Burke, A.S. Butler, M.C. Byrne, A.M. Campbell, J. Champion, N. Cheeseman, D.L. Clare, J.D. Collins, J.M. Combet, G. Crean, S.F. D’Ath, Y.M. Danby, M. Debus, B. Dreyfus, M.A. Elliot, J. Ellis, A.L. Ellis, K. Emerson, C.A. Ferguson, L.D.T. Ferguson, M.J. Fitzgibbon, J.A. Garrett, P. Georganas, S. George, J. Gibbons, S.W. Gillard, J.E. Gray, G. Grierson, S.J. Griffin, A.P. Hale, D.F. Hall, J.G. * Hayes, C.P. * Irwin, J. Jackson, S.M. Kelly, M.J. Kerr, D.J.C. King, C.F. Livermore, K.F. Macklin, J.L. Marles, R.D. McClelland, R.B. McKew, M. McMullan, R.F. Melham, D. Murphy, J. Neal, B.J. Neumann, S.K. O’Connor, B.P. Oakeshott, R.J.M. Owens, J. Parke, M. Perrett, G.D. Plibersek, T. Price, L.R.S. Raguse, B.B. Rea, K.M. Ripoll, B.F. Rishworth, A.L. Roxon, N.L. Rudd, K.M. Saffin, J.A. Sidebottom, S. Smith, S.F. Snowdon, W.E. Sullivan, J. Swan, W.M. Symon, M. Tanner, L. Thomson, C. Thomson, K.J. Trevor, C. Turnour, J.P. Vamvakinou, M. Windsor, A.H.C. Zappia, A. * denotes teller Question negatived. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I think what everyone watching this will conclude is as follows: that the Liberal-National parties are so sensitive about ripping $1 billion out of the public hospital system that they closed the parliament down. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order under standing order 89. I find these words offensive. The Prime Minister is misleading the parliament. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The Deputy Leader of the Opposition, I think, would understand that it is a real stretch to apply unparliamentary language to the contribution so far. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —You know that when the member for Curtin takes control of the tactics things are going real bad. Opposition members interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The House will come to order. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —I say one more time: the Liberal and National parties are so sensitive about ripping a billion dollars out of Australia’s public hospital system that they chose to try and close down the Australian parliament. 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The Deputy Leader of the Opposition has been warned already. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —On the question of the $1 billion gouge out of the public hospital system, the Leader of the Opposition is obviously saying that the budget papers of the Howard government lie. I would not suggest that the Leader of the Opposition would make that accusation directly against his mentor, the former Prime Minister, Mr Howard, but if you go to the budget papers of 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2006-07 and what was going to happen in the subsequent forward estimates for the following year, 2007-08, you do not just have a billion dollars ripped out; you have more than that. What does that equal? It equals refusing the system 1,025 hospital beds. Tony, how could you deny funding for 1,025 hospital beds? Or, if you were translating it into— 9V5 Pyne, Chris, MP Mr Pyne —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask you to ask the Prime Minister to sit down under the standing order on irrelevance and tedious repetition. DK6 Hockey, Joe, MP Mr Hockey interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! You are all comedians, but I do not know whether the public out there really think it is all that funny. Yet again, the member for Sturt thinks he can speak whenever he likes. He should really look at the standing orders, which say that members cannot interrupt. I was about to be very charitable to him, because I could consider that this was simply a point of order that was designed to interrupt, given that previously in this parliament—as best I can do in monosyllables, which may be difficult—I explained to him that that standing order does not apply to question time. The Prime Minister is responding to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —The equivalent of this billion-dollar gouge out of the public hospital system is either 1,025 beds or 760 GP training places. This is not your average drive-by gouge—this was a megagouge. This took a lot of money out of the system. This does not just go to the Leader of the Opposition’s record as health minister on allocations to the hospitals; it goes to how he describes his record. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 89, I find these lies misleading and offensive, and I ask you to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw them. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order and the member for Dickson will withdraw. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr Dutton —I withdraw. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —As I said, it is not just the act of pulling a billion dollars out of the system; it is then how you seek to cover it up. 84T Haase, Barry, MP Mr Haase interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The member for Kalgoorlie will leave the chamber for one hour under standing order 94A. The member for Kalgoorlie then left the chamber. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —What we had from the Leader of the Opposition just recently in a radio interview was his statement that: I did not rip a billion dollars out of health … What happened was that in 1996, long before I was health minister, the forward estimates were reduced by $1 billion. This actually goes to the truthfulness of the Leader of the Opposition and his attempt to defend his action in taking that money out of the system, because if you go to— 83P Bishop, Julie, MP Ms Julie Bishop —Mr Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Under standing order 90, the Prime Minister is imputing an improper motive against the Leader of the Opposition, and I ask that he be sat down, because we are sick of hearing these untruths. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —There is no point of order. The Deputy Leader of the Opposition will resume her seat. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —As the Leader of the Opposition knows full well, what was untrue was what he said on the Alan Jones program about when this change occurred. In the 1996-97 budget papers there was not a billion-dollar removal from the health program. There was a removal of about $300 million—that is true. What he was seeking to do on that occasion was simply to cover up what he had done and was responsible for, and he was subsequently found out for it. It is not just that those opposite are so sensitive on health policy and so sensitive on the question of how you deal with a record which has a billion dollars being ripped out of the system; it goes to the credibility of those opposite on the question of policy in general. What we have seen so far from those opposite is every degree of sensitivity about any policy concerning health. We have seen where that went in recent days on paid parental leave—that great policy announcement which emerged from nowhere about a week or so ago. It rose as this great, bright shining beacon of new policy from those opposite and then it disappeared without a trace. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop —Mr Speaker, on a point of order, I refer you to the Practice, particularly page 554. In relation to the length of answers, you have the discretion to sit the member down when the answer has gone inordinately long, which this answer clearly has done. I invite you to ask him to sit down. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mackellar will resume her seat. The Prime Minister has the call. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —It goes to one question, which is: does the Leader of the Opposition have any interest in policy at all? We know that he has a big interest in politics and we know that he has a big interest in one-liners, but on health policy there has not been a question all week. His great new policy innovation, which is paid parental leave, rose one day and then disappeared without trace. Beyond that, we have the third party endorsements of his policy which have been so richly delivered by none other than Peter Costello today. He said today: For Liberals, that alarm should have sounded like an air-raid siren once Bob Brown and the Greens lauded the scheme … HWO Hawke, Alex, MP Mr Hawke interjecting— 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! The member for Mitchell will resume his seat. The Prime Minister will relate his material to the question. 83T Rudd, Kevin, MP Mr RUDD —So, whether it is health policy, economic policy or tax policy, we have a Leader of the Opposition who is not interested in policy at all. On health and hospitals we have waited for a question on this all day from the Leader of the Opposition. You would think that, looking at the concern which the Australian people have about the future of their hospital beds, the future of doctors and the future of nurses, just one question would come forth from those opposite on health and hospitals, but there was not one. What has their response been? To try to shut the parliament down. We understand why, however, on health and hospitals, because we have a Leader of the Opposition here who, when he was health minister, said, ‘There’s one thing for the Commonwealth to do and that’s to take the system over.’ He had five years to act on that and did not have the courage to act at all. Instead, when he was health minister, he ripped $1 billion out of the public hospital system and then put a cap on GP places. He was part of a government which abolished the Commonwealth dental scheme. And then what did he give? He gave that rock-solid, ironclad guarantee that nothing would ever happen with the Medicare safety net. But it all got summed up yesterday when, on the future of the health and hospital system he said, ‘We were gunna do it on the eve of the last election.’ Well, the Leader of the Opposition had better do a bit more ‘gunna-ing’ between now and the next election on health and hospitals, because his record is appalling and his plans are non-existent. I ask that further questions be placed on the Notice Paper. 2802 Miscellaneous 2802 15:39:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —On indulgence, I want to take this brief opportunity to advise the House on Australian assistance to the people of Fiji in the wake of the recent cyclone and the declaration of a state of natural disaster. Yesterday the interim Fiji government requested assistance from Australia. Whatever differences we may have with the interim government of Fiji, we have no difference with the people of Fiji and no difficulty in continuing to render humanitarian assistance to them. Last night I decided, on behalf of the government, to allocate as an initial contribution $1 million of assistance to the people of Fiji, and this morning an Australian Defence Force C130 aircraft left the Richmond air base carrying emergency relief supplies such as tents, tarpaulins, water, water purification equipment, blankets and the like. Three AusAID officials are on the plane to assist in the distribution of that humanitarian response in coordination with Fiji officials. In addition to the transportation of the emergency relief and supplies, the C130 will be available tomorrow to survey damaged areas in the east of Fiji and to provide part of the damage assessment. As part of the $1 million we will also be providing funding to Fiji’s National Disaster Management Office to enable it to charter helicopters and boats to deliver supplies to remote communities, and we are also funding the Fiji Red Cross to enable local purchase of emergency supplies. This is an initial response and we are open to a further response when further detailed assessments come in. We are doing this in cooperation and in conjunction with our friends in New Zealand. Last night I spoke to Foreign Minister McCully, and New Zealand have made a comparable and similar announcement today so far as their response is concerned. We also stand ready, willing and able to help with any long-term reconstruction. I can also advise the House that at this stage we have no indication whatsoever of any Australians having been caught up in the cyclone itself. I thank the House. 2802 15:41:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —On indulgence, the coalition supports the actions of the government in responding to the official request from the government of Fiji to provide humanitarian assistance for those in Fiji affected by the recent cyclone. We understand that the Australian government and the New Zealand government are coordinating the effort. We note that to date the Australian government has offered $1 million in practical assistance, such as tarpaulins and water equipment and the like, and we assume that the government will be monitoring the situation should more aid be required, in which case we assume that the minister will return to the House or put out a statement to that effect. Our condolences go to those who have been affected in Fiji by the destruction and devastation of the cyclone. 2803 Personal Explanations 2803 15:42:00 Abbott, Tony, MP EZ5 Warringah LP Leader of the Opposition 0 0 Mr ABBOTT —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —I do. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr ABBOTT —In question time today a clearly rattled and poll-panicked Prime Minister made misleading claims about my record as health minister. To correct the misrepresentation, I point out that in every year of my tenure hospital funding increased, from $7.49 billion in 2003-04 to $9.76 billion in 2007-08. It is absolutely obvious, and members opposite should stop telling grotesque untruths about the excellent record of the former government and the fine record, if I say so myself, of the former minister. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —The leader has made his point. EZ5 Abbott, Tony, MP Mr Abbott —I seek leave to table a document. Leave not granted. 2803 15:43:00 Dutton, Peter, MP 00AKI Dickson LP 0 0 Mr DUTTON —Mr Speaker, I wish to make a personal explanation. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Does the honourable member claim to have been misrepresented? 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —Yes. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Please proceed. 00AKI Dutton, Peter, MP Mr DUTTON —During question time again today the Minister for Health and Ageing suggested that the opposition leader and I were anti nurse. That is a ridiculous suggestion, and it reflects very poorly on the minister for health. 2803 Documents Mr ALBANESE (Grayndler —Leader of the House) 00:00:00 —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 document: Legal and Constitutional Affairs—House of Representatives Standing Committee—Whistleblower protection: A comprehensive scheme for the Commonwealth Public Sector—Government response. Debate (on motion by Mr Hartsuyker) adjourned. 2803 Motions 2803 2803 15:44:00 Albanese, Anthony, MP R36 Grayndler ALP Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Mr ALBANESE —by leave—I move: That, in accordance with section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the House approves the following proposal for works in the Parliamentary Zone which was presented to the House on 15 March 2010, namely: a vehicle storage facility near the Parliament House Loading Dock. This motion is seeking the approval of the parliament to construct a vehicle storage facility near the entrance to the Parliament House loading dock. The loading dock is located under the formal gardens east of the House of Representatives entrance. The facility will be a modern garage design with wooden cladding complementary to the other buildings in the precinct. The construction of the new facility is required so as to free up space in the loading dock area to accommodate a new mail screening facility. There are strong health and safety reasons why this new mail screening facility is required. Security operations staff provide screening and handling of all mail and parcels delivered to Parliament House. The existing facility is too small and is separate from the decontamination facility. This means that if a suspect mail item is identified it has to be carried by staff to the decontamination facility thereby risking the release of contaminants throughout the loading dock. This puts staff at risk and requires the operations of the loading dock to be shut down, often for several hours. The mail screening task is potentially hazardous and the Department of Parliamentary Services wishes to provide maximum safety for its staff. Construction of the new mail room is planned for this year. The Department of Parliamentary Services is proceeding with the design of the vehicle storage facility while taking into consideration the heritage values of the national iconic building and precinct. The National Capital Authority has been consulted in planning this facility and has endorsed the plan. It is intended that the works will be undertaken by June 2010. The estimated cost of the design and construction of the vehicle storage facility is $205,000. The total project cost will be met by the Department of Parliamentary Services through administered funding. Under section 5 of the Parliament Act 1974, the Presiding Officers are responsible for works within the parliamentary precinct and the Minister for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government is responsible for other works in the Parliamentary Zone. Accordingly, I am moving this motion on behalf of the Speaker and the President. I have also had discussions with the Manager of Opposition Business and, as I indicated to the representative of the Department of Parliamentary services yesterday, I believe that there is a need for increased scrutiny of proposals which become before this parliament which would result in expenditure by the parliament. The concerns of a number of members, senators, staff and Comcar drivers have been raised with me as the Leader of the House. These concerns are about some of the resultant work on the road which circles this building. I think that it is appropriate, and I have suggested to the Manager of Opposition Business, that he and I should avail ourselves of briefings before motions are moved before this House so that we can ascertain exactly what spending is required and exactly what the resultant work will be. The Manager of Opposition Business has accepted this invitation and I intend to provide that scrutiny in the future. Mr Speaker, you will be pleased to know that the department has accepted that that process needs to be improved in the future. 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Whilst I cannot enter into a debate that has been carried out by interjection, I am more than pleased that in future, as representatives of the House, and in the absence of another appropriate committee of the House, briefings will be given to the Leader of the House and to the Manager of Opposition Business. I would say to the three Independents that, if they wish to be included in these processes, I would ensure that that is carried out as well. I emphasise that I am happy for that to happen, but I stress that, unlike the Senate, we do not have an appropriate body such as the Senate Standing Committee on Appropriations and Staffing where I would be delighted if these things were thrashed out. Question agreed to. 2804 Ministerial Statements 2804 2804 15:50:00 Smith, Stephen, MP 5V5 Perth ALP Minister for Foreign Affairs 1 0 Mr STEPHEN SMITH —by leave—I wish to update the House on the situation in Sri Lanka since my last report to the House in September last year. In particular, I wish to update the House on the ongoing political and humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka and Australia’s strengthened financial and diplomatic support for the people of Sri Lanka to help Sri Lanka meet these challenges. I highlight some recent progress on resettling internally displaced civilians which is an enormous task. I underscore Australia’s longstanding bilateral relationship with Sri Lanka, underpinned by substantial people-to-people links. Our bilateral cooperation continues to expand in important areas, including combating people-smuggling and human trafficking. Addressing transnational issues such as these is important, not only to Sri Lanka and Australia but also to our region. I do so at a time when President Mahinda Rajapaksa has recently been re-elected, following Sri Lanka’s first nationwide election after over two decades of conflict and at a time when Sri Lanka prepares for parliamentary elections on 8 April. Political challenges As I said in my statement to the parliament in September last year, the military victory in Sri Lanka has changed the situation on the ground irrevocably. During my visit to Sri Lanka in November last year, I urged the Sri Lankan government to win the peace, after decades long military conflict, by forging an enduring political settlement for all Sri Lankans. I acknowledged that this would not be easy. Nor would it occur overnight. It would come only after a process of political reform and rapprochement between all parties and communities. While the outside world could help in practical ways, the solution needed to come from within Sri Lanka, from the people of Sri Lanka. The re-elected Sri Lankan government has both a special responsibility and a special opportunity to use its second term to promote the political freedoms and the reforms, including the empowerment of minority communities, which will enable all citizens to have a stake in the country’s future. Australia believes that Sri Lanka’s democracy, its rule of law and its national security would be enhanced by a stronger civil society and an independent and free media. Such freedoms could enhance Sri Lanka’s prospects for lasting reconciliation. Another crucial part of the reconciliation and peace-building process is the proper conduct of elections. In this regard, it is notable that polling for the presidential election proceeded reasonably peacefully in most areas. There were, however, reports of violence and possible violations of election law in the lead-up to and following the presidential election. As we approach the 8 April parliamentary elections, Australia urges the government of Sri Lanka and its civil institutions to ensure that there are credible investigations into past election incidents and measures are put in place to prevent similar problems arising again. As members would be aware, the former army chief and presidential candidate, General Fonseka, was taken into detention on 8 February and faces charges of undertaking political activities while still in the military and violating military procurement guidelines. General Fonseka was brought before a military court at navy headquarters on 16 March and is due to appear again today. General Fonseka is challenging the legality of his detention through Sri Lanka’s Supreme Court. The international community, including Australia, has been and is watching these developments closely. Australia has underlined the importance of General Fonseka and his supporters being treated fairly and transparently in accordance with Sri Lankan law. Decades of civil war have impacted terribly and adversely on Sri Lankan civilians. Australia made repeated calls during the conflict, and since, for all parties to make the welfare and protection of civilians the absolute priority, and for international law to be respected. Australia has called on the Sri Lankan government to investigate allegations of human rights violations and violations of international law. Proper and transparent investigation of these allegations is an important step towards reconciliation. Australia welcomed the announcement by the Sri Lankan government on 26 October last year that it would establish an expert committee to investigate allegations contained in the United States State Department’s Report to congress on incidents during the recent conflict in Sri Lanka. The deadline for the committee’s report was extended from 31 December last year to 30 April this year. It is important that the expert committee moves more quickly to progress its investigations and implement its findings. We look forward to the committee’s report, by 30 April 2010. I welcome President Rajapaksa’s re-election statement on 27 January in which he committed to govern for all Sri Lankans, to build on the peace already achieved and move forward on a reconciliation program. Others have indicated a willingness to explore options for reconciliation and long-term stability. The Tamil National Alliance said in its platform for parliamentary elections that it would accept a ‘federal structure’ in the north-east. Obviously this is a sensitive political issue for Sri Lankans to resolve. Australia encourages all political voices in Sri Lanka to engage together in a sincere process to achieve lasting political reconciliation in Sri Lanka. Humanitarian challenges Following my visit to Sri Lanka on 9 and 10 November last year, the first by an Australian foreign minister since 2004, it was very clear that the humanitarian task facing Sri Lanka was immense. Australia has been a close observer of the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka both during the recent intensified fighting and since the end of the military conflict in May last year. Throughout, Australia has stressed the need to make the welfare of civilians an absolute priority. Australia held concerns about the camps for internally displaced people and we put these concerns directly to the Sri Lankan government at the time, calling for freedom of movement for displaced persons and management of the camps in accordance with international humanitarian standards. My discussions with the Sri Lankan government in November, including with President Rajapaksa and foreign minister Rohitha Bogollagama, revealed that progress had been made in tackling the challenging task of resettling hundreds of thousands of displaced citizens and rehabilitating their communities. However, for several reasons—including the scale of the resettlement task—the Sri Lankan government was not able to meet its self-imposed deadline of 31 January for completing the return of all internally displaced people to their place of origin. This process is continuing. Of the nearly 300,000 civilians displaced by the conflict, over 185,000 have been released and are living either in their own homes or—in greater numbers—with host families. Living conditions in the 12 remaining camps, which now house over 90,000 internally displaced people, continue to be difficult but reduced numbers have relieved the problem of overcrowding. Efforts are being made to meet the basic needs of people still in these camps and essential services are being provided. During my November visit to Colombo, I discussed with the Sri Lankan government the importance of freedom of movement for all internally displaced civilians. Accordingly, Australia welcomed the Sri Lankan government’s announcement on 1 December last year which allowed freer movement for people in the camps. Tens of thousands of people have taken advantage of that decision to travel outside the camps. Many of these civilians and those recently resettled have suffered immensely through decades of conflict which has resulted in significant trauma for many Sri Lankans. In addition to the situation in the camps and the resettlement areas, we remain watchful of the conditions for over 10,000 individuals who have been separated from the civilian population and held in detention as ex-combatants. We urge the Sri Lankan government to regularise the legal status of this group and afford international agencies access to those so held in detention. Enhanced diplomatic efforts Australia has adopted an enhanced diplomatic and humanitarian effort to help Sri Lanka address the challenges of recovery from over two decades of civil war. On 2 November 2009, the Prime Minister announced the appointment of Mr John McCarthy as Australia’s special representative to Sri Lanka. Mr McCarthy’s role has reinforced the messages that I and Australia’s high commissioner in Colombo have put to the Sri Lankan government on the importance of—and Australia’s support for—stabilisation and resettlement of internally displaced civilians within Sri Lanka. Special Representative McCarthy has also engaged with the international community widely on the challenges faced by Sri Lanka. He has been consulting extensively on the importance of supporting reconstruction and rehabilitation programs in the north of the country. These programs are important both for humanitarian reasons and for laying the foundations of lasting peace. Mr McCarthy visited Colombo with me in November and has just completed a further visit to Sri Lanka this month, where he met President Rajapaksa. During this February visit, Mr McCarthy was also able to travel north with our high commissioner to the Jaffna peninsula where they visited camps for internally displaced civilians and resettlement areas, and met local government and community leaders. In a number of discussions overseas, both in the corridors of international meetings and bilateral visits, including in London in January and in New Delhi in March, I underlined the importance of international support to assist Sri Lanka meet its challenges. Humanitarian assistance Australia continues to respond generously to the humanitarian challenges facing Sri Lanka. Our aid program is targeted to meet the needs of displaced civilians, their resettlement and the rehabilitation of their communities. Our aid efforts in the camps are focused on the wellbeing of internally displaced people, and not on the camps being a long-term settlement option. The proper, transparent and compassionate treatment of those citizens of the north and east will be important for post-conflict reconciliation in Sri Lanka. It is for this reason that Australia continues to advocate resettlement of all remaining displaced persons in safe and dignified conditions as soon as possible. Australian officials in Sri Lanka are working closely with central and local government authorities and community groups to determine how best Australia can continue to address the needs of the displaced, and support their resettlement and rehabilitation. A senior AusAID official visited resettlement areas in northern Sri Lanka in late February for this purpose. In many cases resettlement areas have been badly affected by the conflict. There are impassable roads, destroyed houses and a lack of potable water. Infrastructure, including schools and health facilities, is damaged or non-existent. Large swathes of agricultural land are as yet unusable and tools to restart livelihoods are scarce. In addition, there is the ever-present danger of landmines and unexploded ordnance. Demining is an essential first step to allow people to return home and rebuild their lives. For this reason, Australia has already announced its commitment to provide up to $20 million for demining over the next five years to ensure that the northern part of Sri Lanka can be made safe for resettlement. Aid announcement In November 2009 following my visit to Sri Lanka I informed the House that Australia was looking favourably to assisting both the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank on their reconstruction projects in the north and in the east. In Singapore in the margins of APEC I had a conversation with Mr Zoellick, the Executive Director of the World Bank, indicating Australia’s in-principle support for those reconstruction efforts so far as the World Bank is concerned. Today I announced that Australia will provide an additional $20 million in targeted assistance for Sri Lanka. This support will be delivered through international organisations who are making a practical contribution to stabilisation efforts. It is focused on enabling people to return to their homes and communities and to re-establish the economic and social infrastructure required for recovery. Twelve million dollars will be provided to the World Bank to co-finance the World Bank’s emergency northern reconstruction project. Over an 18-month period, the World Bank project plans to help over 100,000 displaced people by providing cash grants, raising standards of living and rebuilding essential community infrastructure. Australian funding will go directly to resettling families, allowing them to regain some control over their own lives and to start repairing their houses and clearing their fields and wells. Our assistance will also provide seeds and essential farming and fishing implements to improve food security. Eight million dollars will be provided to co-finance the Asian Development Bank’s north-east community restoration and development project. This project aims to rapidly improve living conditions by restoring basic social infrastructure including critical health facilities and schools. It will restore village roads, provide irrigation and water supply schemes and restore electricity supplies. It will give priority to districts affected by conflict including parts of Jaffna, Mannar and Kilinochchi. The assistance I am announcing today builds on Australia’s existing support for housing to enable internally displaced people to be resettled more quickly. Large-scale damage to basic housing infrastructure in the north remains a critical challenge, with the total number of houses damaged or destroyed reported to exceed 230,000. This announcement and support follows on from the $3 million Australia provided in November 2009 to UN Habitat to provide cash grants to affected families for quick repairs and longer term reconstruction of housing, as well as restoring land titles. Bilateral relationship Sri Lanka is important to Australia. Sri Lanka and Australia share strong bilateral relations, built on our shared Commonwealth membership, as well as links in trade and investment, defence, education, sport, culture and development cooperation. The people-to-people links between Australia and Sri Lanka are strong with around 100,000 people of Sri Lankan extraction now living in Australia, contributing to all aspects of our society. The opportunity now exists for the Sri Lankan diaspora to play a constructive role in promoting the conditions for sustainable peace. I urge the diaspora to look forward and work in positive ways to help communities inside Sri Lanka realise a peaceful future for themselves. Australia is committed to working with Sri Lanka to help address the serious challenges facing today’s world, including counterterrorism and people smuggling, climate change and organised transnational crime. Such issues require global solutions and Australia is firmly committed to supporting and enhancing the vital role of multilateral institutions, including the United Nations, in meeting these challenges. People smuggling is an issue that affects our entire region, not just Australia. We are working more closely than ever before with international organisations, in particular the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, and with regional partners to combat this issue, through such groupings as the Bali Process on People Smuggling, Trafficking in Persons and Related Transnational Crime. People smuggling remains a high-priority transnational issue for source, transit and destination countries in our region, including Australia and Sri Lanka. People smugglers and people-smuggling syndicates work without regard for human safety or national legal frameworks. Australia is working together with Sri Lanka to address people smuggling. In a joint ministerial statement I issued with the Sri Lankan Foreign Minister on 9 November 2009, Australia and Sri Lanka reaffirmed our continuing commitment to work together to combat people smuggling and related organised criminal activities, including enhancing cooperation to bring to justice the criminal organisers of the people smuggling trade, taking a leading role to promote regional cooperation to act against transnational people-smuggling networks and undertaking a public information campaign to alert Sri Lankan citizens to the dangers of maritime people smuggling. We acknowledged our ongoing constructive bilateral cooperation between key domestic operational agencies and underlined our commitment to work together in practical ways to address people smuggling issues in a cooperative and comprehensive manner. Conclusion Mr Speaker, Sri Lanka is emerging from a long period of conflict and insecurity towards greater stability. With new presidential and parliamentary terms soon to begin, now more than ever is the time to forge a new beginning for all its citizens and take forward national reconciliation and lasting peace. As a long-time friend, Australia has been, and will continue to be, committed to working with Sri Lanka to build a peaceful and prosperous future for all Sri Lankans. I ask leave of the House to move a motion to enable the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and member for Curtin to speak for 18 minutes. Leave granted. 5V5 Smith, Stephen, MP Mr STEPHEN SMITH —I move: That so much of 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 18 minutes. Question agreed to. 2810 16:09:00 Bishop, Julie, MP 83P Curtin LP 0 0 Ms JULIE BISHOP —In rising to respond to the ministerial statement on Sri Lanka I acknowledge the further assistance to Sri Lanka announced today by the Minister for Foreign Affairs. It is important that our aid effort be focused on our region and that it be targeted and delivered in the most cost-effective way to ensure value for money for the benefit of the aid recipients and the Australian taxpayer. Sri Lanka is emerging from arguably the darkest chapter in its history since independence in 1948. The people of Sri Lanka have suffered terribly through a civil war in the decades since 1976, culminating in the final confrontation that led to the defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam in May last year. The events which followed that military defeat raised international concerns as hundreds of thousands of Tamil people were held in camps. A decision to prevent access to the camps for humanitarian workers from NGOs raised further concerns in the international community. The situation in Sri Lanka was further complicated by allegations of war crimes and the decision of Sri Lanka’s top military officer, General Sarath Fonseka, to resign from the military late last year and contest the January presidential election against the incumbent president. General Fonseka was unsuccessful at the election. He was arrested and is currently facing courts-martial for alleged violations of military law. The government has been accused of conducting a campaign of persecution against General Fonseka, raising further concerns about political freedom and democracy in Sri Lanka. Without seeking to pass judgment on the government of Sri Lanka, it is my wish and the wish of most people around the world that Sri Lanka find a path to sustained peace and prosperity. Sri Lankans share the aspirations of most people in most nations, wanting their government to provide a safe and secure environment in which they can raise their families and live their lives in safety. Having won the war against the LTTE, it is important that the Sri Lankan government win the peace. It is vital that international standards for human rights be maintained as Sri Lanka continues its transition to a post-conflict society. I note the European Union withdrew Sri Lanka’s trade privileges last month due to concerns about what it described as ‘significant shortcomings’ on human rights issues. However, overnight a spokesperson has said that the European Union is committed to working with Sri Lanka to see whether the conditions for a reversal are in place. A high-level delegation from Sri Lanka visited Brussels this week, with further meetings scheduled which will hopefully prove to be a constructive exercise. It is also worth noting that the United Nations Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, had proposed to establish an advisory council to investigate ways of holding accountable the alleged perpetrators of human rights violations during the final days of the battle against the LTTE. In recent days, a spokesperson for the Secretary-General has said that Ban Ki-moon is still discussing the idea of a panel of experts to investigate alleged war crimes and that ‘it is unlikely such a panel will be established very soon’. It has also been reported that the 118 nations of the Non-Aligned Movement wrote to the Secretary-General, expressing concern about such an investigation. There is a difficult balancing act for the international community in that anyone who has committed crimes against humanity or war crimes should be held to account for their actions. At the same time, there is a need to ensure that actions by the international community do not cause further internal turmoil within Sri Lanka and do nothing to undermine efforts to develop a sustainable peace on the island. It is vital that the seeds for long-lasting peace be sown from the current situation and that it does not sow the seeds for a return to violence. There can only be a political solution to the tensions in Sri Lanka—a negotiated solution that accommodates the reasonable concerns of all parties. One positive development is the recent report from the Tamil National Alliance, which was regarded as the political wing of the LTTE, calling for a new federal structure that provides Tamils with a level of independence under the umbrella of the Sri Lankan national government. This is a major step forward, as the TNA had previously supported the establishment of a separate Tamil homeland. A report has said that the TNA wants a negotiated solution and its leader has effectively renounced violence as a means of achieving its goals. The Sri Lankan government has assured the international community that it is working on a political solution and that time is needed to obtain a consensus. The President of Sri Lanka, in his speech declaring victory over the LTTE, spoke of the need to end ethnic and religious conflict and promised a home-grown solution to this conflict. The coalition in Australia welcomes recent reports that 185,000 people have just been released from the camps and allowed to return to their homes. While this is a positive development, it is vital that the process of release and resettlement be completed as quickly as possible. The sooner that people are able to return to their homes and start to rebuild their lives, the sooner that steps can be taken to rebuild trust and respect between all communities in Sri Lanka. That process has begun, according to respected analyst Sergei DeSilva-Ranasinghe, who wrote in a recent report of Future Directions International: The defeat of the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam in May 2009 has given vital democratic space for previously suppressed and sidelined Tamil political parties to meaningfully engage in the democratic process. As such, the political landscape for Tamils has changed dramatically over the last six months in particular, which has seen a new energy and optimism emerge among Tamil leaders in Sri Lanka eager to make headway in restoring normality and rebuilding their society. Mr DeSilva-Ranasinghe went on to say: Although the Sri Lankan Lankan government remained overly cautious after the defeat of the LTTE, it steadily relaxed its security posture, which was first demonstrated in May 2009, when it launched a major recruitment drive to recruit 2,000 Tamil speaking police constables in the Eastern Province. He wrote that the previous atmosphere of tension had dissipated and had been replaced by a vitality and energy that brought great hope for a longer lasting peace. While it is not possible to form an independent view of the situation on the ground without visiting the region, these reports are greatly encouraging. If accurate, there appears to be much greater hope that future tensions between ethnic groups in Sri Lanka will be solved at the ballot box and not through the use of violence. I also note that in the minister’s statement to this House he said that the situation on the ground in Sri Lanka had changed irrevocably since the military defeat of the LTTE. That is welcome news, as it would indicate that there will be a lessening of pressure on Australia’s borders through the people-smuggling trade in people from Sri Lanka. Given that the government has consistently claimed that push factors are driving the surge in boat people to Australia through the people-smuggling trade, I would hope that there will be an assurance from the government that the number of asylum seekers will drop. Australians are rightly concerned that the almost daily arrival of boats, many from Sri Lanka, continues the massive surge in unauthorised arrivals under Labor which will end up costing Australians more than $1 billion. The Rudd government has already admitted to a $132 million blow-out in the cost of processing boat arrivals on Christmas Island this financial year plus another $34 million to increase the number of beds on Christmas Island because the government had predicted only 200 people would arrive illegally by boat this financial year, a massive underestimation which ignored the pull factor of the government’s weakening of our border protection laws. So far this financial year, over 3,000 people have arrived by boat and, even on a conservative estimate, by the end of July the Rudd government will be forced to spend an extra $230 million to deal with the sustained surge in arrivals under its failed policies. As the shadow minister for immigration and citizenship pointed out recently, the Rudd government is currently planning on spending only $130 million per year over the next three years. Based on this year’s expected cost blow-outs, it will have to upgrade these estimates by an extra $300 million each year. Over four years, including 2009-10, this will leave Australians with an additional bill of over $1 billion in immigration costs alone because of the government’s failed immigration policies and the weakening of the coalition’s strong border protection regime. So we anticipate that at some point the government will reflect the views of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and revisit its estimates of likely boat arrivals, including from Sri Lanka, given the changing political environment there. I have spoken previously in this House on the efforts of the member for Canning who, as chair for a number of years and now Deputy Chair of the Australia-Sri Lanka Parliamentary Friendship Group, has played a major role in building greater understanding between our two nations. The member for Canning has long recognised that personal relationships between Australians and Sri Lankans underpin strong diplomatic, cultural and economic relations. Australia, as a friend of Sri Lanka, will continue to support efforts at building peace and greater prosperity. 2812 Matters of Public Importance 2812 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Mr Speaker has received a letter from the honourable member for New England proposing that a definite matter of public importance be submitted to the House for discussion, namely: The future of agriculture in Australia. 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— 2812 16:19:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —I thank the House for the unanimous way in which they have supported the agricultural sector by rising to their feet. The point of today’s matter of public importance, which is about the future of agriculture in Australia, is not designed to take political issue on various policy points, as we normally do—or some do—in this place. The overlying reason for bringing this issue to the parliament is that there are a number of issues out there that are sending conflicting messages to the agricultural sector. We really need a debate—some sort of strategic plan, a white paper or an arrangement—that will take the lid off the farm sector within Australia and ask the Australian people: do we need agriculture? If so, why? If we do— 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr Secker —We have to feed ourselves. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —I am a farmer, as is the member for Barker, who is barking away up there, and I have personal views. But I do believe that in some of the policy issues that have been in the parliamentary sector, both state and federal, for probably the last couple of decades there are very subtle—and in some cases not so subtle—messages being sent to the farm sector, the agricultural community, that we are not needed. It is a question that we really have to take some cognisance of: do we want it, and why? Obviously, food production is important. We all eat. Our agricultural sector exports 80 per cent of what we produce to other countries who presumably need to eat and some of whom do not have much in the way of finance to pay for that food. In those negotiations, quite often the price of the product that we grow and sell is very close or below the cost of production. So in a sense we are an export nation. I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, who has just arrived, for being here. Being an export nation and relying on exports for a great deal of our income, we need to overproduce and send those products to other countries. There are a range of issues where policy is actually on a collision course, and there were some real insights into some of the points of collision during the climate change debate that recently took place. That debate is, of course, still taking place. We are told that we need agriculture in this country because we need to produce food. We need to produce food, particularly in the long term, because the globe’s population is growing. Every time we produce a surplus in this country we face what are essentially corrupt world markets, and then we have a domestic cost structure which does not reflect the nature of our export economy. So we have the worst of both worlds: a corrupt export arrangement and, at home, an artificial cost structure that affects our capacity to make those export opportunities profitable. The climate change debate has raised a number of issues. It is suggested that carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide are concerns in terms of global warming. When we look at the role of land use there are certain positives and negatives. The minister would be well aware of some of these issues. We are told there are potential negatives in terms of methane. We are told there are potential negatives in terms of the use of fossil fuels in the agricultural sector. We are told that the transport sector is a major emitter. When we look at agriculture in this country, particularly but not only in the grains industries, we see that we export most of what we produce to other countries. Then we exchange most of those export dollars for fossil fuels which we bring back to this country. So, in a carbon economy, we are doing two negatives. In the grains industry we produce a product—for instance, wheat, which contains starch, a carbon—which is needed for the food business. We transport that to the seaport, we put it on boats, we transport it overseas—so we are actually shipping carbon—and then we sell that product. Occasionally we have to bribe an Arab to be able to unload that particular commodity. Then we bring back a fossil fuel, which is carbon again. In a carbon economy, what role do the minister and others see agriculture playing? What are the negatives in terms of the export arrangements that we currently believe in, or is Australia badly placed in terms of distance if a carbon economy is to come into play? There are a number of issues there that need to be addressed. We are told that we need land for food production. As I said, 80 per cent of what we produce is exported, so we are at the behest of other people, not the domestic market. We are told that land should be utilised in that capacity most of the time. But what if it were not? What if, in a carbon world, we were actually to plant trees? In fact, there was an incentive built into the government’s Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme to shift land use away from food and towards trees. What if we went to second generation biofuels with, for instance, a deep-rooted, annually harvested plant such as switchgrass, which was the original grass on the prairies of the United States before the Corn Belt was developed? That particular plant has the capacity to produce biomass for second generation biofuels. It has the capacity to grow with very little nitrogen input, so it ticks a box in terms of nitrous oxide. It has the capacity to sequester carbon at depth, which is one of the problems in the accumulation of soil carbon. So why would we not, in a carbon economy, promote some of these non-food activities in terms of the surplus that we produce? We have this policy conundrum, and it varies depending on which portfolio we actually look at. In my view we are not doing very well in the water portfolio, given the negotiations that are taking place between the Murray-Darling people and the people on the ground who use water and have allocations within the Murray-Darling system. We are told that we will have to use less water because of so-called climate change. But, when it is suggested that perhaps there are ways of bringing water into the system to compensate for the human induced climate change component of the loss of water in the Murray-Darling system, that is scoffed at as being in breach of nature. We are told that parts of Queensland will get more water because of human induced climate change and that the southern parts of Australia will get less, but rectifying both of those issues is deemed as being, still, interference with nature. In my view, it is not. So the land use debate becomes a fairly significant debate. Do we use farmland to produce food or do we use it in the most economic way in terms of a carbon economy? If we went down the carbon economy route we might well not use much of our land for food production at all. Rather than growing grain to export and exchange for fuel, we may end up growing biomass for fuel, using it within our nation and ticking a lot of the boxes in current climate change policy that relate to agriculture being included globally in any sort of future emissions trading scheme. The other issues I would like to raise relate to a report that came out only yesterday from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, of which I am a member, entitled Farming the future: The role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. There is a need for much more research into soil science. Soil science—the capacity to know what our soils are doing, how soils are responding to various treatments of infiltration and the effect of the accumulation of the humus and organic matter in soils and soil carbon—is being neglected. In fact, governments have virtually eradicated many of our basic soil scientists and have left the science up to commercial interests. It was not seen to be fashionable for many years, but suddenly climate change has come along and soil carbon has been raised as an issue. Now we are asking, ‘What can we do?’ and the answer is, ‘We don’t know; we’ll have to establish a number of funding arrangements so that we can find out what is going on in our soils.’ Irrespective of whether the emissions trading arrangements or the climate change issue goes away, a lot of this work needs to be done and, in fact, should have been done many years ago. There is also the issue of competition, particularly on the Liverpool Plains. Many people would be aware of that issue where there is an interface between the need for coal dollars as opposed to long-term food production on some of the very fertile black soil areas not only in New South Wales but also in parts of Queensland, particularly where there is an interface with underlying groundwater systems. That interface could have severe repercussions with the current arrangements to establish end-of-valley caps et cetera for the Murray Darling system. We have a range of issues out there. For instance, just recently we have had the property rights debate. It was raised again in question time today. What rights do people have who own freehold land? I think we really need to think through that issue once again because there are some very old issues there. Native vegetation is one issue that is raised from time to time, but there are other issues that relate to the rights of individuals and offside impacts such as longwall mining on the alluvial floodplain that is underpinned with a groundwater system that not only involves the localised area but also has a hydraulic effect for hundreds of kilometres and impacts on the river systems as well. I do not think we have put together a policy that reconciles a lot of these issues. On one side, people are saying that agriculture is about food. On the other side, people are saying the innovation may not be about food. And then we have another government policy that says we have to plant some trees. They will have an impact on the run-off into the Murray system and they will have an impact on the land available for food. It will have an impact on a whole range of things. Then you have policy initiatives that encourage tree planting. I am not taking sides, but we have to start thinking about the totality of what we are doing here because we have a lot of regional towns, communities, individuals and investors who need to know where this debate is going and where it is likely to end up. This report raises a number of technologies—which I think is invaluable—particularly in relation to drought policy. I know the government is looking at new drought policy initiatives. I urge the government to look at some of the technologies that are raised in this report. Some of them have been mentioned by the opposition in dealing with what they call direct action on climate change. Many of the technologies are good for our soils, good for moisture infiltration, good for productivity and relate to drought. We have all heard of the ongoing exceptional circumstances debate. Just recently, a group of us on this primary industries and resources committee went out to a property near Bungendore called Mulloon Creek where we met with a chap called Tony Coote, who is practising natural sequence farming. It is similar to what Peter Andrews and others have been involved with. I would urge you, Minister, to actually take the time—and I are more than willing to go with you—to go out and have a look at what is happening there. I think the advances that are being made are quite remarkable. (Time expired) 2815 16:34:00 Burke, Tony, MP DYW Watson ALP Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry 1 0 Mr BURKE —I thank the member for New England for bringing the issue of the future of agriculture to the attention of the parliament through a matter of public importance and also for the fact that, when he does bring these issues to the parliament, we actually have some of those rare and truly constructive discussions. This reflects well on what he is able to bring to the parliament. The member for New England referred to Australia being effectively, in agricultural terms, an exporting nation. We export just over 60 per cent of what we grow here, and this carries its own context. I want to look at the four different sorts of challenges that we have. There are some areas that in some ways have the biggest effect on agriculture which we have to acknowledge we simply cannot control at a government level, there are some areas where we can manage risk, there are some areas where we can intervene, and there are some areas where the best thing government can do is to get out of the way. I want to have a look at each of those four areas. One of the areas that cannot be controlled by us, as an exporting nation, is the value of the dollar. There is nothing farmers are feeling more acutely at the moment than the value of the dollar. The dollar is trading at US92c at the moment. As an exporting nation, many of our farmers are feeling that and are feeling that very deeply. You have only to look at what has happened to a lot of the cattle prices of late. At the same time, there is a lot more quantity coming onto that market because of the reopening of access particularly in Japan and Korea to US beef. There are challenges out there that have a price impact where it is beyond the realm of government to be able to directly intervene. Farmers have suggested to me that we would be able to fix the dollar issue if we had a weaker economy, but I suspect that no Australian would say thankyou for that as a method of fixing the challenges they are having with their export prices. The other issue that cannot be controlled by government is drought. We know from the projections that we can expect to see longer and deeper droughts in the future, even if only because increased temperatures have an immediate impact on soil moisture. Even if rainfall remains steady, increased temperatures mean that soil moisture tends to run out earlier. I think we need to be upfront and acknowledge the areas we cannot control. We need to say, ‘Within that context, what are the things we can do?’ The first thing we can do for the future of Australian agriculture is work out how much more effectively we can manage risks. A quarantine risk, a biosecurity outbreak, is the key risk the government has a role in assisting to manage. When I first came into this portfolio, equine influenza was still present throughout the country. I undertook one of my first visits to country New South Wales with the member for New England. I remember going from one section to another, and we were spraying under our shoes to disinfect them. We had to follow a lot of different rules to make sure we were part of the successful eradication of equine influenza. That outbreak alone cost the Australian economy at least $1 billion, and I think the truth is that we will never know the full cost of the outbreak. The last time the Productivity Commission had a look at the likely cost to the Australian economy of an outbreak of foot and mouth disease, the figure they came up with was between $8 billion and $13 billion. A determination to manage risk at the border more effectively in the future than Australia has done in the past is a responsibility that falls heavily to government. There is no such thing as zero risk. Zero risk would involve shutting the borders, closing down tourism, closing out all forms of imports—and probably shooting all migratory birds. Zero risk is not going to happen. But everything that can be done to reduce risk and to make it as unlikely as possible that we will have future biosecurity outbreaks is an important thing for government to do in terms of creating a better situation for Australia’s farmers. Quarantine used to have in their risk management a whole series of things known as the IQIs, whereby it had been determined that a certain number of containers and passengers had to be checked. A whole lot of raw data figures were the benchmark. If there was a greater risk somewhere else, our officials were not put there. We had a rigid approach that said, ‘We have set the key performance indicators and they will remain.’ But we have now moved to a system where we are able to deploy our resources directly where the risk is greatest. Does that give a guarantee that there will be no problematic outbreaks in future? Of course not. But I do think it has been a very important development to get to that first threshold of saying risk is what we will look at. In areas where we can directly intervene, there is none more important than the one the member for New England referred to, which is research and development. The capacity for direct government engagement in research and development is extraordinary. You only have to look at the story of productivity growth for cropping in Australia—and once again this is an example the member for New England has referred to on many occasions. Productivity growth was running at about double the rate for the rest of the economy, and it was directly linked to research and development. There were a number of factors that helped, but one was critical, and that was the uptake of minimum-till/no-till farming, the direct drilling of seed into the ground. That is a great example of how research and development can find a pathway forward that has massive improvements in the tools available to farmers. It is my view that we should never go down the path of telling farmers what they should grow and precisely how they should grow it. I think all of those decisions are best made by farmers taking their own risks on their own land. The more we can hand over to that ingenuity, the better it will be for the nation and the greater the productivity outcomes. But, as was referred to a moment ago, for many years there has been underinvestment in research into soils in Australia. We have put extra money into research and development since we came into office. I am very pleased to have insisted that a very large part of the $46.2 million that we added through the Climate Change Research Program went into soil research. I think we can be more optimistic about the extent to which the different priorities can actually be aligned. The concept of a low-carbon economy and higher productivity for farmers can and will go hand in hand if we get the research and development right. There are areas of science which are not yet fully formed. With biochar, for example, there are examples where we know it works great, but we have not yet worked out how to match all the different soils we have in Australia with all the different sorts of biochar. What is the answer? Let us do that research and find out—which is exactly what the government has done through this funding. I also believe that we should not close our minds to any area of scientific research. While I appreciate that from time to time there are strong community campaigns and wariness among people about genetic modification, I do believe that all areas of biotechnology should be on the table. Let’s face it: this industry is in the business of feeding people. We have a world population that will be pushing towards nine billion people by 2050. If we are going to do something about alleviating hunger, we are talking something in the order of a 70 per cent increase in total food production between now and 2050, largely running off the same area of land. There are very significant reasons why we should not be shutting our minds to any area of research. While some people will argue a moral case against genetic modification, I am happy any day to put that up against a moral case for feeding people. On the carbon economy, when people talk about trees I say, ‘It depends.’ With the planting of trees, there are ways things can be done which do complement agricultural production. In Victoria I have seen some fantastic examples of improved afforestation on grazing land which has had a dual benefit. It has provided a timber asset on those properties for the farmers involved and it has allowed them to increase—not decrease but increase—their stocking rates. It is, of course, not the same story at all if you plant your trees on cropping land or on plantation land or anything like that. In grazing areas, however, what is available through extra shading, through wind breaks and through the extra nutrients provided to the soil by careful strategic tree-planting should not be viewed in any way as a threat to a commitment to agricultural production. The final area where we can intervene is market access. Improving market access is always painfully slow. Essentially, when we are trying to improve market access to other countries, we are talking about one thing—we are trying to get extra customers for an Australian farmer. We are trying to increase the number of customers available. A good job has been done for a very long time by both sides of politics, no matter who has been in government, in trying to push the envelope on market access wins. I have a document here—though it says ‘last 12 months’, so it covers only a limited period, and it is quite a few months old—that has a number of examples of improved market access: new access for kangaroo meat into China and dairy breeder cattle into Sri Lanka and New Caledonia; recognition of Sunraysia as seasonally free of fruit fly; access to new markets for the live animal trades; access for citrus into New Caledonia, fish into Korea, dairy products to India and fish to Russia. Example after example has been presented to me. Another one is cherries, particularly Tasmanian cherries, making their way into Japan. There are many examples in front of me of where farmers have radically increased their numbers of customers, and that is a very good thing in terms of the options available to them. The final example, though—and I appreciate that this example will not necessarily win the favour of the honourable member who brought forward the matter of public importance—is of areas where government can properly get out of the way. I do believe wheat deregulation is an example of that. I appreciate the strength of opinion of a number of wheat growers, particularly in the New England area, who would prefer that the government took a different path. Those concerns have always been voiced very strongly and loudly by the member for New England. I do believe, though, that allowing farmers to have extra choices and to choose whom they sell their wheat to provides extra opportunities for them. There are other areas where I believe we can get out of the way. With export certification, by moving from a subsidy process, with a transition arrangement which was negotiated in very good faith with the opposition and the shadow minister, we have eliminated a lot of the red tape which has occasionally held up entire shipments—after the grain was already loaded, a problem would arise and then all the demurrage costs would flow on. By allowing private enterprise a pathway for a greater engagement in some of these export certification issues, I do believe, once again, we reduce red tape. Similarly, there was legislation introduced this week—today, actually—about registering the use of pesticides with the APVMA. There are many examples where red tape and the government being in the way is one of the problems for farmers. I am determined that, wherever we can responsibly find ways of taking that step back and saying, ‘No—these are areas of red tape that we can remove for you; these are areas where the inefficiency is actually our fault, not the farmer’s,’ we should do so. There are many other issues, obviously, but I am mindful of the time. Essentially, the context of being an export nation must not be lost in this debate. Some 60 per cent—it is much more than half—of what we grow is dependent on those international markets. We need to manage risks where we can, acknowledge the areas where we cannot intervene, intervene strategically in ways that actually help and be careful that government is not getting in the road. 2819 16:49:00 Oakeshott, Rob, MP IYS Lyne IND 0 0 Mr OAKESHOTT —I rise to speak in this debate and I congratulate the member for New England for bringing it forward—not in a typical use of the MPI to attack someone in this chamber but to bring on a thoughtful and important debate on the future of agriculture in this country. As a colleague, I can confirm he is a longstanding thinker on agriculture and the future of agriculture. His involvement in the document of the committee chaired by the member for Lyons, which I am sure has been talked about this afternoon, is just another example of that commitment to the longer term issues in and around agriculture in Australia’s future. I congratulate him. I also acknowledge the comments from the Minister for Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries. I was not going to mention the topic of wheat, but he has thrown it out there, so I will raise it before he leaves. His comments flowed on from a conversation about market access and a long list—and a very good list, I am sure—of examples of improved market access. I would hope I speak on behalf of all farmers and all Australians when I say that, when we talk about trade generally and when we talk about the pragmatism of trade, we should not forget the principles and the values of what it is to be an Australian—especially when we try to get access to markets with regimes that are more than questionable in international affairs. I was surprised one morning over summer—I think it was about six weeks ago—when I awoke to read in the newspaper that at the shareholder class action around AWB there had been the startling admission of a very late acknowledgement by the company involved that they were aware of the moneys going to the regime in question. I would hope that at some point in the future the minister considers the implications of that comment—and, yes, it was under a former government, but it is the same bureaucracy—and where that comment of six weeks ago stands in relation to the Cole inquiry, market access and the importance of trade for the future of agriculture in Australia. I agree wholeheartedly that we are a trading nation. As to the figure of 60 per cent, I talk about two of every three cows going overseas when I go to a saleyard and someone tries to have the discussion of the moment with me about why we have to import beef. We die as an agriculture industry and we die as a nation financially if we do not acknowledge the importance and value of a vibrant industry in this country for the export of food products. The give and take of trade means that we have to import as well. I would hope that is understood in 99 homes out of 100, as part of who we are as a trading nation in the area of agriculture. The report of the committee’s inquiry, which was chaired by the member for Lyons and had involvement by the member for New England, is an excellent one. I urge all members in this place to have a look at it and I urge all members of my local farming community to have a look at it. We in this place have been through a pretty meaty debate on global issues around climate change, and its implications for agriculture were front and centre of much of that debate. Issues debated were whether or not to offset, whether or not to provide exemptions and the implications of particular pieces of legislation on the agriculture industry. I make that point because after all the debate of the last six months the foreword by the member for Lyons—and I told him this last night—in this document is the best after-sales service on the topic of climate change I have yet come across. It is personal, it is localised, it is 2½ pages long, it is simple to read and it is food for thought for everyone in government and everyone who gives a damn about the topic of climate change. I congratulate the member for Lyons for that. I also like the report because it does not even matter whether or not there ends up being a price on carbon. It does not even matter if the topic of climate change flies or not. There are good, practical thoughts and suggestions for the agriculture sector in this document, and it is certainly worthy of further debate on all of the various topics covered, in this place and in the community. I have done my best to sell the document; I hope everyone buys because it is well put together. A lot of people’s time was involved and hopefully it will be a valued contribution for those who are genuinely looking at the topic in this country. I also want to make mention of the issue of the clash of the moment, which was again on the front page of one of the national dailies today—that is, the growing importance and value of the coal sector to the New South Wales budget and the growing clash of policy between the desire to export coal—again, regardless of climate change—and the importance of farming land and food products, both domestically and to contribute to exports generally. I know that the member for New England has been up to his eyeballs in this topic, in a positive way, and I endorse and support the work he has been doing and those who recognise the importance of protecting the food bowl areas of this country. In the member for New England’s case, that is largely shaped around the Liverpool Plains in an area that has just been included in the Lyne electorate. We have a similar clash in regard to the Gloucester Basin, and I am sure there are many other locations around Australia where there is this sensitive, complex and difficult clash between the want for the minerals under the ground and the desire to keep food security and keep the farming industry in play in this country. I would hope that it is on the agenda of the minister and the executive to start to put some boundaries around food security and the importance of agricultural land in this country. Yes, by all means this country has the natural resources to participate in a mining boom, but we cannot give up the agriculture sector as a consequence. That would be long-term stupidity for all of us. So I endorse the ongoing campaign that is taking place on that front. Finally, in the short time I have left, on the mid North Coast of New South Wales it is a pretty exciting time in the agriculture sector. We have been front and centre of the traditional industries of commercial fishing, timber, beef and dairy. All of them have been under the pump with regard to change: deregulation, sustainable practices and therefore changing practices. All of them have taken a hit over the last 15 to 20 years, but all are surviving. In many cases, those industries that have managed to ride out the last 15 to 20 years are stronger and are very well placed to continue to contribute to the supply of product in this country. As well, I am seeing some really fascinating and interesting new products on the Comboyne, which used to be all dairy. We are seeing avocados, blueberries and a whole range of new products coming into the mid North Coast. Markets like cut flowers are alive and kicking. Organics have hit the mid North Coast in a big way. I think these are a reflection, but an exciting reflection, of change and of the future markets, both in this country and overseas, that are available and therefore of the security of agriculture in this country. With a bit of support from government, we will be looking good. (Time expired) 2820 17:00:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I also welcome this MPI from the member for New England. I know his heart is in the topic he has put forward and in everything he had to say in the debate. This MPI comes at a time when the parliament has just received the report from the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, called Farming the future. I am proud to say that I am a member of that committee. I want to congratulate the chair, the other members of the committee and the secretariat for the work that went into that report. The report sets out a bit of a stocktake of what is already happening in adaptation and innovation in our farming sector and it underlines quite strongly the need for government to be involved in facilitating the further change that will be required. The committee’s inquiry gave us the chance to hear from farmers, their representative bodies and researchers about how they see the future and the government’s role in that future. Of course, the future of Australia’s agricultural industries and the communities those industries support is something that is very important, and the government well understands that. The importance of agriculture to Australia’s economy was illustrated during the worst days of the global recession, when it was our farming sector that stood out in the export figures and made such a strong contribution to the nation’s GDP. We do not take that for granted for a minute, so we have been active in vital policy areas like biosecurity, drought reforms, natural resource management and programs to help farmers adjust to climate change and to boost their productivity. There is plenty of work to do to help our farmers prepare their businesses for the challenges and opportunities of the future. I am pleased to say, though, that we are already seeing the signs of the future of agriculture in my electorate. I know that the member for New England is passionate about the contribution our farmers can and will make to Australia’s energy needs and how that can be a source of diversified revenue for them. I know he will not mind if I start my speech on this MPI by telling the House, yet again, about the fantastic cogeneration project that is underway in Mackay, in my electorate. I have talked about this project a number of times in the context of the renewable energy target legislation because it is a great example of how the expanded renewable energy target is encouraging renewable energy projects in regional Australia. This project is also great news for sugar growers in the Mackay district and points the way to the opportunities that are there for farmers in the energy sector to produce energy as they grow food. As I say, this is a fantastic project. Mackay Sugar, which is Australia’s second-largest milling company, will invest $120 million to install a new boiler at its Racecourse sugar mill in Mackay. The mill has always burned bagasse—a waste product from sugar milling—to produce energy to run the Racecourse sugar mill. The new boiler will now burn bagasse much more efficiently and will be able to produce 36 megawatts, of which 28 megawatts will be exported into the grid. That equates to 30 per cent of the city of Mackay’s electricity needs and will also abate 340,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide per year. Thanks to the expanded renewable energy target, Mackay Sugar has signed an off-take agreement with electricity retailer Ergon Energy. This project has been devised and driven by Mackay Sugar. Mackay Sugar was a milling cooperative and is now a company whose shareholders are its canegrowers. The contract with Ergon Energy represents a significant new source of revenue for Mackay Sugar. This will be passed onto some 850 growers, as shareholders of the company and through the cane price that they receive from Mackay Sugar. Former chair of Mackay Sugar Eddie Westcott summed up what this means for farmers. I should just say that Eddie Westcott stepped down from the role of chair of Mackay Sugar. I wish him all the best in his retirement and I welcome the chance to work with the new chair of Mackay Sugar, Andrew Cappello. When this project was reaching its final hurdles and contracts were being signed, Eddie Westcott said what it meant for farmers—and he should know, because he is a sugar farmer. He was quoted as saying that having an extra stream of income that does not depend on weather or exchange rate is music to growers’ ears. He also said: It is certainly a difference in income, because we are now divorced from the vagaries of the world market for sugar and the vagaries of the exchange rate. We will be selling in Australian dollars locally. So that’s probably the biggest change for us—an income stream purely in Australian dollars not dependent on the world market.           …        …        … It just puts stability in the business … It is what the whole of us want from the growers, the harvest to the staff and employees—we want a bit of stability and this is what this will provide. This is an example of innovation in the agricultural sector. It is the kind of innovation and capacity to adapt that we saw so much of as the agriculture committee travelled and talked to farmers through the course of the inquiry. It is also an example of where government policy can provide the incentive needed to unlock this kind of opportunity. In this case it is the expanded renewable energy target, but there are other ways the government is providing support to assist farmers to identify and pursue opportunities. For example, I spent last Friday with the chair, Royce Bishop, and some staff from Reef Catchments, which is the community based catchment management group for the Mackay-Whitsunday region. Reef Catchments has received over $6 million in funding from the government’s Reef Rescue program and works very closely with local farmers on projects to improve water quality and reduce runoff. These projects also require investments from farmers but they pay off in reducing inputs, improving soils and boosting productivity. Reef Catchments has developed an investment strategy which will improve water quality in the regional priority sub-catchments identified in Reef Catchments’ recent water quality improvement plan to improve water quality entering the Great Barrier Reef World Heritage area. That is something that is important to all of us as we do our best to protect the Great Barrier Reef. Projects will utilise strong, effective and efficient collaborations between the region and industry delivery partners, such as canegrowers, to engage regional farmers in Reef Rescue. Regional land managers are set to benefit from the investment through support for farmers to undertake risk assessments, on-ground works and multifarm projects. I visited some of the on-farm projects with the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry last year, and the engagement with the Reef Rescue programs was very encouraging. The staff from Reef Catchments told us that they were getting an even greater level of interest in the program for the next round of project funding, so this is clearly having an impact and is more evidence of the willingness of farmers to adapt when good information and support is available. It is a similar story in the southern part of my electorate where the Fitzroy Basin Association is the natural management body charged with the responsibility of working with landholders on projects that deliver both improved productivity and environmental outcomes. The member for New England might remember that the Fitzroy Basin Association hosted us for a couple of days in Rockhampton. We went out to Neil Johansen’s property at Dululu to see what he was doing in his cropping business in using controlled traffic farming. We also went to a very large property near Springsure with the Chair of the Fitzroy Basin Association, Charlie Wilson. In the case of the Fitzroy Basin Association, the Reef Rescue component of Caring for our Country will allow it to invest $23 million over four years in collaboration with its industry partners. Regional land managers are set to benefit from the investment through support for farmers to undertake risk assessments and on-ground works. The focus for the Fitzroy Basin region is grazing and cropping, and it will target activities that will result in a reduction in the sediment that reaches the Great Barrier Reef. The Fitzroy Basin Association tells me—very proudly, I should say—that landholders across the region are already reducing annual average sediment loads delivered to waterways by about 75,000 tonnes and are on target to cumulatively reduce sediment entering waterways by 4.1 million tonnes by 2014. That represents significant change going on in farming practices in our Central Queensland region, and Reef Catchments’ experience tells the same story. This underlines the message that came out in the Farming the future report—that Australian farmers are innovative and adaptive because they have always had to be. The new challenges of globalisation and climate change, among others, will call on these traits, but there has to be input from governments to support and encourage farmers through these challenges. One of the key recommendations in the report is for the government to understand the needs and decision-making processes of farmers and to ensure that the delivery of adaptation programs is flexible and responsive to the needs of farmers and rural communities. (Time expired) 2823 17:10:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —With regard to the matter of public importance submitted by the member for New England, one thing that is very clear is that Australian producers have far more to fear from government policy than they have from climate change or anything else. I can attest that in Brazil and America people are far more fearful of what governments might hand down than they are about what nature might hand down. Having said that, food security is not only about farmers being able to do what they do best and grow the food or the fibre; it is also about food manufacturing and processing, and the food manufacturing sector is the last major one left in Australia. It employs 315,000 people, mainly in regional Australia. It is vital to our nation’s food security, and this side of the House is extraordinarily concerned about its viability. For example, we are extremely concerned that there is only one frozen vegetable-processing plant left in the country after McCain closed its Tasmanian plant. That is obviously a major concern and it needs to be addressed. One thing that simply cannot happen, if we are serious about the long-term sustainability of the land and of the industry, is the cutting of funds for research and development. As with any industry, staying up to date with the latest in technological and industrial improvements allows our producers to keep ahead of the pack when it comes to the global agricultural market. In many of our agricultural industries, Australians are clearly the best and in the rest, if they are not the best, they are certainly up there with it. This MPI is about an issue that is obviously very close to me. Two years ago, for the first time in the history of mankind, there were more people living in cities than in rural areas. Never before have so many relied on so few for their food. To put it simply, if you do not eat, you die. Let us be clear: fewer people are producing food and, more simply, cannot produce food. As the urban trend continues, this gap is going to widen. It has brought many new challenges, none greater than the widening gap between urban populations and food producers. It is increasingly evident that at times unrealistic environmental green tape is being placed on food producers, and the lack of empathy of some city based politicians with people in the country is not helping this. It was when I was shadow water minister that I saw the black hole opening up in our nation’s food security, and I saw the absolute contempt with which the government treated the Murray-Darling Basin irrigators and the two million people who live in the basin. Probably half of them are dependent on water in one guise or another. Unfortunately, the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water is still treating them with contempt, and this was graphically illustrated when she was interviewed by the ABC on the Four Corners program after the government bought the food-producing powerhouse Toorale Station and converted it into a national park. The two million people who rely on water in the Murray-Darling Basin need to get through to the Labor government that they have to stop ignoring the economic and social costs associated with the reforms. I would point out that food security is not only about our ability to feed Australians now; it is also about the fact that we are looked upon as the people who set the benchmark for good food production around the world, not only in quantity but in quality, and we do have a responsibility. If we produce only enough for ourselves and we do not provide enough good food for the rest of the world, a lot of people are going to die. We have a responsibility. Look at Sydney—they reckon there is enough food for seven to 10 days within Sydney and after that they would be in trouble. Food security is not only about the long term; it is also about the here and now. The next 50 years will see greater pressure placed on our farmers to deal with that. I finish by saying that farmers here and around the world are more frightened of government—(Time expired) 2824 17:15:00 Turnour, Jim, MP HVV Leichhardt ALP 1 0 Mr TURNOUR —I rise today to speak on this matter of public importance. It is always a wonderful privilege and pleasure to speak on the future of agriculture or agriculture in general. Members may not know but I was born on a property near Batchelor in the Northern Territory. In the 1960s, my parents grew bananas and sold them in Darwin. We grew Townsville stylo which was a newly developing technology back then, a legume that would help revolutionise the pastoral industry until it was wiped out by disease. There have been follow-ons with Seca, Verano and a range of other stylos that have had an impact on the Northern Australian beef industry. Agriculture is a very important part of this country and the fabric of this country. It is a great privilege to stand here today and talk about its future because, as somebody who comes from the bush, has an agricultural science degree, has worked for the department of primary industries as well as privately with farmers and graziers and shares many of the values of people representing country areas in this place, I believe that it is important that we do have debates and discussions about these issues. Today I want to focus my comments on Northern Australia, the area where I was born and which I represent. Recently the report of the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce was brought down. There has been a lot of debate and discussion around that report and I think there were a lot of myths about dams and the future of the north as a food bowl effectively being ruled out. The reality is the report was a well-thought-out document which was not produced by government but produced by independent people like David Crombie. My father worked for GRM International for a period of time and Mr Crombie is the President of the National Farmers Federation. Another independent person involved in the production of that report was Mr Joe Ross, the chair of the committee and an Indigenous elder. He is a very well respected man in Northern Australia. We also had representatives from the mining industry and a range of other groups. Today they are in the parliament discussing the report and meeting with members from the Labor side and the opposition side. I believe that the report provides a foundation for a good cross-party discussion and debate about Northern Australia. We can have simplistic debates about dams, development or no development, greenies or this and that in Northern Australia, but fundamentally if we are interested in the future of the area we need to sit down and work through the science and what sort of future is wanted with the communities concerned. That is what the Northern Australia Land and Water Taskforce did and what their report brought forward. As I said, the report was not written by government; it was written by them and they are very proud of that. Joe Ross has put out a paper entitled ‘A new era for northern Australia: avoiding past mistakes and building a shared future’. It is very much worth a read. He goes through the report in an overall sense. One of the things he points out is that there are more myths about the north than perhaps any other part of the nation. Much of the criticism directed at the task force report is that it is ill conceived and ill informed. Critics are encouraged to read the report in depth and understand the full significance of the recommendations. The media have suggested that the report basically rules out agriculture. Let us look at a few issues that the report identifies in the further development of agriculture in Northern Australia. The report identified that at the moment there are about 20,000 hectares of intensive agriculture in Northern Australia. As I said, my parents grew bananas there in the 1960s. Members opposite from rural areas would know that 20,000 hectares is not a large area. The report identifies that mosaic agriculture has the potential to increase that by another 40,000 hectares to a total of 60,000 hectares. That is a significant contribution. The report also identifies that most of those opportunities relate to being able to take up groundwater. Coming from the north and understanding the north, the reason it has not been developed is not only the limitations of some of the water resources and opportunities but also the lack of infrastructure and the lack of markets available in that part of the world. We need to continue to build roads and broadband networks. That is something that this government is doing. The report also identifies that we can almost double the grazing industry through the intensification of the agricultural area in the north. There are great opportunities to develop agriculture in the north, but we need to look at the science, we need to work with the community and we need to make sure the business community and the private sector drive the economic opportunities. 10000 Bevis, Arch (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Hon. AR Bevis)—Order! It being 5.20 pm, this discussion has concluded. 2826 Bills R4271 2826 Debate resumed. 2826 17:20:00 Pyne, Chris, MP 9V5 Sturt LP 0 0 Mr PYNE —I will not go over the ground that I covered before question time with respect to the important changes that the coalition has wrought from the government and which have allowed us to finally pass the youth allowance bills. I made the points regarding the Minister for Education saying that these changes and amendments were once impossible and suddenly a week later are doable. I was making the point that the Labor members of parliament from rural and regional Australia and, unfortunately, the three Independent members from rural seats in this place can take absolutely no credit at all for extending to thousands of new rural and regional students the old workforce participation criteria enabling them to keep their pathway to higher education. They can take no credit at all for removing all the retrospectivity from this legislation, which was a very important principle. (Extension of time granted) I appreciate the opportunity just to finish my remarks. The members for Lingiari, Leichhardt, Dawson, Capricornia, Flynn, Richmond, Page, Hunter, Macquarie, Eden-Monaro, Corangamite, Lyons, Braddon, Bass and Franklin all need to explain to their constituents why they signed up to a youth allowance reform which cut out so many thousands of their constituents right across Australia and why it was left to the coalition to stand firm and be tough with the government. Certainly, the minister eventually recognised the need to back down and support the coalition’s amendments. That has happened in the Senate today and we welcome her flexibility. I would not be so bold as to suggest it may be part of her campaign to be the next leader of the Labor Party. I am not sure whether she wanted to be the person who can deliver—the person who can get something through the Senate—unlike the Prime Minister, who is all talk and no action. That is certainly sticking. Clearly the Deputy Prime Minister wanted to be able to be the minister who said, ‘Well, nobody else on our side of the House can get anything done, but we can get something through the Senate. We can negotiate with the opposition.’ That is her win, I suppose. She will be able to go out and tell her caucus colleagues that she was the person who could get something done—get something through the Senate—unlike the Prime Minister, who has manifestly failed to deliver on any of his promises from the last election. A number of my colleagues from rural and regional seats and from the National Party wish to comment on how much more could have been done if the government had been prepared to bend even further. Then more rural and regional students, particularly from inner regional areas, would have been able to access the old workforce participation criteria for the independent youth allowance. That is the one disappointment I have with regard to the coalition allowing this bill to pass. If the government had been prepared to even bend a little bit more, more students would have been able to keep their pathway to higher education. But those students only have one party to blame, and that is the Labor Party. It is the Labor Party that introduced this legislation and it is the Labor Party that refused to bend any further, but we were not going to stand in the way any longer of 100,000 students across Australia being able to access Commonwealth scholarships and of improving youth allowance. We got a better deal for thousands of rural and regional Australians and their families. When we are elected to government at the end of this year we will review the entire youth allowance from the ground up and we will make sure that there is a genuine pathway to higher education for a group that is already recognised as being a disadvantaged group, to give them the opportunity to have the same start and the same opportunities as people who live in the city and who can stay home with mum and dad—or with mum, or with dad or with whomever—go to university and get the kind of education that we want everybody in Australia to have the opportunity of receiving. 2827 17:25:00 Truss, Warren, MP GT4 Wide Bay NATS Leader of the Nationals 0 0 Mr TRUSS —The amendments before the parliament are an improvement on the old arrangements that the government was insisting upon. The government has made some concessions, but the government itself acknowledges that those concessions are not substantial. They have removed the retrospectivity that was a part of the old arrangements. It should never have been there. It was obscene that the government sought to take away an access to independent youth allowance from people who had abided by the rules as they were advised by Centrelink and by their school counsellors, and as had been in place for quite some time. They had been working at that for a year or a year and a half, only to be told that the rules were changed. The removal of that retrospectivity is perhaps the most important change in these amendments. However, they have made a number of concessions also in relation to a continuing access to the independent youth allowance for people who live in very remote, remote and outer regional areas. The government has made much of that but, in fact, the Deputy Prime Minister herself said in question time today that only 1,900 people are actually going to benefit from that change. There are about 30,000, we are told, who were getting the independent youth allowance, and of those around 12,000 to 15,000 were in regional areas. So fewer than 2,000 out of 12,000 to 15,000 are actually going to be eligible for any benefit as a result of the changes to the independent youth allowance, and that is a pretty paltry effort. The government has chosen as its index for determining remoteness a geographic index which is fatally flawed. Most of those 1,900 people who will be able to access the independent youth allowance will be coming from cities like Townsville, Cairns and Darwin. They are included in the areas that will get access to the youth allowance under the old arrangements, whereas if you live in Mackay, you do not get it. If you live in Dalby or Echuca, you do not get it. The minister is actually saying that it is easier to get a job in Dalby, Echuca, Yarraman and Cherbourg than it is in Townsville, Cairns and Darwin. It is simply a nonsense that the 30-hour rule should apply in one place, but a 15-hour rule applies in the other. You could live next door to the James Cook University in Townsville—a very fine university—and qualify for the independent youth allowance. But if you live in a town like Dalby or Echuca, hundreds of miles from your capital city, you do not qualify. The government is asking us to believe that this is a good, a reasonable and a fair deal. The reality is that students in regional areas have far less chance of completing a university education than young people who live in the cities. It is a statistical fact that about a third as many people from remote areas have university degrees as those who live in the city. About 30 per cent of rural people complete a university course, compared with the best part of 60 per cent of people who live in the cities. That is a social injustice that must be addressed. The minister is the Minister for Social Inclusion, and that she can completely ignore this injustice leaves me absolutely in despair. The educational outcomes in regional areas are not equivalent to what occurs in the cities. There is a huge cost imposition on people who have to move from a regional area to live in the capital city. I recognise that there needed to be some reforms made to the independent youth allowance. I do not disagree with that. But we do need to have a student assistance scheme that enables all young Australians to achieve their education potential, including those from poor families and those who come from regional areas. The government’s changes to student assistance will in fact further disadvantage those who live outside the capital cities. They have delivered an outcome with serious anomalies. The government must address those issues if it wants to be fair minded. For the next student year there will be a new government and a government with a different attitude to the importance of equality in education, and we will address those concerns. We agree to the passage of this bill because the student year has already begun and there are hundreds of thousands of students out there who have been left in limbo because of the unwillingness of this government to address the serious issues much earlier. But even now what has happened is only tokenism. Only 1,900 students will benefit in the longer term and that still leaves thousands of rural Australians who will in fact not be getting the university education they should have. (Time expired) 2828 17:30:00 Scott, Bruce, MP YT4 Maranoa NATS 0 0 Mr BRUCE SCOTT —I rise to speak on the Senate’s requested amendments to the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]. I acknowledge the Minister for Education is in the House and also the Leader of the Nationals and the member for Sturt, who has been spending quite a bit of time with the minister. We were getting worried about him, given the amount of time he was spending there, but we note that he has made some progress, which is welcome from my point of view, representing a landmass three times the size of Victoria in my seat of Maranoa. The requested amendments remove the retrospective nature of what was in the bill, and anything that is retrospective I cannot support, so that is certainly welcome. I want to say something about when this Prime Minister was first elected. He went to my home town of Roma and I pulled up the transcript of what he said when he was out there. He said: I said when I became Prime Minister of Australia that I intended to be Prime Minister for all of Australia, and that included being the Prime Minister for rural Australia. Those are the direct words from a press conference he held in my home town of Roma seven days after he was sworn in and took office as Prime Minister of Australia. What we can see from this legislation is not a Prime Minister for rural Australia. He is certainly not a Prime Minister for regional Australia, and all those regional members from the other side of the House who have walked away on this issue since the budget initiative was brought forward by the minister stand condemned. They will have to answer to their constituents at the next election because we will be reminding them of where they stood on this issue. The index that is used to determine eligibility for the independent youth allowance, the work test, is just nonsensical. I have gone to the map. The Leader of the Nationals has outlined some of the anomalies, including Dalby in my electorate of Maranoa. But I went to a village just north of Dalby on the Cooyar Road, which I know the Leader of the Nationals would know well, called Kaimkillenbun. It is a little village. About 100 people live there. There are 30 students at the school. It was once serviced by a railway line, and when you cross that railway line you head up to Cooyar on the way up to Kingaroy. On one side of the tracks in this little village you will be in an outer regional area and the work test there will be for 15 hours work per week and a certain income you have to earn. But if you are on the other side of the track you will have to work 30 hours. It is one of those classic anomalies that we see when you start drawing lines on maps. I then went to the town of Millmerran. All the areas surrounding Millmerran, which is about 100 kilometres west of Toowoomba, are outer regional areas. The work test of 15 hours per week will apply. If you live in a rural residential area of Millmerran, a town of 2,000 people, you will be in an outer regional area, but if you happen to live in the confines of Millmerran’s boundaries you will be considered to be in an inner regional area. These boundaries are just nonsensical. That is why this government should have accepted the amendment put up by the opposition in the upper house. And shame on those Independent members and the Greens in the upper house who joined with the Labor Party to defeat a very sensible amendment that would have got rid of these stupid lines on maps. How long has it been that a pathway to affordable access to education depends on lines on maps? I represent those students from rural and regional areas, whom many on this side also represent and whom those opposite have failed to represent. Access to post-secondary education should not be a privilege. It should be a right for all Australians to be treated in the same way as those students who live in capital cities. The great anomaly in this legislation is that, if you happen to live in Cairns or in Townsville, you will be able to gain access to the independent youth allowance with a work test of 15 hours per week, but if you live in Kaimkillenbun and you live on the wrong side of the track you will have to qualify through the 30-hour test. That is a little village of 100 people north of Dalby on the road to Kingaroy. Before I came in here a lady from the media outlet in Kingaroy had been contacted by families in Kingaroy wanting to know whether they would be eligible under the new rules. Well, they are in one of those towns where to qualify for the independent youth allowance they will have to work 30 hours per week. But if they lived 30 kilometres up the road in Wondai they would have to work 15 hours. (Time expired) 2829 17:35:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —I think it is interesting to look back on this debate and where it started. In the May budget last year some massive changes to the independent youth allowance were proposed by this government, including one of a retrospective nature affecting students who under the previous guidelines at the end of 2008 had decided to take a gap year in order to comply with the independent youth allowance guidelines. Those proposals were obviously so shocking that students and parents from all around Australia jumped up in outrage over these changes—a shifting of the goalposts. It would be like shifting the grand final from the MCG to the WACA for the third quarter. It certainly was not fair. I now recognise that these changes will fix that problem up. But of course this government, against our advice, removed the Howard government’s scholarships—I believe in August 2009—and did not have anything in there to replace them. This legislation does help in some respects. I understand that in my electorate approximately 534 students will be eligible for start-up scholarships of about $1,300 in the first year and $2,100 in the second and subsequent years. That will be a little bit of help, but the fact is that for most students in my area the cost is something like $15,000 a year to leave home to attend university. I also understand that 703 extra students will receive youth allowance. We welcome that change. There is no doubt that we support those changes. But, unfortunately, the second biggest city in South Australia, Mount Gambier—population about 24,000—will not comply with the new guidelines for ‘regional’, even though it is 400 kilometres away from Melbourne university and 400 kilometres away from Adelaide university. It is impossible for students from Mount Gambier to attend either of those universities without leaving home and without the extra cost. These new changes have withdrawn those students. It cannot apply to people in Mount Gambier because the test is done on a medical services test. It is not based on education or on the ability to afford to leave home and attend university; it is based on medical services. Yes, Mount Gambier is a reasonable centre for health, and so it falls under those federal government guidelines. It is a stupid—very stupid—boundary line for this situation, because, obviously, they will have to leave home at a cost of, as I said, about $15,000 a year to attend university. There are many families—even under the new guidelines—who simply will not be able to afford that. It is a crying shame that the second biggest city in South Australia, Mount Gambier, will not be eligible for these changes. It is interesting to look at the towns in my electorate. Murray Bridge—yes, okay, it is 45 to 60 minutes away from university, so they do not get the ability to apply for youth allowance under these guidelines. Tailem Bend is another 15 minutes away from there and an hour and 15 minutes away from the university. Students from there will still have to either leave home or drive there and back every day—two and a half hours in a vehicle. If you go further down the road to Coomandook, that is another quarter of an hour—and, according to this, that is an hour and a half away from university. They will not be under these new guidelines. So there are anomalies due to the fact that these boundaries are not drawn in a fair way. There are still areas of my electorate that will not receive the benefits they should. I welcome some of the changes, but, obviously, when we get back in government, we will change it to make it fairer for all rural students all over Australia. 2830 17:40:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I appreciate the opportunity to talk on this very important bill, the Social Security and Other Legislation Amendment (Income Support for Students) Bill 2009 [No. 2]. I commend the shadow minister for education for coming up with an outcome that would not have happened if we had we let the government put through this outrageous piece of legislation when it was first introduced. As an opposition, we had to balance the interests of 100,000 students who without this legislation passing this week would not be able to access new Commonwealth scholarships or improved rates of youth allowance with those of people who, quite frankly, are going to be dudded under this rather ridiculous lines-on-maps access arrangement that the Minister for Education has attached to this bill. I wonder, with all of the resources of the two megadepartments at the minister’s disposal, why we had to have a map that has such erroneous and misleading descriptions and definitions when it relates to access to education. It might be a good indicator of remoteness when it comes to a range of other measures and policies, but this is different. This is specific. I do not know why the departments in question could not produce a map that made access and equity to education for rural students a whole lot better. And I do not accept that it would have cost a whole lot more. We have a list of towns and, as all members have, we have looked through this list to see which of the towns that we represent will be able to access youth allowance under what I will call ‘the old rules’—because that is what students in regional Australia want, the existing system. I accept, having seen the outcomes of the Bradley review, that changes needed to be made. I do not believe we should have kept the old system completely in place. Definitely there was rorting. Definitely changes needed to be made. But I do not accept that they were needed to the level that the government has suggested and I do not accept the taint that the government has cast over the entire youth allowance scheme, and over rural students and tertiary education as a result. That is just totally out of order. On this alphabetical list of what is described as ‘outer regional, remote and very remote locations’, I see some of the towns in my electorate, because I represent a rural area of western New South Wales. But there are three towns that immediately I do not see. One is Albury. Yes, Albury is a large regional centre. It is about four hours from Canberra, it is about seven and a half hours from Sydney and it is a good three and a half hours from Melbourne. It does have two regional universities, and they do a great job, but they do not cater for every student in every case. Students from Albury—who made long, loud representations to me when this bill was initially introduced—would like to stay with the old rules for youth allowance. They are not in a position where they can get jobs that last for 30 hours a week for an 18-month period in two years, which is the route they will now have to take to qualify for independent youth allowance. The other two towns are Corowa and Deniliquin. In the case of Deniliquin—a tiny town on the Murray River with no air services, no public transport, a population of 8,000 and getting smaller, a town which has struggled unbelievably in the drought over the last 10 years—it is absolutely outrageous. It is one of the most rural locations you could possibly imagine and it has been classified under this system as ‘inner regional’. I ask the Deputy Prime Minister, with all of the resources that she has at her disposal: could she please consider a better map that better categorises the towns that we as rural members of parliament represent. It is not the principle we oppose. We understand the principle. It is this map—this archaic object that has been brought down from the shelf and rolled out—which is expected to do a job which it really cannot do. So, the towns of Albury, Corowa and Deniliquin in my electorate of Farrer are going to be seriously disadvantaged. I feel terrible for the parents that have approached me over the last six months that have signed petitions, that have poured out their hearts; for the kids who have come to me. The cases that really stick in my mind are those kids that say that, because their parents are on farms that have had declining incomes over the last five years, ‘I am not going to put my parents through this—I just won’t go to university; I will put it off to some later stage in my life.’ There are no jobs like this in a town the size of Deniliquin—there are very few jobs, but there is certainly no opportunity for students to work 30 hours a week for a period of 18 months in a two-year period in order to access youth allowance. I appreciate the income thresholds have changed, and that will make some difference—and that is a good thing. And I appreciate that the gap year students from 2008 are quarantined, and that is something that we really drew a line in the sand about, and we have achieved that. I feel pleased with that. But there is a much room for improvement. As a member of the coalition, I commit to working to change this if re-elected. 2832 17:45:00 Chester, Darren, MP IPZ Gippsland NATS 0 0 Mr CHESTER —This is a bittersweet moment. Certainly no sense of triumph should be felt by either side of the House. There is much work still to be done in terms of student income support going into the future. This has always been about the kids; it has always been about the young people in regional Australia. There are members on both sides of the House who have approached this issue in a great deal of good faith and have endeavoured to get a result which has been in the interests of regional people right across Australia. I do take exception to the approach of the Minister for Education to this whole debate from May last year. She announced during the May budget that basically she was going to make it retrospective; she was going to strip the gap year entitlements off students who had prepared for their time at university, had taken a year off and were working to achieve that status. The rug would be pulled out from under them. On 25 May last year I asked the minister in question time to guarantee that country students in their gap year would not be financially penalised. She said at that time, ‘What a very silly question.’ Here we are, almost nine months later, and that very silly question has come to fruition in that the minister has finally agreed that there will be no retrospectivity for students in their gap year. That is a very good thing. I do say to the minister in her presence that she does not always need to rush to the barricades and bludgeon her opponents to death when it comes to issues where there is concern or there are alternative points of view. I honestly believe that in this debate, in particular, there were people who were acting with good intentions towards the students. You do not manage to achieve 5,000 people signing a petition in 10 days in an electorate the size of Gippsland unless there is passion in the community and real concern about what is being proposed. That was repeated right throughout regional Australia. I acknowledge that the minister facilitated a meeting between me, Russell Broadbent and a member of her staff, and I thank her for that opportunity. From then on I believe we had a better working relationship in terms of trying to achieve some positive outcomes. Having said all that, I do not believe this is an education revolution. At best, this is tinkering around the edges when a massive overhaul of student income support is required. We have not yet dealt with the fundamental issue of equity for regional students, and now we have actually created a situation where there are too many winners and losers. Under this new arrangement, people in the electorate of Gippsland living in towns like Sale, Maffra, Stratford, Yarram, Traralgon and Heyfield will not have the opportunity to use one pathway of achieving independent youth allowance, that being through the 15 hours per week and earning $19,500 over an 18-month period. These are small country towns and it can also be very difficult for these students to achieve the 30 hours per week required of them under the legislation which will be passed today. I fully accept, and the minister regularly makes the point, that that is not the only avenue for achieving income support. I do give credit to the minister in that regard—the increased income thresholds will accommodate a lot of people from the poorer socio-economic areas of my electorate, and the more generous income thresholds will be well received. I have publicly put that on the record on many occasions; that is one of the good things we are doing here with this legislation. The fact remains that families in regional areas with multiple children going to university will face additional costs of $10,000 to $15,000. Accommodation costs are not going to be covered in any way by what is going through the House today. I referred earlier to my emotions being bittersweet. It is a sweet moment for the students who will now finally be able to access scholarships—they will have some certainty as they go into the 2010 university year. I think that is the right thing for them at this time. My bitterness relates to those students in the future who will not be accommodated by these changes, and to the simple fact that we are missing an opportunity in this place to do the revolutionary work that we hear so much about from those on the other side. We hear about the education revolution, but the students in regional Australia are really waiting to see it. They are still waiting to see when the fundamental issues of equity will be addressed, and I am concerned that they will be waiting for a very long time while this government just talks to them and spins them a line. 2833 17:50:00 Marino, Nola, MP HWP Forrest LP 0 0 Ms MARINO —My comments are similar to those of many other members. I acknowledge the work and persistence of the shadow minister on this issue. I also acknowledge all of the members who sit in this House who have worked so ferociously to represent the concerns of their country students. If it was not for their efforts and the wonderful efforts of our constituents who lobbied constantly, who wrote to us and who begged us to act on their behalf, then we would not have these results. The Minister for Education was not going to do this voluntarily. She was dragged kicking and screaming to this point. It is the efforts of the people in this chamber and all of our constituents who are affected by this that have brought this about. I want to acknowledge my constituents who have worked so hard and have been so concerned about this on an ongoing basis. We have heard about the map being used—this wonderful map that is entirely inappropriate as a measure for determining student regionality. I can see it in my electorate, as can each member who is here to talk about how this is going to affect their students so badly. I am already getting the emails from young people in my electorate who are going to be left out. The assumption is that it is not going to cost any more for these young people to go to university—and they have no choice but to have to move, to go to Perth, essentially, to pursue their tertiary education. There is no choice. Yet, when I looked at the map I saw a little place like Collie, in my electorate—and Collie is out but somewhere like Cairns is in. I see places like Boyanup and Dardanup and Donnybrook, and we have all these people who are reliant on seasonal work, or no work at all, as the member for Grey is very well aware. There are all these issues facing rural and regional students. Those who come from family farming backgrounds are also going to find this extremely difficult. Where on earth does a young person from Donnybrook, which is left out on this map, unlike Darwin, Dunsborough, Brunswick, Harvey and Capel, find 30 hours of work a week over that 18-month period? These young people live anything from two to 2½ hours away from a university, so they are not going to be able to qualify under the map that the minister has offered. I, like my colleagues, am disappointed that this seems like a piecemeal, throwaway approach to these students and to the serious nature of how much focus should have been on this issue. There should have been a very diligent approach because the minister has had since May to do this. If the minister genuinely cared about making sure of equal opportunity for rural and regional students—those who genuinely need it—these are not the criteria that should have been used to determine this outcome. I have received an email from a very concerned parent from Bunbury. Their young daughter was dux of her campus and she has to go to Perth to pursue her education, yet she is going to miss out. They are seriously devastated about this but they know that we have fought hard. They know that we have fought to make sure that that the minister did not impose problems for those on a gap year—that you would even consider excluding those currently doing their gap year is appalling. Then we saw the 30 hours of work a week applied unilaterally—I am not sure where members on the other side imagine that their young people can find that 30 hours of work a week that is going to be necessary for so many. I can say for a lot of young people in my electorate: it is not possible. Again, we increase the disadvantage for young people in my electorate. I know that my email inbox is going to run hot and I will be continuing to let the minister know exactly about this process. We put that amendment in, but the government voted against it. I cannot believe that the places that I have mentioned in my electorate will be excluded and not considered as regional when those young people cannot go to university unless they go to Perth to attend a university. There is an assumption by this minister about regional areas, and it is incorrect. 2834 17:55:00 Ramsey, Rowan, MP HWS Grey LP 0 0 Mr RAMSEY —I have only been a member of this House for a little over two years. There are many weeks when I go home from Canberra and wonder what on earth we can achieve from opposition, but this turnaround in the last 48 hours from the minister is a great achievement from opposition and a reward for hanging tough. I recognise that we do not have all we wanted and I acknowledge the member for Gippsland’s comments about those that will not benefit from this turnaround. The fact is the coalition has hung tough against all those who have called for us to back down in the last few months: the vice-chancellors of the major universities of Australia; the students union; the minister; and the government. We have hung firm on this, and I congratulate our shadow minister for education because on this occasion from opposition we have delivered a great improvement. The unwinding of the retrospectivity is a great improvement and it should never have been included in the first place. The ability for those who live in remote, very remote and outer regional areas to still be able to apply for youth allowance under the old arrangements is a great move forward. The electorate of Grey is one of the luckier ones, I must say. There is only one community in my electorate that will not qualify under these new arrangements—that is the township of Eudunda of around 1,200 people. They could move five kilometres down the road and they would qualify. For the rest of my electorate it is without doubt a very good result, but I identify with the comments of those people who are living in the inner regional areas with arbitrary lines on the map who can have very little understanding of how they were drawn in the first place. I will have to go back to the people in the community of Eudunda and explain how they will get different treatment to the people of Robertstown who live just up the road. Having said all that, it was in Woomera in April last year at the Isolated Children’s Parents Association where I launched a discussion paper on this issue. Because I come from a small rural township and have had to guide three of my children through university under the old arrangements, I understand how difficult it is for people who live in regional and rural areas. It has been a longstanding passion of mine to try and get a reasonable deal for country students. I wrote a discussion paper which I delivered to the Isolated Children’s Parents Association on 1 April in Woomera last year. The purpose of that paper was to get this subject on the discussion table. Little did I know how successful that would be because in the budget, only a matter of six weeks later, it was well and truly on the discussion table for all the wrong reasons. It was not because we were getting a better deal for country people; it was because we were going to get a worse deal. From the outset, I have recognised in the minister’s statements the good things she was trying to do under this rearrangement: the lifting of the thresholds; the lowering of the age of automatic eligibility from 25 to 22; and the ability for students to earn a bit more money. But the kickback was that she was dragging $800 million in support from students who qualified under the independence test into a scholarship that was going to everyone. I saw that as a redistribution of support for country students to support for city students. That is one of the reasons I was determined to dig my heels in along with the rest of my colleagues in the coalition. The central issue here is fairness for country students. We are starved of people with professional skills in regional areas, and we know that if we can get kids from regional areas to undertake education the opportunity of getting them back into our communities is far higher. So this is about more than just each individual student. It is about what kind of communities we are going to have in regional Australia going forward. We have designated intakes for doctors who come from rural areas, but there are all kinds of other professional areas where we need that kind of support. We know the take-up rates of university study from regional and rural students are lower than those from the city, so we are already operating at a disadvantage. Every time we make the situation tougher we put ourselves in a worse position. The outcome we have achieved for those people that live in the three regions leaves us in a better position than before; I acknowledge that. But I am concerned for those who live in the inner regional areas and who will not be able to access the old independent test—(Time expired) 2835 18:00:00 Hawker, David, MP 8H4 Wannon LP 0 0 Mr HAWKER —I rise to support the comments made by my colleagues in the coalition and, in particular, to commend the shadow minister, the member for Sturt, for the hard work that he has put in to get a much better arrangement; albeit, as colleagues have mentioned, that it is not ideal and not what we would really like to see. But I think the most important point to start with is that the government has agreed to get rid of the retrospectivity. It was extremely unfair. I think all colleagues had examples of people who in good faith had started their gap year and who had suddenly been told: ‘Well, that’s too bad. You’re going to miss out.’ So I commend the member for Sturt and I thank the government for accepting that point. However, I must go on to say that we still face the same problem. The rate of take-up of tertiary study for people in the country is lower than for those in the city. The reasons for this are very clear. People from the country have to go away in order to study and they therefore have the costs of living away from home. In addition, they have the difficulties of having to settle in a strange environment, which is not easy. Many country students find that very difficult. It seems strange that the government has still not recognised the inequity that is there. I would also like to address the issue of anomalies. The use of a map that is totally unrelated to education issues to decide whether or not you are allowed to qualify for the gap year under the old arrangements or under the new arrangements does seem to create some enormous anomalies. Some of the towns in my electorate of Wannon that will be missing out are Stawell, Ararat, Avoca, Mortlake and Camperdown. They will all miss out and they are all smaller than, say, a town like Portland that will come in. And, of course, all of those towns are much, much smaller than places like Townsville or Cairns, both of which seem to be allowed to stay under the old arrangements in terms of qualifying under the gap year. So it is still far from satisfactory. I would urge the minister to look at how these boundaries could be improved. While I accept that the legislation has a sense of urgency about it now because there are so many students hanging on it going through, nonetheless I think it is very, very important that we remove this anomaly. It is almost like a lottery because it is based on whether you live on one side of the line or the other, despite the fact that the situation you are living in is virtually the same. I do not think that is fair by any measure, and I hope that the minister will look very carefully at this and say that we can improve on it. It really comes back to this point: that we should be doing everything possible to encourage country students to continue their studies. We now have a situation where some are going to find it easier than others purely because of some lines on a map that do not bear much relation to each individual’s situation. So, again, I join with my colleagues to say that I see this as an improvement but that I still think there is a long way to go to improve it further. I hope that the minister will listen to the members who have, in good faith, spoken here this evening to say that we can do better. With those words, I am conscious that other colleagues would like to speak, and I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for my opportunity. 2836 18:04:00 Neville, Paul, MP KV5 Hinkler NATS 0 0 Mr NEVILLE —I think this matter is one of the most important that has come before the parliament in my time, especially in terms of equity for country people. We get a lot of troubles in country areas with drought and floods and so on, but the one thing that we all pride ourselves in is seeing that our kids get a fair shake. I, for one, have a son who went to university and had to have four jobs to get himself through. So I know what it is like for young people to struggle to get that university degree. For the life of me, I cannot understand why we would use a measure of medical availability as the basis for lines on maps around accessibility to a university. I just cannot see the connection. Perhaps it was just a lazy bit of work on the part of someone in the minister’s office or the bureaucracy who said: ‘We can’t quite find a map. This one is fairly close. We’ll do this.’ That decision excluded so many people that it is quite frightening. But I will acknowledge the clawing back of the young people who were excluded by retrospectivity. If that had been allowed to continue, it would have been a manifest injustice. However, what we see now is a different form of injustice. In my electorate I have the university cities of Bundaberg and Hervey Bay. They are two very good campuses and two different universities. I find it extraordinary that those two cities are excluded but Townsville and Cairns are included in the 15-hour measure. Why should the kids in Bundaberg and Hervey Bay have to do 30 hours? I put this to the minister: it is not just a mechanical thing of 50 or 30 hours that we are talking about. What it really comes down to is the availability of jobs in some of those towns. If you are in a town like that—especially one that has been through drought recently—it is incredibly hard to get to 15 hours much less 30. So the move now to take this whole cohort of students from the 15-hour measure to the 30-hour measure will by its very nature exclude them. I think there is a lot of work still to be done. As I said, I have a son who went to university and had to maintain four jobs to get himself through. I am intensely proud of him. I also want to stress the importance of education in country areas. I understand that the minister at the table is the Minister for Social Inclusion. If we are talking about social inclusion, it should be a constant source of anxiety to her—I do not say this with any sense of bitterness or vindictiveness—that only 30 per cent of country kids in this nation get to university. It is only 30 per cent. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms Gillard —That is the Howard government’s legacy. KV5 Neville, Paul, MP Mr NEVILLE —You can say it was the last government’s legacy and we can say it was the Keating government’s legacy. You could run that argument for ever and ever amen. The point is, however, that you hold the reins at present and you have the ability to give more of those kids the opportunity. Not only have you not given more of those kids the opportunity; you have imposed harsh measures that will drive some of them out. I think that is something you should reflect on. Also, we wring our hands and say we need people from country areas, especially doctors and pharmacists and so on, to go back and take up the cudgels and live and work in country areas. What we are going to do with this measure is make it all the harder to encourage students in country areas to take up those courses and in doing so take a burden from government and from the communities in which they serve—(Time expired) 2837 18:09:00 Haase, Barry, MP 84T Kalgoorlie LP 0 0 Mr HAASE —I rise this evening with great concerns. I support everything said by my colleagues on this side of the House. It is untenable that we should be confronted at almost the last moment, in my opinion, with this imposition of a limitation of $150,000 of household taxable income for students wanting to attend tertiary institutions. Students who fall outside that limit are to be denied access to independent youth allowance. It goes against the grain. Has anyone in government, even from the Labor side of politics, ever suggested that a student’s access to HECS be means tested? No, they have not. Whether you are from a wealthy family or from a very poor battling family, no-one has suggested that you not be entitled to access HECS. When we have devised this independent youth allowance, why should a student that has qualified to be independent suddenly be saddled with the imposition of the income of their parents? Why should my students from families living in Port Hedland and Karratha where both parents are forced to work because rents are somewhere in the vicinity of $2,000 a week and the disposable income is on a par with the disposable income of families living in metropolitan areas be denied the opportunity to qualify for independent youth allowance and have an income whilst they relocate to a capital city to attend a tertiary institution? It is an untenable proposition. I believe the minister has not realised the consequences of such an imposition. My students in Karratha, Port Hedland and in the remote areas of Western Australia are hardly living in the leafy suburbs of any of our capital cities. They are living some 1,600 to 2,000 kilometres from a suitable institution. It is not an easy move to shop in the city. It is not an easy move to take up opportunities such as are offered by large populations as far as cost-of-living reductions are concerned. These students need to be able to qualify to receive the independent youth allowance and paddle their own canoes independent of their families. That is what I thought independent youth allowance was all about. Now we are suddenly being confronted with a situation where the minister decides if your parents earn too much. We are moving here into the politics of envy, I am sure. This policy, I suggest, is just to appease Labor voters and for it to be seen that the Labor minister is doing something to stop these incredibly wealthy people from having their children attend tertiary institutions with assistance from the government. The whole thing is based on the fallacy that $150,000 for a household taxable income in the Pilbara is somehow some vast amount. Labourers are being paid nearly $100,000 a year and out of that is a margin that allows them to live and save. Is this minister denying students from those sorts of families the opportunity for any government assistance to attend tertiary institutions? The whole situation is untenable. This government, I thought, operated in the interests of all people. I would not have expected them to promote policies that distinguish between one sector of the community and another. Surely our children, our future, have a right to be treated as individuals, especially if they are going to have a crack at qualifying for an independent youth allowance. But they cannot apply for that because they are being saddled with a classification according to their parents’ income. To have a situation where we are demanding more and more professional people move to the country and operate and not have the opportunity—(Time expired) 2838 18:14:00 Hull, Kay, MP 83O Riverina NATS 0 0 Mrs HULL —There is no argument that the youth allowance provisions needed changing. My view is that all kids who have no choice but to leave home to study their chosen pathway, be it at TAFE or university, should have access to youth allowance with a sensible asset or income test applied to it. However, that is not what we have here. We have here a Deputy Prime Minister who put together the legislation, came to the dispatch box time and time again, and defended her legislation. She said that it was right and that we were always wrong. Then the minister realised that she had made a mistake after she got a lot of feedback and she realised that the members of the House on the opposition side were not just making this up. She then decided that she would take retrospectivity out and make some changes around the edges. Then she came back to the dispatch box and she said that she was right and we were wrong. Every time, she was right and we were wrong. We have come to the position whereby we have now argued strongly again under the leadership of the shadow minister for education, apprenticeships and training, Christopher Pyne. He has determined that we have been able to achieve more concessions from the minister, who as I said has argued at the dispatch box day after day that we are wrong and she is right and that everybody is better off under her proposal and that we are making this up. Under the leadership and guidance of the shadow minister, the opposition has been able to get more concessions for regional students. However, we have come to a point where the concessions are for some and not for others. That is a fundamental problem. It is a fundamental problem when the minister continually comes to the dispatch box and argues that her policy is right and her legislation is right and then it continually gets changed. It was a fundamental problem when the Deputy Prime Minister stood up at the dispatch box—I took exception to this—and told everybody in Australia who was listening that families who earn up to $140,000 per annum could access youth allowance to help support their children at university. What the Deputy Prime Minister did not say was, ‘Okay, if you’ve got two children at university, you will receive $2.80 per fortnight of the youth allowance.’ No. She led the Australian people to believe through those comments that students would get the full youth allowance if their families earned $140,000 per annum. I see that she has honed her press release and rectified her comments. She now says the parental income test will be raised so that families with two children studying away from home can earn more than $140,000 before the allowance is cut completely. In fact, the truth is that they will receive $2.80 per fortnight per child. What do you get if you have one child at university and the parents earn $140,000? If you have one dependent child at university and the parents earn more than $140,000, you get zero. That is the minister’s own calculation. I am proud of the Nationals and I am proud of Fiona Nash and her carriage of this through her inquiry on this issue and through listening to the students of Australia telling her what the problems are. The problem that we have now is that some will get access to something that they previously did not have—they will get access to the scholarships on offer that the minister talks about and they will get access to youth allowance—but others will have access to youth allowance removed from them. That is the problem: some will get access to something they never had, but others will have taken away what they currently have. That is the wrong part of this legislation. That is the part we would like to see changed. Inner regional areas should be included within this proposal and the minister should again agree that she has made a mistake and that the members of the opposition are standing up in earnest for the people that they represent. They are not crying wolf; they are crying the reality of living in regional Australia. They would like to see all students—(Time expired) 2839 18:19:00 Hartsuyker, Luke, MP 00AMM Cowper NATS 0 0 Mr HARTSUYKER —Ensuring that we have the skills base in regional Australia is vital for our economic prosperity. It is vital for the prosperity of this nation because education is the key to meeting the future skills needs in regional areas. But there is, in this country, great inequality in access to education. The ability to live at home and study your course of choice is an option available to all too few regional students. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister’s decision to eliminate the gap year pathway to independent youth allowance was so short-sighted. Educational costs for regional people are so much more when they have to live away from home because they have no choice. Many regional students are not just choosing between one education institution and another. They have to leave their home towns to study their course of choice, which provides the skills needed in their home towns. It is kids from regional areas that are the most likely to return and provide the future accountants, doctors, lawyers and highly skilled trades professionals that those regional areas need. Many courses are not offered in regional centres, even the larger ones. Fortunately, under the pressure from the Nationals and our coalition partners, the Liberals, the minister has done a welcome backflip indeed. We have a long way to go to deliver equity for regional students, but the minister’s backdown certainly has addressed the very worst elements of her original legislation. Getting rid of the retrospective elements in the legislation was an important, positive step. I think retrospective legislation in any form is always a problem. When people have made plans based on the situation that existed at the time and then they have the rug pulled out from under their feet, it is just unacceptable. This original legislation was definitely unacceptable. The government has, to its credit, agreed to retain the original gap-year pathway for people living within certain boundaries but, unfortunately, drawing lines on a map has meant that the devil is in the detail of this proposal. We welcome the youth allowance pathway being retained in centres in my electorate such as Bellingen, Bowraville, Dorrigo, Macksville, Nambucca Heads, South West Rocks and Wooli. Those centres retain access to the youth allowance gap-year pathway. However, people living in centres such as Coffs Harbour, Urunga, Arrawarra, Kempsey, Port Macquarie and, in Madam Deputy Speaker Saffin’s electorate, Grafton will miss out. There are winners and there are losers under these changes and, unfortunately, there are many losers. The minister claimed that there was great equity in the new income test. As the member for Riverina has rightly pointed out, a family on $140,000 a year with two young people at university will get the princely sum of $2.80 a fortnight each. I have to say that, from talking to university students in my electorate, $2.80 a fortnight is not going to go very far toward ensuring their continued participation in further education. If the family has one child at uni they get zero. We have to encourage regional youth to go to university. It is good economic policy and it is good social policy, and these measures, whilst an improvement on what was originally put forward by the minister, fall far short of what is required to reform the system to support youth in further study. We see billions of dollars wasted on a home insulation program. We see the shonkies ripping off the government. We see the charlatans entering the industry. They are everywhere. Much of $2½ billion has been wasted. We see billions being wasted under the Building the Education Revolution program because we are paying far too much for our school buildings—in many cases, 100 per cent over what should have been paid. The waste from these two programs alone would have financed a high-quality youth support system at university for years into the future. This bill has been improved, but this country has a long way to go before we will have a system of support for our youth at university that is a 21st-century outcome. I certainly welcome the improvements and will undertake as a member of a coalition government to put in place the changes that will be needed to support our youth in going on to further education. 2840 18:24:00 Gillard, Julia, MP 83L Lalor ALP Minister for Education, Minister for Employment and Workplace Relations and Minister for Social Inclusion 1 0 Ms GILLARD —To summarise this debate, I find it intriguing that, in opposition, members of the coalition have found their voice and the only tune they know is hypocrisy. When they were in government the participation rates of country students in tertiary education at universities went backwards. Where was all this passion for equity and rural participation then? Where was all this spirit of reform and support for students from country areas in universities then? Where was it? Of course they did not do one thing about it. Anybody in this House in this debate tonight who was a member of the Howard government deserves to bear the brand ‘hypocrite’ because they did not do anything about it. Now, having listened to so much hypocrisy, let us deal with the factual assertions made during these speeches—these so-called ‘factual’ assertions, which are 100 per cent wrong. What is in this package? One hundred and fifty thousand scholarships. That is 29 times more than anything that was offered under the Howard government in the Commonwealth Scholarships Program they talk about. One hundred thousand students around the country will benefit. Some will get youth allowance for the first time. Some will get a greater rate of youth allowance. Coalition members speaking in this debate continue to distort it by pretending that the only way a student can get youth allowance is by becoming independent. That is completely untrue, 100 per cent nonsense, a complete distortion. The primary way of getting youth allowance under this package is qualifying on your parental income. You do not have to take a gap year. You can be in a family on, say, $70,000 a year and have kids who need to move away from home. They will get benefits, and they would have missed out under the Howard government’s scheme. The prime way of becoming eligible for youth allowance is directly on parental income. Of course we are talking about bringing the independence age down from 25 to 22. I was amazed by the contribution from the member for Kalgoorlie, who said students should be judged on their own income. We are the party that has brought to the parliament the proposition to bring the independence age down. He sat in a government with an independence age that was put up to 25 and would have voted for every piece of that legislation. Then members like the member for Kalgoorlie ask, ‘Why do you means test?’ We means test to put dollars into the pockets of people who need it the most. The pension is means tested. Family tax benefit is means tested. Every social security benefit in this country is means tested. If the Liberal Party now stands for a universalist system of welfare payments for every income category, I will be amazed; we will be hearing more from John Howard and Peter Costello if that has happened—if their new vision is that we should wake up in Sweden with the associated tax rates. What a load of nonsense! In government everything they did was means tested. Indeed, the grand new paid parental leave scheme of the Leader of the Opposition is what? It is means tested at $150,000—the same income cut-off in these amendments. So, if the member for Kalgoorlie and others reckon means testing is wrong, they had better get on to the Leader of the Opposition about his paid parental leave scheme, because obviously they do not support that either, let alone our current pension arrangements, let alone our current family tax benefit arrangements—and the list goes on. What else is in this package? There are $4,000 relocation scholarships to make a difference to kids and the start-up scholarships that I have spoken about. This is a package that will benefit students across the country. When you run the geographic spread, every electorate is a winner. More people in every electorate qualify for youth allowance under this package than under the old Howard government arrangements. They are the facts, not the hypocrisy that we have heard from the other side. On the question of amendments to this bill I freely acknowledge that when this bill was first brought to the parliament there were legitimate concerns about students who had made their arrangements before it could have been known that the student income support scheme was going to change. (Extension of time granted) When we brought this bill to the parliament, yes, there was a problem for students in the transition between the old and the new schemes. It was raised by members of the government backbench. To be fair, it was raised by some members of the coalition backbench. It was raised by the rural Independents in the parliament. It was raised by the Greens and by Senator Xenophon and it was fixed in negotiation with the Greens and Senator Xenophon—fully and completely fixed. The opposition are now trying to take credit for those amendments. They had absolutely nothing to do with those amendments. Those amendments that made sure that people were not caught in transition problems were wholly agreed between the government and the Greens and Senator Xenophon, and I thank them for their maturity in dealing with those amendments. They are the ones who deserve the credit for having negotiated those amendments for a problem that was raised by Labor backbenchers and rural Independents in this House. Listening to the speeches that have just been given, one would be absolutely amazed to know—when coalition speaker after coalition speaker has got up and bagged these amendments—these amendments are before this House because they were agreed with the coalition. There is no other reason they are here. They are before this House because they were agreed with the coalition. If the coalition does not like them, why did you agree with them? What a load of old cobblers! They were agreed with the coalition and then speaker after speaker has got up and said, ‘We do not like the index.’ The index is the index that has been used across government for geographic divisions of this country since 2001. If you do not like this index, I am very happy for any member of the coalition to say, ‘Every minute I was a member of the Howard government since 2001 I supported this index and I was wrong every minute that I did it.’ To construe this index as something that is only used for health programs is 100 per cent wrong. It is used for other programs, including education and child care. I have not put any lines on a map. I have got the index that has been accepted as the appropriate index across government, across departments, across the Howard government, across the Rudd Labor government— SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —since 2001, and no amount of caterwauling by the member for Mackellar will change that simple truth. SE4 Bishop, Bronwyn, MP Mrs Bronwyn Bishop interjecting— 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member for Mackellar may find herself amusing but others do not. 83L Gillard, Julia, MP Ms GILLARD —On the question of the delivery of these benefits, opposition members now say there is something with wrong with the index. Well, it is their index. Then we had the member for Hinkler suggest that somehow it is neglectful that my department or my office did not come up with a purpose-specific map of Australia for student income support. It is a pretty tough thing to do when the first time the opposition ever raised with us that they would accept a geographic division of the country on these questions was last Tuesday. How was one to do a purpose-specific map from last Tuesday? Obviously, we used the map that is across government. The change to the map—the so-called great victory that the opposition have had on all of this—is to change the circumstances for 1,900 students in a revenue neutral change that is being paid for with a small reduction in student start-up scholarships. They fought all these months, caused all these uncertainties, promulgated a billion dollar plan; they have settled for an amendment of less than $100 million for 1,900 students. I conclude by saying that, in respect of the coalition contributions, they say this is not enough. Well, if they do not think it is enough, make a promise to the electorate that if they are elected as the government at the next election they will spend half a billion or a billion more to deliver what they say they want to deliver. The only political promise from the opposition at the moment is that, in government, they would have a review. Every opposition member who has spoken in this debate and said they would fix this in government is not telling the truth. The only thing that they have committed to is a review. All of this expectation raising and now they are walking away from the students whose expectations they have raised. It is a dreadful and cruel hoax. I conclude by thanking the people who have worked hard on this package in my department and ought not to have been the subject of criticism in this debate: Robyn Shannon, Dianne Peacock, Alison Morehead, Colin Caldwell, Oliver Caddick, Robert Griew, Brett Harris, Dannie Edmonds and Marg Sykes. And of course thanks to my own staff, particularly to Jim Round, for their work on delivering these beneficial changes for Australian students. Question agreed to. 2843 Bills R4154 2843 Bill returned from the Senate with amendments. Ordered that the amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s amendments— (1)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 2), omit the table item, substitute: 2. Schedule 1 If this Act receives the Royal Assent before 1 January 2010—1 July 2010. If this Act does not receive the Royal Assent before 1 January 2010—a single day to be fixed by Proclamation. A Proclamation must not specify a day that occurs before 1 July 2010. However, if this Act does not receive the Royal Assent before 1 January 2010 and any of the provision(s) do not commence within the period of 6 months beginning on the day this Act receives the Royal Assent, they commence on the day after the end of that period. (2)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 4, 1st column), omit “39”, substitute “32”. (3)   Clause 2, page 2 (table item 7, 1st column), omit “75”, substitute “74”. (4)   Schedule 1, heading to Part 1, page 4 (line 2), omit “and prohibited”. (5)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 4 (line 22), omit the definition of prohibited term in section 1. (6)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 9), omit the heading to Part 2, substitute: Part 2—Unfair contract terms (7)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 10), omit the heading to Division 1. (8)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (line 29), omit “term.”, substitute “term; and”. (9)   Schedule 1, item 1, page 5 (after line 29), at the end of subsection 3(1), add:             (c)   it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on. (10) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (lines 4 to 7), omit paragraph 3(2)(a). (11) Schedule 1, item 1, page 6 (line 20), before “Without”, insert “(1)”. (12) Schedule 1, item 1, page 7 (after line 21), at the end of section 4, add:        (2)   Before the Governor‑General makes a regulation for the purposes of subsection (1)(n) prescribing a kind of term, or a kind of effect that a term has, the Minister must take into consideration:             (a)   the detriment that a term of that kind would cause to consumers; and             (b)   the impact on business generally of prescribing that kind of term or effect; and             (c)   the public interest. (13) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (lines 1 to 18), omit Division 2. (14) Schedule 1, item 1, page 8 (line 19), omit the heading to Division 3. (15) Schedule 1, item 2, page 9 (lines 29 to 31), omit “, and paragraph (b) has not already applied in relation to the contract”. (16) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 3), omit “applies to the contract”, substitute “applies to the term”. (17) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (after line 6), after subitem (2), insert: (2A) If paragraph (2)(b) applies to a term of a contract, subsection 2(2) and section 7 of Schedule 2 to the Trade Practices Act 1974 applies to the contract. (18) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 7), after “paragraphs (2)(a) and (b)”, insert “and subitem (2A)”. (19) Schedule 1, item 2, page 10 (line 7), after “contract”, insert “, or a term of a contract,”. (20) Schedule 1, item 5, page 12 (lines 3 and 4), omit “or 6(1)”. (21) Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (line 16), omit “(1)”. (22) Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (lines 18 to 20), omit subsection 130(2). (23) Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (line 21), at the end of the heading to section 131, add “etc.”. (24) Schedule 1, item 11, page 13 (lines 24 to 26), omit subsection 131(2), substitute:        (2)   Despite section 130, Part 2 of the Australian Consumer Law does not apply to, or in relation to:             (a)   contracts that are financial products; or             (b)   contracts for the supply, or possible supply, of services that are financial services. (25) Schedule 2, item 28, page 44 (lines 8 to 11), omit the item. (26) Schedule 2, item 30, page 44 (lines 23 to 26), omit the item. (27) Schedule 2, items 33 to 39, page 45 (lines 5 to 22), omit the items. (28) Schedule 2, item 40, page 46 (line 2), omit “38”, substitute “32”. (29) Schedule 2, item 43, page 46 (line 20), omit “or a prohibited term”. (30) Schedule 2, items 44 and 45, page 46 (lines 21 to 25), omit the items. (31) Schedule 2, item 47, page 46 (line 30), omit “or 6(1)”. (32) Schedule 2, items 51 to 55, page 47 (lines 9 to 22), omit the items. (33) Schedule 2, item 59, page 48 (line 9), omit “or a prohibited term”. (34) Schedule 2, item 60, page 48 (lines 15 and 16), omit “of Part VC or of the Australian Consumer Law”, substitute “or of Part VC”. (35) Schedule 2, item 71, page 49 (lines 25 and 26), omit the item. (36) Schedule 2, item 73, page 50 (line 2), after “paragraph (1)(b)”, insert “or (d)”. (37) Schedule 2, item 73, page 50 (line 6), omit “or a prohibited term”. (38) Schedule 2, item 74, page 50 (lines 10 to 12), omit subsection 87AC(1), substitute:        (1)   The Court may, on the application of a party to a consumer contract or on the application of the Commission, declare that a term of such a contract is an unfair term.     (1A)   Subsection (1) does not apply unless the consumer contract is a standard form contract. (39) Schedule 2, item 75, page 50 (lines 15 to 17), omit the item. (40) Schedule 3, heading to Part 1, page 51 (line 3), omit “and prohibited”. (41) Schedule 3, page 51 (before line 5), before item 1, insert: 1A Subsections 12AE(1) and (3) Before “Subdivision C”, insert “Subdivision BA (sections 12BF to 12BM),”. (42) Schedule 3, item 2, page 51 (lines 8 to 10), omit the item. (43) Schedule 3, item 7, page 52 (line 6), omit “and prohibited”. (44) Schedule 3, item 7, page 52 (line 28), omit “term.”, substitute “term; and”. (45) Schedule 3, item 7, page 52 (after line 28), at the end of subsection 12BG(1), add:             (c)   it would cause detriment (whether financial or otherwise) to a party if it were to be applied or relied on. (46) Schedule 3, item 7, page 53 (lines 1 to 4), omit paragraph 12BG(2)(a). (47) Schedule 3, item 7, page 53 (line 17), before “Without”, insert “(1)”. (48) Schedule 3, item 7, page 54 (after line 20), at the end of section 12BH, add:        (2)   Before the Governor‑General makes a regulation for the purposes of paragraph (1)(n) prescribing a kind of term, or a kind of effect that a term has, the Minister must take into consideration:             (a)   the detriment that a term of that kind would cause to consumers; and             (b)   the impact on business generally of prescribing that kind of term or effect; and             (c)   the public interest. (49) Schedule 3, item 7, page 55 (lines 6 to 25), omit section 12BJ. (50) Schedule 3, item 7, page 56 (line 25), omit “or 12BJ(1)”. (51) Schedule 3, item 8, page 56 (lines 32 to 34), omit “, and paragraph (b) has not already applied in relation to the contract”. (52) Schedule 3, item 8, page 57 (lines 5 and 6), omit “applies to the contract”, substitute “applies to the term”. (53) Schedule 3, item 8, page 57 (after line 8), after subitem (2), insert: (2A) If paragraph (2)(b) applies to a term of a contract, subsection 12BF(2) or section 12BK of the Australian Securities and Investments Commission Act 2001 applies to the contract. (54) Schedule 3, item 8, page 57 (line 9), after “paragraphs (2)(a) and (b)”, insert “and subitem (2A)”. (55) Schedule 3, item 8, page 57 (line 10), after “contract”, insert “, or a term of a contract,”. (56) Schedule 3, heading to Part 8, page 79 (line 2), omit “and prohibited”. (57) Schedule 3, item 33, page 79 (lines 4 to 6), omit the item. (58) Schedule 3, items 35 and 36, page 79 (lines 18 to 21), omit the items. (59) Schedule 3, item 37, page 79 (line 28), omit “or a prohibited term”. (60) Schedule 3, items 38 to 41, page 80 (lines 1 to 12), omit the items. (61) Schedule 3, item 42, page 80 (line 19), omit “or a prohibited term”. (62) Schedule 3, item 43, page 80 (lines 20 to 22), omit the item. (63) Schedule 3, item 44, page 80 (line 25), after “paragraph (1)(b)”, insert “or (d)”. (64) Schedule 3, item 44, page 80 (line 29), omit “or a prohibited term”. (65) Schedule 3, item 45, page 81 (line 3), omit “BA,”. (66) Schedule 3, item 55, page 82 (lines 15 to 20), omit subsection 12GND(1), substitute:        (1)   The Court may, on the application of a party to a consumer contract or on the application of ASIC, declare that a term of such a contract is an unfair term.     (1A)   Subsection (1) does not apply unless the consumer contract is a standard form contract that is:             (a)   a financial product; or             (b)   a contract for the supply, or possible supply, of services that are financial services. (67) Schedule 3, item 56, page 82 (lines 23 to 25), omit the item. 2846 18:36:00 Gray, Gary, MP 8W5 Brand ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia 1 0 Mr GRAY —I move: That the amendments be agreed to. The government, working closely with the opposition, moved a number of amendments to this bill in the Senate. Both parties agree that these amendments improve the bill. The government’s amendments moved the start date from 1 January 2010 to 1 July 2010; changed the definition of ‘unfair’ to include the consideration of detriment to the consumer; removed the minister’s power to blacklist certain terms; introduced specific criteria that the minister must take into account when listing examples on the grey list; and made a number of technical and transitional changes. The opposition moved an amendment to remove two rebuttal presumptions in the unfair contract terms provisions of the bill. The removal of these rebuttal presumptions would undermine the ability of private consumers to use the unfair contract terms law at all. Therefore, the government could not agree to this amendment. Senator Xenophon also moved a number of amendments, none of which the government could agree to. I commend the amendments. Question agreed to. 2846 Bills R4274 2846 Bill returned from Main Committee without amendment; certified copy of the bill presented. Ordered that this bill be considered immediately. Bill agreed to. 2846 Mr GRAY (Brand —Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2846 Bills R4254 2846 Debate resumed from 25 November, on motion by Mr Butler: That this bill be now read a second time. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. 2846 Mr GRAY (Brand —Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia) 00:00:00 —by leave—I move: That this bill be now read a third time. Question agreed to. Bill read a third time. 2846 Bills S712 Consideration resumed from 8 February. 2846 2846 18:40:00 McClelland, Robert, MP JK6 Barton ALP Attorney-General 1 0 Mr McCLELLAND —I present the explanatory memorandum to the bill and I move: That this bill be now read a second time. This bill implements the decision, announced by the government on 23 December 2008, to establish the position of the National Security Legislation Monitor. The independent National Security Legislation Monitor will review and report on the operation, effectiveness and implications of counterterrorism and national security legislation on an ongoing basis. The government’s aims in establishing the monitor are, firstly, to ensure that the laws which Australia has enacted or enhanced since 11 September 2001 to specifically address the threat of terrorism or security related concerns operate in an effective and accountable manner and, secondly, that these laws are consistent with Australia’s international obligations, including our human rights, counterterrorism and international security obligations. We all remain hopeful that one day there will be a time when the threat of terrorism will diminish and make these laws no longer necessary, and on that basis we hope the monitor will also be able to consider the extent to which our counterterrorism and national security laws remain necessary. This bill puts in place a mechanism for the regular review of Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation and will provide for greater public confidence in the operation of those laws. One way it does this is through the monitor considering if the laws contain appropriate safeguards for protecting individuals’ rights. The proposals in this bill reflect the government’s commitment to strong counterterrorism laws that protect the security of Australians, while at the same time preserving the values and freedoms that are part of the Australian way of life. Since 2006 a number of inquiries into different aspects of our terrorism and national security legislation have recommended the introduction of an independent reviewer to provide comprehensive and ongoing oversight. In its report of December 2006 the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security (PJCIS) observed: The Independent Reviewer, if adopted, will provide valuable reporting to the Parliament and help to maintain public confidence in Australia’s specialist terrorism laws. That report was essentially bipartisan. In his November 2008 report on the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef, the Hon. John Clarke QC recommended: … consideration be given to the appointment of an independent reviewer of Commonwealth counter-terrorism laws. The Clarke report supported: … the notion of ensuring that the system is balanced between the need to endeavour to prevent terrorism and the need to protect an individual’s rights and liberties. An independent reviewer could play an important part in striking this necessary balance. The United Kingdom has an independent reviewer of terrorism laws, currently a position held by Lord Carlile of Berriew QC, who conducts regular reviews into different aspects of the United Kingdom’s counterterrorism legislation, including the Terrorism Act 2000 and the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. I indicate before this parliament the tremendous support Lord Carlile has provided to us in considering and discussing issues and assisting us to form a view as to the appropriate model for Australia. Like the United Kingdom model, the role of the monitor will be undertaken by one person who will be expected to be independent from the current administration of the counterterrorism legislation. In line with the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee’s recommendations, the inclusion of the word ‘independent’ in the title of the office and in the title of the bill has more than simply symbolic value. It reflects the notion of independence as fundamentally important to the position of the monitor. Although the bill does not formally require the monitor to be a lawyer, the monitor must have sufficient experience in the criminal law and be of high standing in the community. In recognition of the importance of this appointment, the bill requires that before a recommendation on appointment is made to the Governor-General the Prime Minister must consult with the Leader of the Opposition. That will be done. In order to bring clarity to the monitor’s role and function, the counterterrorism and national security legislation within the scope of the monitor’s consideration is outlined in the bill, as recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its inquiry in October 2008 into similar legislation to establish an independent reviewer of terrorism laws. The bill provides the framework within which the monitor can review the relevant legislation. The monitor may also initiate his or her own investigations or the Prime Minister may refer a matter to the monitor to review within a specified time frame. Turning to the functions of the monitor, the monitor will be required to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation, which primarily includes the legislation which has been specifically enacted to counter terrorism and related security threats. However, the monitor is also given the ability to review other Commonwealth legislation, such as general Commonwealth criminal legislation, to the extent that it relates to Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation. The monitor’s functions also require the monitor to consider whether Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation contains appropriate safeguards for protecting the rights of individual citizens. As well, the monitor must consider whether these laws remain proportionate to any threat of terrorism or the threat to national security or both and whether they remain necessary to protect Australians from the threat of terrorism and terrorism related activity. Recognising the valuable contribution to the bill made by the Senate, the monitor is also specifically required to assess whether Australia’s counter-terrorism or national security legislation is being used for matters unrelated to terrorism or national security. When reviewing Australia’s counterterrorism legislation, the monitor must give particular emphasis to that legislation which has been used or considered in the current and previous financial year. This will ensure not only that the monitor reviews those laws as they have been applied in practice but also that the monitor’s resources are used effectively and wisely with respect to current circumstances. In reviewing the legislation, the monitor must have regard to Australia’s international obligations, as I have mentioned, including human rights obligations, counterterrorism obligations and international security obligations as well as the agreed national counter-terrorism arrangements between the Commonwealth, states and territories. The monitor must report his or her comments to the Prime Minister on an annual basis. The bill, as amended by the Senate, now requires the monitor to produce both a classified and a declassified version of the annual report. Edited as necessary on the grounds of operationally sensitive, national security classified or cabinet information, that declassified annual report will be laid before each house of parliament and will therefore be available for parliamentary and public scrutiny. In response to the Senate committee’s recommendation, the bill has been amended to enable the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to refer matters relating to Australia’s counterterrorism and national security legislation to the monitor. The monitor would only be able to examine matters referred by the PJCIS if they are within the monitor’s functions. The monitor would not be compelled to act on the committee’s reference and the monitor would retain discretion in dealing with any reference provided by the committee. This would ensure that the monitor’s resources would be effectively used and the monitor would be able to report back to the PJCIS references in the annual report. To ensure the monitor can conduct a thorough review of legislation, a provision has been made for the monitor to have access to national security classified documents and operationally sensitive information if that information is required for the proper performance of his or her functions. The bill provides the monitor with the power to compel the giving of sworn testimony. Further, the monitor has the power to hold both public and private hearings if a person is giving evidence that discloses operationally sensitive information. In addition, the monitor has the power to summon a person and to compel the production of documents and things. These powers are supported by criminal offences for conduct in the nature of contempt. In the performance of his or her functions, it is expected that the monitor will have regard to the functions and roles of other oversight and accountability agencies and those agencies that have functions relating to the implementation of Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation. The bill enables the monitor to liaise with other key bodies, such as the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, the Human Rights Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the head of any Commonwealth, state or territory agency. The role of the monitor will complement the role of the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security and other oversight bodies, but it will not duplicate their roles. The bill also contains a number of standard miscellaneous and administrative provisions. The bill provides for the monitor’s terms and conditions of appointment, remuneration and allowances, leave, the possibility of outside employment, disclosure of interests, resignation, termination of appointment and acting arrangements. It goes without saying that heavy emphasis is also placed on the need for the monitor to safeguard appropriately and maintain the operationally sensitive information or national security classified documents entrusted to him or her. A new independent review mechanism will ensure that Australia’s laws underpinning Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security regime are effective as the threat to Australia’s national security interests evolve. Importantly, the impartiality of the monitor, as envisaged in this bill, will strike a necessary balance between the need to prevent terrorist activities from threatening Australia’s way of life and the need to protect our individual rights and liberties. The debate about establishing in Australia an independent reviewer of counterterrorism laws is not new. This bill represents implementation of bipartisan recommendations, as I have indicated, of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, Mr Clarke’s inquiry into the case of Dr Mohamed Haneef and the Sheller committee of 2006. I also commend some individual members who have personally agitated for the establishment of this office. The calls to establish this role have now been answered and I commend this bill to the House. 2849 18:53:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —One of the most profound consequences of the terrible terrorist acts of 11 September 2001 was the need for governments around the world to assess their capability to deal with the new and frightening threat of international terrorism. In many cases there was a need for the introduction of domestic legislation to try and deal with the new challenges as they appeared. In Australia, as elsewhere, this meant quite a large amount of legislation which tried to address this problem while still providing a balance between the protection of the rights that we all treasure and the civil liberties that we take for granted and the need for public and national security. It is up to governments to make a judgment about what the right balance is. They have to strike a balance between individual rights and the provision of national security, which is of course increasingly demanding. It is not an easy balance to strike, and clearly that balance is open to debate. We have seen that extensively in this chamber with other bills of this type. Terrorism is a profound challenge to this society and to many others, and we should never make the mistake of underestimating how serious that threat is. The Australian public are entitled to expect that their government will do all it can to provide for their personal security and the national security. That is what I believe much of the legislation that has been introduced in Australia does. It seeks to provide that level of security and confidence that we can meet the kinds of challenges with which we are confronted. There is plenty of evidence in relation to the success we have had in meeting these challenges. That said, governments need to be cautious about the way we act. It is in this context that the opposition welcomes the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. I now want to move to the specific provisions of the bill. The central purpose of this legislation is the creation of a safeguard, an independent reviewer, to ensure that Australia’s counter-terrorism legislation is effective but also contains appropriate safeguards to protect the rights of individuals in our society. This is not a new idea. As the Attorney mentioned in his speech, the office of the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws has been in place in the United Kingdom for quite some time. The bill, or at least the concept it adopts, has its origins in the reports of the Sheller committee and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in 2006, which were themselves informed by the regime that applies in the United Kingdom. It is also worth mentioning—and the Attorney neglected this in his speech—that in March 2008 the member for Kooyong moved to introduce a private member’s bill to appoint an independent reviewer of terrorism laws. But that motion was gagged by the government. Similar legislation was introduced in the Senate, by Senators Troeth and Humphries, in November 2008. It was passed in the Senate but it failed in the House. The government’s bill in many respects resembles the arrangements in force in the UK, as applied by the Independent Reviewer, Lord Carlile. However, there are important differences. The bill comes with a series of amendments which the coalition will support. These amendments make the bill resemble the member for Kooyong’s bill in almost every respect, and much more so than the initial version of the government’s bill. It is almost two years since the manager of government business marshalled the numbers to quash the member for Kooyong’s initiative, although quietly within this bill the government have adopted most of his policy as their own. The key difference between the government’s original bill and the regime proposed by the coalition is the notion of independence. In keeping with the approach of the Rudd government, the bill in its initial form required that the monitor be subject to the direction of the executive—personified by the Prime Minister. Any ad hoc inquiry would have been subject to prime ministerial approval. Any report deriving from it would be both secret—there having been in the initial bill no provision for tabling—and subject to executive micromanagement. These provisions, following the recommendations of the Senate Finance and Public Administration Legislation Committee, have now been abandoned by the government. The government’s amendments address the coalition’s concerns raised in the committee and restore independence, which is essential to the concept of this office. The coalition will therefore be supporting the amendments and, with carriage of the amendments, this bill, which for practical purposes is our own. The principle behind this bill is protective. It is to add to the armoury of parliamentary surveillance another mechanism designed to ensure that the counter-terrorism laws, which were amended so as to expand the executive and policing powers of the state in extraordinary times by introducing into our laws exceptional measures, are not allowed to become ordinary measures with the passing of time. The government and the parliament were of the view that some traditional protection should be reviewed and that the policing functions of the state should be extended through such devices as preventive detention orders and control orders, which of course were controversial at the time. It was done in the service of the fundamental obligation of this government and of all parliaments—that is, to protect the public interest. Those of us who remember those debates also remember that the government which introduced them, the previous Howard government, made it clear at the time that these were extraordinary measures. This bill introduces an Office of the Independent Monitor, which we expect will bring an objective and detached mind to the question of both the functionality of the laws and the necessity for their continuance. This can only be beneficial and it has proven to be beneficial in other jurisdictions. Subject to the amendments I have just foreshadowed, the coalition supports the passage of this bill. 2851 19:00:00 Bevis, Arch, MP ET4 Brisbane ALP 1 0 Mr BEVIS —We live in times when, in a democracy, the security of a nation such as ours requires laws which are not customarily considered appropriate in our society but which nonetheless are necessary to ensure the safety of the population. Since 11 September 2001, that has become a dramatic reality for far too many people around the world and certainly for Australian citizens. The Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010 does have bipartisan support and it should enjoy that bipartisan support. It is sound legislation which enhances the oversight of the antiterrorism laws that are necessary in our land. I was a bit taken aback by some of the contributions of the shadow minister, the member for Stirling, when he spoke just then and, in particular, his reference—in part accurate—to the private member’s bill moved by the member for Kooyong. I was not going to make reference to that, but I think it is worth pointing out, given the contribution we have just heard from the shadow minister, that as with so many other things that we now deal with those opposite had control of this parliament and, indeed, control of both chambers of this parliament to put through any legislation their party room wished without the need to negotiate with minor parties in the Senate. For part of that time, they had an absolute majority. At any time during the last eight or nine years of their office, they could have introduced legislation of the kind that was referred to in the private member’s bill. Frankly, most commentators and, I think, most people in this parliament saw that manoeuvre for what it was. It was a political manoeuvre. It was a political stunt. In saying that, I do not for one minute say that those who spoke to it, supported it or moved it did not believe in it. Indeed, I think the member for Kooyong does believe in it. He would have been in a very small minority in the Howard government in seeking to pursue that. The Howard government had no desire at the time it had the opportunity to enact this sort of legislation. So to try and make some cheap political point, as the shadow minister did just then, is I think twisting the history a little bit too much. This bill is a good bill. We do not need to play the sorts of games that the shadow minister just sought to play in his contribution. Let us look at the importance of this legislation. Reference has been made to the work of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security in the course of the previous parliament and deservedly so. A good deal of the issues dealt with in this legislation arise from it and the committee has a very well deserved name and respect in this parliament for the quality of the work it does and the bipartisan way in which it goes about looking at matters of this kind. It is a bit alarming to look at the attitude, though, which was adopted back in 2006 when the committee took evidence in its review of the legislation. During the committee’s hearings in August 2006, officers of the Attorney-General’s Department indicated to the committee’s inquiry that reviews of all of the terrorism legislation were not being planned. No doubt that was the instruction from the government of the day. However, that clearly was not a view that the committee in 2006 regarded as acceptable. As a result, the committee proposed the appointment of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws, based on much the same model as the reviewer in the United Kingdom. In its report in December 2006, the committee said: To date, post enactment review has been sporadic and fragmented with a focus on specific pieces of legislation rather than the terrorism law regime as a whole. This has limited the opportunity for comprehensive evaluation and highlights the need for an integrated approach to ensure ongoing monitoring and refinement of the law, where necessary. That stands in stark contrast to the actual policy of the former Howard government, but I am delighted that, in opposition, they have changed their position on this and I am delighted that this bill is before the parliament with bipartisan support. The independent National Security Legislation Monitor will have an important function in advising government and, through government, the people of Australia about the suitability of our antiterrorism laws. That will enable somebody with a different perspective—a well-qualified but different perspective—to provide advice which can be considered. Ultimately, it is a matter for the parliament whether the legislation should be changed and whether the parliament believes it has got the settings right. However, in matters of this kind, when legislation is being considered which impinges upon civil liberties and rights of individuals and which in the past would not have been agreed to by parliament, in those sorts of areas it is important that we have available to us as legislators a wide range of good quality advice. Having an independent office such as this will for the first time provide that advice for our consideration and, importantly, it will for the first time provide a new set of eyes not just, as the committee in 2006 noted, looking at parts of bills that may be before the chamber but looking at the totality of the various pieces of legislation that together make up our national security legislative framework. The independent National Security Legislation Monitor will have the function to review on his or her own initiative the operation, effectiveness and implications of Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security laws and any other law of the Commonwealth to the extent that it relates to Australia’s counter-terrorism and national security legislation. As the current Chair of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security, I welcome this development. I think it will enhance the collective knowledge and ensure as best we can that we do have effective legislation which provides for the safety of Australian citizens with the safeguards we expect to be in place to protect our civil liberties. I am also pleased that the bill makes provision for the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to refer matters to the independent legislation monitor. I think that is a very useful addition to the processes of oversight in this parliament. Of course, the work of the monitor, as important as it is, is still different to the work that we, as members of the parliament, are engaged in. It will still be an important function of the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security to itself review the legislation, both bills before the parliament at any point in time and the existing legislation dealing with counter-terrorism related matters. The committee, as it has in the past, will continue to look at those bills and the legislation and, where it thinks it appropriate, will make recommendations to government, the parliament or both about changes that the committee thinks are warranted. I am also pleased to see the principle of bipartisanship embodied in the appointment of this office. As with the Inspector-General of Intelligence and Security, the Governor-General will make an appointment of the person to fill the role of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor, but first the Prime Minister is required under the bill before us to consult with the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Representatives. That is a thoroughly appropriate mechanism. Many people who are listening to or interested in this debate may well think that has always been the case; it has not. It is a result of reviews conducted by previous Labor governments and royal commissions. It reminds me that this bipartisan consultation about the appointment of these officers is fundamental to the public confidence in the work of these intelligence agencies and, in particular, the work of those who supervise the intelligence agencies. In days not that far past, when this bipartisan consultation did not occur, we also did not have effective oversight by parliamentary committees. In the days before the inspector-general we had situations in which intelligence agencies were responsible to nobody other than the ministers of the Crown to whom they reported. If you have a look at those decades in which that was the case, there was a situation where the agencies, left to their own devices, not surprisingly got up to all sorts of things secretly that the Australian public, and I suspect even the parliament of the day, would not have sanctioned. We know this because there were royal commissions. Some of those earlier royal commissions have now been made public after the 30-year rule, and they do not paint a very flattering picture of the activities of some of those organisations. Not only were they incompetent in many respects in the discharge of their core responsibilities but they clearly strayed from their core work and were engaged in a raft of other activities that were unsuitable. Thankfully, following a couple of royal commissions about a decade or so apart and the actions of this parliament in establishing oversight bodies, such as the inspector-general, the parliamentary committee and now this independent legislation monitor, we have a greater degree—I think a very high degree—of confidence in the community about the work of these agencies. I have made the comment to some of those involved in the agencies that, whilst this review process is no doubt a bit of a pain in the neck for our intelligence community from time to time, it is a heck of a lot better than letting them have free rein for 10 years and then ending up having a royal commission that publicly dismembers them limb by limb and rebuilds them from the ground up. If you go back over a 25- to 30-year period through the sixties, seventies and eighties, you actually find that was pretty much the way things happened. That is not good for anybody. It is not good for the security of Australia, because the work these agencies do is very important. It is certainly not good for governments of the day, because security of the people is one of the most important responsibilities that any government, irrespective of politics, has before it. It is important that governments are confident that the work they need to have done is being done effectively and within the remit that has been given to them. We have seen examples in the past where government has introduced legislation, ostensibly as a result of the threat of terrorism, which has not been well received in the community, has not been well supported by all of the state and territory governments and indeed was not supported by the Senate. My mind goes back to the legislation introduced not long after 9-11 in 2001. The legislation that was introduced during that period was extremely controversial. I doubt that many people would recall the provisions of the actual bills that were introduced by the government at the time, but they were referred to the Parliamentary Committee on Intelligence and Security, then chaired by David Jull, a person for whom I have a great deal of respect. That committee did an outstanding job in reviewing that legislation and made a number of recommendations for substantial change to the bills that were introduced by the government of the day. Amazingly, even though many of those recommendations were not immediately endorsed by the then Attorney-General or then Prime Minister, subsequent to their passage through the parliament both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister were on the record in speeches inside or outside of this parliament acknowledging the improvements that had been made by that parliamentary review process. As I said earlier, that parliamentary review process is important and the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Intelligence and Security will continue to undertake that function. I warmly welcome the creation of this independent monitor. I think it is a significant improvement in the way in which we calibrate our counterterrorism laws to make sure that they are as a whole taken together, that they are effective in protecting Australian people and that they impinge upon the basic principles of liberty upon which our democracy is founded only to the extent that is necessary. I commend the bill to the House. Debate interrupted. Bills R4293 2854 Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation for requested amendments announced. Bill returned from the Senate with requested amendments. Ordered that the requested amendments be considered immediately. Senate’s requested amendments— (1)   Clause 2, page 1 (lines 7 to 9), omit the clause, substitute:        2 Commencement        (1)   Each provision of this Act specified in column 1 of the table commences, or is taken to have commenced, in accordance with column 2 of the table. Any other statement in column 2 has effect according to its terms. Commencement information Column 1 Column 2 Column 3 Provision(s) Commencement Date/Details 1. Sections 1 to 3 and anything in this Act not elsewhere covered by this table The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 2. Schedules 1 and 2 The day this Act receives the Royal Assent. 3. Schedule 3 Immediately after the commencement of Schedule 1 to the Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Participation Requirement) Act 2009. 1 January 2010 Note: This table relates only to the provisions of this Act as originally passed by both Houses of the Parliament and assented to. It will not be expanded to deal with provisions inserted in this Act after assent.        (2)   Column 3 of the table contains additional information that is not part of this Act. Information in this column may be added to or edited in any published version of this Act. (2)   Page 14 (after line 10), at the end of the bill, add:        Schedule 3 — Family assistance participation requirement        Family Assistance Legislation Amendment (Participation Requirement) Act 2009 1 Subitem 13(2) of Schedule 1 Omit “1 May 2010”, substitute “1 July 2010”. 2 Subitem 14(1) of Schedule 1 Omit “1 May 2010”, substitute “1 July 2010”. 3 Subitem 14(3) of Schedule 1 Omit “30 April 2010”, substitute “30 June 2010”. 2855 19:15:00 Plibersek, Tanya, MP 83M Sydney ALP Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women 1 0 Ms PLIBERSEK —I move: That the requested amendments be made. The government amendments to this bill are unrelated to the introduction of weekly payments. The bill is a convenient vehicle to make an unrelated amendment to the family assistance law. I thank the House for its assistance in bringing on this bill and debating the amendments in a non-controversial manner. The amendments have been supported by the opposition and minor parties in the Senate. This amendment is a necessary consequential amendment due to timing changes in other legislation, specifically the changed start date to youth allowance changes. These amendments will delay the start date of the new education participation requirements for family tax benefit—FTB—children aged 16 to 20 years until 1 July 2010. This aligns with the new start date of the youth allowance changes. Question agreed to. 2855 Bills S712 2855 Debate resumed. 2855 19:17:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise tonight to support the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. The bill is important and does a number of things that I think many in this place would agree are worthy. However, I do want to address some of the points made by the member for Brisbane. In his remarks he made a number of important points about this bill and the lead-up to this bill. However, he did speak about the member for Kooyong and his motives. I am glad that he raised the member for Kooyong in relation to the development of this piece of legislation before us tonight, because for a member in this chamber to label the member for Kooyong’s proposal for bill for a national security legislation monitor as a political stunt would be doing the member for Kooyong a great disservice. He is a passionate believer in this particular bill, and in what this bill means, and I think all members of this House know that. So I think it is unfortunate for the member for Brisbane to accuse the member for Kooyong of engaging in some sort of political chicanery in something that he is passionate about. There is no doubt that, when the member for Kooyong attempted to introduce and speak on the Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008, the actions of the government and the Leader of the House in gagging the member for Kooyong were extremely unfortunate. There is no doubt today, looking at the provisions of this bill we are examining tonight, that if it were not for the member for Kooyong introducing that earlier bill, and attempting to push this very important and worthy cause, we may not now be facing this worthy development in legislation in Australia today. In examining what this bill provides for, it comes with a series of amendments which the opposition supports. The amendments make the bill resemble the member for Kooyong’s bill in almost every regard. I just want to make that clear to the member for Brisbane: the amendments almost make this bill identical to the member for Kooyong’s Independent Reviewer of Terrorism Laws Bill 2008. So I think to assign some sort of ill motive to the member for Kooyong in developing or speaking on this bill is poor indeed. These amendments are important because the other point that the member for Brisbane made was that, in appointing a national security monitor, independence was one of the most important concepts. The key difference between the government’s original bill and the bill that was proposed by the coalition and the member for Kooyong was the notion of independence. It was one of the things that the member for Kooyong was particularly keen to ensure was in the final legislation. That is why we can support this bill now—independence is the hallmark of the monitor in the current bill before the House. Having a monitor subject to the direction of any executive would lead to bad outcomes. I think having a monitor responsible to the Prime Minister or having any ad hoc inquiry subject to prime ministerial approval would be a weak outcome. Therefore, the amendments that have been proposed do give genuine independence to the monitor, and that is significant in what we are proposing. What we are talking about in this legislation is having a monitor on laws that seek to limit the freedoms and the rights of citizens. The parliament has taken the view in recent times that, due to the dramatic security and other threats to the ongoing stability of Australia from terrorism, we should limit the rights of citizens in our country. That is something that we would only do in the most extreme circumstances, where the most extreme threats were faced. It is something that I think most of the Australian public has been willing to accept and accede to as long as parliament takes those measures appropriately and has oversight and monitoring of those powers. There has been no experience of how these new developments in international terrorism and international antiterror laws will play out in the long term in relation to civil liberties, citizens’ rights and ongoing issues of government having too much power or authority over the individual or an individual’s life. The United Kingdom created an office of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws some time ago with that very view in mind. That was the motivation of the member for Kooyong, taking inspiration from the United Kingdom, to put forward a bill that would ensure that we have some monitoring and some safeguard against laws that may well be used aggressively in the future. So, as we progress through this period where terrorism is a major threat in world terms, we do need to constantly monitor and assess the efficacy and adequacy of and the need for laws such as security and terror laws in Australia. That is what the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010 attempts to do and establish. It is our answer to the UK legislation. The standing function of the monitor will be to review the operation, effectiveness and implications of the counterterrorism and national security legislation. The monitor will have to report findings and recommendations to the Prime Minister on an annual basis, which of course is a worthy objective. I do want to endorse what the member for Brisbane said about bipartisanship in relation to this bill. Regardless of who is in government, I think it is important that the Leader of the Opposition be consulted in relation to who the monitor is and who the appointment is. Bipartisanship in relation to these matters is something that is worthy and that is to be lauded and it is a good objective of this bill. The bill provides for the appointment of the monitor and prescribes the functions and framework for reviewing the relevant legislation. The bill also provides the monitor with the power to compel a witness to take an oath or an affirmation that the evidence given will be true. Further, the monitor has the power to hold both public and private hearings, which I think is another important feature of this bill—that indeed there is the capacity for public hearings—and to compel the production of documents and things. This is supported by criminal offences for conduct in the nature of contempt. Again, obviously the monitor will require certain powers in this regard. The fundamental difference between the bill as presented in its initial form and the bill as amended following the urgings of the coalition is that we were strongly of the view that, if you have a reviewer, it is important that you strongly support the apparatus of an independent reviewer of terrorism laws. I do think that if you had your so-called independent reviewer set up as a bureaucrat or in a similar vein as with other agencies, you would of course not have that independence. So it is very important that this amended legislation provides for that. I think it is worthy that they have allowed for an independent monitor to be in place. In concluding, I do not want to speak for a long time on this bill tonight, because it is a worthy bill. I do want to say that the member for Kooyong’s motives are that he has followed this issue for some time, both in the United Kingdom and here, and he is well known as a person who has a passion for these issues. In relation to national security legislation it is important that we do have ongoing monitoring of the efficacy, the adequacy and the ongoing development of these laws and how they impact upon citizens in Australia. Having an independent monitor—I stress the word ‘independent’—as we as a coalition urged the government to do is a worthy and laudable objective. With the amendments, this is a bill that we can support. 2858 19:26:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —I rise in support of the Independent National Security Legislation Monitor Bill 2010. It is pleasing to hear from opposition speakers that this bill, in the form in which it is now before this chamber, has the support of the opposition. It is of course the case that we have had very substantial debate in this country since late 2001, when the first of a series of antiterror laws were introduced by the Howard government, and those antiterror laws are, of course, rightly regarded by all in this place as temporary measures. They are regarded as temporary measures because they make extreme changes in some respects to what has been traditionally understood to be the balance between the liberties that Australians enjoy—indeed, the liberties that Australians have fought wars for—and the need for our authorities to be armed with necessary powers in order to combat the threat of terrorism. It is because of the extreme nature of these measures and because they are rightly regarded as temporary measures that, at the time that the antiterror laws were debated in late 2001 and in 2002 and the years following, a substantial part of the debate was devoted to considering what length of review was appropriate for them and what type of sunset provisions ought to be introduced so as to ensure that temporary measures of the nature of these antiterror laws did not remain part of Australian legislation for any longer than they needed to. I can say that—and I think there would be some agreement, with the benefit of the years since these laws were passed—the sunset provisions that we find in the legislation introduced by the Howard government were inadequate. In fact, only division 3 of part III of the ASIO Act has a clear sunset clause and it brings on a review in 2016. It was because of the absence of sunset provisions applying generally to the Howard government’s antiterror laws that there have been repeated calls for other reviewing mechanisms, and those calls have included suggestions that there ought to be an independent reviewer of the antiterror legislation who would conduct regular reviews and bring to the attention of the government and the parliament any suggestions that there was no longer a need for these antiterror laws to be continued. It is unfortunate that two of the opposition speakers who preceded me, the member for Mitchell and the member for Stirling, have sought in a sense to rewrite history. They have sought to forget the attitude that the Howard government took to the Sheller review in 2005, and that attitude was to implement not one of the 20 recommendations of the Sheller review. Debate interrupted. 2858 Adjournment 10000 SPEAKER, The The SPEAKER —Order! It being 7.30 pm, I propose the question: That the House do now adjourn. 2858 2858 19:30:00 Briggs, Jamie, MP IYU Mayo LP 0 0 Mr BRIGGS —This week we have seen the first public signs of the internal battles going on in the background within the Rudd government. An explosive article by James Massola and Chris Johnson appeared in the Canberra Times last Saturday that has flashed a spotlight on the backroom dealings of this government. The article outlines in very careful detail just how advanced the plans are for a transition from the current Prime Minister to the Deputy Prime Minister. The plans are particularly being developed by the dominant right-wing faction of the Labor Party. The article makes plain that senior figures on that side of the House have had enough of being bullied by this Prime Minister or, as some Labor members are describing it, being ‘keneallyed’ by him. These Labor members want to move the leadership sooner rather than later to the more agreeable Deputy Prime Minister. Following the Canberra Times article, the story was given additional lift yesterday morning when the well-known supporter of the Deputy Prime Minister, the member for Corangamite, spoke on the doors of his desire for the Deputy Prime Minister to become the Prime Minister. You can start to see the chess pieces being strategically moved around the building. The assumption is that this will occur post the next election and certainly that is where the smart money is right now. One punter has decided to put $2½ thousand with Centrebet that it will happen sooner. The Prime Minister is so nervous that, thanks to the work of Simon Benson from the Daily Telegraph, we know that key factional players were summoned to his office on Monday night for crisis talks. What is interesting is the pace at which Labor members are keenly positioning for the Gillard prime ministership. 83V Emerson, Craig, MP Dr Emerson —Who wrote this for you? IYU Briggs, Jamie, MP Mr BRIGGS —I think the Minister for Small Business, Independent Contractors and the Service Economy would be okay in a Gillard administration. For instance, who will be her deputy? My mail has it that the Minister Assisting the Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, the member for Charlton, is busily positioning himself to be the front-runner. Minister Combet has been dubbed the Mr Fix-it of the government, but information provided to me suggests that fixing things is a speciality. In recent days I have been contacted by a couple of the minister’s Labor colleagues who are not what you would describe as supporters of the minister. They point to several examples of where the minister has been able to deftly move ‘political roadblocks’, as they describe them, without too much difficulty. For instance, they point out how easily the minister was able to gain a very safe Labor seat against the wishes of the local branches although the seat is approximately 2,000 kilometres from where he lives. They point to the fact that the preselection contest was made significantly easier when the sitting member faced serious accusations of inappropriate sexual conduct. These allegations appeared on the front page of the Sunday Telegraph in an article titled ‘Rudd MP asked driver for sex’. In what has been described to me as a ‘miracle in timing’, the article appeared in the week that the then ACTU chief nominated for the seat. Labor sources also suggest very strong links between interest in the Defence portfolio and the circumstances around the resignation of the then Minister for Defence. These discussions followed a story in the Daily Telegraph on Monday reporting on last week’s caucus meeting where the minister reportedly stole the thunder of the Prime Minister. The article says: Kevin Rudd was ‘white-hot’ with anger. His new Mr Fix-it, Greg Combet, had stolen his thunder. The Benson story goes into some detail of how the minister stole, or took, 45 minutes of the Prime Minister’s time and quotes the minister as saying, ‘I could get used to this.’ The story also reports the minister as saying to the Prime Minister: If any of your staffers come near my office, I’ll throw them out myself. This is pretty strong stuff to say to a Prime Minister and it is remarkable that a private discussion between the two of them was leaked verbatim. It is something to be noted. According to my Labor sources, this minister will stop at nothing to achieve what some would describe as his destiny. Whatever the case, we know that the volcano building inside the Labor government is going to explode sooner rather than later and the bodies will be strewn around this place for some time to come. 2860 2860 19:34:00 Livermore, Kirsten, MP 83A Capricornia ALP 1 0 Ms LIVERMORE —I put on the record tonight my support for the government’s efforts to improve Australia’s health system. We want the health system to work better. The Australian people are looking to us to restore faith in the health system and to make sure it is prepared for the future. That is why the current Australian Health Care Agreement negotiated with the states includes a 50 per cent increase in hospital funding in the life of the five-year agreement. Already we have committed an unprecedented $1.1 billion towards training more doctors, nurses and health professionals. We will now build on that with an additional $632 million. We are talking about doubling the number of places available to medical graduates to train to become GPs. Training places for specialist doctors will grow from 360 to 900 by 2014. Priority will be given to providing training places in rural and regional areas where access to specialists has been particularly difficult for many years. Finally, we are turning the tide on doctor shortages. Our commitment to better health care goes further. There has been direct investment by the federal government in the capital needs of local hospitals, including $76 million in the 2009 budget for the Rockhampton Base Hospital alone. Another local example is the full-time MRI licence the Rockhampton Base Hospital was promised in the 2007 election and granted by the Labor government in 2008. These measures now fit within the broader structural reform announced by the Prime Minister. The Commonwealth will assume the majority funding responsibility for public hospitals through the National Health and Hospitals Network that will be funded nationally and run locally. Our record shows that we are serious about building a health system people can rely on now and into the future. One of the goals of health and hospital reform is obviously to deliver better care, but that is not possible unless you put the health system onto a strong and sustainable financial footing. In contrast, the opposition are intent on blocking every savings measure we put forward. They opposed the means testing of the private health insurance rebate at a cost to the budget of $2 billion, they backed the ophthalmologists when the government tried to adjust rebates for simple procedures and they continue to defend the flawed chronic disease dental scheme, a program that we know has been rorted. This is financially irresponsible on the part of the opposition and puts our health system at risk of not being able to cope with the rising demand for services. We need that money to be put to work for a better health system. The people of Central Queensland know what they would like to see precious health dollars spent on. One of the major gaps in our health service in Central Queensland is in the area of cancer treatment. That is why I welcomed the call in November last year for applications for the government’s regional cancer centre program. The government has committed $560 million to build centres to improve access and support for cancer patients in rural and regional Australia and to help close the gap in cancer outcomes between the city and the country. It would be no surprise to people in the Rockhampton region that outcomes following a diagnosis of cancer are worse for people living outside our major cities. Survival rates are lower, and some cancers patients from rural areas are three times more likely to die than their urban counterparts. Too many Central Queensland cancer sufferers have to leave home to receive treatment in Brisbane. This is costly and places an unacceptable burden on them and their families at what is already a very stressful and difficult time. I mentioned the $76 million that the Rockhampton Base Hospital received in last year’s budget to undertake a major extension of the buildings there. That expansion work going on at Rockhampton Base Hospital is creating the space that could house the linear accelerators used in radiation therapy. From 2011 our local Central Queensland University will offer relevant allied health courses that will produce graduates qualified to staff such a facility. This government has already recognised the importance of Rockhampton as a health service hub through the funding of the MRI machine and the expansion of the base hospital, so services are improving in our region. But people with cancer in Central Queensland should be able to get the care they need close to home. This is a great opportunity to address a serious need in our region. I urge the health minister to look carefully at the case put forward by the Rockhampton Base Hospital in its application for this important health service. 2861 2861 19:39:00 Robert, Stuart, MP HWT Fadden LP 0 0 Mr ROBERT —I rise to acknowledge the new student leaders within the schools of Fadden. I believe it is important for the Commonwealth to recognise the roles and responsibilities of our young leaders as they represent the very future of the Commonwealth itself. Australia’s young leaders play an important part in the life of our communities. Their actions have the potential to influence their peers, an influence that should not be underestimated. These young leaders have been selected by their school communities for their potential to make a positive and lasting contribution. For many of them it is the start of a leadership journey. Our young people represent 100 per cent of the future of our great nation, and their recognition marks a significant point in their journey towards being leaders outside their schools. They may choose to do so on the sports field, in the boardroom, within community organisations or within their families or peer groups. They may even seek leadership within state and federal parliaments. I urge these students to recognise the need for true leadership and to view the opportunity they have been handed as a stepping stone to a greater and broader role. I urge these students, as Australia’s emerging young leaders, to strive to achieve their very best in their current roles. Through their influence they now carry a torch of responsibility. Winston Churchill once said to a gathering of students: Never give in. Never give in. Never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in, except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force. Never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy. They are wise words from one of the nations of the world’s greatest leaders that we have seen. There is nothing more important than great leadership. It is at the heart of all achievement, all advancement and the betterment of society. Nothing will ever replace great leadership and nothing can fill the void that the absence of leadership creates. I regularly visit the schools whose leaders’ names I seek to table today. I am regularly welcomed by members of the schools’ leadership groups and am universally impressed with the young people the schools have chosen to represent them. It is clear that the calibre of young people on the northern Gold Coast is of an extraordinarily high level. Some of the students I seek to recognise today lead in areas of expertise or passion. Others have been recognised for their commitment to their school as a whole. Some of these students have been elected by their peers, an experience I think all members of parliament know can be difficult; however, rewarding. Some have been appointed by consensus with the members of the schools’ staff, who are watching these extraordinary young people grow up and recognising the contribution they can make for their schools, families and community. I believe it is important for the Commonwealth to recognise the role and responsibilities of all our young leaders in school communities, which is why I publicly recognise their achievements in the federal parliament today. I wish these students well in their important positions, and trust that they will represent their schools and communities to the best of their abilities. Above all, they should remember that leaders can only truly lead by serving those they seek to represent. This rule is universal, without exception. It was Theodore Roosevelt who once said: It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. Such is the tale of leadership. Mr Speaker, I request leave to table the names of Fadden’s school leaders, knowing that one day some of them may indeed fill the seats of this great parliament. Leave granted. 2862 2862 19:44:00 King, Catherine, MP 00AMR Ballarat ALP 1 0 Ms KING —May I commend the member for Fadden on his speech. I too want to talk about exceptional leadership within my own electorate of Ballarat. This week, the federal parliament has been host to around 30 emerging young leaders from across the Ballarat region. They came to Canberra to form a greater understanding of our nation’s parliamentary system, and of how those involved use different leadership skills when tackling their various roles. The young participants, mostly aged in their 20s and 30s, are members of the Leadership Ballarat and Western Region program. This is a program of discovery and challenge that uniquely equips young leaders to guide the Ballarat region into the future. Today and yesterday, these young people met with leaders of different political persuasions, as well as members of the press gallery and our Governor-General—and, of course, Mr Speaker, you gave so generously of your time. I would like to share some of the feedback I have received from some of them just in the brief time they were able to do that today. One participant, Sheree, said: The visit to Parliament House gives an insight into the commitment and dedication required to be a successful and effective leader. Another participant, Jane, commented that aspiring to positions of leadership was a distinctly Australian quality. She said: It is part of our national psyche. Katherine said that her time in Canberra had given deeper insight into the challenges faced by Australian leaders. She said: Social change doesn’t occur unless people get involved. We cannot sit back and expect others to take care of it for us—we are responsible for participating in the leadership of our communities. Two participants originally from overseas also contributed their perspectives. Mehrdad Razmjoo, known as Mel, is one of the City of Ballarat’s multicultural ambassadors. He said: As a Persian Australian I would like to say I am very privileged to live in such a democratic country like Australia without fear of execution, compared to Iran. He was completely blown away about the access he got to members of parliament. He could not imagine such a thing occurring in his home country. Karin, also a multicultural ambassador, said: As an ex-South African I appreciate the opportunities open to women in Australia to make a difference in a democratic society. And Adam Rogers said: It has been amazing to have the opportunity to understand that regardless of political views, aspirations or background, parliament is a melting pot of enthusiastic and inspirational leaders. These comments are terrific. Leadership, it seems, is best witnessed up close and personal. Many arrived at Parliament House sceptical of politicians and the political process, but many left after a brief two days with an overwhelming confidence in our nation’s democratic process. Sometimes we in this place forget what a special place this is. I certainly thank those young leadership participants for reminding me of that each time they come. To have local community members visit parliament and meet with our nation’s leaders is a wonderful reflection of Australia’s democracy. This is no more apparent than in the comments from our local multicultural ambassadors. The program is a great example of how we can better equip our regional future leaders. I would like to see these types of programs happening across the country as they set out to invigorate regional communities by inspiring people from communities such as mine. We do very well at both the state, federal and local level in terms of our capacity building for regional leadership, but there are other layers that we need to look more closely at as well. Additionally, I would also personally like to thank all those who have given their time, including the Treasurer; Minister Ferguson; Minister Plibersek; Minister Elliot; the Leader of the Greens, Senator Bob Brown; the Deputy Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. Julie Bishop; Senator McGauran; Harry Jenkins—I am sure he will excuse my not using his proper title for once—our Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Leader of the Nationals in the Senate, Senator Barnaby Joyce; the Clerk of the Senate, Dr Rosemary Laing; Senator Nick Xenophon; the Governor-General, Ms Quentin Bryce; and press gallery elders Michelle Grattan and Laurie Oakes. They all gave so generously of their time to all of these young people from Ballarat. It really has been a terrific contribution from the parliament. Each gave of their time and experience generously, and I know the impact on the group was significant and long-lasting. And I also know, from speaking with many of the participants, that this trip will be an inspiration to them to actively engage in the political process and to become our leaders of the future. I hope, for the participants of this year’s leadership program, that over the following weeks, months and years the conversations that they have had over this time will become lasting memories that will assist them in their future challenges and certainly support our region in its challenges for the future. 2864 2864 19:49:00 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 0 Mr BALDWIN —I rise tonight to call on the generosity of those within my electorate of Paterson, who time and time again rally together to achieve truly amazing things. I would also like to acknowledge a true man of the community. On 8 February this year, Reg Parker went for an early fishing trip in his near-new runabout, as he had done countless times during his 50 years experience on the water. Sadly, this was to be a day unlike any other. As Mr Parker headed back to shore at Tuncurry Beach, his boat was struck by a wave, throwing him into the rough swell. As the 77-year-old cried out a passer-by tried to throw him a lifejacket. However, tragically, Mr Parker was pulled underwater and drowned. Reg Parker was a man who loved fishing. Not only had his hobby grown into a passion over more than half a century; he had also established a successful business, Forster Fresh Seafoods, where he worked hard with his business partner. As Mr Parker’s son Greg later told the Great Lakes Advocate: I always believed he had an affinity with the ocean, and that somehow his life would end with it. Sadly, Reg Parker’s life did end that day. But what we can take from this tragedy is a lesson—a lesson not to let a similar thing happen again. That is exactly the lesson which members of the Forster-Tuncurry community are now trying to turn into action. A campaign has been launched in my electorate to raise $25,000 to allow the Lower North Coast Branch of Surf Life Saving Australia to buy a jet ski, dragnet and pontoon. This equipment will be docked in the Forster marina and named in Mr Parker’s honour. Clearly, this equipment could save lives. The local surf club already has 30 trained jet ski operators who could be at Forster marina within minutes of a triple-0 call. This would allow much quicker response times, with the nearest jet ski currently at One Mile Beach. The campaign is starting to pick up momentum, thanks to the generosity of local people who have been willing to dip into their wallets and open their purses for this worthwhile cause. I am humbled by the generosity of my constituents who always find something to contribute to a worthwhile cause. Today I would like to say thank you to everyone who has given of their time and money and to those who have pledged a donation to this cause. I would also like to encourage anyone who is thinking about dropping a donation into Forster Beach Caravan Park to do so. I have also written to the Prime Minister to ask whether there is any possibility of a Commonwealth contribution to this very worthwhile cause. In just a couple of weeks, the tally has already pushed beyond $8,000—almost a third of the way. In addition, a company has agreed to supply a pontoon at cost price and the Great Lakes Council has approved the mooring. This is wonderful progress and I am confident that together the community can reach its target. Australians are known for their love of the water, and I believe that the Great Lakes has some of the world’s most beautiful beaches and swimming spots. Every year, these spots are a haven for locals and draw thousands of tourists for the summer. Tragically, this often means that people get into trouble in the water. It is not just children or weak swimmers; it can happen to anyone. A rip, for example, can take hold in seconds and drag someone far out into the ocean. In this environment in which our lifesavers work so hard to protect people, they cannot do their job properly without the right equipment. That is just what we need at the Forster marina. Lifesavers there have told me that this jet ski and pontoon could mean the difference between a rescue and a recovery. As a matter of fact, just one week after Mr Parker lost his life two people had to be plucked from the Forster Bar by a trawler. This is an example of when a jet ski could have been used. As I have said before, the giving spirit of the Paterson residents never ceases to amaze me. We are a community blessed with hardworking people who are always willing to lend a hand and dig into their pockets. It is again time to call on their generosity for this worthwhile cause which will honour the late Reg Parker and help to stop another tragedy. 2865 2865 19:53:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —I thank the member for Paterson for his contribution. I understand exactly the difficulties that lifesavers have in relation to the equipment issues that he spoke so eloquently on tonight. Tonight I want to speak on an issue that is very dear and personal to my heart. That is the issue of health. As I often say publicly throughout my community of Flynn, if you ain’t got your health, you ain’t got nothing. As a bloke who was given the last rites at 17 I understand the value and importance of health to individuals and families. For me every day is a bonus. I take great pride in the fact that whoever was watching over me that day and for some days following was repaid the favour when I was fortunate enough to save two young girls caught in a dangerous rip on Easter Sunday 2009 at Wreck Rock Beach, Agnes Water. My son Pryce played a very special part in events that day, too, also risking his own life, saving a father not his but someone else’s. But my interest in health goes beyond that. My wife, Colleen, often requires hospitalisation in Gladstone and Brisbane for a disease that cannot be cured. One of my sons—Rhys—cannot live without daily medication for a different disease that, again, cannot be cured. As much of a forgiving person as I am by nature, it is understandable that, from a personal point of view, whenever I hear in this parliament that the former health minister and current Leader of the Opposition ripped a billion dollars out of the hospital system and put a cap on GP doctors, it makes me crook. Conversely, I am pleased that my government—the Rudd Labor government—has taken positive steps to fix our ailing health system. Everybody, I think, knows that the system is broken. My personal opinion is that the local networks proposed by the Rudd Labor government will represent a marked improvement on the current system by improving service delivery in our local hospitals. The current funding model has not served the Flynn community well. I know that from personal experience and I do not believe that we have received our fair share of funding for our local hospitals. Running our hospitals locally will remove the central bureaucracy mentality and give a local voice to local issues of priority. It is important to note that we will remove the current imbalance by training more than 6,000 GPs and medical specialists. Lack of GPs and medical specialists in Flynn has been a major issue for far, far too long. Health services in Flynn have been found wanting for many years despite the hardworking efforts of those engaged in the delivery of these services. One of the most important issues for Flynn residents is to be able to access health services, including specialist services, locally. The current model, where people, including cancer patients, have to travel to Rockhampton, Mackay or Brisbane, is unacceptable except in some circumstances. In addition, I believe we need to train our doctors locally so they stay local and become part of our broader community. For me, as the federal member for Flynn I am determined to see that this network is a success. There is no more important issue to me than health. It lies at the very heart of our existence. I understand personally the impact that failure to deliver local health services, including specialist services, has on families. That is why I am so determined to fix the system for other local families in Flynn. Some of the good things for Flynn that we have already done include upgrading the Monto Medical Centre, upgrading the Mundubbera GP clinic, a new GP superclinic for Gladstone, a breast cancer nurse for Gladstone, an upgrade of the Biloela Medical Centre and fit-out of the Moura Medical Centre, a $1.3 million boost to mental health services in Gladstone, a new Medicare office for Emerald and doubling the number of dental services available in Emerald. But I acknowledge and accept that more hard work is required. I thank the House. Question agreed to. 2866 19:59:00 House adjourned at 7.59 pm 2866 Notices The following notices were given: PG6 Macklin, Jenny, MP Ms Macklin to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to social security and to the Indigenous Land Corporation, and for related purposes. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a Bill for an Act to amend the law relating to terrorism and national security, and for other purposes. JK6 McClelland, Robert, MP Mr McClelland to present a Bill for an Act to establish a Parliamentary Joint Committee on Law Enforcement, and for related purposes. YW6 Combet, Greg, MP Mr Combet to present a Bill for an Act to promote the disclosure of information about the energy efficiency of buildings, and for related purposes. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to broadcasting, and for other purposes. 8W5 Gray, Gary, MP Mr Gray to present a Bill for an Act to amend legislation relating to telecommunications, and for other purposes. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Proposed construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Voyager Point, Liverpool, NSW. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Construction of housing for the Department of Defence at Muirhead, Darwin, NT. HRI Kelly, Mike, MP Dr Kelly to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, the following proposed work be referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works for consideration and report: Pawsey High Performance Computing Centre for SKA Science at Kensington, WA. YU5 Tanner, Lindsay, MP Mr Tanner to move: That, in accordance with the provisions of the Public Works Committee Act 1969, and by reason of the urgent nature of the works, it is expedient that the following work be carried out without having been referred to the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Public Works: NBN First Release Sites. 2010-03-17 The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke) took the chair at 9.30 am. 2867 Constituency Statements 2867 2867 09:30:00 Keenan, Michael, MP E0J Stirling LP 0 0 Mr KEENAN —Prior to the last election, Kevin Rudd stood in Kings Park in Perth, Western Australia, overlooking the backdrop of the CBD. He promised in very vague terms that, under him, Western Australia would get more of its fair share of Commonwealth funding. Clearly, he never put any statements of fact around that; it was just some general statement that, under the new Labor government, Western Australia would be better off. When he was pressed on any of the detail he refused to give it. What we have found since Labor has come to power is that that promise has proved as hollow as most of the other promises that Labor made prior to its coming to government. Western Australia is substantially worse off as a result of the election of the Rudd Labor government. Recently, the Commonwealth Grants Commission outlined a change in the funding formula of the GST, which will leave Western Australia $443 million worse off. Another example of where the Rudd Labor government has specifically targeted Western Australia is the $2½ billion condensate tax. This was essentially a tax on Western Australia because condensate is only produced in the offshore fields off our coast. This latest change to the funding formula of the GST means Western Australians will get only 48c in the dollar for the GST that they pay. This is in contrast to New South Wales, which receives 95c, Victoria, which receives 93c and Queensland which receives 91c in every dollar that they pay in GST revenue. The Western Australian Premier has indicated that this severe cut will place enormous pressure on the state’s finances and, as a result, it will affect the state’s capacity to deliver services in such areas as health, education and in other areas of social services. The formula that the Commonwealth Grants Commission uses in the funding of the states is a very complicated business. The purpose of my standing up here today is to indicate that this is another slug to Western Australia and to show how hollow Kevin Rudd’s promise was prior to the last election that Western Australia would somehow receive its fair share under the election of a Labor government. The reality is, of course, completely different. In Western Australia, 11 out of 15 seats are held by federal Liberal members and, as a result, this Labor government pays very little attention to the state. We are very concerned that the government has actually taken specific actions to decrease the ability of the Western Australian Liberal government to provide goods and services as is appropriate for a state government. The reality is that Kevin Rudd spends far more time overseas than he ever does in Western Australia. All the Western Australian members on our side, the opposition side, of the House are very concerned about the lack of interest that this government takes in Western Australia. We also believe very strongly that this government is bad for Western Australia. (Time expired) 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—The member should remember to refer to people by their titles when speaking about them. 2868 2868 09:33:00 Marles, Richard, MP HWQ Corio ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Innovation and Industry 1 0 Mr MARLES —This is a great time of year in Geelong as the city makes the most of the glorious autumn sunshine and readies itself for another triumphant football season. This coming weekend will be filled with fairs, festivals and community gatherings being staged back to back. I would like to highlight one event that, like other gatherings across the city, is a celebration of community. But the Whittington Flamefest is much more than that: it is a celebration of cultural diversity and of suburban pride. This part of Geelong is very proud but, in many ways, it is doing it tough. It is a showcase of talents and community strengths too easily overlooked. The Flamefest draws deeply on the well of creativity that lies within Whittington. It is a once-a-year opportunity for this neighbourhood to tell its own stories. Like many festivals, there are children’s rides and face-painting, but the Flamefest also has a strong Indigenous activities program. Transcripts of the storytelling sessions hosted by a dozen residents have been turned into scripted performances. There are the finals of the ‘Whittington’s Got Talent’—more evidence of Whittington’s great pool of talent and a wonderful sense of fun. A group of women calling themselves ‘Make and Mend’ will contribute to an open community arts and crafts exhibition, amongst a host of other stallholders. More than 1,000 people will attend Friday night’s Flamefest. Huge organisational strength is needed to stage an event on this scale. By harnessing the volunteering skills of local residents and businesses, together with the Community Renewal Program, a band of more than 100 people have pulled together to create something uniquely theirs. The Flamefest grew from the need to turn the spotlight on a neighbourhood where many residents battle disadvantage, including unemployment. Organisers are already seeing positive outcomes—jobs or training that have been gained through the skills and confidence acquired by volunteering at Flamefest, and young adults re-evaluating their potential and going back to school. This is a smattering of the stories, but it is a significant result in less than three years of Flamefest. This suburban festival has been so completely embraced by locals that it has rapidly become a permanent fixture in their calendar. While community renewal funding for Flamefest finishes in 2012, I am sure Flamefest will continue to evolve through Whittington’s own resources. This year the Flamefest will be the first official event held in the newly landscaped neighbourhood open space, the Whittington Link, something I am proud to say is the result of funding by all three tiers of government. The night will close, as usual, with the Flamefest finale, including a twilight lantern parade, spectacular handmade giant puppets and other performers. Among the puppets there is a phoenix rising from the flames. The phoenix symbolises the sense of community renewal taking place in Whittington. I would like to think that Flamefest turns a brilliant spotlight on Whittington on one night, but from this night an enthusiastic flame is encouraged to shine in Whittington right throughout the year. 2868 2868 09:36:00 Simpkins, Luke, MP HWE Cowan LP 0 0 Mr SIMPKINS —This morning a number of members and senators attended a presentation by Osteoporosis Australia. I know that osteoporosis is of concern to a great many people within the electorate of Cowan. I would like to thank Professor Ego Seeman, Dr Kerin Fielding, Professor Peter Ebeling and CEO of Osteoporosis Australia Naseema Sparks for the presentation this morning. Osteoporosis is a condition that affects a lot of people in Australia. It is a condition where the bones become fragile and brittle and fracture much more easily than normal bones. In Australia, half of all women and one-third of men over 60 will have a fracture due to osteoporosis. It has been estimated that this costs $1.9 billion a year in direct costs to this country. It is estimated that, for fractures that do not occur, there is a saving of between $16,000 and $17,000. So there is a lot at stake. In 2007 there were 21,000 hip fractures, and that certainly demonstrates the impact on this country. I just mentioned the proportion of people who suffer from the condition. It is estimated that 20 per cent of the population—2.2 million people—in this country have osteoporosis. Of those, half a million are men. A risk factor for this is family history. Obviously age is involved as well. There are also negative factors such as smoking, excessive alcohol consumption and a diet lacking in calcium. More people need to take responsibility for their own lifestyles. They need to improve calcium consumption—1,000 milligrams a day is recommended for all of us, and 1,300 milligrams for post menopausal women and men over 60. Vitamin D and load-bearing exercise will also help. There seems to be more work required with the professional culture to make sure scans are considered more often by GPs and other medical professionals. Bone density testing is also required. I am greatly concerned about osteoporosis. There is more that all of us could do as individuals. We need to keep a focus on osteoporosis in the future. 2869 2869 09:39:00 Dreyfus, Mark, MP HWG Isaacs ALP 1 0 Mr DREYFUS —Today I rise to talk first about the Bonbeach Lifesaving Club open water swim which I took part in last Sunday alongside more than 240 other swimmers in beautiful sunshine and fantastic conditions. While my lack of training since parliament resumed this year saw me finish the 1.2 kilometre course in the not very quick time of 27 minutes and 52 seconds, as always I had a great time down at the Bonbeach Lifesaving Club and I was very pleased to see the state member for Carrum and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly, Jenny Lindell, hand over a cheque for $5,000 to the club from the state government to help with running costs. It was also great to see the completed first aid centre which the Bonbeach Lifesaving Club was able to fund with the almost $2,000 the club received from the federal government’s volunteer grant program in December last year. I would like to congratulate all those at the Bonbeach Lifesaving Club for making the day a success, in particular the president, Debra Jordan, and the secretary, Campbell Jordan. I also congratulate the winners of the swim: overall winner Oliver Wilkinson and the winner of the women’s category Anna Yuohey, both of whom finished in a time significantly quicker than mine, although I will not confirm just how much quicker on the public record. After the swim I attended the newish bowlers day at the Edithvale Bowling Club, an annual tradition at the club for the last five years which sees recent converts to bowls from around the south-east converge on Edithvale to battle it out in a friendly mixed pairs tournament. I take great pride in sponsoring the event and was on hand to see some of the action, although I am not a very good bowler myself. Luckily for the Edithvale Bowling Club, they did not need me as Lisa Williams and Bryan Findley won the tournament for Edithvale, beating Sue and Steve Taylor from Mornington. I would like to congratulate Edithvale Bowling Club director Terry Cheshire and the chief executive, Andrew Benson, for organising the event, which drew around 40 people. I would also like to thank Pamela Bryant for kindly showing me around the club and inviting me down for the day. I know that the numbers for the day would have been a great deal higher were it not for the major storms that hit Melbourne the previous weekend on both Saturday and Sunday, which resulted in some clubs not being able to send competitors to the terrific newish bowlers day at Edithvale Bowling Club due to those competitors having to compete in make-up pennant finals for their clubs. I very much hope that this terrific tradition which has now been running for five years at Edithvale Bowling Club continues into the future, because it provides an opportunity for those who have just entered the sport to compete in a way that might not otherwise be available to them. 2870 2870 09:42:00 Macfarlane, Ian, MP WN6 Groom LP 0 0 Mr IAN MACFARLANE —I rise today to applaud the work of St Andrew’s Hospital Cancer Care Centre in Toowoomba and to bring to the parliament’s attention its extraordinary record since it was opened just three years ago. In that period of time the centre has created access to the highest standard of cancer treatment for patients in rural and regional Queensland without the need for long-distance travel to Brisbane. The standard of the care and treatment provided at this facility is equal to that of any metropolitan city in Australia. The centre came to fruition with a lot of hard work from a local board and was assisted with an $8.6 million grant I secured through the previous Howard government. Since beginning treatment in 2007, almost 2,000 patients have received radiation therapy. Medical oncology has seen a 481 per cent increase in total patient admissions. This equates to thousands of seriously ill patients who no longer have to cope with the added burden of travelling at a time when they need to be with their family and friends during their treatment. The centre has helped close the gap in cancer outcomes between people living in capital cities and those living in rural and regional areas. The demand on services will only increase in the years ahead with the population of Toowoomba and the broader Darling Downs tipped to grow by 80,000 by 2016. The St Andrew’s Hospital Cancer Care Centre services a region that extends to the Surat energy basin, which is one of the fastest-growing areas in the state. St Andrew’s Hospital has made an application under the current Health and Hospitals Fund regional cancer care initiative for an application to increase its floor area, increase the number of consulting rooms and, most importantly, add a third bunker for radiotherapy services. This application has my full and complete support. I would encourage the Rudd government to ensure that the contribution made to health services by facilities in regional areas such as St Andrew’s Hospital Cancer Care Centre continue to be recognised for the very important role they play in national health services. 2870 2870 09:45:00 George, Jennie, MP JH5 Throsby ALP 0 0 Ms GEORGE —Shellharbour City can look forward to another exciting project funded under the second round of the Regional and Local Community Infrastructure Program. As we know, this program has provided the single largest investment in local infrastructure in the nation’s history, now totalling in the order of $1 billion. A total of $387,000 has been allocated for a new public exhibition space in Shellharbour Village, a place where we can exhibit local art and craft and promote the tourist potential of this area. This comes on top of the $900,000 provided in the first round of funding for lighting and landscaping works at the magnificent Myimbarr Community Park, which was officially opened by me and the council’s administrator, Mr David Jesson, on 16 December 2009. Under the economic stimulus package, $2.23 million was provided to help revitalise Albion Park town centre. This will transform the retail and commercial centre, encouraging business investment and making it a more appealing public space. Several of the stages of development are now nearing completion, including the pathway through Con O’Keefe Park and the Russell Street shared use pathway, with work on the car park set to begin shortly. In addition, the council received just under quarter of a million dollars for the Elliot Lake shared use pathway, which will complete a missing link and enable a bike path to run along 12 kilometres of magnificent local coastline. Shellharbour Surf Life Saving Club is the recipient of $230,000 from the Jobs Fund, which will help to complete new facilities in a well-patronised community centre. That totals around $4 million worth of investment in infrastructure for the Shellharbour area. This infrastructure will stand the test of time and add to community amenity whilst sustaining and stimulating local employment. I want to place on the record my thanks to Minister Albanese for his visit to our region in March last year and for his ongoing interest in progressing the projects I have talked about this morning. In addition, the residents of Shell Cove can look forward to work beginning shortly on the GP superclinic. Our government signed a contract with the Illawarra Division of General Practice for $2.5 million to help build a modern, purpose-built facility that will bring together GPs, practice nurses and allied health professionals in an area that has been under the pressure of doctor shortages for the past few decades. 2871 2871 09:47:00 Hawke, Alex, MP HWO Mitchell LP 0 0 Mr HAWKE —I rise this morning to bring awareness of motor neurone disease in Australia. Motor neurone disease is a devastating neurological illness that affects around 1,400 people across Australia. Of course, motor neurone disease is the name given to a group of diseases in which the nerve cells controlling the muscles that enable us to move around, speak, swallow and breath fail to work normally. With no nerves to activate them, the muscles gradually weaken and waste. The patterns of weakness and the rate of progression vary from person to person. I rise this morning in particular to note the case of Vanessa Khan in my electorate, in the suburb of Bella Vista. This family was hit by motor neurone disease in July 2009 and it was a mere eight months from the diagnosis to the death of Mrs Khan—a very tragic situation. I want to congratulate the courage of her daughter, Jameela Khan, and her husband, Marcus Khan, who have become passionate advocates for the cause of motor neurone disease in Australia. I want to join them in their advocacy today. I note that federal funding does exist for various elements of motor neurone disease, including research into what causes it and what can be done about it. It was first discovered in 1869 and there is still no known cause and no known cure for this devastating disease and treatment options are very limited. I had the unfortunate experience of seeing Vanessa deteriorate on a monthly basis and it was quite horrific to note the marked deterioration and loss of control of bodily functions from her diagnosis to her death, which severely affected and impacted her family. The Motor Neurone Disease Australia network comprises six associations and it is there to research and develop a potential cure. Some of the needs they describe that are pressing in Australia today include things like early diagnosis; early access to MND associations for information; support and referral to services; early intervention, which of course in so many cases often reduces the overall service needs; flexible and timely respite for carers; urgent response; and regular review. I note that timeliness is the key here in so many ways in treatment options for people. Many famous people of course have, unfortunately, lived with or died from motor neurone disease, including Australian athletics coach Percy Cerutty, painter Pro Hart, mathematician, physicist and author Professor Stephen Hawking and even Mao Zedong. Within Australia today each week 10 people are diagnosed with motor neurone disease, and 1,400 people are estimated to have it at any given time. I want to record my sympathy for the Khan family. Their suffering was our community suffering. Vanessa was a notable figure within the Bella Vista community, working for charity groups and giving of her time freely to so many. At her funeral many neighbours, friends, families and community groups recognised her efforts. I want to encourage the government to do everything that it can to fund motor neurone disease research in Australia. 2872 2872 09:50:00 McKew, Maxine, MP BP4 Bennelong ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Local Government 1 0 Ms McKEW —Next month, on 24 April, there will be an extra layer of sadness for Armenian Australians as they gather to remember the shocking events of nearly a century ago, events that continue to leave an indelible scar. Among those remembered at services across Sydney and elsewhere will be Mr Arshag Badelian, who died just a few weeks ago aged 100. Mr Badelian’s recent funeral service in Chatswood attracted condolences from Armenians around the world. He was one of the Australian Armenian community’s oldest survivors of the massacres carried out under the collapsing Ottoman Empire from 1915 right through until the 1920s. During World War I, the Allied powers of Britain, France and Russia jointly issued a statement whereby they held the Turkish and Kurdish populations of Armenia to be responsible. The Allies said that what was done was done with the connivance and assistance of the then Ottoman authorities. Nearly 90 years later, the International Association of Genocide Scholars passed a resolution unanimously recognising the mass killings as the Armenian genocide. Today some 20 countries, including Greece, France, Germany, Poland and Canada, are among those who consider what took place in the years following 1915 to be an act of genocide. That too is my view. Turkey, for its part, has always maintained there was no will to exterminate a whole population, that what happened was the consequence of war and invasion. For its part, the Australian government has encouraged both Turkey and Armenia to continue progress on the normalisation of relations and on the establishment of a commission to investigate the events of 1915. Free and open discussion on this issue is important. The Turkish-Armenian journalist Hrant Dink was a unifying figure for many Armenians and for those Turks who advocated free speech. His funeral attracted as many as 200,000 mourners. As Dink always said, ‘I will speak for the majority’, and as we start a new century the majority of people want good relations between Turkey and Armenia. That is why I rose in this place last year and welcomed the protocols that have been signed between Turkey and Armenia. I know there are misgivings about these protocols among the Armenian diaspora, many of whom live in my electorate, but the protocols represent a start. I also recognise this is a difficult issue for Turkey. Nonetheless, to face the future we must accept what has happened in the past. So on 24 April we will honour and remember the Armenians killed from 1915 on and also, in particular, the extraordinary survival and life of Arshag Badelain. 2873 2873 09:53:00 Broadbent, Russell, MP MT4 McMillan LP 0 0 Mr BROADBENT —Madam Deputy Speaker, I must admit that I missed the little sign outside McGregor Gardens that said ‘Rita and Ranald will play today at two o’clock’, but once I was inside the building I heard the beautiful and melodic sounds coming from the dining room where Ranald was playing. Ranald Webster, who was in the Air Force in World War II, is a man with but one ambition: to serve others without charge and without favouring one above another. You would know Ranald Webster, Madam Deputy Speaker. He became the charred, unrecognisable face of the Ash Wednesday bushfires. Burned within an inch of his life, the doctors said that Ran, as he is known by us all, had a four per cent chance of survival. Ran’s picture was on front pages around the nation and the world. Since then Ran, who survived miraculously, has been a mentor and a beacon of hope to burns victims. Thank you for the music, Ranald. Standing in McGregor Gardens I was struck and somewhat emotional at the beauty of the harmonic sound only siblings can achieve as they drifted into It’s Twilight Time as they played for the gathering, and then when his most genteel wife Rae approached and spoke of his health and wellbeing, which was challenging. Ranald and Rita are celebrating 65 years together on 21 March. They have been a very firm part of the music community. I first met Ranald at the Pakenham Town Hall when he was playing in a band. I did not know then that my future wife was distantly related to Ranald. He probably wondered what this young kid was doing hanging around the bands in our community and wanting to be part of the elite, which I surely was not. Seeing Ranald play there with his sister the other morning, I was struck not only by the beauty of the sound, as I have outlined, but also by the songs out of my father’s era and out of my era. Then my wife turned to me and said, ‘Russell, go and sing with him one more time. Go up in front.’ But I said, ‘Bron, I actually can’t,’ because I would have spoiled the beauty of what was happening in that room. Ranald, thank you for the music. Thank you for the contribution you have made to so many people in our community. Thanks for setting out in the cold on the days when you were collecting for Red Cross. Ranald, thank you for being yourself, for just being Ranald Webster, and thank you for the wonderful years of music you have given to our community. 2873 2873 09:56:00 Price, Roger, MP QI4 Chifley ALP 1 0 Mr PRICE —Health care is shaping up as one of the critical areas of difference in the contest between the Rudd government and the opposition to be decided at the forthcoming federal election. It will also be one of the biggest challenges facing Australia in the next 20 years as our population continues to age. The former Howard government’s legacy in health care has been underinvestment, a lack of vision and ripping $1 billion out of the public hospital system. In fact, that was the achievement of Tony Abbott, the Leader of the Opposition, when he was health minister. The Rudd government, instead, is planning for our future, investing in health and hospitals, and training the medical workforce to meet not only our current demand but our future demand as well. Over the past two years this government has increased hospital funding by 50 per cent. I repeat: we did not rip a billion dollars out of the public hospital system; we increased funding by 50 per cent. That has been in just two years of this Rudd Labor government. This week, the Prime Minister announced an investment of $632 million over 10 years to deliver an additional 5,500 new or training places for general practitioners, 680 for medical specialists and 5,400 pre-vocational general practice training places. To date, the government has funded 1,000 additional undergraduate nursing and midwifery university places a year and supported 20 full-time-equivalent nurse practitioners and 20 midwifery scholarships to build the workforce of the future. Australians understand that we need more doctors and nurses if we are going to continue to provide the best standard of health care. Under the Howard government and the now Leader of the Opposition, Tony Abbott, when he was health minister, GP places were capped and nursing places were capped. I want to put on record—and I am sure the honourable member for Werriwa will agree with me—that the University of Western Sydney is well placed to handle additional training places not only for doctors but also for nurses. I can say that we were both very proud—certainly I was—to be at the opening of the medical faculty of the University of Western Sydney at Campbelltown by the Deputy Prime Minister. I will never forget the speech given by a young lad from Western Sydney who was given an opportunity to train as a doctor. And we are going to be giving many more— (Time expired) 2874 2874 09:59:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —South Australian Premier Mike Rann has been caught out again with his spin, trying to suggest that he has delivered another 400 gigalitres to the state. What has delivered it has been the rainfall and the floods in Queensland and New South Wales. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Good use of time. In accordance with standing order 193 the time for constituency statements has concluded. 2874 Bills R4274 2874 Debate resumed from 4 February, on motion by Mr Clare: That this bill be now read a second time. 2874 10:00:00 Mirabella, Sophie, MP 00AMU Indi LP 0 0 Mrs MIRABELLA —I rise to indicate the coalition’s support for the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. The Australian Research Council Act 2001 stipulates that the act should be amended each year to incorporate the amount appropriated for the Australian Research Council and bring up to date the details of the fund administered by the ARC. The bill reflects a practice adopted in 2001 and applied annually ever since. It also provides for funding adjustments of approximately $889.6 million to allow the ARC to implement its budget initiatives and provides additional out-year funding. In addition to providing indexation of existing appropriation accounts, the bill provides funding for three initiatives. Firstly, the research in bionic vision science and technology initiative will provide funding for research leading to the development of a functional bionic eye. The research funded through this initiative is expected to lead to significant innovation through collaboration. It is something that I particularly look forward to. The bionic eye has the potential to give sight and restore sight to many Australians from one end of our shores to the other and, indeed, to others overseas. The bionic eye project follows on from previous successful innovations in this area, such as the bionic ear, which provides hearing for those who are profoundly deaf or hard of hearing. That particular innovation has transformed the lives of many Australians. There are also expected to be other health outcomes resulting in significant spin-off and successful commercialisation. Secondly, the Super Science Fellowships Scheme will seek to retain researchers in three key areas: space and astronomy; marine and climate; and future industries. The fellowships will provide funding of $72½ thousand a year plus 28 per cent on costs. One hundred researchers will benefit from these fellowships, and eligible organisations will administer these fellowships and provide $20,000 per participant to support the research projects they undertaken. The organisations hosting the fellowships, which commence this year, include Australian universities and research institutes, Australian government agencies and research functions like the CSIRO, the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organisation, ANSTO, and the Anglo-Australian Observatory in the Innovation, Industry, Science and Research portfolio. All members of the House should be well aware of the challenge we face in science education in Australia. We have seen recent reports over the last few weeks and have heard in broader discussion on the national curriculum of the need to encourage more students, particularly in senior years, to study science. We have seen the need to encourage and train more teachers in the science and maths field. This is a serious, long-term issue that needs to be worked on. We need to ensure that students’ interest in science is encouraged and harnessed at an early age so that they can go on to participate in these sorts of programs. A number in the science profession have high hopes of the draft national curriculum for science, but were—just like myself—bitterly disappointed that, when the draft curriculum was released, there was no workable implementation plan to go with it and no practical assistance given to implement some of the measures. Even in a field as important as science, education and innovation, the Rudd government is unfortunately all talk and no action. Thirdly, there is continued funding for National Information and Communication Technology Australia. NICTA was established by the former coalition government in 2002 to ensure that Australia was able to fully harness the benefits this sector has to offer. As the shadow minister has said, the ICT sector has a critical role to play in continued innovation and development across all industries in Australia. Through two research nodes in Sydney and Canberra, NICTA is now a world-class organisation in its field which attracts internationally recognised reseachers, and it obviously benefits our domestic researchers to be able to work alongside internationally recognised researchers. It allows some of our younger, up-and-coming researchers to have access to some of the best brains and some of the highly recognised people in this field. The ICT sector is a fast-shifting field, and we need to be able to continually invest and allow the domestic flourishing of this sector; otherwise, we will be left behind. In conclusion, the coalition does support Australian innovation and research. It is fundamental to our productivity. It is fundamental to the growth of our economy. We look forward to seeing the results and future work of great Australian scientists. 2876 Distinguished Visitors 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—Before calling the member for Deakin, I would like to welcome to the chamber today Professor Margaret Shiel, the CEO of the Australian Research Council, to listen to a debate about her good institution. Honourable members—Hear, hear! 2876 Bills R4274 Debate resumed. 2876 10:06:00 Symon, Mike, MP HW8 Deakin ALP 1 0 Mr SYMON —I too speak in support of the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. This bill will index the funding of the Australian Research Council and provide specific funds for the Super Science Fellowships Scheme and for the research in bionic vision science and technology initiative. There is also a continuation of funding for the National ICT Australia. This bill will increase funding to the Australian Research Council by $889.6 million over four years altering the three-year existing funding figures and extending the forward estimate period out to 2013. The Rudd government has made one of its key priorities to retain and attract the best researchers in the world to work on cutting-edge and innovative research here in Australia. Australia’s future—and, indeed, its future prosperity—is in many ways dependent upon our encouraging of local research and the connections with businesses, so that research translates into products and puts Australia in front of the rest of the world. As a member of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, which inquired into many of the issues covered in this bill in a report which was published in 2008 entitled Building Australia’s research capacity, I am pleased to note that many of the recommendations we made at that time are actually now being put in place. The committee’s inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in Australian universities received 106 submissions and held 13 public hearings in cities around Australia. The committee saw firsthand some excellent research projects being undertaken across the country, but we also heard of the problems facing researchers and universities, especially with regard to funding. Many of the submissions we received focused on the issues of retaining and attracting the brightest and the best researchers and on investing in new, innovative areas and supporting universities in building their research capacity. The final report made 38 recommendations on how Australia can build its research capacity, and this bill provides the funding that continues to deliver on a number of those initiatives. We only need to look at the development of the bionic ear as an example of the impact of research that is conducted in Australia. It has been developed into a leading-edge product that is in demand world wide. The bionic ear was developed in the late 1960s by Australian scientist Professor Graeme Clark and his colleagues at the University of Melbourne. Since that time, more than 80,000 severely deaf or profoundly deaf people in 100 countries have received a cochlear implant. Cochlear is now an ASX listed company that last year sold 18,553 cochlear implants, had a total revenue of $694 million and employed 1,888 people world wide. Over the last 10 years, Cochlear has earned $3.9 billion in revenue. This is a success story of government-supported research leading to a breakthrough that developed into a great Australian company. The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 will not only deliver indexation of current funding to the Australian Research Council but also provide additional funds for three key projects in Australian research. This bill will provide funding for the research in the Bionic Vision Science and Technology Initiative, a Rudd Labor government initiative to develop the bionic eye. Inventing a bionic eye was one of the key ideas that came out of the Australia 2020 Summit, held in 2008. The Rudd government is now delivering on the promise to fund this research and will provide $50 million over four years to key research groups. As I have mentioned, the bionic ear was a truly great Australian innovation. With this $50 million investment by the Rudd Labor government, the prospects of Australian researchers making a breakthrough and being able to develop a bionic eye have been greatly enhanced. The Australian Research Council received a number of applications to access the $50 million fund in relation to the bionic eye. This independent statutory body has made its decision on where the investments will be directed. Bionic Vision Australia, a consortium including the University of Melbourne, the University of New South Wales, the Bionic Ear Institute, the Centre for Eye Research Australia and NICTA, are to receive $42 million in funding. The Bionic Ear Institute is a non-profit research organisation. It was established in 1983 to continue the innovative research on the bionic ear, invented, as I said before, by Professor Graeme Clark. Professor Graeme Clark is the director of this institute. It is exciting to see the continuation of the work of the Bionic Ear Institute and Professor Graeme Clark with the new goal of developing a bionic eye. With the ambition to deliver a bionic eye, Bionic Vision Australia will use a video camera fixed to a patient’s glasses to capture images which will then be translated into electrical impulses that stimulate electrodes inserted into the retina. The resulting electrical impulses stimulate the same area of the retina usually activated by visual cues. Over time, the patient will learn to interpret these nerve signals as useful vision. According to the researchers, the first human implant is likely to occur in 2013 and to take place at the Royal Victorian Eye and Ear Hospital in Melbourne, a hospital well known to people in Melbourne as a first-rate specialist hospital. I looked it up. It has been operating since 1863. If you are from Melbourne, you would normally call it ‘the Eye and Ear’. It also undertakes half of Victoria’s public general eye surgery, up to 90 per cent of its specialised surgery and almost all of Victoria’s public cochlea implant surgery. Of the $50 million funding, the remaining $8 million will go to a Monash University led team, bringing together experts from engineering and computer sciences, as well as medical researchers from their department of physiology and the Alfred Hospital. Researchers at the Monash University led team are aiming for a human trial followed by a commercial prototype within four years. Both of these projects have set exciting goals for their research. I commend their projects to the House in the knowledge that all sides of the House will welcome any new discovery in this area. A bionic eye will make a different to many Australians and people around the world, potentially bringing sight to those who do not have it and, without doubt, changing their quality of life. I am proud to be part of a government that has the vision to fund such projects and invest in new and innovative ideas. This $50 million investment will increase the chances of delivering a bionic eye with such high resolution that it does more than simply differentiate between shadows and large objects. It is almost three decades now since a team of Australian scientists developed the bionic ear and Australia is already a global leader in bionics. This new investment will reinforce Australia’s leadership in one of the most demanding and inspiring fields of scientific research. The Rudd Labor government, since being elected in 2007, has maintained a long-term view of research. Many of the submissions to the inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in Australian universities raised the issue of a lack of career path for researchers. We heard from the researchers and research students who faced recurring periods of funding uncertainty and a lack of funding for their research. Not every application for research funding is successful. Some of those who missed out found employment outside the sector or lost interest in continuing to be researchers. The Rudd government in its previous budgets has acted to help retain midlevel and senior level researchers. This investment in the retention of midlevel and senior researchers by the Rudd government was applauded by many of the universities making submissions to the inquiry into research training and research workforce issues in universities. The Curtin University of Technology Western Australia in their submission to the inquiry welcomed the new and exciting initiatives such as the Future Fellowships and the existing ARC Fellowships. They applauded these saying that they will assist in attracting and retaining midcareer and senior researchers. The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 will provide funding for a new set of doctoral fellowships specifically designed to provide opportunities for early career researchers. These are called Super Science Fellowships. The Super Science Fellowships scheme is an integral part of the $1.1 billion Super Science Initiative announced in the 2009 budget. The aim of Super Science Fellowships is to attract and retain outstanding early career researchers in three key areas: space and astronomy, marine and climate, and future industries. The Super Science Fellowships will offer a three-year fellowship, funded for up to $72,500 a year, plus 28 per cent of on-costs, to 100 outstanding Australian and international early career researchers. Fifty of those are to commence in 2010 and another 50 next year in 2011. The Super Science Initiative is about nurturing the talented individuals who will perform research. Ensuring that early career researchers have access to fellowships can play a crucial role in retaining the best local researchers and enabling them to continue their work. The Super Science Fellowships initiative is the latest Rudd government project to support local researchers and adds to the previously announced and fully funded Australian Laureate Fellowships for established researchers and Future Fellowships for researchers in midcareer. The Australian Laureate Fellowships provides opportunities to researchers at the peak of their careers. Australian Laureate Fellows, commencing in 2010, will receive a salary supplement from the ARC of around $100,000 plus 28 per cent of on-costs with a standard tenure of five years. In addition to a salary supplement and salary related on-costs support, the ARC may also provide an Australian Laureate Fellows with project funding of up to $300,000 per annum, along with additional amounts to appoint up to two postdoctoral research associates and up to two postgraduate researchers. The Rudd Labor government has committed $239 million to be allocated over five years to fund the Australian Laureate Fellowships. The government’s commitment to supporting research also covers the Future Fellowships, which provide funding for midlevel researchers. The Future Fellowships scheme has funding for the 1,000 four-year fellowships over five years. Many highly qualified midcareer researchers have found in the past that they have few options to pursue their work locally and have had to go overseas to further their careers. The Future Fellowships scheme is designed to attract and retain these highly skilled researchers so that they can continue their research in Australia. The third element to the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 is the extension of funding for National ICT Australia. National Information and Communication Technology Australia, better known as NICTA, is an independent company with 700 staff. This bill provides for a $185.5 million four-year funding extension for NICTA, beginning in 2011-12. This was announced in the 2009-10 budget. NICTA is the largest information and communication technology research organisation in Australia and it also receives funding from the Victorian, New South Wales, Queensland and ACT governments. As well as undertaking user-inspired basic research, it also plays a vital part in research training and commercialising research outcomes through spin-out companies and technology licensing. For example, NICTA’s first spin-out company, Audinate, a leading developer of digital media networking solutions, recently secured $4 million in additional funding from the private sector. Audinate’s innovative networking technology reduces cost by eliminating the need for expensive, bulky, copper analog wires. One CAT5 ethernet cable can replace 500 analog connectors, thereby eliminating massive amounts of cabling from large audiovisual installations. Audinate revolutionises the way that audiovisual systems are connected to by transporting high-quality media over standard IT networks. It is in use across the world for live sound, recording and broadcast applications. I do know a bit about CAT5 cabling. It is something I did for many years prior to coming to this place. At that time it was only used for connecting PCs over what now seem to be very slow networks. The type of technology that can be put in place and use existing cabling saves businesses big dollars, meaning they do not have to rip out what was put in only a few years ago. That is a really smart way of looking at things. This is yet another example of the importance of funding Australian research and highlights the importance of the commercialisation of research. The Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 demonstrates the Rudd Labor government’s commitment to fostering research and excellence, along with building a stronger and more diverse research community. I commend the bill to the House. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I call the member for Herbert. 2879 10:20:00 Lindsay, Peter, MP HK6 Herbert LP 0 0 Mr LINDSAY —Madam Deputy Speaker Burke, I was just saying to your mother, Joan, who is in the gallery today, that she must be very proud of you. The way you handled that then was just the way a Deputy Speaker should handle it. Joan, I know you are a Victorian, but we will make you an honorary Queenslander for the day. It is good to see you sitting on the right side of the parliament! I want to give a couple of practical examples of why it is important that the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 go through the parliament today. Funding for Australia’s research through the Australian Research Council has achieved so much for our nation. The increased funding that is coming to the ARC will be well used. Yesterday I visited Mount Stromlo where the Australian National University runs an astronomy research program. There are no telescopes there anymore; the telescopes are in other parts of the country and other parts of the world. The ANU runs the collaborative effort and its workshops are there. They have just built the new SkyMapper system. That has been installed at Siding Spring in Coonabarabran. That SkyMapper system will for the first time since about the 1970s remap the skies over Australia in a fantastic way. They will be using the ICT that is referred to in the bill to get all of that data back to Canberra from Siding Spring. ARC grants fund this kind of science where Australia leads the world. Yesterday I met a scientist at Mount Stromlo who was part of the team that discovered dark energy. It sounds very mysterious. It is extraordinarily important to know and understand what is out there, even though we cannot see it. To think that we have Australian scientists working out that this exists and trying to explain why it exists and its importance is amazing. The ANU at Mount Stromlo is also part of the new Giant Magellan Telescope. It is a 25-metre telescope; it is a huge array. They were telling us yesterday that they are looking at the end of the galaxy, where it all began. They are able to do this with this giant telescope because they can collect enough light to see such a long way. Australian scientists are ahead of the pack in doing all of that. They are also involved in the square kilometre array project, which Australia is bidding to have built at Geraldton in Western Australia. That is another major world-leading project in astronomy. We are not there yet, because we are competing against South Africa. As the Australian project has so many more benefits and is more technically advanced than the South African bid, commonsense would say the SKA should be built in our country, but that is for others in the world to decide. I hope commonsense prevails. I say, ‘Well done,’ to the scientists at the ANU and all of the PhD students who are there. They do good work in keeping Australia, such a small country, prominent in another area of science where the ARC is very important. I would also like to advise the parliament that ARC grants go to the university in my electorate, which is James Cook University. Last year JCU received over $3 million in funding from the ARC for 12 separate projects. It is really good. What do we do well in North Queensland? It would have to be tropical marine science, wouldn’t it? And, again, through the help of ARC grants and help of the ARC Future Fellowships, Townsville undoubtedly leads the world in tropical marine science. There is a body of tropical marine science second to none in the world not only with James Cook University and these fellowships but with the degrees that they have with the Australian Institute of Marine Science and the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park Authority and so on. It is all there. Students from all over the world come to James Cook to study tropical marine science. It is an absolutely wonderful achievement. I wanted to make a contribution to support this bill today. The coalition certainly supports the bill and supports the scientific and research community in Australia. They do great work just like at JCU in Townsville, and I congratulate them on their continued dedication to pursuing new ideas and innovation. I thank the House. 10000 Burke, Anna (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms AE Burke)—I would also like to thank the member for Herbert for pointing out the other distinguished visitor I have in the gallery, my mother, Joan Burke. Whilst I never inquire of my mother’s politics as she is a constituent, she assures me she does vote for me. 2881 22:26:00 Trevor, Chris, MP HVU Flynn ALP 1 0 Mr TREVOR —Thank you, Deputy Speaker; well done. I rise to speak on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 and the importance of providing funding to the Australian Research Council because of the initiatives and research it supports. This bill represents our government’s commitment to advancing our efforts to build a more prosperous Australia through innovation. It is an appropriation bill that is absolutely important to the future of our country. This is so not because it will change laws but because its royal assent will provide support to the Australian Research Council and its ongoing operations. It will fund the high-quality research that our country needs to tackle the great challenges of our time. This bill seeks to appropriate funding that will be provided to the Australian Research Council to support research schemes. The total increase in spending is approximately $889.6 million over four financial years spanning from 2009 to 2013. The update in funding, which will be administered by the Australian Research Council, includes providing new funding for research and bionic vision science and technology; providing new funding for the Super Science Fellowship scheme; providing continued funding for National Information and Communications Technology Australia; providing funding to apply indexation to existing appropriation amounts in the act; and to create an additional out-of-year financial forward estimate. The provision of this funding is important to all Australians. It will be a major boost for the Australian Research Council and its ability to implement critical budget initiatives. Innovative research has the power to better the lives of all people. This funding in particular will be used to fund first-class research that has the potential to improve the quality of life experienced by countless numbers of people. It will support the development of numerous new industries and ensure that our country remains at the forefront of competitiveness in the global knowledge economy. We only have to look at innovations that have been developed in previous years to understand the value of providing funding for the Australian Research Council. For example, in the Australian Research Council annual report 2008-09 in the research outcome section, there are numerous case studies outlining some of the developments that have occurred with support from the Australian Research Council. One such case relates to the study of hazards in underground mines, an area that is of particular relevance to the people from my electorate of Flynn. In summary, the research has studied the phenomenon known as windblast, which occurs when there is a collapse without warning in an irregular cave where there is an extensive area of unsupported roof. Where the collapse occurs there is a sudden burst of wind that results in a pressure wave and windblast that reverberates up the mine tunnels. This blast can displace dangerous gases. The results of studying this phenomenon have led to improved levels of mining safety and technical viability that will benefit not only miners in Australia but also miners around the world. The funding provided by the Australian Research Council made this study and the results possible. This is particularly important for the people in my electorate of Flynn where there are extensive underground mining projects underway. Indeed, one of my sons, Guy, works as an underground miner in Emerald, west of my home town of Gladstone. He gets married this Sunday, subject to the cyclone, and I am very proud of him and my future daughter-in-law Linzi. Sadly, my wife, Colleen, and I recall an accident in Moura, again west of Gladstone, in 1986—it is well documented—when 12 miners were killed because of an incident where a windblast blew methane, coal dust and air into the area where they were working, creating an explosive atmosphere that led to an explosion. This was a dramatic and tragic disaster that rocked the people of Moura. It will never be forgotten by the people of Moura who lost loved ones or by the people of the Moura community generally. It has left a scar on that community that can never heal. It was and remains a tragic loss. I mention this because of the fact that this research, which was supported by the Australian Research Council, will assist in the prevention of incidents similar to the tragedy in Moura from ever occurring again. This is a prime example that emphasises the significance of some of the research that the Australian Research Council has funded in the past, and the importance of providing funding for initiatives supported by the council now and in the future. The initiatives that this bill will fund have the potential to provide numerous innovations and yield results that can benefit people in many parts of their lives. The research that is supported by the Australian Research Council is critical to ensure that we as a country forge a better future for ourselves and our children. The research that the council supports and the research that funding appropriated by this bill will support are for the betterment of our quality of life. One of the programs that this bill will provide funding for is research in bionic vision science and technology. This will deliver on a promise made by our government in response to the 2020 summit held in 2008 to implement a long-term national health strategy. The idea was to invent a bionic eye. The potential benefits of this prospect are truly remarkable. It promises to not only give and restore sight to tens of thousands of people around the world but also generate know-how that can be applied in many other areas. Our country is a global leader in bionics. This stands to reinforce our leadership in a field of science that will be life altering for thousands of people in the future. There can be no price put on the value of sight and the immeasurable difference that this breakthrough will provide for the people that will benefit from it. We cannot put a price on something that will be so life altering for so many people. The significance and potential improvements to people’s lives that this research will provide are well worth the investment. Another program that will receive funding through this bill is the Super Science Fellowships scheme. This scheme is an integral part of the $1.1 billion Super Science Initiative announced in the 2009-10 budget. The aim of this initiative is to boost critical areas of scientific endeavour, including space science and astronomy, marine and climate science and areas of science that are important to future industries such as biotechnology and nanotechnology. The development of these areas of science is essential for our future for they play a significant role in the future of our human race. There are so many clear benefits that these sciences have the potential to provide, whether it be the better detection, prevention and treatment of diseases that await discovery in the field of biotechnology or the endless potential that properly developed nanotechnology holds. The Super Science Initiative will ensure Australia is recognised as a global leader in these fields of science. It would be utter foolishness to ignore these areas of research and truly daft not to support the provision of funds for them. Research in these fields of science will be invaluable. I believe we are on the cusp of many great discoveries. Our government is acting to assist this research and to help ensure that Australia plays its part in delivering brilliant new technology that will make safe our country’s position as a major competitor in the global knowledge economy and ensure the people of Australia experience the full benefits of cutting-edge technology. It is clear that we as a country cannot afford to be left behind. As we enter a new era in science we must meet the challenges it presents. The Super Science Initiative is about preparing our country by building the infrastructure needed to support state-of-the-art research and supporting the talent to complete that research. The Super Science Fellowship scheme is an integral part of the Super Science Initiative. It will provide the support needed for early career researchers in the fields targeted by the initiative. This support will be in the form of 100 three-year fellowships that will be provided to these researchers. They will be provided to the most promising young researchers to allow them to continue to have opportunities to work in areas of national significance during the global recession. It will also ensure that these potentially exceptional researchers have real opportunities to build a science career here in Australia. It is clear that this scheme is very important. The broader program of the Super Science Initiative will provide Australia with countless new innovations and this scheme will work effectively as a part of the initiative to ensure Australia is capable of remaining at the forefront of scientific development in these fields of science. By providing funding for the Super Science Fellowship scheme in this bill we can ensure that the aims of the Super Science Initiative are met. This bill will also provide continued funding for National Information and Communications Technology Australia. National Information and Communications Technology Australia undertakes user inspired basic research and also plays an essential role in research training and commercialising research outcomes through spin-out companies and technologies licensing. It plays an important role in building Australia’s research and skills base and is a key national innovative asset. The 2009 budget extended funding for another four years from 2011-12 to ensure it can continue its valuable work. This bill is honouring and giving effect to that decision. Overall, I believe this bill represents a very positive step for our country. The funds it will provide for the Australian Research Council will effectively ensure that Australia is and remains a forerunner in scientific development and that we remain competitive in the global knowledge economy. The areas of research that will be provided with funding through this bill are immeasurably important to countless people, not just here in Australia but around the world. By committing funding to developing fields of science such as bionic vision and committing to supporting potentially exceptional early career researchers in significant fields of science, we stand to make a huge difference to the lives of people everywhere and ensure that we build a fairer and more prosperous Australia through innovation. It is, I believe, irrefutable that Australia only stands to gain from investment in these initiatives, and providing funding to these programs can only benefit Australia. It is for all of these reasons that I support the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 and commend it to the House. 2883 10:40:00 Hayes, Chris, MP ECV Werriwa ALP 1 0 Mr HAYES —I too rise to support the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. This bill will provide additional funding to the Australian Research Council for its continued support of high quality research in this country. We know that such research is vital for our future. This bill provides funding in the 2009-10 budget initiatives that are specifically in relation to the Super Science Fellowships scheme. The bill also continues funding of the National Information Communication Technology Australia—a company which is almost unique in its field and which has had a very significant impact on advancing the development of quality research to the point of commercialisation, including through spin-off companies. These things are to be encouraged if we are to be part of a new generation of scientific application that is commercialised for the future. The bill also provides funding for a commitment that arose out of the 2020 Summit for the Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology Initiative. Further, the bill applies an indexation measure against existing programs under the National Competitive Grants Program. The Australian Research Council is both fundamental and critical to Australian national innovative schemes. The amendments in the bill—which will receive bipartisan support—will boost the council’s ability to implement critical budget initiatives. I would like to briefly speak about what the bill will provide in terms of the Super Science Fellowships scheme. This new scheme was announced in the 2009 budget as part of the broader Super Science Initiative. The scheme, as I understand it, will offer up to 100 three-yearly early career fellowships, which will be awarded to the most promising young researchers. The fellowships will allow them the opportunity to continue to work in their areas of specialisation and of national significance. I think that is pretty important in terms of our being able to develop technology for the future. I understand that these fellowships will be offered in three targeted areas and where the capacity to build on Australia’s strengths has been identified. The areas are, firstly, space science and astronomy; secondly, marine and climate science; and, thirdly, future industries based on biotechnology and nanotechnology. What makes this amendment bill so desirable is that it supports and nurtures future generations of potentially exceptional Australians and international researchers. It makes available to them a real opportunity to build their science careers here, in this country. We have only to look at some of the unfortunate patterns of emigration from this country in the past to see that we have tended to lose our better science brains. People moved elsewhere in order to continue their research. One of the things that we are trying to do and that is part of the endeavour of this bill is to recognise and to encourage the development of scientific minds here, in this country. We know that, if we are going to develop, whether it be advanced manufacturing, whether it be marine and climate science or nanotechnology or the space sciences, if we are going to be involved in those areas, our chances of being involved in the downstream aspects in terms of everything from the development of technology through to actual manufacture come from the application of the original research. I think this is a smart thing for a country to do, to invest in its future by investing in young people to continue their advanced scientific research with a view to being able to develop, and commercialise in due course, those pieces of technology which will be so essential for the future of this country, both economically and in terms of dealing with those matters where those sciences have been specifically targeted. The bill also provides for research in the bionic science and technology initiative. As I indicated, this was an initiative that arose out of the 2020 response. It is certainly a long-term project and it obviously has been buoyed by Australia’s success in research on the bionic ear. That in turn, apart from having led to very successful development of those technologies associated with the bionic ear, has allowed for many Australian jobs to be generated and a new industry to emerge as a consequence of that. If we are going to be a smarter nation, we must follow up upon these applications and this is the spirit we must apply to research itself. It is also noteworthy that the bill provides continued funding for National Information and Communication Technology Australia, NICTA. As I said earlier, NICTA is Australia’s information and communication technology centre of excellence and plays an important role in building Australia’s research and skill base. It is certainly a key for our national innovation assets and it plays a very important role. It was established in 2002 and is very much a national organisation with laboratories now in four cities: Melbourne, Sydney, Canberra and Brisbane. It employs in excess of 700 people. This is certainly one of our scientific successes. I trust that this continued funding will go a long way to assisting NICTA, which aspires to be one of the top 10 world research centres by the year 2020. We target a lot of things. We target being competitive in the Olympics and a whole series of other things, which is only appropriate for a country which has pride in itself. But if we are serious about our future, we should be assisting NICTA in making that achievement of being in the top 10 of world research centres by 2020. That is a very good ambition for us to have. Finally, this bill also applies indexation against the existing programs under the National Competitive Grants Program. The Australian Research Council funds research and researchers under the National Competitive Grants Program as part of its commitment to nurturing and creating creative abilities and nurturing the skills of Australia’s most promising researchers. This amendment is of particular importance considering all universities, including those that operate in my neck of the woods in south-western Sydney, primarily the University of Western Sydney, are eligible to apply for funding under the National Competitive Grants Program. In fact later today, together with other members who represent constituencies in south-western Sydney, I will be meeting with the University of Western Sydney to discuss more specifically some of the aspects of sustaining quality teaching and research conducted at UWS, particularly in areas that we are talking about today such as overcoming social disadvantage. The university’s commitment to the region is beyond question and its ability to be able to research is also very well recognised in our local communities. But having the opportunity to apply and be funded under the National Competitive Grants Program makes all that real and plays a very significant role in delivering the benefits of this research to regions in which I and many others live. Since the university is coming in to see us a little later on today, I will mention that they have been funded for 70 projects under the program, totalling some $21 million so far. To give you an indication of the sort of research that is being pursued, the title of one project is ‘Bridging the gap on locational disadvantage: impact of community identified interventions on social capital, psychosocial and socio-economic outcomes.’ Another topic that is pretty near to my heart given my long-standing relationship with policing—in a positive way—is ‘Police Leadership in the 21st Century: redesigning roles and practices.’ Another project is called ‘Closing the gap for Aboriginal primary students in low density schools: a qualitative analysis of the impact of culturally inclusive pedagogy.’ As most people know, the area I represent in Werriwa has one of the highest Aboriginal populations in the state, and this is something that UWS, through this funding, is playing a critical role in researching. The final project I will mention is ‘Visual optimisation of patient flow in hospital emergency departments.’ I know my colleague Dr Andrew McDonald, the state member for Macquarie Fields and also a paediatrician at Campbelltown Hospital, has a very keen interest in that particular project. I think he is also an associate professor at UWS—Andrew does get around! I certainly support this bill. I think it is one which lends significant weight to our commitment to back Australia in the future. The only way to do that is by committing resources to ensure that the level of research necessary to develop all these things we need for the future, all these technologies that we want to part of and someday hope to be economic beneficiaries of, is maintained. This will go a long way to ensuring that that research is conducted here in Australia and, as a consequence, the downstream aspects of development, commercialisation and manufacturing are something that this country can aspire to. I commend this bill to the House. 2886 10:53:00 Rishworth, Amanda, MP HWA Kingston ALP 1 0 Ms RISHWORTH —I too rise to support the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010 because it really does demonstrate this government’s commitment to fostering local research and increasing Australia’s capacity for developing innovative solutions to modern problems. For Australia to remain competitive in this era of globalisation, it must be smarter and more innovative. Australia’s contribution to the global body of knowledge has been and is substantial. For example, Howard Florey, a fellow Adelaidian, was instrumental in the development of penicillin, the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories contributed significantly to the development of the modern cochlear implant and the CSIRO’s substantial body of achievements range from everyday conveniences such as Aeroguard through to developing wireless local area network technology that is now the world standard used by millions of homes and offices to access the internet. The CSIRO is now working on new technology to ensure that people in remote and isolated communities can have access to high-speed internet on a more cost-effective basis than fibre optic cable. These are examples of previous innovations and previous issues that have been researched by great Australians and have really contributed to the global body of research. We need to continue this push: we need to push forward on new frontiers of science if we are going to remain competitive and innovative. This has a huge impact not only in the areas of science; it is also so important for the commercialisation of those ideas to actually go forward and provide real jobs and real niches for people within our community. I would like to take this opportunity to commend the minister responsible not only for this bill and amendment today but also for the innovation review that he conducted. This innovation review was very broad reaching, and really did a lot to look at how we can be a more innovative country and be a world leader in many areas. This is a very important bill to complement that and therefore I will go through a little bit about what the bill will do. I would also like to take this opportunity to commend the work of Professor Margaret Shiel, the CEO of the ARC, and her team at the Australian Research Council for their expertise and diligence in ensuring that public money reaches projects that will benefit the nation. I wholeheartedly agree with the words of Senator Carr who, when announcing the new Independent Australian Research Council Advisory Council, stated: Research is a matter of vital national importance, the outcomes of which have a significant impact on Australia’s ongoing prosperity … Just to illustrate this, I will mention two projects that the ARC is currently funding that do have that national importance and relevance to my local area. Late last year the Australian Research Council announced approximately $21 million for researchers in South Australia. That money will go to 66 projects, including a study into the environmental variability in South Australia’s Lower Lakes. Any person who has kept an eye on issues in South Australia will know that the plight of the Lower Lakes is one of the important and desperate areas that need to be addressed. We have seen a drought along the Murray-Darling system that has left the end of the system very much compromised. So having a study that will look at this—the variability and the ecology of the area and how that is responding to the drought—will also have the potential to lead to new innovative practices to ensure we can restore this important local, and also national, asset. That is one of the programs. As water is such an important issue in South Australia I also want to mention another of the ARC projects there: the work that is being undertaken by the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training, supported by the ARC grants. This project is carrying out research to better understand how to manage Australia’s subsurface water systems and ways to harness this resource for the benefit of farmers and agricultural communities. They are also looking at the interaction between surface and subsurface water systems and how to give comprehensive advice to policy makers and local communities to ensure that our scarcest resource is managed properly. These are two examples of research that has been funded partly publicly by the ARC that are really going to solve important issues of our time. I am very pleased that this bill is making available over $800 million more in the forward estimates to actually do a number of things. The first is to provide indexation to some of the competitive grants. It will also deliver on the commitment we made in the budget about some specific targeted areas. I will speak about those briefly. The first has been mentioned by previous speakers. This budget initiative and this bill go towards funding the Super Science Fellowships Scheme, which will consist of 100 three-year early career fellowships to be awarded to Australia’s most promising young researchers. This is really important because previously the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Innovation, after a long inquiry, found that there did need to be support for early career scientists because they were being lost—either going outside of the research area into other industries or leaving the country. This is very, very important to encourage those brightest scientists to continue on in the research field and contribute to Australia’s innovation agenda. This is very important bill. These fellowships will target the areas in which Australia excels. The innovation review in its report, Powering ideas: an innovation agenda for the 21st century, recommended that fellowships be offered in three targeted areas: space science astronomy, marine and climate sciences, and future industry research of biotechnology and nanotechnology. These are all cutting-edge research areas in which Australia already does well. We can continue to push the boundaries. These fellowships will go a long way to help to do that. The second area relates to funding for the National ICT Australia organisation, which was recommended as part of the 2020 Summit. NICTA is an institution that does a huge amount in research and innovation in the area of ICT. Supporting it will enhance Australia’s ability to fully capture the social and economic benefits that ICT capability can deliver across all sectors. Already we have seen the previous generation of research into ICT being rolled out in Australia under the National Broadband Network. I am very pleased that Willunga in my electorate was chosen as the first places in Australia to have a demonstration site of fibre to the house. That technology I know will make a huge contribution to connecting people socially. I have already had people with a disability talking about how having fast internet will revolutionise their lives—they will be able to connect with more people and they will feel less isolated. Obviously the economic benefits of the National Broadband Network are evident, with businesses being able to compete more in a global market. We are seeing the rollout of technology that will revolutionise our lives. Pushing that frontier forward under the National ICT Australia to develop global advances in ICT I think is incredibly important. This bill will make available money for this organisation. This was not only a recommendation made at the 2020 Summit but also a commitment we made. As the previous speaker mentioned, National ICT Australia has the aim of becoming one of the 10 best research institutes across the globe. Certainly I, along with the previous speaker, would like to see that supported. The third objective of this bill is to provide funding for the Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology Initiative. It also delivers on the government’s promise as part of the 2020 Summit response to implement a long-term national health strategy. This research has the potential to give and restore sight to thousands of people around the world. Once again, this is an example of cutting-edge research being conducted in Australia that will have the potential to change lives not just in Australia but across the world. In conclusion, this is an important bill and an important complement to our significant revolution in the area of research under Minister Carr, who has been really looking at how we can best foster innovation in Australia. This bill, along with the many other initiatives taken, will help Australia to become a real player into the future and enable it to hold its head high on the international stage. I commend the bill to the House. 2888 11:04:00 Hall, Jill, MP 83N Shortland ALP 1 0 Ms HALL —I seek to make a short contribution to this debate, but the length of my contribution does not reflect the importance that I place on this piece of legislation, the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. Unfortunately, I have to be somewhere else and I am able to only make a very short contribution. I am quite passionate about research and the need for us as a nation to invest in research, to make sure research projects are properly funded and to ensure that as a government we support science. For many years we have not given the support that we need to give to our science graduates and to supporting scientists once they complete their studies. I believe that this legislation does assist to that degree. It provides funding for the Australian Research Council to support research schemes. It also provides funding for the 2009-10 budget initiative, the Super Science Fellowships scheme, it continues funding of the National ICT Australia and provides funding for Australia’s 2020 commitment, the Research in Bionic Vision Science and Technology initiative. It is very important that we note that the National Competitive Grants Program is of benefit to each of us in this parliament. Those of us who have universities or students who attend nearby universities benefit from these research programs. The Newcastle University, which is staffed by people who live in the Shortland electorate and is attended by students who live in the Shortland electorate, has been a beneficiary of the National Competitive Grants Program over the years and currently. The Super Science Fellowship scheme is one of the strategies that the Rudd government has introduced to address the brain drain, where our brightest science graduates tend to go overseas because they cannot get the recognition and cannot undertake the kinds of programs that they wish to. The Super Science Fellowship scheme consists of 100 three-year early career fellowships to be awarded to the most promising young researchers, allowing them to continue to have the opportunity to work in areas of national significance during the global recession. We need to keep those scientists, the 100 recipients of those early career fellowships, in this country because they are the future of science in Australia. We need those graduates to make a commitment to science here in this country, to be at the cutting edge of scientific endeavour. This fellowship scheme makes that possible. It will attract the brightest young graduates and encourage them to remain here in Australia. That is one aspect of this legislation that I think is of vital importance to the future of science in this country and to the future of Australia as a nation, where we can be making sure that we are involved in the latest research and the latest technologies that are produced. This bill also provides funding for research into bionic vision science and technology. This is something that has been developed in response to the 2020 Summit. I note that the Minister for Innovation, Industry, Science and Research last year nominated two teams to share $50 million funding to develop a bionic ear. That happened in December last year. These are the sorts of projects that will be looked at under this initiative. These are important initiatives that will position Australia at the cutting edge of science and technology. I am sure members on the other side would want to support our young scientists and support new technologies. I would be most disappointed if any members on the other side of this House did not see the benefit to Australia of the research grants that were given at the end of last year by the minister for developing bionic eye science and technology. The bill also provides additional funding for the National ICT Australia, which plays an important role in building Australia’s research and skill base and is a key national innovation asset. It is important to note that NICTA employs 700 people. This is an independent company specialising in information and communication technology—the cutting edge of fast-speed broadband—and will be important in positioning Australia in the world as a leader rather than a follower. This is what this legislation is about—positioning Australia to be leaders and making sure that we are at the cutting edge of science and technology. The Rudd government is making a commitment to the future of Australia. 2889 11:11:00 Clare, Jason, MP HWL Blaxland ALP Parliamentary Secretary for Employment 1 0 Mr CLARE —Can I thank the members for Indi, Deakin, Herbert, Chisholm, Flynn, Werriwa, Kingston and Shortland for their contributions to this debate on the Australian Research Council Amendment Bill 2010. This bill will support the ongoing operations of the Australian Research Council in three specific initiatives that will build Australia’s research capacity and promote research excellence. The bill updates the special appropriation amount administered by the Australian Research Council to include new funding for research in bionic vision science and technology, new funding for the Super Science Fellowships Scheme, continued funding for National ICT Australia and additional out-year, and indexation of existing appropriation amounts in the Australian Research Council Act 2001. The invention of a bionic eye will not only give and restore sight to tens of thousands of people around the world; it will also generate know-how that can be applied in many other areas. The 100 three-year super science fellowships will support the next generation of researchers, complementing our Australian Laureate Fellowships Scheme for established researchers and future fellowships for researchers in mid-career. Continued funding for National ICT Australia, the largest information and communication technology research organisation in Australia, is vital to ensure that Australia maintains its good reputation for research and training, and commercialisation in this vital area. This bill will increase spending by approximately $889 million over four financial years. The proposed amendments change the administered special appropriation; they do not alter the substance of the act or increase departmental funds. It is routine but important legislation that will support the research we need to address global problems and maintain Australian living standards. I commend the bill to the House. Question agreed to. Bill read a second time. Message from the Governor-General recommending appropriation announced. Ordered that the bill be reported to the House without amendment. 2890 Committees 2890 2890 Debate resumed from 15 March, on motion byMr Adams: That the House take note of the report. 10000 May, Margaret (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Mrs MA May)—I call the member for Barker. 2890 11:15:00 Secker, Patrick, MP 848 Barker LP 0 0 Mr SECKER —Madam Deputy Speaker May, may I congratulate you on your elevation to that position of high esteem. An opposition member—Lofty esteem. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —Absolutely, and very well deserved. I look forward to being under your leadership in the chamber, Madam Deputy Speaker, in future times. I rise to talk about the report by the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, which I was a member of for nine years before this parliament. I regret not being on that committee anymore, but with a largely agricultural seat like mine, the seat of Barker, I of course take a great interest in the work the committee does even though I cannot participate in it. So I was very interested to see this report, Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. We all know that climate change is here; it always has been. We can argue about whether it is anthropogenic or not, but the fact is we do have climate change and farmers for centuries or millennia have actually been adapting to climate change. In fact, people in Greenland took up farming in the medieval warm period when it was about two degrees warmer than it is now. That is why it was called Greenland, because it became green with the warming that was happening there between the 11th and 14th centuries. So farmers do adapt, and it is important that as a committee and as a parliament we look at how we can help farmers adapt to climate change. I think it is rather ironic that in the chamber on 19 February 2008 I talked about the importance of adapting. I have always believed that the more important strategy for adapting to climate change was always going to be through direct action, which the coalition of course have put down as their policy on climate change, and this report talks about adapting. On 19 February 2008 I talked about how important it was to adapt, so I was quite bemused when, a couple of weeks after that speech, the then environment minister, Mr Garrett, tried to make fun of that in answer to a question on 11 March 2008. He said: The member for Barker went on to advise that the most sensible approach to climate change would be ‘to adapt’— in inverted commas, as if this was some revelation that it was a really stupid way to go. That was very interesting because, a couple of questions later, the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Tony Burke, mentioned the importance for farmers to adapt to climate change. It really did make a mockery of the then minister for the environment, Mr Garrett, suggesting that I was somehow a bit loony to suggest that we should be adapting. That is exactly what this committee report is about. I will give you the title again: The role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. As a farmer myself, I have adapted all my life. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —A very good one! 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —I would like to think so. Last year we had the best crops on record. That was not due to any work that I did; it was actually due to the fact that the climate gave us a great season. In fact, if you were writing a script for a season, in 2009 we had it in my area. So you do adapt. I remember in 2006 suggesting to my son that I had a feeling we were not going to get much more rain. That was in about June. The predictions from the Bureau of Meteorology were that we might have a little bit below average rainfall for the rest of the year. In fact, it forgot to rain after June. Normally, May, June, July and August are our wettest months in our Mediterranean climate. I am glad we stopped sowing crops because it was the driest year in 117 years of recording. So the crops were a disaster and my area, which is generally drought free, found it had a year like no other. As a farming family we adapted to those circumstances. If you go through the recommendations, there are some very good ones. For example, recommendation 2 states: … the Australian Government, as part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, take more effective account of the needs and decision making processes of farmers— I have just given you an example of that— and ensure that the delivery of adaptation programs— please listen, minister for the environment— is flexible and responsive to the needs of farmers and rural communities. I think that is a good recommendation. I note the member for New England has been a long-serving member on that same committee, and we worked together very strongly for the nine years that I was on it—and I think that was six years for you; you are now in your ninth year. 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr Windsor —Yes. 848 Secker, Patrick, MP Mr SECKER —Recommendation 3 is also very important because it says: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government, as part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, invest research funding in the following high priority areas: Soil carbon sequestration— Hello: coalition direct action policy; great stuff— Soil stabilisation and pasture improvements using methods such as perennial pastures, pasture cropping, rotational grazing, biodynamic farming, minimum/no till cultivation and controlled traffic farming; I can say from my own experience that we have been using those sorts of programs on our farm. Some of them are very successful, depending on the soil, the climate and what you are trying to achieve. Another recommendation referred to soil-water retention strategies and water-use efficiency. I think there is no doubt that that is very important: to get more crop per drop—in other words, to use our water more efficiently. South Australia, I think, have a proud record of being the most efficient irrigator in Australia. They have upgraded their infrastructure, which unfortunately seems to have stopped in the last couple of years under this federal government. Even though there is $6 billion set aside for it, it actually has had proven effects in South Australia—for example, the Loxton irrigation rehabilitation scheme in my electorate, where it saved huge amounts of water. I think it was something like 44 gigalitres annually just by using pipes rather than open channels, which seep and evaporate. Unfortunately, the state government at the time, who I might add was Labor, decided to sell those savings of 44 gigalitres rather than return it to the river. It would have had a much greater effect if that water had through its savings been returned to the health of the river rather than being sold off for a cash supply by the state government at the time. But you can do those sorts of things, and quite successfully. The report then refers to energy on farms, and recommendation 6 states: … the Australian Government, as part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, increase its investment and support for research into energy efficiency in the agriculture sector and the development of alternative energy and alternative fuels on-farm, particularly in regard to: Biofuels; Biomass from agricultural waste; and Biochar. Hello: coalition direct action policy. What a great committee this is! It is actually adopting the coalition’s direct action policy in just about every recommendation. What a fantastic committee! Recommendation 7 recommends: … the Australian Government increase funding for research into improving the consistency and accuracy of weather and climate forecasting, especially at a seasonal and regional level. Well, can I tell you, as a farmer probably the most important knowledge you can have is about the upcoming weather, whether it is trying to avoid rain because you are spraying or making sure that you sow at the right time and you have got the right moisture. So it is very important that more money is spent on that research. I found recommendation 8 quite interesting. The committee recommended: … the Australian Government develop an education and training scheme for farmers in the understanding and use of weather and climate information. In my experience I am not sure that is necessary. Every farmer I know knows a lot about the weather. That is what controls their lives, and they use every bit of the latest technology, going onto the Bureau of Meteorology website to get long-term and short-term forecasts or sometimes to find out what is happening in just the next couple of hours. If you go onto the website you can find very accurate forecasts by looking at the radar—some of us would have seen that on the cricket forecasts—which shows the weather patterns and where the weather is coming from.. So I am not convinced that that recommendation is going to be all that necessary. I am not saying that it is a bad recommendation; I am just not sure that we actually need to do a lot in that area. Recommendation 10 is good because the committee recommended: … the Australian Government, as part of its ongoing strategy development to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, develop a strategy to capture, evaluate and disseminate the range of farmer driven— and that is the important thing, that they are farmer driven— innovations that have a significant capacity to increase the resilience and productivity of farm enterprises. Farmers in this country have got a really good record of inventions and innovations, going back as far as the stump-jump plough, for example, or the Sunshine harvester, the first motor driven harvester. Certainly by today’s standards you would think: ‘An eight-feet comb?’, but it was better than what they had with the horse and dray. Of course now we have 40-feet combs and huge headers for reaping. From that original innovation they have expanded and obviously moved on to something better. That original innovation happened in Australia and of course it progressed from there as time went on. Recommendation 11 says: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government ensures that there is an overall body to receive and analyse research and co-ordinate research across the nation in relation to climate change adaptation in agriculture— that lovely word ‘adaptation’— and that said body is given the necessary resources of staff and funds to carry out its role. I think it is very sensible that we have some coordination of the information we are getting that can be disseminated to farmers—and the ability to take up the latest innovations and technology. Look at minimum till. When I grew up, 50 years ago, you had to plough the paddock at least four or five times to kill the weeds. Unfortunately, doing that you used up a lot of the moisture. You may have killed the weeds but you used a hell of a lot of diesel running the tractors to plough those paddocks and sometimes you just did not get it in time. Now with direct till you go straight in, you do not waste the moisture, you use a lot less fuel and, if you believe in problems with CO2, you are reducing the CO2. In fact, farming in Australia is the only industry that has actually reduced its CO2. Farmers have done it not because of climate change but because they want to save money and do their farming better. It is the only industry in Australia that has done it and they have done it without government help. So if we can help a bit that is good. The last recommendation that I want to refer to is: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government give further consideration to the analysis of government policy and outcomes in the submission to the current inquiry made by the Future Farm Industries CRC, with a view to ensuring the better coordination of research and extension efforts and the delivery of effective policy outcomes. That might sound a bit like a ‘program specificity’, which we have all heard about, but if you actually bring it down to plain language it is saying that we need the coordination by the CRC in farming, and that is important because that coordination will help get that information disseminated to the farmers of Australia to make them even better farmers. So put it in plain language and get away from the program specificity, but if you look into it deeply it is actually a very good recommendation. Can I congratulate the committee on their work. They have done a great job and it has been a pleasure to talk on this issue. 2894 11:29:00 Fitzgibbon, Joel, MP 8K6 Hunter ALP 1 0 Mr FITZGIBBON —I too congratulate you, Madam Deputy Speaker May, on your appointment to the Speaker’s Panel and wish you the very best in keeping members under control. It is interesting following the member for Barker. The member for Barker unfortunately did not follow the practice of the committee in its attempts to keep this pretty much a bipartisan issue. The member for Barker would have us believe that carbon in our atmosphere could be stabilised to below five per cent of our 2000 levels just by adopting the recommendations of the committee. It is an interesting concept because most of those recommendations are focused on research and development, in other words, bringing to a commercial stage many of the innovations we would all hope collectively to see in place in the future. So it is an interesting angle and approach that he chose to take on this occasion. I am not a farmer, unlike the member for Barker, and, indeed, I am not a member of the committee. But I have represented farming communities for some 14 years in this place and on that basis it should not be a surprise to anyone to see me seeking an opportunity to provide some reflection and some comment on the committee’s work. The report entitled Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers adapt to the impacts of climate change is a report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources. I agree with the member for Barker on one thing: this is a good report. It is a practical and pragmatic report, and I too congratulate the committee on its very good work. As the member for Lyons indicated in his chairman’s foreword, the committee was less interested in arguing the toss over issues like climate change because, as he indicated, there is a diversity of views among committee members. Rather, the committee was much more interested in seeking practical solutions to some of the challenges that farmers face particularly as they relate to dramatic changes in our climatic conditions here in Australia. This approach underscores the great value of our parliamentary committee work. It is often underappreciated. It is an environment in which members can work in a bipartisan way towards the common good and, again, I congratulate the committee on doing so on this particular occasion. Very much underappreciated in the Australian community also, I think, are the challenges that our farming communities face, for example drought, salinity, water allocation issues, declining commodity prices, rising input prices, and monopsony buyers, which is something close to my heart in terms of my own electorate. Then there are the difficulties in securing the services of skilled employees, and conflicting land use issues which are increasingly encroaching on some agricultural pursuits, and of course there is globalisation and industry rationalisation. In the wine industry, for example, oversupply is a big issue and of course for farming communities we also have isolation and all the social issues which go with that. I was particularly pleased to see the committee focusing more broadly on those social issues and not just looking at things which people would come to understand as issues pertaining directly to the challenges of tilling the soil and producing crops. The committee took a year to make some 15 recommendations. During the year it considered 73 submissions and held 14 public inquiries. It also visited five states, looking at innovative farming practices in particular. The report very much focuses on the way in which climate change makes life more difficult for already challenged families. It highlights the need to provide greater counselling support and to listen more to what farmers are saying and to look more closely at their local innovation. The report places great emphasis on the need for a greater investment in research and development, particularly in areas like soil carbon sequestration, something we have spoken about already; and soil water retention strategies and, of course, water efficiency. Carbon sequestration has the potential to both increase crop yields and, of course, reduce carbon in our atmosphere—really good news for food security and really good news for our environment, if we can get that technology to commercial use. Those who produce our food are part of our most important economic sector. Yet they face all the challenges which I spoke about earlier in my contribution. I want very briefly to highlight one of those challenges, and that is land conflict. In my own electorate this is a big issue, particularly in the upper reaches of my electorate. While there is no lack of appreciation of the wealth that has been provided by the coal industry—and may it long continue to provide that wealth—there is also an increasing concern that unsustainable or limited-time industries like coal are increasingly starting to threaten sustainable industries in agricultural pursuits, particularly the wine industry and, in particular, horse breeding in the upper Hunter, which is an important economic driver in my electorate. I believe, as the local member, those concerns are growing and those voices of concern are growing louder. Demand for our commodities—from China, for example—is driving, firstly, a greater investment. That, in many ways, is a good thing. But that demand is also driving further and further expansion of coalmining, particularly open-cut coalmining, in the upper Hunter. Our coalmines are getting closer to our horse-breeding studs, closer to our agriculture, to our farms, and also closer to those who produce the fruit for our very, very important wine industry. I think it is time for government to sit up and take a bit more notice of that and to work harder at getting the balance between these various pursuits right. Interestingly, the New South Wales government recently took the very good decision to finally move forward with investment in new power generation in New South Wales. This is critical: if we do not get it, the lights will go out by 2015. One of those power stations will be in my electorate, around the Bayswater area in the upper Hunter. That is all good news. What did surprise me was the decision by the New South Wales government to keep open the option of a new coal-fired power generator. I think that is a mistake. I think it is very important to put in place a gas-fired power generator in the upper Hunter. Not only would this be very good for the environment, it would provide the foundation for a new pipeline coming from South-East Queensland right through the Hunter and down into Sydney. This would provide, for the first time, competition in pipeline supply of gas in both of those areas. That would, in turn, provide greater opportunities for those seeking to invest in energy-intensive industries in the Hunter because they would then face the prospect of competitively priced gas—something industry in the Hunter has not had the opportunity to secure at any time up until this day. I think also that the decision to pursue a gas-fired generator would send a good message to those people who have expressed those concerns I mentioned earlier—the growing concerns about land-use conflict and the impact of coalmining on those various agricultural pursuits in the valley. These issues are much broader than those covered by this report, but they are very important issues and issues appropriate to raise here in this debate. Again, I congratulate the committee on its work. I see that Tony Windsor, the member for New England, is here. I know he is an active part of that committee and I know that these are issues in which he shows a great deal of interest. I commend the report both to the parliament and to the broader Australian community. 2896 11:39:00 Windsor, Antony, MP 009LP New England IND 0 0 Mr WINDSOR —It is with pleasure that I speak to the report of the House Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources entitled Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. I thank the member for Hunter for his comments. This is a very well thought out report which identifies a whole range of issues in relation to agriculture, climate change, climate variability, drought and rain. Irrespective of what people think or do not think is happening in terms of the climate, I think this document is quite valuable as a policy document in a whole range of areas relating to things like landscape management through to various types of land use, right through to the sequestering of carbon in the soil and all the other issues that revolve around the climate change or global warming debate. I would particularly like to congratulate the chairman of our committee, Mr Dick Adams, for the way in which he has chaired the committee. As the member for Barker mentioned, I have been a member of this committee for some years now and he was a previous member of the committee. Irrespective of who has been the chairman—the member for Hume, Alby Schultz, did an outstanding job—if an individual came in, they would not be able to pick the partisan politics in relation to the issues. That is to the committee’s great credit and I think that is reflected in this report. I notice the member for Barker was trying to score a few political points in relation to some of the things that are mentioned in this report, such as biochar and some of the technologies that farmers have adopted. He saw that as an endorsement of coalition policy. That may be the fact but I think it says more about the committee than about partisan politics in that the committee has taken evidence from the community and made certain recommendations in its report as a result of those findings. In no way has anybody— E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —Madam Deputy Speaker, I seek to intervene. 10000 Bird, Sharon (The DEPUTY SPEAKER) The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Ms S Bird)—Is the member willing to give way? 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —Yes. E0H Laming, Andrew, MP Mr Laming —Firstly, is the complete absence of any reference to an ETS in this document the reason why it is bipartisan; and, secondly, does it reflect the fact that in the farming community there is almost no appetite whatsoever for an ETS? 009LP Windsor, Antony, MP Mr WINDSOR —As I was saying, the committee reflected on the evidence that was given to us. If the member would like to go back through the whole range of evidence that was given, he will see that the issues of carbon emissions and nitrous oxide emissions are in the document. There is quite a lot about the sequestering of carbon dioxide and the way in which agriculture can play a role in reducing its emissions. As to various market mechanisms or preferred market mechanisms taking care of those particular issues, the great bulk of evidence was around technologies and how agriculture can have a significant influence on reducing emissions. But it raises an interesting point. Irrespective of whether there is an emissions trading scheme or whether global warming, climate change—whatever you want to call it—were to go away tomorrow, many of the technologies that are talked about in this document should be looked at very closely by both sides of the parliament. I have my own personal views in relation to carbon pollution reduction schemes and emissions trading schemes. I believe that, eventually, if the globe does go down the path of some sort of emissions trading arrangement, there will have to be a price on carbon. I do not think you can really come to grips with that. I say that as one who raised the issue of soil carbon some three or four years ago before the buzzwords ‘carbon pollution reduction’ had actually entered the building. The significant findings of this report as they relate to climate change, particularly in relation to carbon and the potential to sequester carbon in the soil as a way of ameliorating some of the issues in the atmosphere, should be looked at very closely, irrespective of what stage the emissions trading debate happens to be up to. It relates to the accumulation of humus and organic matter in the soil, and thinking farmers have been doing this for many years. If you accumulate humus and organic matter in the soil, which is in fact carbon, there is debate on whether, if there is a long dry spell or a drought and the soil cracks, that carbon is again released into the atmosphere—obviously part of the cycle. There are techniques, whether they be grazing or farming techniques, where the amount of soil carbon, which in most cases has been depleted over the years through various farming methods, can be increased. That may have a positive impact on global issues. Personally, I have some doubts as to how it will fit in a market mechanism. There are now some arrangements in various parts of the United States and in Australia where soil carbon is being traded in a voluntary market. As a farmer, I believe that the great benefits of the carbon debate will not be in the carbon market but will be in the increased productivity that will come about by accumulating humus and organic matter in soils and with other practices, whether they be pasture technologies, no-till farming, conservation farming or a range of other things. The combination of technologies will allow more moisture to be retained at depth in soils, technologies such as GPS and practising controlled traffic where the movement of tractors and headers takes place over one portion of a paddock, time in and time out, rather than trampling down the top soil, as traditional methods have done. There are other policy issues which start to come to the fore. The document addresses those and I am sure there are members of the committee who personally do not agree with some. It is to the credit of the committee that they have built what the community is saying into the document rather than trying to politicise the document itself with partisan political positions. This is a very valuable document in terms of drought policy because it identifies a lot of the technologies which farmers are using, can use, can modify and can adapt, which will ameliorate drought. By using some of those technologies, I have seen in my own electorate, and in others, where drought starts and finishes on the boundary. Drought is not necessarily about a total lack of rain; it is about how you manage the water when rain occurs. Further down the track, there will be some policy issues which we will have to look at very closely. For instance, the terms ‘interception’ and ‘diversion’ are very much part of the 2007 Water Act and as we speak the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is putting in place the Murray-Darling Basin Plan. Could some of these technologies be interpreted or defined as being interceptions of water that would otherwise have run off into our river systems? For instance, because no-till farming is changing the nature of the topsoil and increasing the capacity of the soil to take in moisture when it is raining, that means, in effect, that there is additional storage in the better soils of up to six inches of available moisture—six inches of rainfall moisture, not six inches in depth. Agroforestry is carbon positive and water run-off negative. Could that land use be interpreted as an interception? The Murray-Darling Basin Authority are currently looking at what is going to be the volume of water falling in valleys. How does groundwater relate to surface water? How much will there be at the end of it—how much for the environment, how much for farmers and how much for anybody else at the Murray mouth? Could those very technologies that this document identifies that are carbon positive be in fact negatives in terms of water policy? There are a various number of collision courses that I can see happening throughout agriculture and the way it interfaces with policy making. Not the least is this issue of food security. There is this preoccupation that the world is running out of food and that we need all our agricultural land to go towards food production. That would be all right if you could make some money out of growing food, but we export 80 per cent of what we produce in this nation, so in a sense we produce too much of the stuff and occasionally we have to bribe an Arab or two to get rid of some wheat, as has happened in the past. So the debate comes round to what is the best land use: is it necessarily agriculture? If we are talking about methane from animals as being a negative in terms of the carbon economy, and nitrous oxide, which is nitrogen fertiliser, and carbon emissions from heavy use of machinery, are we better off to look at other options for land use? What about agroforestry? It is carbon positive but it interferes with water policy. How do we reconcile those water budgets? What about third-generation biofuels where you actually plant a crop once and then annually harvest it? It has the capacity to sequester carbon at depth, which a lot of crops do not have. It is carbon positive with depth storage of carbon. It is soil erosion positive. It is a biofuel, so it ticks the boxes in terms of the carbon world again. If it was land that used to grow food, wheat for instance, all the negatives from Australia to our marketplaces are transport negatives, carbon negative, carbon negative—real costs. This is what we should think about in terms of an emissions trading arrangement: how agriculture fits in that and where the interface of food from land use and energy from land use starts to collide. I do not think at the policy level we have really looked at that too closely. For instance, the major part of wheat, the starch in wheat, is carbon. If we are growing massive quantities of wheat using massive quantities of diesel and then massive quantities of transport fuels et cetera to create an export economy so that we can exchange that wheat for money and then buy fuel, carbon, and bring it back again to have the fellow going round in circles on his tractor again, would we not be better to consider the option of cutting the corner and saying, ‘Well, if we are only doing it to buy fuel, why not grow fuel?’ Why not grow a biofuel which sequesters carbon at depth? There are massive areas around Walgett through to Narrabri, vast areas of black soil in Australia that could be quite effective at sequestering carbon at depth, irrespective of whether there is a market for that or not. I think this document raises a whole range of issues but it is very important in terms of the drought debate, it is very important in terms of the emissions debate and it is very important in terms of the water use efficiency debate and how that relates to the total system. What it does show very clearly, though, is that the farmers who have been at the cutting edge of technology are a long way in front of the researchers. I think government has got to start to take the leash off some of these researchers. Soil science has been ignored for 30 years, and here we are talking about the very basics of life: what makes up the soil, what makes it live, how that relates to carbon and what the interactions with the atmosphere are. We are starting to look at that again because of the climate change and global warming debate. It is a debate that we should have had years ago, irrespective of climate change, and it is something that government should take account of now. (Time expired) 2899 11:54:00 Thomson, Craig, MP HVZ Dobell ALP 1 0 Mr CRAIG THOMSON —The report by the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources entitled Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change is an important document for now and for the future. One of the great things about where my electorate is located, on the beautiful Central Coast—and I acknowledge the member for Robertson, who shares the beautiful Central Coast with me—is that there are many areas where residential suburbs interface with picturesque rural land. One minute you can be driving through typical suburban streets with brick houses, well-kept lawns and curbs and guttering and the next minute you can have expansive views of farmland with cattle grazing and undulating hills in the background. It is a very mixed area in terms of the environment. We do not have extensive areas of farmland, unlike many other parts of New South Wales, but we do have some important agriculture on the Central Coast. For instance, the region has the largest kiwifruit farm on the eastern seaboard of Australia, and there are extensive properties specialising in cut flowers for both the domestic and overseas markets. In fact, I was recently talking to a Zimbabwean couple who picked out the Central Coast as having the perfect climate for roses. They were planning to set up a business and were looking at all sorts of countries around the world, looking at the temperature and so forth, and they have now set up a successful rose growing business on the Central Coast in my electorate. Following along the lines of selling coal to Newcastle or supplying champagne to the French, we actually have Japanese companies now buying green tea grown on the Central Coast. It is another important area of agriculture that we have. So, while the Central Coast is a relatively small agricultural area, it is a very diverse agricultural sector. While the Central Coast is probably the most beautiful area of Australia, we are also an area that is susceptible to the effects of climate change. Unfortunately, the environment in this region is very fragile. We have a thin coastline with developments there. In the middle of my electorate there is a beautiful lake which is prone to flooding, as it has access to the sea. An issue such as rising sea levels affects everyone on the Central Coast, particularly those in my electorate. When I walked along the beach at North Entrance earlier this year inspecting the damage done by a major storm—the sorts of hazards that many of my constituents face living so close to the ocean—it hit home to me just how fragile our environment is. A whole street of houses had lost large chunks of their backyards. There were bits of fences overhanging the beach, concrete pathways sticking out going nowhere because the backyard had been washed away. There were broken rails and trees uprooted along the fence line. In the backyard of one of these houses there used to be a beautiful glass fence. The glass fence had been completely washed away. The residents had over four metres of their backyard washed away because of this storm surge. These storm surges are becoming more regular as our climate is changing. Because of this issue I made a submission to the Standing Committee on Climate Change, Water, Environment and the Arts, which delivered a very comprehensive report to the House last year. One of the places they visited—in fact, the first place they visited—was the electorate of Dobell. Dobell has three areas in particular that have been hit hard by the storm surges. The beaches at Wamberal have been washed away on a number of occasions, as have the beaches at North Entrance, which I have just been talking about. These beaches have extensive development on them. The beach at Little Cove at Cabbage Tree Bay at Norah Head has been closed now for over two years because there are houses on the clifftops that are literally falling into the bay as the erosion has occurred around this area due to the storm surges, and it is dangerous for people to go on that beach in case these houses do in fact fall off the cliff. My electorate bears the full brunt of the storm surges on the coast, but it also bears the brunt of storm surges that come up through The Entrance and into the Tuggerah Lakes system which they did in 2007, causing extensive flooding inland around the lake where most of the population in my electorate live. This resulted in over 1,000 people having to be evacuated and moved in a massive coordinated response that was undertaken. As was the report on the impact on climate of coastal communities important, so too is this report on how we assist farmers with the impact of climate change. That report on the impact on coastal communities made many recommendations in relation to us being prepared, action that we would need to take to mitigate these natural disasters, and why we need to act in relation to climate change. It was a very important report that brought home to everyone who lives on the coast the need to act. We cannot put our heads in the sand and hope that this issue will go away. It is affecting my community right now. The report we are talking about today, on how we can assist farmers when it comes to dealing with the impacts of climate change, should be commended and its many recommendations should be endorsed. I will not go through all the recommendations, but some of them are particularly relevant to my Central Coast electorate. Part of a recommendation, which deals with investing research funding, is an overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, and it recognises as a high-priority area soil water retention strategies and water use efficiency. I am happy to say that, on the Central Coast, water efficiency has become a very strong culture, especially amongst its residents. Our region—the region that the member for Robertson and I look after—sank to a very low point in water storage only a few years ago. In fact, our main dam was down to about 11 per cent capacity. We also had a pipeline from the Hunter, piping water into our electorate to ensure that we did not completely run out of water. Thankfully, that is not the case now but, as the total water storage level currently hovers around the 30 per cent mark, we have to remind ourselves that in terms of water storage we are still 70 per cent empty. One thing that the Rudd government has done—one of the promises that we have acted upon—is to build a pipeline between the coastal dam and the water storage dam which, hopefully, we will be turning the sod for in the weeks ahead. That will, over time, ensure that the Central Coast is drought-proofed because of this good infrastructure that the Rudd government has put in that affects those two seats on the Central Coast. The whole subject of water efficiency, from areas such as water harvesting and recycling to cutting evaporation rates on farms, is increasingly being embraced by businesses that include farms. I know of at least one hydroponic salad/vegetable farm which built new greenhouse structures, incorporating rainwater collection and storage, making themselves almost completely self-sufficient in water use. Quite a few orange and other fruit growers on the Central Coast have already adapted their fields so there is better water retention in the soil. They have certainly improved their water use efficiency. The committee also recommended that the Australian government support further research efforts into the mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture. In another recommendation the committee said that the government should increase its investment and support for research into energy efficiency in the agricultural sector and the development of alternative energy and fuels on farms, particularly in the area of biofuels, biomass from agricultural waste and biochar. There is another recommendation that is very interesting from the point of view of the Central Coast area. The committee recommended that the government: … increase funding for research into improving the consistency and accuracy of weather and climate forecasting, especially at a seasonal and regional level. Following that is the recommendation that the government develop an education and training scheme for farmers in the understanding and use of weather and climate information. Currently, weather forecasts on the Central Coast are included as part of the larger Hunter area. Clearly, the Central Coast is not the Hunter area. One of the things that I am pushing for is to ensure that we have our own weather forecasts that are tailored to the Central Coast that will have the effect of giving greater accuracy and consistency in forecasting for the area. That is one thing this committee recommended: ensuring that there is greater accuracy and forecasting at a regional level. That is something that has a direct effect on my electorate. The committee also recommended that the government: … maintain its commitment to climate change research pertaining to Australia’s agricultural industries, ensuring that the funding is committed, sustained and pays due attention to regional as well as national needs and priorities. Climate change research must reflect the changes affecting different regions, soils and topography—as all have an impact on changes in farming practices to deal with them. I am certain our farmers on the Central Coast will welcome this recommendation, as they will many of the others in this report. Another recommendation is that the Australian government: … develop a strategy to capture, evaluate and disseminate the range of farmer driven innovations that have a significant capacity to increase the resilience and productivity of farm enterprises. The member for New England was making that point in his contribution and I think it is a point well made. It is not just in the area of research that innovative issues are developed; more often than not, it is through dealing with issues of a practical nature on farms where these innovations first take place. That is something this report acknowledged, and it recommended that we make the dissemination of those innovations that have grown up through practice on farms easier so that the farming community as a whole can benefit from some of those innovative practices. The committee has also recommended that the government: … ensures that there is an overall body to receive and analyse research and co-ordinate research across the nation in relation to climate change adaptation in agriculture, and that said body is given the necessary resources of staff and funds to carry out its role. I would encourage our farmers on the Central Coast to become involved in any such organisation and make valuable input. It is further recommended in the report that the government: … give greater consideration to better integration of local and regional organisations into its overall response to the issues affecting agriculture and climate change, and provide additional funding to support the management role of these local and regional organisations. On the issue of incentives for industry in agriculture, there is a recommendation that the government: … explore further opportunities to facilitate adaptation to climate variability and climate change through the use of targeted, industry and issue specific, incentives. Recommendation 15 calls for the government to: … place funding for local and community organisations engaged in the work of supporting farmers in adapting to climate variability and climate change upon a permanent and regular basis. To sum up, I would strongly urge those involved in our rather small but very diverse agriculture sector on the New South Wales Central Coast to have a close look at the report by the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources and its recommendations. While not all of the recommendations will be relevant to them, there are some very important ones there that will be. It is essential that the farming sector on the Central Coast work closely with the federal government to ensure that their voice is heard when it comes to implementing the measures to deal with the impacts of climate change on farming. One of the key features of this report was the continual recognition of making sure that there are regional and local solutions. Where those solutions exist, they are adapted to the local environments of the various regions around Australia. In my area on the Central Coast, we have always felt that we get lumped in either with Sydney or with Newcastle and the Hunter. The Central Coast is its own area. It has its own particular and unique problems. It has its own challenges in relation to many issues, not least of which is climate change. The committee should be commended for the many recommendations in this report that focus on a regional approach and on looking at the particulars of regional difficulties. There are few areas in Australia that face the variety of challenges in terms of climate change that my electorate faces. From the eroding coastlines and the flooding of the lakes through storm surges to the lack of water, these issues have greatly affected the lives of people living on the Central Coast, none more so than those people seeking to make a living from the land, who are perhaps even more vulnerable to these issues of climate change. This report has recommendations that are important for now, but it also has important recommendations for the future. I commend the report and its recommendations to the House. 2902 12:08:00 Ley, Sussan, MP 00AMN Farrer LP 0 0 Ms LEY —I am very pleased to make some remarks on the Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources, a committee that I used to be a member of. I commend their work and the good people who make up that committee. This report is important to my electorate and there are some messages around climate change and farming that I would like to deliver to the House today. People often think of farmers as being climate change sceptics and I appreciate that because, when I talk to the farmers in my area, they can be ambivalent about climate change and they can be concerned, curious and bewildered. It is not fair to say that they have turned their back on climate change. It is not fair to say that they reject the science out of hand. But, as they are very much at the cutting edge of what is going on and it is their livelihoods and families that are on the line, it is totally appropriate that they be healthily sceptical. I think that when the government has responded to the challenge of climate change it has gone about in somewhat the wrong way. It has labelled many of the agricultural programs that we used to see in rural Australia as simply attaching to climate change. The issue of being soundly environmental—of saving energy, saving water and conserving soils—seems to take a secondary order of preference to climate change, and everything is up in lights under this big banner of climate change. The problem that farmers have with that is that they do not necessarily see the link between a grand, global strategic discussion and what they are actually doing in their back paddock—even though there very definitely is a link, and it is an important one. So I have been disappointed to see some of the programs that the government has rolled out and the rebadging. When you look at the detail, I acknowledge that the content of some of those programs is valuable and useful to farmers. But what I noticed in a previous farming life and in the previous government where I had more contact with the agricultural portfolio is that we are losing a lot of our on-ground research extension and development. I note that recommendations 9 to 12 of the committee’s report focus on the research and extension—and I really want to commend that. That is a really good thing. It is not just the role of federal governments to manage research and extension, but over the years we have seen the role of state departments of agriculture—which have often been rebadged as departments of climate change, too—their on-the-ground, practical role, vastly reduced. Consequently, there has been a vacuum and we have not really had enough agencies, enough funding or enough organisations to take the research and extension work up to farmers in the way that they really need to have that done. I note the good work of the catchment management authorities in my area—the Murray Catchment Management Authority is one in particular, as is the Lower Darling and the Western Murray. The catchment management authorities have been left to pick up the ball and run with it on a lot of these projects. One of the ones that they are running in my area concerns some comparisons between different farms to try to evaluate the degree of climate change adaptiveness and the farming practices. What it comes down to is what the farming practices are that are being used and how they might best respond to climate change. An example that I was told about recently concerns a selection of three different farms—one that would be using a rotational grazing and a mixed farming enterprise; one that would be using continuous cropping with stubble retention and minimum tillage; and another that might be using very old-fashioned plough, plough, plough farming methods—and looking at how soil carbon could be sequestered and the effect on the total farming enterprise from these different types of farming activities. You might think that this is something that we already know and that the science is already settled on, but it certainly is not because, in every different area of Australia, farming practices and responses are completely different depending on the soil types, the landscape, the rainfall and the level of technology that is employed. By having these simple, practical demonstrations and experiments in an area and then publishing the results to all farmers and, most importantly, allowing farmers to actually look at the demonstrations, look at the on-site work and talk to each other about what is going on, you will spread the knowledge far better than grand plans and scientific programs. With all respect to the CSIRO and our other organisations, I do not believe that the work that they do is rooted sufficiently in practical farming. The response that many farmers have to multimillion dollar CSIRO studies and the glossy brochures that accompany them is, ‘What does this really mean for me? How does this affect my farming enterprise?’ I can hand any farmer that I know one of those glossy brochures and they can turn to any page in it and they can find a glaring error. That is because they know what they are doing and they understand what is required of them in their family farming business. And if they have survived the last 10 years of drought, I can pretty well say that they do what they do very well indeed. Research and extension are the keys to helping farmers adapt to climate change. Because the state government has vacated the field to the extent that it has, the federal government has an obligation to step in. But, after the election of the current government, we saw a cut to the research and development corporations and the complete elimination of one of them: Land and Water Australia. That funding was and still is, though reduced, a very valuable source of funding direct from the federal government that receives a matching levy contribution from farmers—so they are strong stakeholders in it—and results in practical, on-the-ground projects that make a real difference to farmers. There is a list of recommendations in this report and I am most attracted to the ones that relate to extension. I note that the previous member spoke about the risk of living on the coast and the problems with climate change and rising sea levels et cetera. That is something that nature may or may not produce, but in the area that I represent, the southern Murray-Darling Basin, other forces of adversity are at work. They consist of the Minister for Climate Change, Energy Efficiency and Water, the water buyback that she is imposing on rural communities and the complete lack of response to our urgent representations about looking after the social and economic effects of those water buybacks—the so-called triple bottom line—and the resulting devastation these Rudd government policies are generally having on farmers in western New South Wales. When a committee such as this looks at farming for the future, and I know that they looked at the role of government in assisting farmers adapt, it is certainly appropriate to make some remarks about how governments could get out of the way in examples where farmers are struggling against drought, low or zero water allocations and the accumulated effects of 10 years of this existence on their bank balances when government policies are making it more difficult. And I do not want to just throw brickbats without throwing some bouquets. I thank the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry for extending exceptional circumstances across nearly all of my electorate and recognising that farmers simply cannot move into profitable situations once rain falls—and it has been patchy in some areas. Farmers do need that extended support, and that comes in the form of interest-rate subsidies and household support, which is a fortnightly payment through Centrelink. Without that we really would not have managed to get through the last five years. I appreciate the fact that the minister for agriculture accepted the recommendations of the National Rural Advisory Committee and extended exceptional circumstances for a further 12 months, starting on 1 April this year. However, one area east of the Hume Highway, in what was the old Hume rural lands board but is now a livestock health and pest authority—it is hard to keep up with the changing names in the New South Wales government—has been taken out of exceptional circumstances. I met with the minister for agriculture and I have been encouraged by his willingness to have another look at this. Although he is not personally responsible for the inclusion or noninclusion of zones into exceptional circumstances—the National Rural Advisory Committee advises him on that—he said that if New South Wales comes forward with a case to his department then whatever can be done will be done. We really do need that to happen, because that particular zone of my electorate of Farrer east of the Hume Highway, containing the towns of Holbrook and Tumbarumba—which is just outside my electorate; it is in the electorate of Eden-Monaro—has been badly affected by drought. There has been a very poor response to the small amount of rain we have had. The area has quite acid soils so it does not recover easily. The temperatures are about to get quite a lot colder—it is the upper Murray—and the area around Tooma was very badly affected by fires a few months ago and was completely burnt out. I appreciate that exceptional circumstances cannot necessarily respond to bushfires, but that has added to the significant load that farmers must bear in this situation. I do hope that some help and support can be given for that remaining zone of western New South Wales to be included back into exceptional circumstances and that we do get the support we need. Meanwhile, I commend the report Farming the future to everybody. It is an important contribution to the public policy debate in this area. 2905 12:20:00 Sidebottom, Sid, MP 849 Braddon ALP 1 0 Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I agree with many of the comments the member for Farrer has just made in relation to this overall topic and the object of this report from the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources,Farming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change. Like the member for Farrer, I hope that people find this report of use. I can say as a proud member of this committee that it was a real eye-opener to listen to the face-to-face submissions that were presented to us, to read a number of the submissions and visit many of the sites. I will make a few comments in relation to the report, adding to what I mentioned yesterday at the media release and media event associated with it. Before I do, I congratulate all the members of the secretariat involved with the report. I have been on this committee for a number of years and I find them to be highly professional, very supportive and very good at their job. Irrespective of the political, public debate that was going on, is going on and will continue to go on in regard to climate change—unless some people think that the issue has somehow disappeared because of Copenhagen—about the extent of human contribution to carbon dioxide levels and greenhouse gases, the majority of farmers that we met have been going about the practical business of adapting to changes in weather patterns. People argue about what has caused the changes in weather patterns—although personally I think the science has pretty well established what is going on there contrary to the contrarians, particularly in this place, and some of the conservative press. The major issue for farmers is that they have to go about adapting to changing climate conditions, and that is what they have done. We saw the full range, including those that essentially are unable to cope for a variety of reasons with these changing circumstances, and that has inevitable consequences for them individually, for their families and for their communities. Unless mitigating factors come into play then many of those enterprises will be uneconomical, will consequently become totally unviable and will fall over. Right the way through there was a whole range of responses to climate change. This report highlights many of them, and they are very exciting. It shows that many of our farmers and farming communities are very adaptable, very innovative, very progressive and very good at what they do. What they seek is support wherever that is necessary and available to assist them to get on with the job of doing what they do best. I mentioned before the tension between the political debate and the realities of climate change. The tensions that exist on farm are also highlighted in this report. In particular, I would recommend chapter 2, headed ‘Managing decisions on the farm’, which highlights the tensions not just in decision making but in who makes the decisions and what types of decisions should be made now and into the future. That became very evident during the inquiry. The report suggests that resources be put into counselling families and business owners in decision making and, particularly, change, including generational change. People must think their food just pops onto their plate or into their cupboard—that they make it at the supermarket or in the truck that brings it to their place. The whole enterprise of food production and manufacturing in Australia exists outside the metropolitan areas. There is huge social and economic change going on out there, and there is a lot of tension. This report seeks various ways in which to support those producers of our product so they are able to keep doing that in the best way. Unless we support them—and I do not think I am being overly alarmist—our ability to feed ourselves will be greatly diminished. That leads me to some other tensions that we discovered in this investigation. They are natural tensions, by the way; I am not suggesting for a moment they are not. There are those that find it very difficult to accept change. If you look at the full extent of the climate change argument, it becomes so overwhelming that you think that you cannot deal with it or solve it at an individual level and therefore you tend to reject it, whereas reality says you have to cope with the conditions that you have. So there is an overwhelming tension there. The other tension is between those who do not see it as so much of a challenge or a threat and those who see it as an opportunity, and there are many opportunities for farming the future that are highlighted in this work. The other tension, which I referred to earlier, is in terms of the production of food. Some of the opportunities for our farming enterprises can in fact be contradictory to the production of food. We could be creating resources which mitigate carbon emissions, greenhouse gas emissions, and create renewable energy and regeneration. Those require land—which may well be suitable for the production of food. Farmers have to survive, so we as a community need to look at that situation and offer them avenues to reconcile these possible tensions, and they do exist. It is very enlightening to see some of those examples here. Amongst many other things, I found of particular interest, on the social side, the work of Professor Frank Vanclay and Aysha Fleming of the Tasmanian Institute of Agricultural Research. They are social researchers who look at change in relation to farming techniques and climate change. For the record, because I think it is well worth reflecting on, I would like to quote from their evidence to us: Resistance to change is not just about individual reactions, it is a broader social issue. This means that resistance does not occur within an individual’s head, or because of an individual’s personal characteristics—education level, personal motivations or situation, skills or beliefs. Resistance is created by common perceptions, norms and values held in society. In our society currently, resistance is being created because climate change is perceived as being: ‘just’ another environmental or global threat, too big to influence, an unmanageable and inequitable financial burden, and; too uncertain to warrant major action. They go on to say: Mitigation of climate change is seen by many farmers as a financial burden, rather than an opportunity. This can create anger and stress, because profit margins are further reduced and farmers risk viability. They then go on to say: Our research suggests that although the majority of farmers believe that climate change is occurring, there is widespread confusion about its causes, and they are not necessarily convinced by the suggested need for urgent adaptation and mitigation. As a result, we believe that: 1. there is an on-going need for clear statements that the science is decided and the government will act on climate change; If you go on the nature of this place, there is no hope of that. I have to say that those opposite and the conservative press have done a great job on that. But I have got news for you: nothing is going to change. It is happening and there will be a lot more evidence to show you. I found it pretty interesting—the other mob reckon they are the mob for farmers and rural and regional Australia, and they were the very people against the attempts to provide sane, rational, scientific reasoning behind climate change— 00AN1 Cobb, John, MP Mr John Cobb —There is none! 849 Sidebottom, Sid, MP Mr SIDEBOTTOM —I have to say! Put it on the record: ‘There is no evidence of climate change.’ I ask you! Don’t talk on this report, mate! Don’t talk on this report, because you do not even believe in it. I and some of your colleagues from that side just wasted a few months on nothing? I ask you! Are you the spokesman for anything but nothing? If I may continue, they go on to say: 2. there is a need for more research into the beneficial actions agricultural industries can take, and active extension of this information to farmers. The member for Farrer quite rightly pointed out that these extension programs should be practised on the ground so people can see them. If we can support that, that is much better for farmers than our acting in a vacuum. They respond very positively. They go on to say: However, more than just information is necessary. Support for farmers to implement actions and to work together is needed. This needs to include financial incentives, opportunities for building social networks, collaborations, recognition and rewards; Indeed, rewarding the work of our farmers is very important. They go on: 3. finally, the social value farmers hold and exercise as ‘stewards of the land’ needs to be recognised and encouraged. Again, I would like to congratulate all my colleagues for spending so much valuable time on this report, Farming the future. I again thank the secretariat for their excellent work. I hope all my colleagues will take the time to look through this, particularly the member opposite, who seriously needs some education in this. 2908 12:33:00 Cobb, John, MP 00AN1 Calare NATS 0 0 Mr JOHN COBB —I rise to speak on the reportFarming the future: the role of government in assisting Australian farmers to adapt to the impacts of climate change and the issue in general. I think farmers are more aware what is happening with the climate than most of the scientists are, actually. They actually have to deal with it instead of just talk about it. I would like to start by congratulating the committee on tackling what is, for many people, not a sexy issue. Yet I strongly believe that food and water security will be—in fact is—the defining issue of the 21st century. On Monday, the member for Lyons, in handing down this report, said that the journey in front of us will take a ‘sustained effort on the part of government, industry and community over a period of decades.’ I wish to outline just how crucial the final two groups mentioned by the member for Lyons are when tackling this issue. Before I get into the debate I would like to pose a couple of questions to the House: where do you think our food will come from in the future, and what is Australia’s greatest competitive advantage over its trading competitors? Those things certainly have been brought out by the debate on the importation of meat from BSE affected countries. The greatest threat to our agriculture in the next 50 years is not climate change but the policies put in place by governments to combat what they talk about as climate change variability. The Labor government’s emissions trading scheme legislation was, is and will be a debacle and it should be voted down once again. It is nothing but a tax on production that will drive businesses and jobs offshore. All it will achieve is a new export: carbon emissions. Electorates such as my electorate of Calare, which are exporting wealth-generating electricity, will bear the brunt of the cost of the Rudd government’s emissions trading scheme, which is nothing more than a new tax on production with another name. I was recently in Brazil and America and, with regard to the current global downturn, I was interested to note that Brazil, like Australia, has been relatively—and I stress the word relatively—unaffected. Why? For the same reason that the Midwest states of America are less affected than the east and west coasts of America: they are agricultural and mining states, just as we are base minerals producing countries—in other words, those involved in actually doing things rather than money shuffling, trading and services. They are the countries and the parts of countries that are dealing with this the best. The effect of the legislation will be felt much more brutally in regional Australia than in the capital cities—in other words, in those parts of the country that are protecting Australia at the moment. The productive sectors are what the CPRS is going to hit the most. I do not believe excluding agriculture from having to purchase carbon credits is a huge win. In or out, agriculture will be almost the most affected industry in the country. The latest ABARE report on the cost of the Rudd government’s CPRS states: Even if the agriculture sector is not a covered sector under the CPRS, agricultural producers will face increased input costs associated with the use of electricity, fuels and freight and may face lower farm-gate prices for their goods from downstream processors— who will directly get all those carbon onsets— These will have implications for the economic value of farm production. The increase in the price of electricity is estimated to be almost seven per cent in 2011 and 24 per cent in 2015. Not long ago, that was the next decade; now it is this one. It is only five years away. That is without states whacking another 20 per cent on the price of electricity, as New South Wales did the other day. Whether it is the current drought or future climatic change, the result is a dry weather cycle. What we need is government investment into research on practical, productive measures which will allow our farmers to increase productivity. A drought is exactly the same as the real or imagined effect of climate change—you have to produce more with less—and it needs investment in new plant varieties which are disease resistant and can tolerate dry conditions. Yet all we have had from this Labor government in its first three years in government is massive customer research and development. I was amused to hear the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, when he was asked recently what one of his notable achievements was, say ‘increases in R&D’. I was totally staggered. I am somebody who actually knows what happened to the R&D budget and what the department of agriculture has lost—yet he talks about increases. I would love to know where they are. Our farmers are already being forced to produce more with less, particularly with less water and less arable land—land because urbanisation unfortunately takes a lot of the best land closest to the best towns in the best country. At a time when the world population is set to double within the next 30 years and the ravages of global warming or drought are meant to hit us there is a very real possibility of Australia becoming a net importer of food. The biggest issue arising out of global warming will be food security, how we increase food production and, indeed, where our food will come from. The Rudd government think so little about where our food will come from that agriculture and agricultural manufacturers and processors are the only sectors not receiving free permits—they do not have a $500 million clean coal fund or a $6 billion clean car fund. Despite what the Prime Minister might believe, you cannot eat coal and if we are going to feed the nation then agriculture has to be put at the forefront of this debate. The Rudd government has no idea what its emissions tax will cost the mums and dads. It never engaged in an honest debate about the real cost of a carbon tax, but I think the Australian population have engaged in that debate and have made a judgment on it. Our comparative advantage in Australia has always been our relatively cheap energy and water costs, but both of these will be artificially increased under this great big new tax. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure out that just about every bit of food and fibre grown in Australia involves some form of processing, manufacturing and transport before it is eaten or worn. Yet none of our manufacturers will be eligible for free permits under the ETS. The food manufacturing sector is the last major manufacturing sector left in Australia, employing over 300,000 people, mainly in regional Australia. It is vital to our nation’s food security, and the coalition is extremely concerned about its viability. For example, we are extremely concerned that there will be only one frozen vegetable processing plant left in the country after McCains close their Tasmanian plant to move to New Zealand. That is a major concern and it has to be addressed. The Australian National Greenhouse accounts and the National inventory by economic sector, released in June, paint an interesting story. Agriculture, fisheries and forestry have been doing all of the heavy lifting in reducing the nation’s greenhouse gases. Emissions from agriculture, fishing and forestry have declined by well over 30 per cent since 1990. The agricultural sector has led the nation in reducing emissions, yet it is the food and fibre industries which will bear the brunt of Kevin Rudd’s proposed ETS. If global warming, because of carbon pollution, is a doomsday scenario—and many, including the government, are warning us that it is—then it needs an emergency response. I hope that the committee has highlighted the excellent work that farmers are already doing to combat climate variability. One thing that simply cannot happen if we are serious about the long-term sustainability of the land and the industry is a cut in funds for research and development. As with any other industry, staying up to date with the latest technological and industrial improvements allows our Australian producers to keep ahead of the pack when it comes to the global agricultural market. Funding is absolutely essential. Cutbacks will harm the industry and there are no two ways about it. I urge the member for Lyons to speak to his colleagues, as the Minister for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry continues to hang an axe above these funds. Emerging countries are threatening Australia’s foothold in some of our major export markets. The dumping of cheap produce on the Australian economy hurts our producers. We cannot afford to compete with China, Indonesia or Brazil on labour costs. As the driest continent on the planet we are already in a difficult situation. We need funding in research and development to ensure that Australia continues to lead the way as one of the cleanest, greenest producers in the world. We are known for that. The parliament should also be aware that people on the land are aware of the challenges they face and are, in most circumstances, taking action. To survive the worst drought in my lifetime, farmers have had to change their managing practices just to survive—not to make Kevin feel better but because economic and personal need make them do it. The story that the stereotype cocky is resistant to change and do not adapt with the stock they run because they are stubborn is simply not true. Anyone like that does not survive. The industry as a whole is willing to do what it can to improve its profit-making ability and improve the product being provided. When it all boils down, no other industry stands to lose more in the event of climate change coming to fruition—as per the doomsday scenario or as predicted by those who sensibly understand that climate change does happen. That is a fact that farmers and producers are all too aware of. One thing, however, sets this industry apart: the great connection producers have with the land that they work. No other industry has such a reliance on land as the agricultural industry. That connection means that seldom do people know more about what has happened to the soil and feed than the person working the land themselves. There is a great variation in the soil quality and crop and stock potential in my electorate of Calare, not to mention across the whole of Australia. That is why a one-size-fits-all solution is the most ridiculous option you could ever come up with. The standing committee were clearly aware of this when they canvassed producers from across the country; however, the point should be made very clear. The second group mentioned by the member for Lyons on Monday was communities. We need strong regional communities for a strong agricultural industry. It should be made very clear that a strong community involves strong health facilities, water security and educational opportunities. All three of these factors are currently under threat, particularly in New South Wales, by a city-centric focus in government. Regional Australia cannot be administered in these three areas in the same way as Melbourne, Sydney, Brisbane or even somewhere like Newcastle. There is great concern in my electorate of Calare about the shortage of regional health facilities, and the Prime Minister’s new health plan has done little to ease that worry. In fact, as a result of comments made by the New South Wales Premier, small communities are very worried that their local hospital will be closing because of Labor’s health plan. There is also concern about educational prospects, and the Deputy Prime Minister’s latest backflip on youth allowance has done little to ease them. These are all issues which affect a farmer’s ability to know, to use and to educate his family to ensure the continuance that has always been there. Infrastructure has been poorly managed by the Labor Party at the state level, and without good railroad and port infrastructure farmers will not be able to shift their product. This government has to realise that strong facilities will help create a strong community, and a strong community will mean a strong agricultural sector. 2911 12:47:00 Saffin, Janelle, MP HVY Page ALP 1 0 Ms SAFFIN —I rise to speak in support of the report,Farming the future, and particularly the 15 recommendations. I was very pleased that the Standing Committee on Primary Industries and Resources took up this issue, which is about helping farmers with adaptation to climate change. It puts the farmers front and centre stage, as they need to be, as we as a nation grapple with the impact of climate change. Before I turn to the report, and the 15 very specific and well targeted recommendations, I would like to say some things regarding climate change, the basis of the committee’s report to assist farmers. My seat is a rural seat. It has a long and beautiful coastal strip that goes from Ballina to Evans Head, Iluka, Yamba, Wooloweyah and Angourie, which has some of the best beaches and one of the world’s top surfing beaches—out of the top 50, it is No. 10. So it is a beautiful coastal strip and a rural seat. As members could imagine, it is a population that is concerned about climate change and has been very actively involved in those particular debates. Even when I was first elected as the member for Page, the mayors who have the coastal strips in their areas approached me and talked about the need to have some certainty around planning and development in the coastal areas. They were very pleased to see the report. They were also very pleased to see another report that came out of this place, the report on coastal areas and climate change. I accept climate change as a fact and a lot do. I accept climate change and the current events that are happening to be as a result of human activity. And, yes, climate change is a naturally occurring phenomenon and has been around for a long time. But the evidence is clear that the exponential rate of what is happening with climate change and the major events and more extreme events are due to human activity. I know that this week there has been a lot of attention given to the fact that CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology have said that global warming is in essence unquestionable—that is, it is resulting from human activity. That is not new. These institutions have been saying that for quite some time. It is on their websites; it is in their reports. In fact, they have been leading agents in this debate, and whenever I have been talking about climate change I refer to them. These two institutions are trusted by I would have to say nearly all Australians and they are ones that farmers turn to. Now that a lot of us, not all of us, are connected and on websites, we go to the Bureau of Meteorology website, or BOM, daily. It is a daily event in my office because I live in an area where we do have a few extreme weather events and we have floods and we have droughts; we have the extremes in the whole Northern Rivers and North Coast strip. So it is something that we look at all the time to see what is going on. They really are trusted. Farmers and people on the land and people everywhere go to those sites. You have people like Dr Megan Clark, the head of CSIRO, saying this week that we are seeing significant evidence of a change in climate and saying: If we just take our temperature, all of Australia has experienced warming over the last 50 years. We are warming in every part of the country during every season and as each decade goes by, the records are being broken. We are also seeing fewer cold days, so we are seeing some very significant long-term trends in Australia’s climate. Dr Clark further is reported as saying that scepticism is a healthy part of the scientific process and has been considered as part of the climate change debate. Indeed it has, but she says that we also know that the rapid increase that we have been measuring was at the same time as we saw the Industrial Revolution, so it is very likely that these two are connected. When we look at climate change and look at the scientific evidence, the whole basis of science and the scientific method is that it is not 100 per cent but it is something that is stronger than the balance of probabilities, and in a legal sense, which I can refer to, it would be something beyond reasonable doubt. It is beyond reasonable doubt that we do have climate change. In referring to the 15 recommendations I will make some comments on particular ones. The first one is the committee’s recommendation that the Australian government support rural counselling and support groups such as Rural Alive and Well and place funding for such groups on a permanent and regular basis. That is a very welcome and important recommendation. Rural counselling and support groups do such a wonderful job in country Australia; in my area they certainly do. I can remember when they did not exist and I can remember that people lobbied for them to be set up. Some were set up as extensions of our local counselling that happened in our health services, one in particular in my area. It was very welcome. We also have rural financial counselling, which is very important, and they work closely with the rural counselling. They sometimes are the first port of call in engaging people who do need ongoing counselling support. Rural financial counselling is very important indeed. In fact, next week I am attending as a guest the annual dinner of the Rural Financial Counselling Service New South Wales, Northern Region, which will be held in Casino. It provides a very important service in non-metropolitan areas. I would like to comment on recommendation 3, which calls on the government to invest in research funding in the following high-priority areas: soil carbon sequestration; soil stabilisation and pasture improvements; soil water retention strategies and water use efficiency; landscape planning and natural resource management; and risk management. I would like to see within recommendation 3—and I am sure it is meant to cover this—a broader definition of soil carbon sequestration, because the sequestration of carbon is not just in soil; it is in all plants. That is an important area of research and study—Plantstone, as we would refer to it with the old fashioned name, but I am aware that name has also been patented by a couple of people at Southern Cross University. So, when we look at soil carbon sequestration, we should look at it more broadly and include the plants. As some members would know, bamboo actually has the highest take-up of carbon, followed by sugar—this is from research in one particular area with one particular farm. Some time ago, the honourable member for New England, Tony Windsor, and I jointly hosted a session in Lismore with Southern Cross University, people from industry and farmers on the particular issue of plant sequestration and soil sequestration to get more information into the particular communities and to have more discussion and debate. Some of that was covered by The 7.30 Report, particularly the research aspects at the farm. I am sure that when the recommendation says ‘soil carbon’ it is broad enough to include looking at it in its totality with the plants. The report also talks about rotational grazing. That is not new; that is something that farmers have been doing for a long time. In fact, it is a very ancient practice. I sometimes think that, with the advent of modernisation and different techniques, some of those tried and true practices fell by the wayside. Again in my area, I recently attended a day that looked at rotational grazing and biodynamic farming et cetera. It was organised by Trevor Wilson. It was a very good day that was well attended by over 100 people who came from a wide region and mainly from farming backgrounds. It was really informative for me because I was able to sit there and listen for a few hours to people who do this and who, by doing it, have not only improved their pasture but increased their income as well. They were not revolutionary techniques; they were the tried and true and tested techniques. So any more attention that we can give to this in this place—and we are making recommendations to government—is a good thing. But we only have to look to the farmers themselves. Recommendation 6 is an important one. It states: The committee recommends that the Australian Government, as part of its overall response to issues affecting agriculture and climate change, increase its investment and support for research into energy efficiency in the agriculture sector and the development of alternative energy and alternative fuels on-farm, particularly in regard to: Biofuels; Biomass from agricultural waste; and Biochar. One of the things that would be really advantageous in Australia to help us in this area would be something like a biofuels institute and getting some more work done with CRCs. I have had some involvement with that with Southern Cross University, where I am on the governing council. Part of that debate is food versus fuel and I know that debate has to happen, but we do not have to get locked into either/or. There is room for all of it and that is a very important one to be looking at. There is one other recommendation I wanted to turn to. Recommendation 15 says: The Committee recommends that the Australian Government place funding for local and community organisations engaged in the work of supporting farmers in adapting to climate variability and climate change upon a permanent and regular basis. Hallelujah! Wouldn’t that be good? Often one of the problems people do face in local communities is ad hoc funding. That has been a feature of all governments, not any particular government. Some may do it more than others, but it has been a feature of all governments. To get the organisations that work, and that are deeply engaged in that area— 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —It is one o’clock but I will let you go. You can have a minute and a half—go for it! HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —I will wind up. 10000 DEPUTY PRESIDENT, The The DEPUTY PRESIDENT —I am going to be generous: you can keep going for a minute and a half. HVY Saffin, Janelle, MP Ms SAFFIN —All right. I welcome that particular recommendation. I also welcome the government introducing the community organisational grants that go to Landcare groups and various other groups in the community. It would be really good to see a lot more work in that area. I think that the Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry should be able to play a lead role in that area. I know that farmers have trust in that particular agency. It would be good if it could do that on a stand-alone basis and be able to take some lead. I know it is in certain other areas. I look forward to the government’s response to this report, because as I read through the 15 recommendations, and as I also look at some of the initiatives that have been introduced by the government, I can see that there is a great deal of crossover already. Because it is about adaptation, because it relates to climate change, we do need to get some of these things on a standing basis, and this report really assists with that. I congratulate the chair of the committee, Dick Adams, the deputy chair and the rest of the committee for such good work that they have done. (Time expired) Debate (on motion by Mr Debus) adjourned. 2914 13:02:00 Main Committee adjourned at 1.02 pm 2915 Questions in Writing 2915 2915 1172 2915 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 2 February 2010: Between 8 May 2008 and 13 June 2009, what was the total cost of operating the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy Steering Committee. Did the Committee maintain a discretionary spending budget: if so, (a) what sum was spent from this budget between 8 May 2008 and 13 June 2009; (b) on what individual items was this sum spent; (c) what measures were implemented by his department to oversee the Committee’s discretionary staff assigned to this task and their classifications. as at 2 February 2010, (a) how many copies of the ‘Jackson report’(National Long-Term Tourism Strategy Steering Committee, Information the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy, 2009) had been produced by this his department, (b) what was the total cost of producing copies of the report, and (c) how many copies of the report did his department have in stock. 2915 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: The total cost of operating the National Long-Term Tourism Strategy Steering Committee was $101,004. The National Long-Term Tourism Strategy Steering Committee did not have a discretionary budget. (3a) 500 copies of the Jackson Report were printed by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. (3b) The total cost of editing, design and printing of the Jackson Report was $17,165. (3c) The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has approximately 260 copies of the report in stock. 500 copies of the Jackson Report were printed by the Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism. (3b) The total cost of editing, design and printing of the Jackson Report was $17,165. (3c) The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has approximately 260 copies of the report in stock. The total cost of editing, design and printing of the Jackson Report was $17,165. (3c) The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has approximately 260 copies of the report in stock. The Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism has approximately 260 copies of the report in stock. 2915 2915 1177 2915 Ciobo, Steven, MP 00AN0 Moncrieff LP 0 Mr Ciobo asked the Minister for Tourism, in writing, on 2 February 2010: What impact has the Apis cerana incursion in Cairns had on the local tourism industry, and what assistance has his department provided to that industry in respect of the incursion. 2915 Ferguson, Martin, MP LS4 Batman ALP Minister for Resources and Energy and Minister for Tourism 1 Mr Martin Ferguson —The answer to the honourable member’s question is as follows: My Department has liaised with the relevant local and state tourism offices and there has not been any reported impact on the Cairns tourism industry from the Apis cerana incursion. Tourism Queensland has agreed to notify my Department should they become aware of any impact on the Cairns tourism industry from the Apis cerana incursion. As a predominantly pest control issue, primary responsibility for this issue rests with the Federal Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry and the Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, working with local authorities and industry. 2916 2916 1197 2916 Baldwin, Robert, MP LL6 Paterson LP 0 Mr Baldwin asked the Minister for Defence Personnel, Materiel and Science, in writing, on 8 February 2010: Is he examining the possibility of providing compensation to land owners affected by aircraft noise as a result of the introduction of the Joint Strike Fighter at Royal Australian Air Force Base (a) Williamtown, and (b) Tindal; if not, why not. 2916 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 (b) No; Full consideration by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts of the Public Environment Report for the Joint Strike Fighter has not yet occurred. It would be premature to speculate on any potential recommendations to be made by the Department of Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts.